O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

I also wanted to ask whether these pictures are debunked or not..

[edit on 12-10-2007 by commodore64]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by commodore64]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by commodore64]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by commodore64]

I think that photo was faked and the original found, but I am not 100% sure.

The answer is somewhere inside the thread...

Or maybe the UFO photo is real and the "original" is a fake.

reply to post by commodore64


I don't remember seeing that one anywhere in the thread. It looks alot like the object in the main photo that was debated in depth though, pretty interesting...

reply to post by commodore64


Faked. All the fakes are cataloged in my analysis board under the "OHare-The Fakes" thread.





[edit on 26-10-2007 by jritzmann]

reply to post by jritzmann


Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Shows how gullible I am, lol.

reply to post by jritzmann


You could have said it before I searched some 80 pages.


For those lazy to do their search, the original image was found by jritzmann here, and, and we can see, it was taken in 2004, so no, the UFO wasn't edited out of the photo, it was added to it.

wow, this thread is still alive, its been how many months? oh well, it was a good thread while it lasted .

-fm

reply to post by jritzmann


Hi! I'm a brand new member of ATS but have read most of this old thread and the entire NARCAP report on the event. Since a full year has passed since the event I am curious:

1) What was the final (best) judgement of the 'cell phone' photo?
2) Did anyone ever interview Eyewitness's friend who was in her car as they entered the parking lot and then stood there watching the object? If no, why not? If yes, is her testimony available anywhere?
3) Please speculate as to why no other pics have surfaced even though Eye claims there were many photos taken.
4) What would you do in the event someone sent you a photo that turned out to be a legit pic from the actual event? Publish it here? Keep it for yourself? Sell it.
Very Curious and Thanks!

Originally posted by AFRLPT
reply to post by jritzmann

 

1) What was the final (best) judgement of the 'cell phone' photo?

That it was very likely legitimate however tampered with. Done so in such a manner as to not damage or call into question the UO, but rather anyone who would come out and call it a real unfettered photo of the event. As the case remains unsolved, and more photos / video may be forthcoming, I wont reveal anything more then that. Those of us who worked extensively need an edge over whomever might be trying to soil or coverup the event.

Originally posted by AFRLPT
2) Did anyone ever interview Eyewitness's friend who was in her car as they entered the parking lot and then stood there watching the object? If no, why not? If yes, is her testimony available anywhere?

Not that I know of. At the time I spoke to her it was related that they didnt wish to comment. The other friend was a pilot and we all know why they dont talk much.

Originally posted by AFRLPT
3) Please speculate as to why no other pics have surfaced even though Eye claims there were many photos taken.

The image we did get showed a very subtle object. IF most people shot with cell cams, it's likely they didnt see the object on their cell screen and possibly deleted the pic. Others might have sold, some might not want to even let them out...who knows.

Originally posted by AFRLPT
4) What would you do in the event someone sent you a photo that turned out to be a legit pic from the actual event? Publish it here? Keep it for yourself? Sell it.
Very Curious and Thanks!

Thats happened. The photo is the property of the person submitting it to me, and I have no right (unless expressed by them) to do *anything* with it other then examine it. If that person gave me permission I'd share it, if not I wouldnt. Period, forever. Thats part of public trust and I've never violated that, and dont plan to start now.

I have pictures I personally shot this past summer I think are pretty good. However I'm having them examined by someone other then me (you cant objectively analyze your own photos), if they arent something mundane, I'd gladly share them here, because theyre mine.

reply to post by jritzmann

J-Man, thanks for your prompt and frank reply. On 1), Great idea to have an edge. 2) Unnamed Eye passenger can validate Eye by merely saying she was there with Eye -no one can then question Eye's location. Perhaps not necessary if Eye has time/date stamped parking lot ticket. 3)Are there any 3-ltr agency UAP sites posing as legit photo collection/distribution sites that may have 'forgotten' to redistribute? 4) *anything* - perfectly understood.

Now that the horse has left the barn: Why didn't Eye give her email address to the person with the digital camera (that she claims was there) and ask for copies????? I would have done that with everyone I saw taking pictures.

Like Columbo, I have one more thing: Do you know if Eye has been approached by anyone on the subject outside of this forum? Thanks again.

Is there any photo of this incident that havent been debunked?? would be interesting to know..since this was an event that had multiple witnesses and got a lot of media attention, and still, i havent seen one credible photo about this in the web. Anyone? educate me if i missed something.

Originally posted by Forell
Is there any photo of this incident that havent been debunked??

The image in the opening post...


This image has been shown to the witnesses contacted by the Chicago Tribune reporter that broke the story. We've been told that each witness has confirmed the object, location, and conditions in the cell-phone photo.

As far as we know, this is the only photo to have been authenticated by more than one eye witness to the event.

Here is something I came across in one of the FOIA documents that reminded me of the O’Hare sighting. It is a letter from Air Materiel Command describing “flying saucers” and their flight characteristics. The last description describes how the craft left a hole on the clouds very similar to witness’s description of the O’Hare sighting. It is at the bottom of the page, section k.

There is no date on this page, but the previous page was dated October 28, 1947.

from page 148

k. Under certain power conditions, the craft seems to have the ability to cut a clear path through clouds ~ width estimated to be approximately one half-mile. Only one incident indicated this phenomenon.

FOIA: Army CIC UFO Files Various Subjects Including "Horten Brothers - Flying Wing"

I thought that was pretty interesting and posted about it at the end of this post.

hay how can i upload a picture??? am trying to bt i cant..... its a picture of a ufo well i think bt i want all you guys to tell me wat u think about it i have a video 2 bt i only want to show the picture first to see wat people think bout it.......so can someone help

reply to post by PHXWATCHER


You can do it in

imageshack.us...

But if it isn´t a pic of the supposedly o´hare ufo, i recomend you to start a new thread about your pic.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


S.O.,

I'm a little confused. The poster asked if any images have been debunked and you showed that picture. Are you saying that image has been debunked? Because below it you seem to indicate that a number of witnesses corroborate the look and location of it....

reply to post by jritzmann


Does anyone know or have seen the alleged footage Dan Akroyd has in his possession? He seems to have gone silent on this, which left me to wonder if the "image" he has is none other than our cell picture. If that's the case, then he really doesn't have much.

reply to post by behindthescenes


What Forell asked was:

Is there any photo of this incident that havent been debunked??

I suppose you didn't notice the part that I have put in bold in the previous quote.

reply to post by ArMaP


yes, thanks for clearing that up. I was looking for a photo that is not faked. I followed the news about this event in the beginning of the 2007, and at that time, a lot of fakes were posted over here and i eventually stopped looking. So, there is one at least.