UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 27

Re: O'Hare Image Surfaces? - Tarbell

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:54:52 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:35:31 -0500
Subject: Re: O'Hare Image Surfaces? - Tarbell

>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:15:23 -0800
>Subject: Re: O'Hare Image Surfaces?

>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:25:34 -0700
>>Subject: Re: O'Hare Image Surfaces?

>>>A poor image purporting to be that of the object seen over O'Hare
>>>International Aiport, in November of last year, is posted here:


>>>It seems to have been taken from an elevated position and, if
>>>genuine, belies the FAA's protestations that the Tower/Crews saw

>>Without any provenance or attribution to a specific witness,
>>this hardly merits a second glance. Genuine or not, it would be
>>trivial to fabricate in Photoshop. I'm surprised that more of
>>these haven't surfaced already.

>>It's an unfortunate aspect of the digital age that such images
>>have little value as evidence (confessing that I stopped lugging
>>around my film camera a long time ago).

>Mike, Et Al,

>Obviously the picture would gain rank with support from a
>witness etc.; however, methinks things can be culled from the
>photograph; for example, is there enough background scenery to
>deduce whether the pic was taken at O'Hare? (Notice the "dark
>uprights in the bottom of the pic) Was the object in the pic a
>product of "image software," or is it in fact an authentic
>part of the image?

>If in fact, the picture was taken at O'hare, and the background
>identified, then it should be possible to get a rough idea where
>the photographer was standing, and more importantly the rough
>location of the object in respect to the airport geography.

>If all this matches up, i.e., location, genuine image, and the
>object's location being over "concourse "C," of course it
>wouldn't be a "smoking gun"; however the "needle in the hoax
>meter" would give a more favorable reading.....

Hi Frank,

Although this image has already fallen into disrepute, we can
assume that more clever ones will follow, so it is still worth
commenting on the topic in general.

I agree that there is an enormous amount of information in this
image that can be analyzed. The issue is whether this is time
well spent.

Hoaxers have a clear advantage here. The resources required to
convincingly discredit hoaxed digital images are generally far
greater than those required to generate them. Given the time
passed since the O'Hare event, anonymous digital images such as
this one should be ignored outright.


[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com