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

People... PLEASE!

I agree there are issues with the first image posted by 000000, and it may be less-than-credible. However, some of it stands up under close scrutiny and at least one eyewitness has confirmed it's appearance.

PLEASE LABLE YOUR REPRODUCTION ATTEMPTS AS SUCH!
LABEL THE ACTUAL IMAGE AS: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF CONCEPT

How would we feel if the original image ends up supporting an actual sighting, but one of these unlabeled attempts to reproduce a hoax process is picked up by national media, then quickly debunked... thereby diminishing the event?


[edit on 29-1-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

update:
(beware: not the original, just reproduced the fake...trying to proof my point)
img251.imageshack.us...


(that's the best i can do with the programs i have on my computer...i'm not using photoshop.)

[edit on 29-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
It could be possible, but i really doubt it. When comparing the pictures i can clearly see now what the hoaxer did.The similarities are to big. This one is the same as the 000000 picture. Sadfully just another "google imagesearch" hoax.

In earlier posts i was 100% convinced that the 000000 picture is the real deal. But now that i managed to reproduce it with little effort, i doubt that this one is real. And i'm sorry that i was aggresively defending the picture as the real deal (some pages earlier).

Someone is playing with us. Sort of disinfo tactic. ... i guess

Hey, don't apologize. I think we all want to believe that this may be something big...and I still think that it is, regardless of the pictures. I'm hoping the ATS guys can come up with more witnesses, pics, vids, etc that can corroborate each other and finally have some kind of tangible proof that they can run with.

I just wanted to make the point of just because a picture *CAN* be faked, doesn't mean that the genuine picture is. That's all.

Keep up the great work, guys!

Hydden

I think the ohare event itself was real. But i doubt the picture is real.

Hopefully we get some better/real pictures and perhabs some video footage.

My 2 cents.

My GF told me about this forum an thread.
I finally read almost everything.
I think I saw the thing in the photo but it wuz in NY state in Dec.
I took pictures with my phone but I can't see if its in the shots.
How do I get them off my phone and upload them here?

Originally posted by boombabyboom
My GF told me about this forum an thread.
I finally read almost everything.
I think I saw the thing in the photo but it wuz in NY state in Dec.
I took pictures with my phone but I can't see if its in the shots.
How do I get them off my phone and upload them here?

You need a datacable for your cellphone. Then go and get the software from the cellphone company (samsung, nokia...whatever you have)

install the software, reboot, and then you can connect your cell via the datacable to your computer and pull them onto your harddisk.

Originally posted by boombabyboom
My GF told me about this forum an thread.
I finally read almost everything.
I think I saw the thing in the photo but it wuz in NY state in Dec.
I took pictures with my phone but I can't see if its in the shots.
How do I get them off my phone and upload them here?

OR.....you can email/txt the picture to your email address at home.
It may cost upwards of a dollar, depending on your service, but that's an easy way to get it to your hard drive.

From there you can upload it places like image shack, etc. If you're not comfortable with that, email it to one of the ATS guys and they can post it for you.

Hydden

This O'Hare incident is getting traction. Forget for a moment the picture disputes. Even the Tribune writer who broke the story says he is receiving piles of emails from people (including universities) looking to investigate the event.

Our first priority is to encourage witnesses to come forward and report what they saw and most especially to provide access to whatever photo evidence they may have. Some time ago on this thread I suggested just that and MUFON has made some baby steps in that direction with their PSA. The problem as I see it is that witnesses may well be coming forward already --- but to whom?

My fear is that the desire to break the biggest story ever is going to create (if it hasn't already) the biggest turf war in research history. Once people DO come forward will the receiving organization make that evidence publicly available? Instead of JUST asking witnesses to come forward should we be asking them to come forward to as many reporting organizations as they can?

Eyewitness, I was just wondering, and maybe the question has already been asked, but how thick was the cloud cover? The photo in question appears to show pretty thick clouds so it's hard to picture a visible hole being punched in them. In all of the pics of hole punch clouds I've ever seen, the cloud cover is thin...



antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I'm not sure you can judge cloud height from the ground in those conditions. As a pilot I receive 'cloud height' reports from other pilots climbing through the cloud deck. I can't find any archived cloud height data on the internet. However, the weather system in place at the time was a stratus deck which is usually realtively thin

Eyewitness - how close this picture from CNN interview with another witness to what you saw?



P.S. Just curious - how witness can know how object appeared from the top?


[edit on 29-1-2007 by sergejsh]

Originally posted by jtma508
I'm not sure you can judge cloud height from the ground in those conditions.

I wasn't so much questioning the height, more the 'thickness'. As a pilot you can probably attest that it would be hard to punch a hole in thick clouds, and the cell phone photo appears to show very thick rainy clouds, but it could just be the poor quality I guess.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by Tiloke
Look at the sketch, its tilted and not level, like the alleged cellphone picture.

I don't tnink we should directly compare sketch and alleged "O'Hare UFO" photo n1. Did witness in interview said, that UFO was tilted and not level? I didn't hear that. Position of UFO on the sketch can be just how artist wanted to show this object.

Also, if you look at the interview, artist, who drawing that UFO, doing that also "upside down". Why artist would draw image like that?

But from another point image looks more normal, if we put it upside down.
.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by sergejsh]

And I again want to remind about "UFO" on photo n1 position.

It is not over Gate C17. Or it is?

.

Also, that witness saying:

"More like an oval, dark gray oval".

And about sketch he said:

"Tuchman: That's what it looks like?
'Joe': Very much so, yes."

Important point: UFO on that sketch much much more contured, than that blurry "UFO" on photo n1. Big difference, I would say.

And, I am looking an the "O'Hare photo" n1 and just don't see there "dark-grey oval" object.

I am sure we should use data from different eyewitnesses, not just from one. For example, eyewitness purduejake also saying:

"... dark metallic oval shaped disk"

also:

"... and the employees stated the object was rotating and looked like a metallic frisbee"

[edit on 29-1-2007 by sergejsh]

Originally posted by Tiloke
Her drawing is being shown upside down. I found it on 2 other sites shown right side up.

Then she must draw everything upside down because she's drawing this one the same way.

www.ufoevidence.org...




[edit on 1/29/2007 by mythatsabigprobe]

[edit on 1/29/2007 by mythatsabigprobe]

[edit on 1/29/2007 by mythatsabigprobe]

For me personally THIS form of object is more close to description and to sketch, than what we have on photo n1:

THIS IS JUST EXAMPLE (source):


And look - this photo taken in sunny day and object still dark-gray.

Does it appears as "... dark metallic oval shaped disk" ?

"... More like an oval, dark gray oval".

"... dark metallic oval shaped disk"


What Eyewitness's opinion about this photo would be ?


For comparison, check that "UFO" on photo n1 (cropped):



Sketch upside down:

.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by sergejsh]

[edit on 29-1-2007 by sergejsh]

27jd... We know the celing was about 1900ft agl at that time. It was a stratus layer and as such most likely no thicker than about 2,000ft. So, the clouds started at 1900ft and the tops were something below 3900ft. Stratus decks are pretty stable with very little convective action so nothing to lift the moisture to give the clouds much height.

Thanks for the info.

I guess to me, in the photo, the clouds look like very low and thick rain clouds, almost like a fog even. But like I said it may have been due to the poor quality of the photo itself...