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.

 

More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

page: 12
125
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Thanks jritzman! You put a heck of a lot of work into analyzation of these photo's, so if you're giving it a reserved thumbs up, then this must be something truly amazing. I appreciate you dumbing it down for me a little. LOL!


Extremely reserved. One has to keep in mind we have NO information besides whats been given, and apparently no further contact with the "son" or photographer. There's still the air of suspicion, but from face value and exams Biedny and I did, they look pretty damned good.

And, again we cant base everything off computer detection. There's a point where ya have to really just look at the subtle things and question whether someone would go to such lengths...or if there are just flat impossibilities.




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Here's a question for you.

I know once a picture/story is proven fake, we usually just move on to the next one.

So....what happens if it can't be proven fake?
What next?

(just curious)

Hydden



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydden
Here's a question for you.

I know once a picture/story is proven fake, we usually just move on to the next one.

So....what happens if it can't be proven fake?
What next?

(just curious)

Hydden

I think thats why the thread stalled for a day. Glad to see it kick back up where we left off.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hey,

Well I have to agree with jritzmann on this. I've run this through my end and I can validate that yes, it is a real undoctored Cell phone Camera pic. Does this mean the picture the cell phone captured wasn't doctored?
No.

So what we're left with, IMO is a really, really, incredible set of photos, or a really, really, incredible set of fakes.

All in all, personally, I think their genuine. After looking at the image in photoshop, with the red channels (and knowing what I do about the Exif/JFIF headers) I'm convinced. Props to the hoaxer (if it is a hoax) if he's reading this! Job well done. And if it is fake - don't suppose the hoaxer would be kind enough to tell us how he did it?

Other than that - check it out guys looks like your checking out some serious technology. Flying disc travelling at a remarkbly slow 15mph !!!

[Edit for corrections]

[edit on 10-2-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So I'm doing some google earth work, checking out the La Salle Nuke Plant and all that - so I thought "Gee, reportedly, the UFO was supposed to be flying towards la-salle."

So I looked at the pics, and judging by the flight path - it appears to be heading in an easterly, possibly north easterly direction. This puts the location of the picture west, south-west of the plant.

Checking google earth, I find the plant.

I start looking around and find a house that almost looks like the general area of the photo's, along with something else unusual !
House Near La-Salle

Now, correctly if I'm wrong but WHAT is that freaking light next to the house? I mean, come on here guys. What are the chances, that someone photographed the UFO near La Salle, and a freaking satellite picked it up at the very same moment?!?! CRAZY RIGHT ? Well call me crazy then !
Even in the same area ! And while I don't know exactly what date the sattelite image was taken, it does say 2007.

For those of us who google earth, pointer co-ordinates are -

House - 41°14'12.04"N LAT, 88°41'1.07"W LONG
Nuke Plant - 41°14'43.34"N LAT, 88°40'4.20"W LONG

What do you guys think ? At the very least its one hell of a co-incedence !


P.S. Anyone know why the images around La Salle are in the black square?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Here is the imagery associated with zeeon's last post... this was pulled from Google Earth, at the coordinates zeeon provided.





````````````````````
edited because pics were stretching the page


[edit on 10/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The dark spot are damp dirt or water. I see that effect in photos and views of the area around my land.
I wouldn't be too sure of the exactness of the estimated distances and speeds.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
The dark spot are damp dirt or water. I see that effect in photos and views of the area around my land.
I wouldn't be too sure of the exactness of the estimated distances and speeds.


I think your misunderstanding what I mean by black square. If you go into google earth, the whole La Salle Area (we're talking atleast 50 mile radius) is darker then the rest of the sat. imagery.

You have to go into google earth to see what I mean.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
i am trying to remain skeptical here... the more i look at the Google Earth area around the nuke plant, and the pictures from Springer's post... i cant help but think that the photos could not have been taken anywhere in the immeadiate vicinity of the plant to the east, west, or south... there arent any trees there!! Now a little bit to the north, and you have some trees and a bit larger population center it would seem... stuill scouring Google Earth for a place that is a better match.

Also, do you think that white spot in the pics above could be a propane tank?? It is a rural area....

good find zeeon!



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
i am trying to remain skeptical here... the more i look at the Google Earth area around the nuke plant, and the pictures from Springer's post... i cant help but think that the photos could not have been taken anywhere in the immeadiate vicinity of the plant to the east, west, or south... there arent any trees there!! Now a little bit to the north, and you have some trees and a bit larger population center it would seem... stuill scouring Google Earth for a place that is a better match.

Also, do you think that white spot in the pics above could be a propane tank?? It is a rural area....

good find zeeon!


Thanks magick ! I thought about ground artifacts too, but what gets me is how the object appears ABOVE the trees. And its really shiny too - most propane tanks or off-white or atleast some type of color. It appears to be almost like a light - as bright as it is.

I'm still searching google earth also, but again - you have to look west of the plant - and alot of people noticed the UFO getting smaller in the progressive pictures - which leads me to believe it was heading in a north east direction. Which fits the area i found this in.
Ironic...to say the least !



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
There are more wooded areas start around 41.27 N 88.67W and then easterly.
I was using Terraserver.

I do not have broadband so maybe someone can check it out and look for fences. Google is beyond what I can use in a routine fasion. It would still be west of the plant. I did also get the impression that the pic view was northward.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Fences - your right I was looking for some.

The UFO photos show really small fences, which are going to be difficult (at best) to spot on sat imagery. It kind of looks like the photos magick posted that there is a slight outline - could be fences? Not to sure though.

I'm having a rough time finding any other place near La Salle that has trees and a fenced area. I'm still standing by my original find (even disregarding the bright light/suspect ufo). It fits the bill as the potential area the photos were taken in.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Most of the plots with houses are pretty small, surrounded by large ag fields.
There is one at this location that looks like it might be wooded to the east a bit.
It would be SW of the plant site.

41.181 (41 10)
88.658 (88 40)

I roughly calc'ed the minutes. I was using 8 meter photos.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Most of the plots with houses are pretty small, surrounded by large ag fields.
There is one at this location that looks like it might be wooded to the east a bit.
It would be SW of the plant site.

41.181 (41 10)
88.658 (88 40)

I roughly calc'ed the minutes. I was using 8 meter photos.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by roadgravel]


Question for you - do you see the same object on Terraserver that we see on google earth? If so that would either mean

1. imagery from the same source
or 2. its a stationary object. which would rule it out.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The photo resolution is not great enough to see detail. I labeled some spots.
Your coors are 1. Seems like 3 or 2 might also be a likely site for the photos. Looks like trees around the buildings.

From terraserver


[edit on 2/10/2007 by roadgravel]

[edit on 2/10/2007 by roadgravel]

[edit on 2/10/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
gravel, zeenon - looks like terraserv's pics are taken in winter or fall or somthin... crop areas look brown, and trees are browm. No greens. Conversely, the Google pics are lush green. Doesnt really make a difference, but they are certainly taken at different times, which means, zeenon, they cannot be from the same source. time wise anyways.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
gravel, zeenon - looks like terraserv's pics are taken in winter or fall or somthin... crop areas look brown, and trees are browm. No greens. Conversely, the Google pics are lush green. Doesnt really make a difference, but they are certainly taken at different times, which means, zeeon, they cannot be from the same source. time wise anyways.


Agreed. Its too bad we can't zoom in on the spot in question to see if the artifact is there. hmmm. if only there was another source of sat imagery to compare.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The terraserver pic was AirPhoto USA dated 4/1/2006. The aerial photos can be a bit misleading. The color can be subtle. The trees do not always look rich green and the same for grass. The grass would probably be brown. I am no expert but I have looked at a lot from my area, relating them to the terrain.

I seriously doubt that the white spot in the google pic is anything but something on the landscape.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
gravel, i have to agree. while there is a remote chance that it could be something spectacular, I am leaning toward the land artifact conclusion. Specificly a propane tank. I have scoured the entire "dark box" area around the nuke plant on Google, and while not finding any house that looks like it could be the ones in our photo, I did find a lot of houses with elongated white "things" out back of their house. Gotta be a propane tank.

I really really would like to find out where those photos were taken though. Like I said above, I searched through the entire dark-box area, which is a very large area around the plant, and i found nothing that, IMHO, looked like the area in the anonny's pics.

I am really keeping my fingers crossed that the anonny will drop us some more info.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
I really really would like to find out where those photos were taken though. Like I said above, I searched through the entire dark-box area, which is a very large area around the plant, and i found nothing that, IMHO, looked like the area in the anonny's pics.


Ninja, did you try the areas I marked as 3 and 2? These look promising.



new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join