More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images, page 14

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]