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

a reply to: themightymerlin

I believe there are aliens in space, I don't believe they visit here though.

I have other thoughts.

a reply to: Brotherman

That is an illogical to me, we are dumb as # and even we thought of multiple ways already.

en.wikipedia.org...

I would even go so far as to say this was actually the secret space program, but who knows?

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: themightymerlin

dammit you forgot the beer again jeebus

originally posted by: Uknownparadox
So if he has the plates and can tell the picture was altered. Why doesn't he publish side by side photos? I opened the link and didn't see any a side by side comparison.

I think he was talking about the pre-press photo, a print made from the original negative that was altered, as we can see on the image on that site.



We need to think of two things when looking at the photos from the paper:
- the quality of photos published on newspapers is always low;
- the photos need to at least be adjusted so they appear as the editors want after being printed on the newspaper.

So, even if there wasn't any intention of fooling the readers, the exaggeration of some features of a photo is normal, to prepare them to being printed in the different system used by the newspaper.

But, on part 7 of that article, you can see some negatives (well, not really negatives, although he calls them that, as we can see the colours are not inverted, so they are probably direct prints from the negatives) of the photos, so you can compare them.

Another Good Story Ruined: Saucers Over L.A.! — Part 7

PS: besides the alterations done on the printed copies, it's also possible (and common) to make alterations during the process of printing copies from the negative. The icons for the "dodge" and "burn" tools in Photoshop represent the way it is done in a real darkroom:


The dodge tool is a lollypop shaped tool used to block the light while printing a photo, making the areas affected by the the shadow appear brighter in the final print. The burn tool is the opposite, and can be done, in it's simpler form, just by using your hands to cover an area and allow only a small area to get the light while printing the photo. In most cases they would cut a hole with the intended shape on a piece of cardboard to create the desired effect. That small area will get more light and will appear darker in the copy.

Traditional photos can also be altered directly in the negative, either by painting with black ink or by scraping the emulsion from the negative. Those alterations are not noticeable when the negative is printed and can only be seen in the original negative.

a reply to: Brotherman

I don't know what that means.

a reply to: ArMaP

Make any good crop circles lately?

a reply to: 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.

The footage is not what I would describe as 'incredible' for either event.
I will cover the Chicago O'Hare case in another post.

Photos from Battle of LA

As someone claimed earlier, the LA Times photo was enhanced for cheap newsprint. The original negative is held at UCLA and any object is far less well-defined. In fact, it's difficult to tell it apart from the flak.


Original untouched picture from LA Times [as shown in UFOS Declassified S1 E3]

There was also a photo in the Herald Examiner



And the March 1942 edition of LIFE magazine



For some 55 years after the events, the Battle of LA was never considered as a UFO case.

It was ignored In the 1950s in the popular UFO literature of the day.

NICAPs 1964 Evidence Report makes no mention of anything relating to this event.

Hynek's UFO Experience (1972) does not cover the Battle of LA.

Spielberg's movie "1941" (produced in 1979) based around the real events ignores any possibility of a UFO. Even though its release was sandwiched in between Close Encounters and ET .

"The Battle of LA UFO" seems to have been something that did not surface until the late 1980s in any detail. This is after publication of the MJ-12 documents in 1987 and the alleged Marhsall/Roosevelt Document.

One of it's claims is

This Headquarters has come to a determination that the mystery airplanes are in fact not earthly and according to secret intelligence sources they are in all probability of interplanetary origin.

It also states two unidentified aircraft were recovered, one at sea, and one in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Los Angeles. It says in part:




NOTE THE ABOVE IS NOT AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT AND HAS BEEN DEEMED FAKE BY THE FBI


If you don't know the history of the MJ-12 documents you probably need to be aware that the FBI have declared them totally bogus. Many ufologists have also deemed them to be fabrications due to numerous inconsistencies. Although a number of shall we say, gullible, or commercially exploitive researchers seem to cling to the MJ12 documents as a gospel and still use them as evidence to this day.

The official record of events is covered here:
The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945


The report outlines the conflicting information from witnesses regarding various aerial phenomena in the skies above. Some state they saw nothing at all beyond the smoke from the anti-aircraft fire. Others said they spotted enemy planes in varying numbers [up to about 50]. To confuse matters, sightings of meteorological balloons were also reported to have possibly triggered the barrage into the skies.





The official conclusion was it was a case of war jitters. The 'battle' occurred 2 days after Japanese submarines had attacked the California coast.

The case for something unidentified remains. But there is very little evidence for it being aliens.

a reply to: themightymerlin

It's hard to make crop circles in a town.

Do you have any thing to add related to the thread's topic?

a reply to: themightymerlin

As for O'Hare in 2006. There was a photo that appeared here on ATS IN January 2007 from a supposed anonymous witness. Not the clearest of pictures and it seems unusually foggy!!



She appeared to be corroborating a lot of facets from the then breaking story and even spoke on the phone with various other UFO investigators. Her posts continued for a while then stopped. It was then reported the witness had died. Was it all a hoax?

Other alleged photo footage has been proven to be faked. See : O'Hare the Fakes

One you've posted in your OP is this one.



It was actually lifted from this personal website from December 2000 cropped zoomed, and altered with the UFO added.

Here's the original



There is various documentation available, after the FAA released control tower conversations and reports via FOI. The FAA decided that no further investigation was needed as the sighting was caused by an unusual weather phenomenon.

This is not to say that elements of the incident have been fully resolved beyond reasonable doubt.

But again, the evidence for aliens is lacking.

a reply to: ArMaP

No i am just here to make your day.

a reply to: themightymerlin

Then you failed miserably.

a reply to: mirageman

Well then if that is your perspective, perhaps ask yourself why are they still similiar? Who is pulling the srings for this type of misinfo?

a reply to: ArMaP

Failure is all you know that is why you think that.

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: mirageman

Well then if that is your perspective, perhaps ask yourself why are they still similiar?

What do you mean they are similar?

The only similarity I see are that photos have been altered in both cases.

Who is pulling the srings for this type of misinfo?

People fake things for all sorts of reasons. Maybe just as a joke, to make a fool out of people and to LARP around or to make entertainment out of UFO cases like the Alien Autopsy video in the 1990s.

Perhaps the photo by the anonymous witness in this thread back in 2007 :www.abovetopsecret.com... was actually another hoax and used to drive traffic to this website. I'm not saying that was the case because I don't know. But people have their motives to fake things and so far there is no evidence of aliens visiting Earth.

a reply to: ArMaP

I realize that but it doesn't change anything. People can fake all kinds of things and the hands include huge amounts of weird little people who care what you think. I don't let it bother me, I try my best to get my point across w/o wasting too much time on it as I know the nature of this stuff for myself, such as what you say. This is one of top percents of cases and they seemingly being lazy in their attempts. It is like looking at the poor NK propanganda with that huge your welcome sign. I am not foolish enough to believe anything though, if this case wasn't aliens with the optics talked about and received favourably with the cloud and such that day as witness testimony which I loved then I don't know what is.

a reply to: themightymerlin

You are wrong, I know many things.

For example, I know you should be talking about the topic and not about me.

Attention Please!

The topic is never each other or opinions about each other. Please stick to the topic before harsher action is warranted.

Do not reply to this message.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: themightymerlin

Looked it up. A bunch of fake images.

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. But it's all I have at the moment.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Well that meathead went looking for images found some fakes one looked at them and said my god these are fake! and then proceeded to come back here and try to give me # about his lack of research skills or rather a sensible logic in general.