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: 13
125
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
yeah i did, i didnt feel real good about either of them. The one to the south did have a brown, contained looking area right up next to the trees... but i still dont think thats it. (im talking about the little place right across the street from the number on the south. its in the tree line)

I'm thinking that the anonny pics, if real, must have been taken outside the "darkbox." The resolution is el crap-o outside of this dark area, so we would have to use another sattelite source. The anonny said that they were taken somewhere near the nukie plant right? well the big "darkbox" is only 8.35 miles wide at the most. It is conceivable that they could be further out than that, and still consider themselves "near the nuke plant". Matter of fact, I live 15 miles outside of Nashville, but I still say I live in Nashville....


thoughts? anyone else searched throuh the entire darkbox grid yet? lets not only take my word on it... i could have missed something.



[edit on 11-2-2007 by damajikninja]

[edit on 11-2-2007 by damajikninja]




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

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

It's because the photos that make up that area are from a different session, probably a more recent one.

I have noticed that Google Earth has been trying to replace some of the areas with lower resolution, starting with the areas with more interesting subjects, in this case the power plant.

As for the place where the photos were taken, I think it is near impossible to find it.

In the first post Springer says that they were taken "out by the La Salle Nuclear Power Plant", so I suppose they were pretty close to the power plant.

The area to the North has more trees, but the photos show that the person who took them had her back to the Sun. The size of the shadows and the strength of the light make me think this was taken near mid-day, and in that case the person who took the photos had her back towards South, more or less, and in that case, if the UFO was going in the direction of the power plant then the photos must have been taken somewhere South-West of the power plant.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
As for the place where the photos were taken, I think it is near impossible to find it.

In the first post Springer says that they were taken "out by the La Salle Nuclear Power Plant", so I suppose they were pretty close to the power plant.



Actually the description I got never said how close to the plant the shooter (mom) was. The only mention of the Nuclear facility was that when the "object left the area it headed toward the LaSalle Nuclear Reactor".

That could be 15 miles away or 2 miles away, no way of telling. Not to mention they never indicated if the images we are looking at are "pointing" toward the plant or not. I see no reason to think we can tell which direction the plant is from the image location.

The "kid" is still unresponsive to email.

I have to say the level of excellent analysis happening in this thread is making for a proud moment in ATS history.


Springer...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I thought there was mention of it looking like the object was dropping by the last frame. Albeit, I left off the 4th picture in this animation, it really looks like it stayed in a very straight, linear motion.

If this thing was moving that slowly, (guess at @15mph), I would've SO been in my car following this thing to see where it was headed....after grabbing my video camera, of course.

Is this area desolate at all? I would've imaged more people seeing, and having pictures of, such a low-flying, in broad daylight, slow-moving disc gliding through the air.




Hydden



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Actually the description I got never said how close to the plant the shooter (mom) was. The only mention of the Nuclear facility was that when the "object left the area it headed toward the LaSalle Nuclear Reactor".

OK, then it is almost impossible to find the place where the photo was taken.


I have to say the level of excellent analysis happening in this thread is making for a proud moment in ATS history.

That is what I tought about O'Hare, there were too many people talking abut it, it's difficult to stay on focus in those conditions.

A less popular case may give better results. Lets hope this is the one.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Census data for LaSalle county. The estimated population in 2004 was 112,335.

Of nation's counties, ranks No. 5 in production of soybeans
(1997 Census of Agriculture) All those squares are indeed fields for farming.

La Salle County (1990 census)

Pop 106913
Sq.Ki. 2939.8
Sq.Mi. 1135.0
Pop/Sq.Ki. 36.4
Pop/Sq.Mi. 94.2

The estimated population in 2004 was 112,335.

My county in Texas has 20 people/sqmi. It is pretty sparce. LaSalle is a little larger in area with 10 times the population. Compare to an urban area like Houston,Tx with 1630 persons/sqmi. I would think a lot could go on without being noticed.




[edit on 2/11/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
My county in Texas has 20 people/sqmi. It is pretty sparce. LaSalle is a little larger in area with 10 times the population. Compare to an urban area like Houston,Tx with 1630 persons/sqmi. I would think a lot could go on without being noticed.


Touché.

Nicely done.

Hydden



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydden
I thought there was mention of it looking like the object was dropping by the last frame. Albeit, I left off the 4th picture in this animation, it really looks like it stayed in a very straight, linear motion.

If this thing was moving that slowly, (guess at @15mph), I would've SO been in my car following this thing to see where it was headed....after grabbing my video camera, of course.

Is this area desolate at all? I would've imaged more people seeing, and having pictures of, such a low-flying, in broad daylight, slow-moving disc gliding through the air.




Hydden


Hrm. I have been doing a bit of legwork on the O'Hare situation/thread but I hadn't really checked this one out until just tonight. Everything I saw in these pictures led me to believe that they are indeed genuine, in so far as there was no digital alterations made to them. However, looking at this compilation by Hydden, a couple thoughts cross my mind (and forgive me if these have already been addressed, it was my birthday this weekend and I'm still feeling the effects a bit
).

1) What cell phone camera allows you to take a burst mode of any type? I mean even my relative's higher-end (non DSLR) Kodak takes a full 2 seconds between shots with standard-speed memory. It seems a bit strange to me that these shots were able to be taken in rapid succession.

2) Assuming then that they WERE taken with a full 2 seconds in between them, the question becomes: "Why was it moving so slow?" I started thinking about the types of things that fly slow ... blimps, gliders, etc. What about something REALLY simple ... a frisbee of some sort? Granted it APPEARS as if this thing is a saucer shape, but it almost looks to me like it could be a flatter disc that is either reflective or white. The underside appears to be dark, just like a frisbee does at distance when flying through the air. And because the contrast/brightness is so high on this pic, this could easily be the case.

Just wanted to toss these ideas out there and see what people think. I have to work all day tomorrow but I look forward to working on this over the next couple days.

BTW, for anyone still following the O'Hare situation, I am not going to be making another trip to the area until after this upcoming weekend ... I'll put details in that thread when I figure them out.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Good to see another ATS'r join us for research


I personally don't think its blimp, or a frisbee. I mean, it ... could be ... but everything to me looks to realistic (even if you had painted a frisbee that color...if I understand what your getting at).

It's a shame about the google earth imagery. I still think thats the best place considering the lack of decent imagery surrounding the plant. I hope more ATS's this week and get on google earth and either confirm or find a better place. I DO NOT think its impossible to find the shooting location.
All we need to do is put some diligent effort into it !

Keep on Keepin on' guys

I am.

- zee



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
My Motorola RAZR does burst-mode shots.


And I highly doubt what we are seing is a frisbee... there wouldnt be a frisbee out over the trees moving that slow... frisbees move pretty quick, and follow a parabolic curve back to the earth. This object maintains a linear track. Of course, I COULD BE VERY WRONG!!


I appreciate the skeptic within you... I really do. Its what this thread has been trying to maintain. But IMHO, I really dont think the frisbee theory works out too well.

Hey, when you feel a bit better (Happy B-Day!!) read through the entire thread... we have done quite a bit of analysis. It will be a great read! Then come discuss with us, as we still have a lot left to sift through.

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Didn't breakdown the picture too much. However the photo is consistent with photos from a Razr. I owned one and took many photo's. They all have the similar blur to them. I believe these are authentic. Otherwise the "kid" is good.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Photos are real, question is do these folks who faked it do anything with rest of young lives? Many good folks take this seriously, you suck.
Too small... to fly between the trees, like your brain. Nasty as a Godzilla flick.
Its over, get thru High School. Someone may find you, to get as much out of this as you did.
``````````````````````````
Moderator note;

TRY to be civil.

From the T&C's

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


[edit on 23/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

I think Edward's shots of color

Those photo's posted by Edward in this thread DO NOT have any EXIF Information about them. I found this out after I opened them in an editor to find out that that information is not attched with those photo's. So this means that the photo's Edward posted in this thread are not directly from his cam phone or whatever camera he used to take them. This said, I'm hoping that Edward will post the original photo from his cam phone directly into this forum from his cam because I would like to know what cam phone he was using that takes pictures with such vibrant colors and that other information provided in the EXIF Information box when the photo is loaded into an image editor.


Not sure if I quoted the above post correctly. Just wanted a reference for my post.

I found this page in my web log statistics as being "viewed" a high number of times. Very busy, so just checking in to let you know (who ever posted the above) that the pics came directly from my cell. I've used computers since the Apple IIC. I know the pics are direct from my Treo600. Here's the order;

Took picture with Treo 600.
chose "Move picture"... "To card." (sd)
Put SD card into slot in my Dell Inspiron E1505 Laptop
Grabbed file and dropped it onto hard drive.
Opened WS_FTP Pro
Uploaded pic to my server
End of story.

Now I'm pretty sure my cell phone isn't going to "re-jpeg" the pic while moving it from its memory to the sd card. And I also don't think Windows XP will re-jpg the pic when dragging the file from the card and onto the hard drive. As the file sits on my hard drive right now, it still has the exact date and time of when the pic was taken.

I never opened the pic in a graphics program and did a "Save As." I know that story and that's not what happened.

Hope this helps.

Edward Rose

------------------
EDIT--- I just read back on your first reply about cam phone picture tag info. And the pics are now on my computer (moved exactly the way I described above) and no longer exist on the phone. So if the tag is lost than it's lost. Or it's also possible that the Treo600 never did the tag thing you're talking about becuse this phone is like, a few years old.

?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Edward Rose]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Edward Rose]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Edward Rose]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
There are 2 ways I move pics from my RAZR (no SD card option) to the computer - one is to email them to myself, and the other is to push them over bluetooth. In either case, no EXIF tags upon arrival.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Here is a panorama that includes the 4th pic. The photos have been rotated and size-adjusted to align and scale them. Nice photos...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
Here is a panorama that includes the 4th pic. The photos have been rotated and size-adjusted to align and scale them. Nice photos...

Fascinating. I'm going to stare at that in GIMP quite a bit. My guesstimate from a quick look is that the object is from 200 to 400 meters away in the first image, although truth be told it could be much further away or a little closer. It's about 14 pixels across there, and drops to about 10-11 pixels in the third image. Would that those trees weren't there and we could see a shadow!



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Would that those trees weren't there and we could see a shadow!


The shadow on the object is consistent with the shadows thrown by the trees so they actually serve a useful purpose. In particular the 4th photo where the object is partially obscured by branches.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
its just a lenticular cloud or a kid with a kite!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
its just a lenticular cloud or a kid with a kite!



You're sure huh?

[edit on 25-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
its just a lenticular cloud or a kid with a kite!


You might want to read the thread first, and actualy look at the pictures as well.




new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join