New Pics of O'Hare UFO

Very interesting new pics of the O'Hare UFO here:
hitsusa.com...

Looks like these were released at the press conference yesterday.
Anyone skilled in photoshop to check these out?

Wow Rigel, very nice work

And it gets stranger!

I quote JRitzmann:

Originally posted by jritzmann
Below are the current known fakes of the O'Hare sighting.






The real shot, flipped, cropped and zoomed / enlarged to make the 2 above:




Next...



And the shot used to make this horrid lookin' P.O.S.



Next...




And the flipped clean image it was made from:



Next...



And it's base for the fake:



Let's hope the list is this short and we dont need to add any more.

take a look at JRitzmann's forum
www.abovetopsecret.com...
there's a discussion dedicated to O'Hare stuff:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by internos




I often wonder....why would these "aliens" use the same model UFO for dozens of years? They style NEVER seems to change. Wouldnt you think they would moderize the shape? They are always a skinny disc. How come now wings or tails or odd shapes?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by internos

 

I often wonder....why would these "aliens" use the same model UFO for dozens of years? They style NEVER seems to change. Wouldnt you think they would moderize the shape? They are always a skinny disc. How come now wings or tails or odd shapes?

Well, about THESE ufos, i think it's a matter of shape: a disk is easier to crop and paste elsewhere: as complicated is the shape of the object to past, so complicated is the work required in order to make it match with the background
IMHO, of course ....


[edit on 13/11/2007 by internos]

One theory might be time travel related. A moment sightseeing here and there, in this time and that time, making hundreds of photos in so many years.

These are the kind of UFO Jritzmann the Master Image Analyst believes to be true :



Permit me to somewhat doubt about this, too.

reply to post by Rigel


IMHO, it's not a matter to watch at a single photo: ALL the related events should be taken in consideration.

NICAP has carefully studied prints (but not the negatives) of the four successful exposures of a Saturn-shaped UFO, the verbal accounts and relevant facts. The UFO was sighted about noon January 16, 1958, from the deck of the Brazilian IGY ship "Almirante Saldanha" by a retired Brazilian Air Force officer, Capt. Jose Teobaldo Viegas, and Amilar Vieira Filho, chief of a group of submarine explorers on board. They alerted Almiro Barauna, an expert submarine photographer, who managed to take four successful pictures. Many other officers and men, attracted by the commotion, soon witnessed the UFO, including Capt.-Lt. Homero Ribeiro, ship's dentist. Capt. Viegas later stated: "The First view was that of a disc shining with a phosphorescent glow, which--even in daylight--appeared to be brighter than the moon. The object was about the apparent size of the full moon. As it followed its path across the sky, changing to a tilted position, its real shape was clearly outlined against the sky: that of a flattened sphere encircled, at the equator, by a large ring or platform."

In his 1963 book ("The World of Flying Saucers"), Dr. Donald H. Menzel labels the Trindade photographs a hoax. His main reason appears to be that Mr. Barauna is a skilled photographer capable of faking a picture, and in fact, Dr. Menzel says, once did produce a fake "flying saucer" to illustrate an article. Further, Dr. Menzel notes, several of the witnesses, including Barauna were members of the same submarine explorers group on board ship (implying complicity in a hoax). However, other witnesses were not members of the explorer's group and there is no evidence of fakery in the case.

On February 25, 1958 (four days after the pictures were first publicized by the Brazilian press) United Press reported from Rio de Janeiro that the Brazilian Navy Ministry vouched for the Trindade photographs. The report went on: "Navy Minister Adm. Antonio Alves Camara said after meeting with President Juscelino Kubitschek in the summer Presidential Palace at Petropolis, that he also vouched personally for the authenticity of the pictures." This would be a curious statement to make to newsmen if the Navy had any suspicion of a hoax.

The pictures and negatives were analyzed by both the Navy Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory and the Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service, both agreeing the pictures were authentic. The latter's written conclusion stated: "It was established that no photographic tricks are involved. The negatives are normal."

Correspondence between U.S. UFO groups and leading Brazilian investigators drew out many facts about the ease, including background information about other similar sightings at Trindade Isle over a period of time, all of which tends to substantiate the January 16 sighting and photographs. No suspicion of hoax was uncovered by J. Escobar Faria, Sao Paulo attorney (NICAP Adviser), Dr. Olavo Fontes, M.D., in Rio dejaneiro (APRO Spec ial Representative), or other Brazilian correspondents in a position to ascertain the facts. fSee APRO Bulletins, January, March, and May 1960 for detailed series of articles about the Trindade photographs by Dr. Fontes].

Weighing all the facts, we conclude that the pictures appear to be authentic. They definitely are one of the potentially most significant series of UFO photographs on record, so that clarification of the incident and additional analysis is strongly desirable. In the interests of scientific investigation, we urge that secrecy about the case be lifted by the United States and Brazil and that a frank report of the facts be issued to the public. In particular, the full analysis reports by the Brazilian laboratories should be made available to scientists. Information currently withheld by the U.S Air Force about its investigation of the case through the American Embassy in Rio de Janeiro also should be made available to the public.

Photographic data: Mr. Barauna used a Rolkiflex 2.8--Model E camera, speed 1/125, aperture f/B (causing a slight over exposure).

www.nicap.org...

Here you can find some analysis about that case, made by different people : )

homepage.ntlworld.com...

www.geocities.com...

www.geocities.com...

members.aol.com...

www.geocities.com...



By the way: you made a GOOD WORK in the other thread.


[edit on 13/11/2007 by internos]

sir, let me challenge your claim that those photos were fakes. As far as we know, the people who claim they were fakes because they'd found the originals.... who says the ORIGINALS arent fakes? It's a lot easier to airbrush something OUT than it is to airbrush it in. Something highly unexplaind ( a real life UFO) was seen that day. I live here, man half an hour from the airport, and the buzz around here has been HUGE. People are sure it was a UFO, people have seen LOTS of other UFO activity around here. Could be military or secret corporate technology that we're seeing personally, but the technology involved is definitely not from this planet.
Your debunking, it's just silly now, dude. Please, you are making yourself look foolish. It's like saying that bears or fish don't exist now by photoshopping out a bear from a picture of a bear and saying that it was the original, and that the bear is a fake. It's rediculous.
Why do you feel the urge to debunk these things? how about proving what you can about things you don't know about and adding to our knowledge, istead of limiting it by consistently trying to make people out to be lying lunatic money grubbing attention-seekers? Debunking is the most useless thing in the world! In time, fakers and liars will be exposed as so and judged accordingly. That is not your job to do, sir. To each, their own. Don't go around dashing other people's hopes just so you can feel more comfortable or accomplished. You are not helping the situation at hand. Maybe you are doing just as much damage as the hoaxers themselves, if not more. At least you can eventually reason for yourself what is a hoax and get a laugh out of it, but when you have this whole ORGANIZATION of people who are bringing ridicule to serious scientifically viable theories and phenomena, it's a dangerous thing. It makes people laugh at and shun REAL questions about the world around them, and debunkers are nothing but a group of people keeping minds narrow, however good most intentions are.... they just don't know the harm they are doing, literally. They do not KNOW. If they knew the truth, they would be kind of embarrassed, hopefully. That guy who was on the Larry King show Friday is already embarrassed! Haha!

reply to post by indierockalien

It's a lot easier to airbrush something OUT than it is to airbrush it in.

As someone who knows Photoshop really well....that is completely inacurate. It is MUCH easer to edit an object INTO something then edit it OUT.

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Not necessarily. It is very easy to cover something in the big blue sky. The clone tool with some feathering , its a 2 min job.

reply to post by indierockalien

Originally posted by indierockalien
sir, let me challenge your claim that those photos were fakes. As far as we know, the people who claim they were fakes because they'd found the originals.... who says the ORIGINALS arent fakes? It's a lot easier to airbrush something OUT than it is to airbrush it in.

I disagree about airbrushing, but maybe it's a matter of opinions.
Also, where is the ORIGINAL pic of the ufo, so i personally will uselessly REPEAT the already done analysis, included EXIF data extraction etcetera?

Something highly unexplaind ( a real life UFO) was seen that day. I live here, man half an hour from the airport, and the buzz around here has been HUGE. People are sure it was a UFO, people have seen LOTS of other UFO activity around here. Could be military or secret corporate technology that we're seeing personally, but the technology involved is definitely not from this planet.

Please, wait.
We're NOT discussing O'Hare case here, we're discussing PICTURES allegedy related to it. A negative result of the analysis of a single pic, does NOT affect the genuinity of the whole case.

Your debunking, it's just silly now, dude. Please, you are making yourself look foolish. It's like saying that bears or fish don't exist now by photoshopping out a bear from a picture of a bear and saying that it was the original, and that the bear is a fake. It's rediculous.
Why do you feel the urge to debunk these things? how about proving what you can about things you don't know about and adding to our knowledge, istead of limiting it by consistently trying to make people out to be lying lunatic money grubbing attention-seekers? Debunking is the most useless thing in the world! In time, fakers and liars will be exposed as so and judged accordingly. That is not your job to do, sir. To each, their own. Don't go around dashing other people's hopes just so you can feel more comfortable or accomplished. You are not helping the situation at hand. Maybe you are doing just as much damage as the hoaxers themselves, if not more. At least you can eventually reason for yourself what is a hoax and get a laugh out of it, but when you have this whole ORGANIZATION of people who are bringing ridicule to serious scientifically viable theories and phenomena, it's a dangerous thing. It makes people laugh at and shun REAL questions about the world around them, and debunkers are nothing but a group of people keeping minds narrow, however good most intentions are.... they just don't know the harm they are doing, literally. They do not KNOW. If they knew the truth, they would be kind of embarrassed, hopefully. That guy who was on the Larry King show Friday is already embarrassed! Haha!

Basing mi construction to what you wrote, i'd say that you aren't worthy of an answer, but maybe i don't understand correctly what you wrote;
anyway, you're free to believe wathever you want. I've opened threads about UFOS which i consider genuine, maybe what's ridiculous is to think that the GENUINE photo is the one of the UFO, with EXIF data missing, taken after the other one and so on.
JRitzmann made an EXCELLENT work on the O'Hare stuff, i followed every single step and i'm convinced that it was enough to declare these photos fakes, PERIOD. What is making appear ridicolous the whole ufo community is people who encourage other people to believe that a CONFIRMED fake is a genuine thing. That's the first reason why ufo community is being fooled by everyone, and skepticals are happy for that, because this way to act is the shorter one in order to loose reliability, and someone is making the job instead of them.
By the way...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Springer

UPDATE: HOAX IMAGE

JRitzman discovered this image to be a confirmed hoax.




ORIGINAL POST:

Yesterday we received an email (see below) via the "Contact ATS Button" that indicated another person had taken a photograph of the O'Hare Airport "UFO". Last night we received the actual image via email.

The image has two photoshop tags in it indicating it was created and modified yesterday. It is plausible the person who sent the image saved it in their computer with photoshop, removed any personal details it may have contained and emailed it to us.

It is also possible they added the UO in photoshop yesterday.

However there are some supporting factors that make this worth bring out for further analysis by our astute Membership...

The sender waited nearly eight hours after our reply to his initial email before sending the image to us. Most hoaxers want their "stuff" up ASAP.

We've been watching for the IP address of the sender in this thread and have not seen it.

We have searched the web for this picture and have not found it anywhere.

This image appears to be taken from inside the terminal and from a different area of the airport. We sent this image to two digital imaging professionals and we hope we will have their take on it shortly.

As usual, we offer this with ZERO endorsement.

The original email:

email received: 25JAN,2007

----Original Message-----
From: (Removed per privacy request) [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ATS CONTACT: new o'hare airport picture


Contact form submission user's IP: (Removed per privacy request)

Contact form submission user's name: Xxxx (Removed per privacy request)

===========================================================



Hi, this probably seems crazy, but I was at o'hair airport in a terminal waiting to board a flight (which happened to be delayed), and I saw the supposed UFO. 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. Where can I e-mail the pic to? Also, PLEASE keep my entire name anonymous. if you want, you can use an alias, just don't mention my name.

The image:

Springer...

[edit on 13/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient


I understand that. But I was making a point that it is easier to add something in - IMO

These photos can EASILY be edited to whatever one wants:
i80.photobucket.com...

Im not saying that there are legit sightings....but the power of Photoshop can not be denied.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I often wonder....why would these "aliens" use the same model UFO for dozens of years? They style NEVER seems to change. Wouldnt you think they would moderize the shape? They are always a skinny disc. How come now wings or tails or odd shapes?

You mean like this weird one photographed in Italy in 1961?



The more interesting ones are the non-saucer shaped ones. There are plenty of reports of them out there, if you dig a little. Flying saucers are popular, though. Maybe it could have something to do with the advantages of having two parabolic surfaces to bounce waves from and focus at a particular point outside the "ship." Or maybe not.

Logically, if they're all using the same kind of propulsion system and housing the same kind of critters, you might expect UFOs to look a lot alike, in the same way our airplanes are sort of all variations of the same thing, or our cars. The physics determines the shape.

The hitsusa,com link does not work for me at all. Are the pictures in the 2nd post by Rigel from the site? Also, this video of a ufo that disappears in front of your eyes looks identical to the one in Rigels picture.

www.youtube.com...

Same type, indeed.




[edit on 13-11-2007 by Rigel]

Originally posted by Rigel
These are the kind of UFO Jritzmann the Master Image Analyst believes to be true :



Permit me to somewhat doubt about this, too.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to remark as to why, rather make some smarmy innuendo. And don't put words in my mouth either, I said they're compelling, not bona fide...we just don't know what they are, but they've stood up the test of time and a battery of exams.

But by all means, if you're so versed in this, please, elaborate on your statements. What have you found that no one has in years *with* original or linage to original data? Hmmm?

As for the photos showing clean shots then those faked into the O'Hare case, those were found from every corner of the net, so the idea that the "UFO" was airbrushed out is rather insane. No, the simple (and horribly bad) composites showed up second...not the other way around. Theyre 100% provable fakes as the images found as base files were older then O'Hare. End of story.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by internos

 

I often wonder....why would these "aliens" use the same model UFO for dozens of years? They style NEVER seems to change. Wouldnt you think they would moderize the shape? They are always a skinny disc. How come now wings or tails or odd shapes?

Maybe they don't have UFO dealers trying to outsell one another on their home planet.

Plus there are more than one type of UFO's that have been spotted. Triangles, Cigars etc etc.



[edit on 11/13/2007 by TheInfamousOne]

I may have jumped to conclusions, sir. So you were not trying to debunk the fact that a UFO landed... blach i mean was seen at O'hare?
Man, I'm failing. I can't even read accurately now. And what I was talking about with photoshop, that guy said it best... its a 2 minute job to cover up something in the sky, maybe a few more minutes if its cloudy just to get the cloudscovering the actual beamship to look more cloudy....

but I misread AGAIN for like the fifth time this week on this site. Maybe I need some coffee, maybe some more sleep...maybe a head check. Sorry, sir. You're probably right, and I had not heard that photo had been fully debunked. As I cannot show you the original, sir, you have put a sword in the side of any statements made by me in this thread.... but a fake bear statue doesn't mean that all bears are fake bear statues ... and that's bad news for off-guard hunters/hikers.