It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

page: 90
99
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I'm going out on a limb here - let me be a Devil's Advocate against the sighting....."Eyewitness" as a claimed witness is "too perfect". She (note it's a she, which would be more subject to acceptance than a "he"). She is perfect in every way possible.

She gives her personal info (supposedly name, phone number, address, etc. to the moderators). Wow, she's even a veteran media person!!! Talk about credibility!! She is so articulate, and explains everything PERFECTLY. She does not deviate AT ALL from all other witness accounts (from Hilkevitch articles or the witness on Rense's radio show). In reality, even TRUTHFUL accounts have some deviations or differences from other credible witnesses......I find it so strange that everything is so perfect.

And to further add to the scepticism, a former newsperson and now a chef and restaurant owner (how colorful!!), who is so well versed with geographical directions, G-forces, and G-suits to mitigate g-forces really struck out at me. Granted, it could be someone who knows all these subjects. But I would doubt it. It all seems so contrived, to be honest. What do you think?

I think this is a person (Eyewitness) created by ATS (possibly within staff or elsewhere) to stir up controversy and bring in readers and subscribers from the outside.

It only feeds into the ATS bottom line....after all, this is a money-making business, right??

This doesn't mean they don't believe in the O'Hare incident, but just that one can believe, yet do things to "capitalize" on the incident.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I'll feel really bad if Eyewitness is indeed who she says she is. I apologize now.

However..., a couple of times when reading her posts I was surprised that she knew so much about the genre. I can't remember any examples but when she started posting she seemed kinda 'green' to the little green men scene. Then little by little she started saying things about g-forces and cited previous sightings that are well known to us geeks and all but probably would not be to someone who isn't a ufo info freak. I don't know.... maybe it's all in my head.
I don't know what to think now. Just kind of upset that the only thing we have of an extended low parking of a UFO over a terminal in daylight at the busiest airport in the United States witnessed by supposedly dozens of picture taking people is a pic that is waaaaayyy too similar to a pic of o'hare that you can find on the 1st page of a google search that just so happened to come after the first ATS witness got all spooked and never came back and was posted by some guy who, despite posting from behind a proxy thereby knowing his/her identity is safe, never comes back to talk about it. And to top it off after the UFO left, it left even more evidence in the form of a hole in the clouds but still noone takes a picture. Yea, right.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I think one thing we need to remember when we're wondering about the lack of witnesses is that this saucer may not have been very noticeable at the time. It was close to sunset with an overcast sky, and from the accounts I've heard its coloring blended in with the clouds, and it was silent (or just not heard over the jet noise). There was no metallic glint. Most people are not looking up at the sky, they're focusing on where they're going.

True, this was a dramatic sighting, but there have been dramatic sightings before. Heck, there was a UFO dogfight in 1561 over Nuremberg, Germany, and nothing came of that either. This will be a famous case, but it will resolve nothing. It just keeps the UFO phenomena alive in the public imagination, which may be exactly what the ET's wanted.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Good point, Nightowl.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
I think this is a person (Eyewitness) created by ATS (possibly within staff or elsewhere) to stir up controversy and bring in readers and subscribers from the outside.

It only feeds into the ATS bottom line....after all, this is a money-making business, right??






Damn Mach ...maybe mods will warn me for this post..but I can't stand it..
Are you OK???
Do u feel good??
Did you take your meds today??


Ok I'm sorry mods ..it's my bad..sorry...


[edit on 2-2-2007 by Cybernative]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
... but what about the "dozens of people taking as many pics as they could?"
why are they taking pictures if they're not going to share them? are they just going to look at the cell phone pics by themselves at night while they hiding in a closet? All of the baggage people working at that time and noone carries a cell phone w/ a camera? Every single person that took a pic is too afraid to put it online or even email it to friends? All of them? Even if it was dark and cloudy and the object blending in and everything, 14 minutes is enough time (and some say 20 minutes) to get LOTS of people noticing. Eyewitness supposedly saw it and she was in a car in a parking structure. There would surely be at least one person, like a passenger, who would be would want 5 minutes of t.v. fame by saying "I saw the ufo at O'hare. It looked like blah blah." This is a major airport. Not a dirt road in Wyoming. What's next? A sighting above the stadium during this Sunday's SuperBowl with no pictures? I'm actually starting to think that maybe this didn't happen at all.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Ace_SD]

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Ace_SD]

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Ace_SD]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX

And to further add to the scepticism, a former newsperson and now a chef and restaurant owner (how colorful!!), who is so well versed with geographical directions, G-forces, and G-suits to mitigate g-forces really struck out at me. Granted, it could be someone who knows all these subjects. But I would doubt it. It all seems so contrived, to be honest. What do you think?


I don't see way any of that is implausible. Lots of people major in journalism and then change careers, and many have aviation as a hobby. Independent verification of this should take place, but not a on a public forum.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
"who would be would want 5 minutes of t.v. fame by saying "I saw the ufo at O'hare."

I sure wouldn't. I don't need that kind of attention. But even if I did, I would wait first to see if interest increased, or if other pics came out. You have to remember that most people aren't ufo nuts. Although they will surely remember the incident (and keep the photos, if they have them), they're not going to go out of the way to draw attention to themselves over it. Maybe some photos will leak out over a long time.

If another major sighting happens, then this case will continue to be brought up, otherwise, it will inevitably fade away. Without more info, there's nothing you can do about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Speaking of, what happened to the picture analysis guys? They has some super secret information they could not share with us about the authenticity of the images and *poof* they were gone.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Just got off the phone with The Chicago Tribune, The reporter who broke this story is not coming back to work from vacation until 02 February, 2007. This REALLY puts us in a holding pattern.


Thats today. We'll see what happens now that he's off of his "vacation."



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
I'm going out on a limb here - let me be a Devil's Advocate against the sighting....."Eyewitness" as a claimed witness is "too perfect". She (note it's a she, which would be more subject to acceptance than a "he"). She is perfect in every way possible.

She gives her personal info (supposedly name, phone number, address, etc. to the moderators). Wow, she's even a veteran media person!!! Talk about credibility!! She is so articulate, and explains everything PERFECTLY. She does not deviate AT ALL from all other witness accounts (from Hilkevitch articles or the witness on Rense's radio show). In reality, even TRUTHFUL accounts have some deviations or differences from other credible witnesses......I find it so strange that everything is so perfect.

And to further add to the scepticism, a former newsperson and now a chef and restaurant owner (how colorful!!), who is so well versed with geographical directions, G-forces, and G-suits to mitigate g-forces really struck out at me. Granted, it could be someone who knows all these subjects. But I would doubt it. It all seems so contrived, to be honest. What do you think?

I think this is a person (Eyewitness) created by ATS (possibly within staff or elsewhere) to stir up controversy and bring in readers and subscribers from the outside.

It only feeds into the ATS bottom line....after all, this is a money-making business, right??

This doesn't mean they don't believe in the O'Hare incident, but just that one can believe, yet do things to "capitalize" on the incident.



Have to agree with this 110%. A too perfect Eyewitness to an event with a journalism background making extraordinary claims about all the photos she saw being taken is a little more than suspect. Especially when not one of those photos has made an appearance ANYWHERE.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Springer why the double post, are you trying to make a specific point ?

edit: He has since added his comments due to being overally upset at the aqusations posted suggesting ATS planted "eyewitness" for nefarious reasons with monetary gain as the objective.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
I think this is a person (Eyewitness) created by ATS (possibly within staff or elsewhere) to stir up controversy and bring in readers and subscribers from the outside.

It only feeds into the ATS bottom line....after all, this is a money-making business, right??

This doesn't mean they don't believe in the O'Hare incident, but just that one can believe, yet do things to "capitalize" on the incident.





You know I can and have taken alot, but this is just sickening. Now you think WE "created" a woman, eyewitness in the Chicago area to make money?! You obviously don't understand that a few cents PER THOUSAND people doesn't make lots of money number one.

Number two, that is a direct and libelous accusation that is patently FALSE and offensive.


You go ahead and keep speculating all you want, at the end of the day it doesn't matter because we know what the truth is and so does Linda Moulton Howe and the MUFON Illinois State Director.

Now on to something not revolting...

In response to the "where are the photographic experts" question, the "secret information" they have is secret so they easily identify any hoaxes that may "pop up", there haven't been any new image submissions so they don't really have anything to talk about.

Springer...

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Hey Springer,
Don't you find it at all odd that this witness appears and makes statements about the amount of people she saw taking photos (at least a dozen i believe she said) and not one of those photos has materialized? You really can't blame us that dont have the vetted info to be a bit skeptical.......I mean lets be realistic here.
I personally don't know what to believe. Eyewitness does seem legit....but some things seems very off and odd. So please forgive us but i thought we were here to get to the truth.

All that has been stated IMO is that she seems "TOO PERFECT"



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Springer,
I can't remember where the 'secret information' about the pictures came from.
Was it something the digital experts got from Eyewitness?
And if so, do elements in the photo coincide with the secret information?



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
Hey Springer,
Don't you find it at all odd that this witness appears and makes statements about the amount of people she saw taking photos (at least a dozen i believe she said) and not one of those photos has materialized? You really can't blame us that dont have the vetted info to be a bit skeptical.......I mean lets be realistic here.

Keep in mind that "materialized" is not the same as "made public." There would be a good argument for not making a photo with good provenance public just yet.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
You should have heard the post Mark wanted to make. I had to pull him back.




Originally posted by TheShadow
Don't you find it at all odd that this witness appears and makes statements about the amount of people she saw taking photos (at least a dozen i believe she said) and not one of those photos has materialized?

No.

How good is your camera phone? Does it pick up objects on an overcast day that are hard even for your eye to see? I wouldn't be surprised if there are only two or three decent shots out of 100 different cell phones shooting this thing. And then... how many people do you suppose looked at the shot on their phone, figured they didn't get anything, then deleted the shot?

Cell phone cameras suck.



Originally posted by TheShadow
You really can't blame us that dont have the vetted info to be a bit skeptical.......I mean lets be realistic here.

Sure... lets. Why are you skeptical? Perhaps you've mistaken AboveTopSecret.com for other sites/boards where UFO subjects are discussed. Or perhaps you've mistaken AboveTopSecret.com for various "camps" of UFOlogoy groups who regularly create highly unethical public hoaxes just to try and fool competing camps.

Let's be realistic... why assume we are creating a witness for our "bottom line?" What lunacy. The risk of discovery (relatively easy at this point) would be catastrophic to any theoretical "bottom line" you're thinking of.



Originally posted by TheShadow
I personally don't know what to believe.

So why support a baseless accusation of "ATS" creating an eyewitness account of what is perhaps the most important UFO-related event since Roswell?



Originally posted by TheShadow
All that has been stated IMO is that she seems "TOO PERFECT"

Sometimes... good things do indeed happen.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Springer,

Its a prudent thought, you shouldn't take offense or be revolted, folks need to consider all possibilities. Since the verification of Eyewitness and the holding of the photograph information are all happening out of sight for normal board posters, its not *unreasonable* to have the mind wander towards an internal happening.

That being said, I don't think it is an internal ATS conspiracy myself, but when it comes to covering all the bases it is at least something people will have to check off.

You may not remember, but back on the Halloween Hoax of 2004 I was the first member to come up with the idea that what was being presented as a legit happening by *site administrators* (among others in on it) were, in fact, a series of fake events.

I don't want to resurrect that discussion that a homage is not a hoax, but I did say then that on a site so focused on conspiracy there would be repercussions to having trusted individuals posting pictures and other items to substantiate a false series of events.

To be clear, I do not think that is the case here, but I also do not think you should be offended when someone wants to propose the idea either as it is not unprecedented.

ATS folks in general do not trust people in positions of authority, so I would take any questioning with a grain of salt. Esp. when prefaced as above with a "devils advocate."

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Mainer]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Gee I'm sorry that a COMPLETE stranger who claims to have seen the incident, has been forthright with her identity with four people who are in a position to vet her isn't "imperfect" enough for you.


Christ, why don't we say that her typing is sloppy too (it's not) that would prove she's faking!
This is ludicrous, "eyewitness" in nothing more than a DATA POINT, data points are ALL we can hope to assemble and after we have enough of them we MIGHT get at the truth.

Is it "odd" that dozens of people who were reportedly taking pictures haven't come forward? HELL YES! Don't you think that just might be the reason we are working so hard to get the word out?

If there are dozens of people out there with images, and I believe there are because I have no reason to doubt eyewitness, many of the images may have been on cell phones which probably didn't look like anything (the object may have only been a pixel or two) so they dumped them.

The images we're interested in are in non phone cameras, those people may not have heard we are looking for them, they may not want to get involved, they may be negotiating with major media outlets.

We have two people talking with the Trib Reporter and we hope to get more leads from those conversations and when we do we will work them.

I understand skepticism, it's HEALTHY to question everything but making false, libelous accusations is not only counterproductive it's offensive.

Mainer I completely see your point but...

Last week and on through the weekend, several of us were up until the wee hours of the morning, every day, working this from every angle we could think of to get more data.

An eyewitness comes forward. We like to think it was because of THAT HARD WORK that she decided to come forward.

So forgive me if I take it as a personal insult and libel when someone who hasn't contributed a THING to these efforts comes along and accuses of us of inventing her.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You guys seem to have the cynicality of several divorcees ive met.Sour grapes to you...and i too find this getting to be offensive in some way.....
....
The way it works is we try to collect every scrap from every source,and compare the evideniary total with its individual parts...to find some commonality or basis for conclusion.
We do NOT insult or badger those whose volunatary and responsible input is given with the utmost attempt being made by them to co-operate in verification .
Every piece of the puzzle can be scrutinized without resorting to being either unkind or downright ugly.
Eyewitness happens to be reasonably gifted as a credible and observant person, Who has the spirit to come forward ......
It is one thing to take every bit of evidence with a grain of salt.And totally another to be rude and hostile.....
If you feel her testimony is false then get busy and find discrepancies or
contradictions....
I find none and i think she is both courageous,and genuine...
If this plays out with some form of info that can be used to move disclosier forward I am sure she will be still here patiently putting up with what comes...
But not from within our ranks.....

Let the science guys and the photo boys do their job,the lawers examin the statements but dont make very nasty speculations without better than innuendo ............................peace out b



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join