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.

 

Second "O'Hare UFO IMAGE"? -- UPDATE: HOAX CONFIRMED

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Can someony identify what part of the pic the supposed ufo is in? Is it the faint circle in the top left, or the beams of light in the distance?

As to the quality of the pic, I own a Motorola V3X with a 2mp camera on it and can produce pics with the same clarity.

It seems like a genuine pic to me. Where is everybody seeing a dark grey underside of the ufo. If the ufo is that "thing" in the top left part of the pic, then it seems to be a hazy white, not dark at all.

Hopefully somebody else will come forth with a pic as if this one was taken from a terminal window then maybe alot of others with camera phones had decent views.




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Coward
If you guys keep posting Fakes, this will kill off credibility of ATS. I have been seeing Hoax alerts on Coasttocoast and Rense about the ATS pics. That tarnishes the ATS name, and any "real" footage or pics in the future will not hold credibility.

But then again, what can one do? Nothing!


Not to seem condescending, but Springer did in fact state "zero endorsement" Presenting to the all ATS members and visitors what is passed along to The Amigos, is commendable. It allows us the opportunity to deflect, ask questions, and draw our own conclusions.

edit to add
notice the lens flare off the terminal window near the light poles and towards the upper right hand corner of the clouds it does not seem to have affected the top left hand corner of this photograph the object looks to be within frame when taking the picture the UO when magnified seems to have darker grey tinge towards the bottom(a shadow?) it almost resembles a cloud(imho)

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Eden]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
the upper left corner. those "beams of light" are reflections on the window



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I don't believe this, or the other image is real. If there are, and I say if, it will never leak out like this. We are being misleaded here.

I predict that some guys are havin fun and there's a network behind this!

First we have a so called witness that dissapears after some questions about lies that he told....

than a few days later someone totally uknown post a picture, that seems to me like a drop of water and dissapears asswell.

Than when the hoax is almost proved, there comes another one in, saying that the picture is not real and tries to point to a sketch which is very easy to say.

And now someone comes with a new picture, so the circus can start again. It has already been proved how easy it is to copy this drop of water and make it look like an UFO. We are being misleaded here, wake up please!

My guess.....if we dig deep enough you can find the picture on the net, and if not, this person made this picture himself, but added the water drop to make it look like a UFO.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I think that that image is all we got. But Springer can elaborate on that.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Along with just about everyone else who has posted so far I think this is an incredible shot for a cell phone!

I am a photographer, and when I look at this photo I believe that it is not just a snap.

My reason being; that the horizon line is pretty much central and level, and the 'frame' (as other people are saying) is not 'framing the object it is framing the view from the window across the airport to capture the buildings at the other side of this area, along with body and tail of the airliner.

I suppose that he might have wanted a perspective of where he was stood but even then the object is almost out of view and I am damn sure that I would have made sure that the object was the subject of my photograph and not the airport, this certainly looks like a ground shot not a sky shot.

Moving on to the object; it doesn’t seem to sit right in my eyes; the light in the picture seems to be coming from the clouds to the right, and the object appears from its shadowed edge to be lit from the left, the planes seem to be lit from above casting a shadow underneath them which is probably the correct projection of light on a cloudy day so it should really be lit from above right not above left as it appears to be.

So to conclude I believe this to be a shot of the airport, the picture shows too much of the airport to be a picture of anything else, to straight and level ‘framed’ with a little added imperfect extra just in the wrong place, but I have been known to be wrong.

Good luck in solving this one my ATS companions, and I look forward to seeing the report from Springer’s DIP’s.

Regards xS_Gx



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Cell phone camera huh? What was the pixel count of the photo they sent? I use a D900 Samsung, imported, and it's 3 megapixels. If I have it set on high resolution, fine, I can get great pics if the lighting is very good. The pic to me screams digital camera. There are some Sony Erricsson phones with up to 5 megapixels now, you can research any available models at www.phonescoop.com

If you can find out what kind of cell phone this guy is claiming to have snapped this with, I'll use the same phone and post sample pics for a comparison.

I'll be lurking ;-) U2U me if anyone wants any sample Cell Phone pics.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I am reserving my critique of the image until I have seen the original which there should be no excuse for not being available.

The Exif data will give us the date and time the shot was taken, and will not show any sign of Photoshop in it as what we want is the file direct from the camera/phone.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76
So this person only took ONE picture as well? If it were me, I would take an establishing shot, maybe like the one posted, then a few more of just the object itself. I find it hard to believe that someone would only take one picture.

Can you contact this person and ask if they took any more?


We have asked if there are more images and like yesterday have not received a response yet, most people don't check their GMail accounts every ten minutes, unless they have a reason to.
Also if the object left immediately after this shot one would be all they could get. There are infinite possibilities INCLUDING this has been hoaxed.

As far as the quality of the image goes, we are pretty sure this is from one of the high end HD Cmaera phones like Sony Ericsson puts out. The aspect ratio is 16:9 indicating it's an HD imager.

Springer...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
As one of the house skeptics, I offer you a fair warning with a link:

How long is it going to be before someone posts or sends a mod an image of the "UFO" in one of these pictures?


O'Hare pic collection



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I'm going to hold off saying anything about this one until we get that analysis from the experts.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
As one of the house skeptics, I offer you a fair warning with a link:

How long is it going to be before someone posts or sends a mod an image of the "UFO" in one of these pictures?


O'Hare pic collection



already done. see my reference to the "second" ohare photo with lights



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Coward
If you guys keep posting Fakes, this will kill off credibility of ATS. I have been seeing Hoax alerts on Coasttocoast and Rense about the ATS pics. That tarnishes the ATS name, and any "real" footage or pics in the future will not hold credibility.

But then again, what can one do? Nothing!


Let me tell you this, until a CREDENTIALED EXPERT calls this a hoax I am on the fence.

Let me ask you this, WHO do you think is making the statement these "could be hoaxes"? We are, this what ATS is all about COLLABORATING to get at the truth.


If we sit on this stuff the people sending them will go elsewhere, HOW does that serve our membership?

Springer...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
How long is it going to be before someone posts or sends a mod an image of the "UFO" in one of these pictures?


O'Hare pic collection

Already got one


It's a mirror image of one of the pics in the link that you provided



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
that's the one I've been talking about

lights on a craft that supposedly had no lights.

it looks like a doctored shot of a plane coming in for a landing



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
If you notice, the reflections off the glass of the lighting from the INSIDE of the building abruptly cut off where the clouds start in this photo. One would expect those reflections to extend much further up the window than what's being shown in this photo.
Has anyone else noticed that?


I noticed the reflections, but didn't notice exactly what you had pointed out. Another strange instance in the image is the extreme detail in the image which is in 16:9 ratio, but the image is only 533x300. I'm not exactly knowledgable in cameras.. But wouldn't an image in such detail contain way more pixels? Could this be to hide retouching the image?

The same person could be pulling our strings on all of these images, having an internet friend post the newest image so they won't be caught right away; learning from his mistakes that we have pointed out. I still say this looks too much like a cloud. Possibly taken on a different day with a saucer shaped cloud in view? Would explain the reason for the unkown original date the image was taken..



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

It's a mirror image of one of the pics in the link that you provided

correct, it's already debunked, even i was able to fake one.
img175.imageshack.us...

But what i noticed in this new picture discussed on this thread is, that the object we're talking about is exactly the same as in the first picture. hmm...and springer wrote that it had photoshop sigs on it...hmmm...

edit: how about someone loads it in photoshop and analyzes it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecyBut what i noticed in this new picture discussed on this thread is, that the object we're talking about is exactly the same as in the first picture. hmm...and springer wrote that it had photoshop sigs on it...hmmm...


it is actually a bit less pointed at the top in my eyes but, assuming they are both real, they should be pretty damned similar



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
they could both be real...indeed. but i guess we need someone to check this one.

as long as they're not proofen to be fake, i assume they're real.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
they could both be real...indeed. but i guess we need someone to check this one.


Does ANYONE actually READ POSTS anymore?!


In the opening post of this thread I clearly typed we have two ultra qualified PROFESSIONAL video analysts POURING over this picture right now. It takes time for these guys to do their work. Not to mention they have to do their "Real Job" work on top of this.


The minute we get the definitive results of their perspicacious analysis it will be posted in this thread.

It's also worth mentioning that the same duo is working on the FINAL for the first image as well.

When they are done I will defer to them completely. You can Google their names and find out about their qualifications. (Their names are in the first image thread. READ IT
)

Springer...

[edit on 1-26-2007 by Springer]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join