More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

Got these in today from an "anonymous source" that at least traces back to the Chicago area. The story behind these is a woman shot them back in August, 2006 out by the La Salle Nuclear Power Plant!

She was concerned and reported them to Homeland Security who told her "someone is playing a prank on you" and blew her off. She asked her son to delete the images from her phone because she wants to forget about them.

Her son (who saved them to his computer before deleting them from her phone) heard about the O'Hare incident and that ATS was looking for images on Coast to Coast with George Noory www.coasttocoastam.com and sent them in.

Jeff Ritzmann has had a very "precursory" review of them and said they are not "Obvious Hoaxes" so I am putting them "OUT THERE" for all to see.

We would LOVE to get more images of "this thing over Chicago". What the HECK is going on in Chicago?

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.







Springer...


[edit on 2-6-2007 by Springer]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Springer]

Govt Official: Looks like a lenticular cloud
Citizen: Why is it moving?
Govt Official: No it is not.
Citizen: Fine, it's not, where's my money??

Can't wait to read a professional 'take' on these photos. Very interesting. The depth looks right, distance haze, lighting...nothing jumps out to cause any immediate doubt.

There is no doubt in my mind that all of these people really did see that metallic object in the Chicago skies. But now the main questions are "What exactly is it?" and "Who is piloting it?" I think it is pretty obvious now that there really was a UFO there, now we just need to find out what the hell it was!

cool pics. amazing how many keep popping up now, even if they are old.

Springer, you might want to edit your post to who deleted them AFTER he saved them as opposed to "who saved them after deleting them from her phone"

Originally posted by MrPenny
Can't wait to read a professional 'take' on these photos. Very interesting. The depth looks right, distance haze, lighting...nothing jumps out to cause any immediate doubt.

I'm no photographic expert and I do believe the images are real and unaltered, but there's one problem with the image that's a function of the camera itself. Looking at the tree tops, there is a large degree of chromatic abberation visible. For those that don't know, CA is caused by achromatic lenses that cannot bring all wavelengths of the visible spectrum of light to the same focus. Usually, the blue/purple end of the spectrum is what ends up unfocused and is most apparent in areas of high contrast (for example, the full moon will usually exhibit neon blue halo in cheap binoculars).

Why is this a problem? Look at the bottom of the object in question. Its the same hue as the CA being exhibited in the top of the treeline. There's probably a significant loss of detail there, and what looks like the smooth bottom of a UFO may simply be an artifact of unfocused blue wavelengths of light.

I'm not saying that there's nothing of interest here. It definitely seems to exhibit the classic flying disc shape. I'm simply pointing out a potential argument that could be made against the image.

I'd also like to hear what photographic experts had to say about these . But nothing i can see from first glance screams hoax to me anyway .

I wonder what made him say they looked like " Obvious hoaxes" ??

Just a general observation - at least the fuzz/blur is consistent throughout all 3 photos and said blur is consistent with crapola cell phone cameras. The object does seem to follow a legit flight path through the 3 photos.

Any more 411 about the sighting Springer? Environmental stuff, like speed, sound, weather etc. etc. Doesnt look like it was moving very fast, IMO. Cell phones aren't exactly good multishot devices.

I looked for EXIF data and none was reported to me through APS 7. Possible EXIF has been removed or tamped with? Or maybe because its now embedded in HTML?

Looking forward to Mr. Jeffs analysis as well....

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Lost_Mind]

Hmm, wish these were out there before the other O'hare pics. Something about these are weird and I can't put my finger on it yet.

It's hard for me to consider anything "anonymous" seriously. We can't ask any questions, have zero to go on, and something in me says that there is a kid somewhere on his dad's computer watching this thread laughing as people respond.

Doh, he got me!

There is some more info about the sighting but it's pretty mundane stuff about the "feeling she had" very similar to what others have said about the O'Hare deal now that I think about it though... Hrmmm

She said she felt like "static electricity" in the air, tingling sensation... She also said that when she saw the thing heading for the Nuclear Reactors she got scared. Can't say as I blame her for that one.

I want to make it very clear that I have NOT spoken with her this is all through an email from her "son" the images were attached to.

I TRULY HOPE we can focus on the images here and AVOID the petty back and forth of "somebody is laughing at us", etc...

It really goes without saying the possibility of that exists, so we don't really need to waste time or space "saying it".

The ONLY 2 reasons these are "up on ATS" is the striking resemblance to the O'Hare descriptions and the fact JRitzmann didn't blow them out of the water as hoaxes immediately.

Springer...

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Springer]

they look interesting.

gonna start running them now in a few apps.

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Just a general observation - at least the fuzz/blur is consistent throughout all 3 photos and said blur is consistent with crapola cell phone cameras. The object does seem to follow a legit flight path through the 3 photos.

Any more 411 about the sighting Springer? Environmental stuff, like speed, sound, weather etc. etc. Doesnt look like it was moving very fast, IMO. Cell phones aren't exactly good multishot devices.

I looked for EXIF data and none was reported to me through APS 7. Possible EXIF has been removed or tamped with? Or maybe because its now embedded in HTML?

Looking forward to Mr. Jeffs analysis as well....

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Lost_Mind]

I've looked, and I don't get EXIF data from my crapola cell phone camera (Moto RAZR). I think this is the rule rather than the exception. Perhaps the tags are there, but whether I push the photo using Bluetooth or e-mail it to myself - no data.


[edit on 6-2-2007 by disownedsky]

Very interesting.
I'm no expert but they look real.
Scary that it seemed to be interested in the nuclear facility.

I think these are pretty interesting images, in spite of their poor quality. I wish there were a few more of the scene for context. There are very few shadows in the scene (just underneath the trees), which appears to indicate that the time was near midday. The lighting on the object looks about right for that.

The object is about 26 by 11 pixles, which should allow for identification of the basic shape. For example, this helicopter is only 32 pixels across, is of modest quality (consumer videocam), and is clearly identifiable.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by disownedsky]

Sorry Springer, I meant "laughing WITH us" ;-)

Is there a chance to continue conversation with the son? I don't want to assume you've already tried so I thought I'd ask, I'm sure others will ask that too, so...

I'd love to know what type phone was used, or be able to get the original photo files that he grabbed off the phone, of course. Did they say how long the object was present for? Most camera phones take a boat load of time in between photos. You hit take photo, it boots up the camera, then you try to hold it crazy still so you don't get blur, then it starts actually taking the picture. Then, after it's taken the photo, you have to store it, then repeat the process. Of coarse this process varies with the phone model. I noticed the viewing angle changes between the three shots. If she says it was only there for a few seconds, I'd say there was no way she could have got three good shots with a camera phone.

Nice pics.

Why are UFO's so interested in our nuclear sites and weapons?..

i'm sorry but i'm disappointed with these latest ufo pictures. not saying it's fake or real, just uninspiring.

Springer,

I live in Michigan I have heard talk over the years about people seeing UFO's near the reactor, also Fermi as it called is right next to lake Erie. I wonder if anyone has gotten footage from the Fermi plant?

I couldn't resist taking the very first 'anonymous' photo posted of the La Salle UFO and zoom, crop and enhance it a bit to see if any contours might be present. I hesitated about really placing an enormous amount of filtering to it as that can manipulate the image beyond it's "actual" look and feel. So I stuck to just contrast and brightness and then a negative filter (again slightly altered by brightness/contrast). The only other bit of enhancement may have been executed when the zoom filter added it's own auto focus/sharpening, which when I compared to the original seem negligible, but I believe in being as open and honest as possible in all areas. Other peoples applications and/or filters may achieve different results from their work.

I agree 100% with the above post and notion concerning chromatic aberrations being visible especially when it comes to camera-phones. The pixelization caused by the smaller ccd's and compression are used in cellphones primarily geared towards keeping the size of an image small enough to transmit an image, and not for downloading and doing analysis of an image. And lets not forget that there won't be any "Carl Zeiss" optics or lenses being used in a camera-phone either, but more than likely some cheap Japanese plastic (no offense to the Japanese).

Hence regardless of my changing the photos pixels to 1000 ppi, the photo is heavily degraded from the onset of it's conception/capture. But it does offer an analyzer a unique advantage when one does receive a photo off of a camera-phone, and that is that it makes it harder to do a cut-and-paste and/or creating a hoaxed image. This does not mean that many do not still try, but there are tell-tale signs that will rear it's 'ugly-head' when a proper analysis is done.

I do not offer any analysis on these photos as I'm backlogged on too many other projects, but continue to be extremely interested in the whole Chicago incident and so I keep checking back for updates and look forward to reading what your other resident analyzers come up with.

Zoomed and slightly enhanced



Same but inverted with slight enhancement

Even though the objects in these photos aren't that impressive, I am surprised that they look so similar to the other objects in the other photos. Everyone knows you hardly ever see two UFOs that look alike.

This could be interesting.