2006 O’Hare International Airport Saucer & it's smiliarity to The Battle of L.A.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

..There's only 2 images that have been "said" to be legit for this sighting from what I heard said on a documentary. It showed those images in that documentary and one of them was very clear. I can't remember which documentary, plus my mentioning it is extreme hearsay...

Two images were shown in the 2014 documentary series "The Unexplained Files". The producers even stamped across the top of them "ACTUAL PHOTO".

But the producers didn't do their due diligence.
Jeff Ritzmann had shown 7 years before this particular show was aired that THEY WERE BOTH FAKED.

Screenshot 1 from the Unexplained Files



It's not an actual photo. It's another fake. Made by flipping, cropping and altering this image below.



Screenshot 2 from the Unexplained Files



Again this was NOT AN ACTUAL PHOTO. This one was another fake. Flipped, cropped and altered from the original



Dan Aykroyd allegedly acquired photos and video of whatever was hanging over O'Hare airport on 7th Nov 2006. But they've never surfaced. Maybe he discovered he'd been duped?

Plus part of the FAA recordings released from the control tower mention someone had a photograph of a disc.

....
S: I'm sorry, there was, I told Dave, there was a disc flying outside above Charley 17 and he thought I was pretty much high. But, um, I'm not high and I'm not drinking.
T: Yeah.
S: So, someone got a picture of it. So if you guys see it out there--
T: A disc, like a Frisbee?
S: Like a UFO type thing.
T: Yeah, okay.
S: He got a picture of it.
T: How, how, how high above Charley 17?
S: Well, it was above our tower. So...
T: Yeah.
S: So, if you happen to see anything... (she continues to laugh)
T: You know, I'll keep a peeled eye for that.
S: Okay.....

This is taken from the Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O'Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006

That photo has never surfaced either...

a reply to: Direne

A strange coincidence is that most of the saucer sightings in the USA occurred after prohibition was repealed in 1933......

originally posted by: mirageman
But the producers didn't do their due diligence.
Jeff Ritzmann had shown 7 years before this particular show was aired that THEY WERE BOTH FAKED.

That's one possibility, that they didn't do their due diligence to determine they were both fake.
Another possibility is they did find claims they were fake and decided to use them anyway.
I don't have any way of knowing which is the case

I don't know if everyone has figured this out yet, but UFO documentaries are generally not reliable sources of information.
They do things like edit what people say to take their words out of context (like the recent JJ Abrams UFO documentary implying the Apollo astronauts were seeing UFOs), leave out vital known facts, misrepresent or twist some things and in some cases they outright lie.

Thanks for posting the due diligence on those two images in the documentary, great post!

Dan Aykroyd allegedly acquired photos and video of whatever was hanging over O'Hare airport on 7th Nov 2006. But they've never surfaced. Maybe he discovered he'd been duped?

He said he had photos and was about to release them soon...and he never did. I really wanted to see what he had, and was disappointed his photos never appeared. Why did they never appear? Your question "Maybe he discovered he'd been duped?" does seem like a possible reason why he never released the photos, what other reason could there be? Only one other possibility immediately comes to mind, and that is maybe he wasn't duped, the photo was genuine, and he had experts analyze it who said it was consistent with the FAA explanation. I mean people did report seeing a hole in the clouds and the FAA explanation is a naturally occurring hole in the clouds which can appear very disc-shaped.

Holes punched in the clouds by natural phenomena


Other possibilities for why Akroyd never released the O'Hare photos? Did anybody ever ask him why he never released his photos?

Plus part of the FAA recordings released from the control tower mention someone had a photograph of a disc...
That photo has never surfaced either...

No verified photo ever surfaced, which is kind of odd. I sort of understand why that particular photo might not appear since people inferred they thought United would fire them if they went public, and that was apparently taken by a United employee.

But several statements in the NARCAP report suggest that people other than United employees were taking photos, so where are those? They wouldn't be afraid of being fired by United if they didn't work for United. This is from page 109 of the NARCAP report pdf:

12. 17 -- Eyewitness posted on January 27, 2007...
"there were more than fifteen people watching it in the parking lot where I was...so the corroborating evidence can come from more than just airline employees. There are a lot of people out there who haven't come forward yet, and just from the amount of photo-taking I saw, there are a number of photos that haven't yet been released.

I don't understand the absence of verified photos when witnesses say there were people other than United employees taking lots of photos.

originally posted by: themightymerlin
If the O'Hare event isn't aliens I don't know what it is. There is incredible footage of these events available and I generally want to see opinions on the similarities between the two events.

Actually, there is no footage, and the still photos most folks see are either fake or heavily retouched / Photoshopped.

So you're right about them being similar.

You know we always say, that convincing or compelling picture proof of a ufo is best supported by multiple pictures from different cameras taken from different locations of the same ufo event.

IMO..the two pictures by different cellphones from different locations of the O’hare ufo is believable for me…..

…..“We haven’t been able to plot on a map yet where Shooter 1 was compared to Shooter 2. It appears as if they were on opposite sides of O’Hare Airport, but we haven’t confirmed that yet.”……..

…………….Pilots shot……………………………Terminal passenger shot


My 2 cents

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
…..“We haven’t been able to plot on a map yet where Shooter 1 was compared to Shooter 2. It appears as if they were on opposite sides of O’Hare Airport, but we haven’t confirmed that yet.”……..

…………….Pilots shot……………………………Terminal passenger shot

Source for the quote and images?
I've never seen photos from O'Hare where the source was verified. You didn't post any source at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Source: www.earthfiles.com...

this thread….page 3 ….1st post…..link under 2nd picture

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Source: www.earthfiles.com...

this thread….page 3 ….1st post…..link under 2nd picture

The images on page 3 are not edited. You posted some edited images, and you posted a quote that doesn't appear in that same post on page 3.

The anonymous person who submitted the second photo says the first photo (on the left) might be a fake, from your source:

"I snapped a picture with my camera phone. this is not FAKE. It’s not a hoax, and it looks somewhat similar to the picture posted, however I think the one already posted might be a fake because in that picture the object looks bigger than in the picture I took. I was looking out one of the terminal windows during that time and snapped the pic.

ATS said the first photo was never really validated either, and may not be a valid photo of the object.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
NOTE: As of April, 2007 the lack of provenance regarding this photo, combined with suspicious signs of editing must engender a healthy degree of skepticism. While eyewitnesses have confirmed this is "what they saw," it does not mean this is actually a valid photo of the object.

If Dan Akroyd managed to get verified photos of the incident, I wonder why he never shared them. MM asked "Maybe he discovered he'd been duped?"

I wish people would stop pretending we have any validated photos of the incident, when we don't have any.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It’s the same pictures on the first post of page 3 this thread, as well as in the link……only I zoomed in and cropped for a closer view. The posted quote comes from the linked source.




True, there’s no validation, from Skeptic Overlords point of view…..but it doesn’t sway my opinion…..It’s my opinion the object is the same in both pictures.

Of course you don’t have to agree….that’s fine.

I remember Dan Akroyd went quiet and wouldn't answer any questions. He started his vodka company right after this.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The anonymous person who submitted the second photo says the first photo (on the left) might be a fake, from your source:

….” I snapped a picture with my camera phone. this is not FAKE. It’s not a hoax, and it looks somewhat similar to the picture posted, however I think the one already posted might be a fake because in that picture the object looks bigger than in the picture I took. I was looking out one of the terminal windows during that time and snapped the pic.”……

ATS said the first photo was never really validated either, and may not be a valid photo of the object.

Upon review and further due diligence, I think I found the DEBUNK of the “pilot’s view from within the cockpit” picture purported, which includes the bending effect due to taking the shot with cellphone from behind a curved cockpit windscreen/shield.

It’s compelling in that the possible source picture of the same airfield direction is shown. It’s a traffic pattern approach to the airfields runway(s). You can see the buildings on the left side are the same as the buildings in the so called pilot’s framed view. The UFO version picture appears to have been manipulated with warping, a bit of rotation and other effects.

Source: In French…… ovnis-usa.com... scroll down till you see the pics. The split pic with the red arrows is my doing for comparison purposes. The gif is from the website source. The website also shows the 2nd pic (shown below) from the passenger gate showing no UFO in the upper top left area of the pic. For this….let’s just say….the UFO, if it was there in reality…could have been photoshopped out…to post on that website and make it a Debunk as well to make it consistent with the Debunked pilot’s view picture on their website…….. just saying.

A revelation indeed…..leaving just one pic (the passenger gate) of the two as possible evidence does not cut for me….I need more than that..I no longer see it as believable.

Comments are welcomed….








By the way…..from what I can make out without knowing French……their not liking ATS over there….this part is written in English “ ATS = ALL TRASH SITE ”…. Put some text where ATS is mentioned into Google translate….you’ll see.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
By the way…..from what I can make out without knowing French……their not liking ATS over there….this part is written in English “ ATS = ALL TRASH SITE ”…. Put some text where ATS is mentioned into Google translate….you’ll see.

Apparently, that was the opinion of a Victor Martinez (whoever he may be), not of the person that wrote the article.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
By the way…..from what I can make out without knowing French……their not liking ATS over there….this part is written in English “ ATS = ALL TRASH SITE ”…. Put some text where ATS is mentioned into Google translate….you’ll see.

Apparently, that was the opinion of a Victor Martinez (whoever he may be), not of the person that wrote the article.

Thanks for pointing that out……I inadvertently threw the entire website under the bus and not the sole writer who wrote that opinion. Mia Culpa….A 1000 pardons to the rest of the folks over there. I’d like to thank to whoever sourced the pictures I used in my post. I don’t want to start a verbal war between websites…..we’re all in the same arena for truth!

Perhaps I should learn French

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Perhaps I should learn French

The more languages we learn the better, knowing how people talk brings us closer to other cultures.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
By the way…..from what I can make out without knowing French……their not liking ATS over there….this part is written in English “ ATS = ALL TRASH SITE ”…. Put some text where ATS is mentioned into Google translate….you’ll see.

Apparently, that was the opinion of a Victor Martinez (whoever he may be), not of the person that wrote the article.

Victor Martinez was the original conduit for disseminating the SERPO hoax. He was fooled by Doty and whoever else was behind it all. Having looked at that site, although my French isn't brilliant It is one and the same.

Sacré bleu.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Perhaps I should learn French

The more languages we learn the better, knowing how people talk brings us closer to other cultures.

In most cases anyway!





Not sure if already mentioned in this thread, but the wildly fictional 2018 movie 'UFO' (based on the O'Hare incident despite the uninspiring title), starring Gillian Anderson, is quite an entertaining watch - at least compared to most films derived from infamous cases.

a reply to: Brotherman

Sheesh, this one landed in 1964.




We kept it.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Thanks for sharing your due diligence research. As Skeptic Overlord said, there were reasons to be skeptical, and it seems like you found more reasons.

I also don't trust "experts" who claim they can detect an altered photo. What you really need to do is test them with say 20 images containing a mix of altered and unaltered images and see if they can reliably detect which is which. The results are disappointing in my experience; it's not as easy to tell which images have been altered as some experts seem to think it is. If it's a really bad alteration maybe it's easy to tell, but I've seen very mediocre alterations they thought were not altered.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Here’s the complete movie absolutely free, no signup, on Crackle. Click on Gillians picture to start. (there’s no play button icon to start)

UFO the movie about O’Hara

www.crackle.com...

Enjoy

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I also don't trust "experts" who claim they can detect an altered photo.

It depends, there are some things that can only appear on an altered image, in the same way some things (like square marks around small objects, a result of JPEG compression) are not.

For example, if you have an image with a blue sky and an UFO but the hue around the UFO is slightly different from the hue of the rest of the sky and that area of a different hue has a shape that does not follow the shape of the UFO (that could, for some reason, be altering the air around it), then it's most likely that the UFO was pasted on the sky.

Another clear case is when the size of the pixels of part of the photo is different in the area where the main subject is, as that usually shows that two images with different resolutions were used, resulting in an area in which the smallest picture element does not correspond to the pixels, showing that that part of the image was resized to a bigger size to fit the rest of the image. The opposite happens when an image is resized to a smaller size and, because of that, appears to be sharper than the rest of the image. Although not a clear sign of tampering, it sure is suspicious.

What you really need to do is test them with say 20 images containing a mix of altered and unaltered images and see if they can reliably detect which is which. The results are disappointing in my experience; it's not as easy to tell which images have been altered as some experts seem to think it is. If it's a really bad alteration maybe it's easy to tell, but I've seen very mediocre alterations they thought were not altered.

If the alteration was planned and well executed then there's no way of knowing if the image was altered or not.

Several years ago I made that experiment here, I showed two photos and asked people which one was altered. The few people that participated all failed to detect which image was altered or, when they chose the right one, they weren't able to detect what had been altered, pointing to an area that had no alterations.

Detecting fake images is not an exact thing.