More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

Nearly an hour and no one has hacked my account... hmm... I wonder why... hahahaha

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Blatantly faked,

Just look at the clouds,

Between picture 2 and 3 there appears to be "significant" cloud movement.

Overlay picture 2 and 3, if you have the ability to make one image 'transparent' using software, it's clear to see the clouds have more movement than the object between the two pictures.

My point being simply, the object must have have been moving at a snails pace or the clouds were moving at hurricaine speed.

I don't see this movement at all. I checked it several times, and the clouds I can identify (vs. just a white haze) stay in exactly the same place relative to the trees. Since the view swings quite a bit to the right between 2 and 3 there aren't many clear clouds to use for comparison. Perhaps if you could post you own analysis it would be clearer.

Between 1 and 2, the result is very clear - no movement of the clouds.

Hi,Any further updates on this thread? Hope to see more replies one of these days,especially feedbacks from the thread starter. Seems like this thread has been inactive for a while.


Regards,
kudosmi
disquedurmultimedia.org...

Yes i remember this one, 2007 the thread started, phew ive been on here too long!

It was really intriguing at the time but like a lot of the others, it sort of fizzled out..

With all the recent "hubbub" in the Aliens and UFOs forum regarding UFO photo authenticity, I thought it a good idea to resurrect an old thread that highlights one of the more interesting sightings that came our way.





These photos found their way to us as a result of our extended coverage of the O'Hare Airport UFO sightings, and Springer's appearance on the Coast To Coast AM radio program. The sighting took place south of Chicago, soon after the O'Hare incident.

They've sparked quite a lot of discussion, and relatively little calls of "hoax" from those examining the photos in detail.


I thought it might be nice to inject an unsolved "blast from the past" into the current mix here.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

My initial reaction would be to question why someone was taking photos of an empty field and some trees??

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Read the opening post. Apparently the photos were taken because of the existence of the object.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

The photos don't seem to be manipulated. But as I read through the thread it's apparent there is a lack of information from the photographer. I think the reason this thread died is because of this lack of information.

They remain a curiosity.

I'm always suspicious of a series of photos where the UFO in question just "conveniently" happens to be in full view of the person taking the photo, even when it drops below treetops.

Otherwise, as has been mentioned before, the thing must have been coasting along pretty leisurely for the cloud formations to have changed so drastically during the course of its flight.

And finally, even if it was "real," what good is it without additional evidence? Without more evidence, even the best most authentic photos are nothing more than curiosities.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Springer
I look at this as simply more data, the more the merrier, until Jeff Ritzmann and David Biedny have had a chance to tear these down to the pixel I am standing by on these, but wow they are impressive in appearence.

Biedny never posted anything about the photos and Ritzmann didn't post his analysis in the thread, he posted it somewhere else on ATS and the link is dead. What happened to his analysis board and is there anyway to read his conclusions?

Originally posted by jritzmann
I'm putting a write up on these photos on my ATS Analysis board in 2 minutes that includes a 4th shot that no one has yet seen.
My ATS Analysis Board

Have a look, the 4th shot is very interesting.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

My initial reaction would be to question why someone was taking photos of an empty field and some trees??

If you'll notice the object in question is nearly centered in all three photos. The average person snapping quick shots doesn't typically follow the rule of thirds.

Here are all three photos lined up into one shot with a "trajectory" line through them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ec4b6ac53d1.jpg[/atsimg]

I had to rotate the center photo to have the scenery and fencing line up. IMHO this means that if the object had been pasted in it would have been "off" when I rotated the scenery to fit. As it is its following a perfect line and the object is at the same angle once I rotated the image as the other two.

The clouds seem to line up fairly well if you account for the movement between shots.

I can't debunk it at this resolution and size.

reply to post by SeenMyShare

I'm only seeing two photos lined-up there, not all three??

The object seems to get smaller with each photograph, so I assume it's moving away from the camera.

It can't be that far away (well, it could but that would make it enormous and it doesn't give the impression of massive size). I would suggest it's a little further away than the back trees. One could guess it's velocity, within reason.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147

I'm still a noob when it comes to adding photos. Right click it and open in a new window. You'll see the whole thing.

Mods... is there a place to learn how to add wide photos?

reply to post by FOXMULDER147

AFAIK the only way to judge the velocity is to have the time stamps on the images so you know how long between shots.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

AFAIK the only way to judge the velocity is to have the time stamps on the images so you know how long between shots.

EXIF data.

I'm bumping up this image for reference.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Yes, exif data, but these photos have none.

Bumping up the 4th photo:

Been a while since i saw this thread...

Just a few comments in general, everyone seemed so wrapped up in the photos themselves the background seemed to become lost in the noise..


Lets deal with anonymity first...


You live in pretty close proximity to a Nuclear Plant and you start sending pics of UFOs all over the world willy nilly. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist in the security services to work out who you are withing 20 odd people, inside an hour. They already know the person's identity anyway, as they reported it to homeland security. Ergo having done so, and you want to live a quiet life, you might well think it worthwhile to *forget the pictures* and have someone, a little more au fait with technology delete them for you.

Youngsters, however, have slightly less fear of the authorities and tend to be a tad naive about how east it is to be tracked down even when being *anonymous*. So they think , hey this is interesting no-one will know, i will pass it on. I don;t see anything that untoward in that sort of story.

As for it looking like a hoax.... you mean something like the USAF dropping flares over Phoenix, unscheduled flares at that, the same night a huge UFO is reported over the length of AZ? Nahhh, they'd never try a deliberate hoax to cast aspersions on a genuine sighting would they?