More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

Someone's got one hell of an arm if that's a frisbee. It could be a blimp but wouldn't a blimp be more hotdog shape or something like that. It's definetly going in a straight line and moving slow. The colors to me would match a cell phone picture. The only problem I have with pictures is that they are getting easier to manipulate with photoshop and other software. I like video myself. I have to say that there's alot of smart people on ATS that do their homework and know what to look for.

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

You might want to look up lenticular clouds and study a few pictures of them before jumping to such a conclusion. Me, I think that's pretty far-fetched.

Hello everyone,

It’s my first post right there, so I will do my best in order to be constructive.
First of all, I do not believe in ufos. I believe in true, actually unexplained, atmospherically phenomena. I will not talk right there about it but, to resume, this is not incompatible with ufos.

From this point, I admit (from miscellaneous and serious sources) the evidence of those phenomena. Being in interest for the unexplained, I also try to use a serious methodology while analyzing information. I found on this forum serious people, and very interesting information.

So it’s my pleasure to join you and to help you debunking the evil hoax, if any. In order to find an issue to this, here is a resume of the main events read in the previous 14 pages, mixed with some personnal comments.

The facts
1) Object is going from left to right.
2) From this excellent panorama (thanks to torsion), trajectory seems rectilinear.
3) Speed must have been slow enough in order to allow 4 successive shots (recording time…)
4) Photographer does not move and his arm goes from left to right with a pretty natural movement (without posing time). This picture (thanks to 12m8keall2c) offers good sighting of it.

Elements to say it is not a hoax
1) Object incrustation in picture is impressive.
2) Photoshop filtering did not reveal any tricks (I tried many and I have a lot right there).
3) Light reflection on object’s surface follows its curse. Without analyzing pictures, light movement can be easily followed with this animation (thanks to Hydden).
4) Object is not a quick pixel copy “as usual”
5) 4th shots is a gift! Perfect incrustation. Light reflection still aligned.

Elements to say it is an ugly hoax
1) Nothing is impossible.
2) Object and reflections may have been quickly renderized by free-hand by a skilled graphist.
3) The 4 successive shots are too perfect.
4) On each picture object do not seems to be in movement.

EXIF stories
1) Lack of EXIF could come from a “Save as…”, any manipulation with some tool (I presume that the photographer spent a lot of time looking at his pictures on his computer screen).
2) The photographer could have removed EXIF information (young people are smarter than us).
3) Cam do not record EXIF.
-> Lack of EXIF is not a proof to say it’s a hoax.

So, what's up?
In case the whole job is a hoax, it is a very good job. Just a remark about this point: anyone not too stupid, spending a lot of time for a so nice hoax, would have modified EXIF entries with true parameters (camera information, date and time information…). If it’s a hoax, it is an ugly one. Try to do better next time.
In case those pictures are not a hoax. There is no element to go on with it. I seriously think that, without new information, those pictures will die from themselves.

Help wanted
1) What’s this place looks like? Grass is nicely mowed. We are neither in an abandoned place nor in a common cattle farming. What kind of place has perfectly mowed grass and such wood fences? To find answer to this question, will give some clues about the place, no? With those clues, it could be easy to seek such installations around the stipulated area.
2) Does the vegetation looks like actual layout in the same area at this time of the year? Could we find pictures, videos (local tv) which would give us more clues? Does someone know this kind of trees?

(to be continued)

[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

(post 2 on 2)

About speed
Witness talked about fast movement and short time event. It is difficult to believe such a declaration. Emotion, lack of aeronautical knowledge, difficulties to remember exact conditions are elements to consider. In any case, hoax or not, this information in useless.

To go on, we need to find a way to determine altitude, object size, distance from photographer. With this information, check if there is a possibility to do 4 successive perfect shots of it.

I wish someone could try to catch a helicopter with a phone cam and share the four successive shots in this forum.

Well, many questions, but I guess this resume will help to go on.

Thanks for reading. :-)
V.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

Originally posted by vini51th
Hello everyone,

Elements to say it is an ugly hoax
1) Nothing is impossible.
2) Object and reflections may have been quickly renderized by free-hand by a skilled graphist.
3) The 4 successive shots are too perfect.
4) On each picture object do not seems to be in movement.

EXIF stories
1) Lack of EXIF could come from a “Save as…”, any manipulation with some tool (I presume that the photographer spent a lot of time looking at his pictures on his computer screen).
2) The photographer could have removed EXIF information (young people are smarter than us).
3) Cam do not record EXIF.
-> Lack of EXIF is not a proof to say it’s a hoax.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

I am led to believe that some cell cameras do store EXIF data, but the two I've experimented with (Moto RAZR and LG 8300) do not. Therefore, lack of EXIF tags means nothing one way or the other. EXIF data can be edited anyway, so a skilled hoaxer could have perfectly plausible EXIF data.

Originally posted by vini51th
(post 2 on 2)

About speed
Witness talked about fast movement and short time event. It is difficult to believe such a declaration. Emotion, lack of aeronautical knowledge, difficulties to remember exact conditions are elements to consider. In any case, hoax or not, this information in useless.

To go on, we need to find a way to determine altitude, object size, distance from photographer. With this information, check if there is a possibility to do 4 successive perfect shots of it.

I wish someone could try to catch a helicopter with a phone cam and share the four successive shots in this forum.

Well, many questions, but I guess this resume will help to go on.

Thanks for reading. :-)
V.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by vini51th]

As far as I know, we don't really have any statements directly and literally attributable to the witness, which is the chief difficulty with this case. Perception of "fast" depends on geometry.

Ok I tried to make the center image bigger and it has been processed numerous times so I hope it helps. If anyone can make it sharper properly I would appreaciate it. Thank You

Originally posted by bizone
i'm sorry but i'm disappointed with these latest ufo pictures. not saying it's fake or real, just uninspiring.

Well, I certainly am sorry to hear that. Maybe if they could make it a little bit more spectacular, Hollywood style, it would hold your attention.

Originally posted by bizone
i'm sorry but i'm disappointed with these latest ufo pictures. not saying it's fake or real, just uninspiring.

Perhaps if you had a real understanding of WHY the images SHOULD be fuzzy and 'uninspiring' you might better be able to judge what you are seeing. Try to see an object through heat distortion above a radiator or highway...

Same applies here, but you are looking at them through an EM field generated by the drive system hence the 'fuzzy distortion' something the USAF is working on for stealth...



How can anyone here do a true analysis of what they are seeing without understanding the underlying principles of craft operation?

:shk:

Surely the factor of 'What SHOULD we be seeing in a UFO photo" is important to any analysis?



[edit on 12-2-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
How can anyone here do a true analysis of what they are seeing without understanding the underlying principles of craft operation?

That's hilarious....you write that like the "underlying principles" are a well known rule-of-thumb. Are you really giving someone grief because they are not aware that "EM fields make the sky hazy"? Honestly zorgon.....give a person a break if they aren't up-to-date on the esoteric mechanics of "space ships".

Originally posted by zorgon
Perhaps if you had a real understanding of WHY the images SHOULD be fuzzy and 'uninspiring' you might better be able to judge what you are seeing. Try to see an object through heat distortion above a radiator or highway...

This caught my eye as well.

Upon what are you basing such a definitive statement? I would be very interested in your sources for this type of information.

Using the logic you propose, the authenticity of some UFO pictures often heralded by factions of UFOlogy (some of the Meier pictures for example) should be immediately considered as questionable because of the image clarity.

Perhaps if you elaborate some, it might help to us understand the apparent dichotomy.

reply to post by zorgon


I know a little about EM fields, and unless you're in a strongly nonlinear medium (and air is pretty linear), they don't interact much at all, which is why it's possible to take a perfectly clear picture through the sea of EM fields in which we all live.

So, please do elucidate how the physics of all this works.

Wow awesome pieces of the puzzle hope their authentic!

Originally posted by MrPenny

That's hilarious....you write that like the "underlying principles" are a well known rule-of-thumb. Are you really giving someone grief because they are not aware that "EM fields make the sky hazy"? Honestly zorgon.....give a person a break if they aren't up-to-date on the esoteric mechanics of "space ships".

Well I am quite willing to give a person a break on their lack of knowledge on the function of these 'spacecraft', however with all the talk in all the threads about what makes them tick... anti gravity etc.... you would think by now even a lay person would have grasped the fact that you cannot get a clear photo of a UFO in operation... even observations of the B2 have hinted at this..

So sorry, Mr Penny, but I shall not give a break to someone who is 'bored' or 'unimpressed' by fuzzy UFO images that do indeed 'fit the bill'

It is funny to me... (and sad at the same time) how quickly people jumped on the "Drone" bandwagon... especially some of the more big name researchers...

What we need is an organization that lays down guidelines for UFO study

Heck Hermann Oberth describe this effect in the 20's...

But it will never happen... because each researcher is more interested in scooping the other that they are no longer researching... merely posting the hottest topic before the other guy gets the scoop

I promised Matyas to 'put it in writing' perhaps I will

Originally posted by zorgon
you would think by now even a lay person would have grasped the fact that you cannot get a clear photo of a UFO in operation...

Is that a fact....hmmm. I guess you would need to define "UFO" in this respect. And, I guess we have a firm debunk from zorgon himself concerning the Billy Meier photos.

So, if it's fuzzy, indistinct, hazy, unclear, etc..etc...it's more legitimate? Man that's convenient......

Originally posted by MrPenny
Is that a fact....hmmm. I guess you would need to define "UFO" in this respect.

Fact? there are no facts at ATS remember? Its all just opinion...

But yes I suppose I shall have to define UFO... okay will put a postie note on desk to remind me...

And, I guess we have a firm debunk from zorgon himself concerning the Billy Meier photos.

THAT would be putting words in my mouth as I have not even looked at that one yet, whether you believe that or not I care little. haven't much time to look at UFO's lately... so I currently have no opinion whatsoever on the Billy Meier incidence, nor will you find any of my posts in those threads.

I DO know that the people in those threads are going a little over board in their zeal... seeing as activities there resulted in Jogn not being here anymore...

So, if it's fuzzy, indistinct, hazy, unclear, etc..etc...it's more legitimate? Man that's convenient......

'Convenient' it may be, but you can bet that the Military stealth programs trying to duplicate this semi invisibility are not so quick to judge...

Umm... I think that's an old fashioned fighter. Looks obsolete...

Definitely Little Munchkin technology.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by sardion2000]

I'm not joking anonymous has arrived and we are blowing the lid off this "cover-up" lmao. little by little.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by sardion2000]

Blatantly faked,

Just look at the clouds,

Between picture 2 and 3 there appears to be "significant" cloud movement.

Overlay picture 2 and 3, if you have the ability to make one image 'transparent' using software, it's clear to see the clouds have more movement than the object between the two pictures.

My point being simply, the object must have have been moving at a snails pace or the clouds were moving at hurricaine speed.

Go get some "experts" and validate my posts. Bet you can't hack them mofos.... hahahaha. my account has not been hacked. how did I know you were going to do that? hmmmm