New Pics of O'Hare UFO

Originally posted by jritzmann

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

[image]

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.

I'll restrain from putting anything in your mouth, dude. Anyway, if the photo you speak about are supposed to be genuine, well... shall I be glad to be sure that those little flyesque poohpooh are just real UFO's ?

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?

Many things I can't openly speak of to every ATS fellow and the many silent obs getting through those shiny waters, - sorry about it.

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.

The picture I edited gives many possibles clue of not beeing a forgery : see the "smoke" trail straightly following the object, or the subtle while visible differents lightrays surrounding it. If faked, well faked.

I saw the picture you give as the supposed photobasis : where does it come from ? Is it dated ? - One can believe the person who was able to shot the ship at the right second in the right place had taken others pictures of the very same airport panorama just before or just after the event : so the views without the bloody intrusive saucer.








[edit on 15-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Rigel]

Originally posted by Rigel
I'll restrain from putting anything in your mouth, dude. Anyway, if the photo you speak about are supposed to be genuine, well... shall I be glad to be sure that those little flyesque poohpooh are just real UFO's ?

I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

Originally posted by Rigel
Many things I can't openly speak of to every ATS fellow and the many silent obs getting through those shiny waters, - sorry about it.

I guess that means no, you have no real basis nor knowledge of the photos, nor access to original data...shocker.

Originally posted by Rigel
The picture I edited gives many possibles clue of not beeing a forgery : see the "smoke" trail straightly following the object, or the subtle while visible differents lightrays surrounding it. If faked, well faked.

Maybe to you. Youre going to tell me the plane (which move), luggage carrier trucks (which move alot), debris and even the reflections in the window, are going to be in precisely the EXACT same spot. Thats what youre telling me? Flip the base photo and lay it over your "UFO" one...it's the same photo cropped and flipped to make it look unique. It isnt. Its the same photo. Take a look at the distant peaked tree over the cockpit of the plane....same spot...it goes on and on. Unfortunately if you dont follow that, and still believe this to be a legitimate photo, I cant help you.

Originally posted by Rigel
I saw the picture you give as the supposed photobasis : where does it come from ? Is it dated ? - One can believe the person who was able to shot the ship at the right second in the right place had taken others pictures of the very same airport panorama just before or just after the event : so the views without the bloody intrusive saucer.

See above, and other posts, already answered. Google image found all the fakes, and all baseline photos used for fakes were on the net long before the event.

Lets also add in the object in your chosen shot isn't consistent with witness descriptions either, not even close.

Aside from this, I'm done. It's all pretty cut and dry. I mean if you want to defend something interesting try the LaSalle shots from Chicago which *might* show the same object from O'Hare, much closer and in better weather. It's a compelling series of...I believe it was 4 shots.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jritzmann]

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?

Who says they are aliens? Do you know that they are aliens? How do you know they are not all from the same time? Perhaps the shape is the same because they are not "space travelers" but time travelers. Their point of origination being the same time and transiting through our time in similar vehicles.

-Euclid

I posted my thougts on the OHARE sighting back when it was fresh. I had similar concerns to the debunking efforts on this site. I live in Chicago and work in Elk Grove Village within sight of the airport. Something happened that day for sure. People did see something and there were not only delays with planes kept in a holding pattern but also more millitary personal than usual. If you did see something as described it might of been very hard to get a photo of it. Just now I used my phone camera to see what it would pick up in the sky and unless its clearly defined its tough. Im sure it was photographed and if whats out there really is fakes and I definitely don't know that to be true but if they are then maybe whatever was taken simply did not come out. There is huge motivation to declare some or all of the photos associated with this sighting as fakes. I said it before and I will say it again I think given the motivation to keep a lid on genuine sightings that someone could easily manipulate real photos to make them look fake. Debunking to me is a waste of time. The reason being that you must keep an eye on the big picture to see trends and when there are major sightings like Phoenix and Ohare one senses the reality of what took place and all the debunkers in the world will not be able to sway the truth. Something extrodinairy happened over Phoenix and Ohare. I for one believe it was extraterrestrial in nature.

A SINCLAIR

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
Debunking to me is a waste of time.

I mean no disrespect, but you would rather waste time and be deceived by a hoax then get at the true data? Thats really quite sad to see someone say that, if thats your outlook.

The first O'Hare shot is still unexplained. The fact that someone went in and diddled with a legitimate photo to me is still the greatest and most interesting part of the whole photo angle of the case. Then, we start to get google image search pictures being altered from all across the net, and people want to focus on that and claim the pics are real and have been planted all over the web (from earlier dates no less) with the UO digitally removed to discredit it.

It goes to show what an uphill battle those who want to separate hoax from unknowns really have. It's really very disturbing. Yes, something very significant happened, and it's very disheartening to see how people want to muck it up with fakes and conjecture. On the other hand it's interesting to see how cases get muddled with garbage, and this is how it starts.

YES I believe debunking IS a waste of time. That's not to say that everything is real either. What I am saying is that outside of the obvious HOAX it is more damaging ultimately to claim fake without being 100% positive that it is indeed a fake. I mean the subject and pursuit of the truth is fragile to begin with and I think that is something we can all agree on. Debunking is definitely not going to stop on this site and it is what it is which is just my opinion. To be fair there should always be some vetting I just get annoyed at people who come up with definite answers. People with an open mind can agree on Phoenix and Ohare as significant events and thats what really matters. I wish we had more of a positive approach to finding supporting evidence.

AS

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
What I am saying is that outside of the obvious HOAX it is more damaging ultimately to claim fake without being 100% positive that it is indeed a fake.

Well sure. In that case you're not talking about debunking, you're talking about pure ignorance.

Of course by the same token, calling something real without any serious study and the knowledge to do it ranks up there with ignorance too.

Door swings both ways.

reply to post by Rigel


First one look like a plane is mist, the rest look real. Great find. More cameras = more proof.

Don't forget that we also have these pictures:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Chicago area, and according to Springer, some O'Hare witnesses confirmed this object is what they saw at the airport.

Looks like B2 Spirit bomber

Originally posted by jritzmann

See above, and other posts, already answered. Google image found all the fakes, and all baseline photos used for fakes were on the net long before the event.

Lets also add in the object in your chosen shot isn't consistent with witness descriptions either, not even close.

Aside from this, I'm done. It's all pretty cut and dry. I mean if you want to defend something interesting try the LaSalle shots from Chicago which *might* show the same object from O'Hare, much closer and in better weather. It's a compelling series of...I believe it was 4 shots.

I agree. Fake photos. Next case.


Edit : About the Chicago incident, the ship might back up the verbal testimonies from O'Hare, but so where are the pix ? - The fact is still questionable that nobody in an airport by daytime might not have had the opportunity to take shots of such an happening event.






[edit on 17-11-2007 by Rigel]

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Rigel]