NEW uneditted VIDEO. So Cal Sept 14. No Meteor!

First this video is not of a meteor or a video of the Sept 14 object.

Its of something terrestrial that someone is running as a hoax. its way to slow to be what was seen by everyone on Sept 14 and his camera shows that when compaired to the other videos of Sept 14.

Two the statements that a football or basketball size meteor will burn up before hitting the ground is not always true.
I hunt meteorites and have found and seen many that were from gravel to football size that made it to the ground with the fusion crust intact.

Depending on the angle a meteor hits the atmosphere even a small meteorite can survive.

All space craft come in at a planned Angel of attack to safely enter and survive.

reply to post by seeker11


Thank you Seeker 11

Almost exactly how the Phoenix Lights went down, this too is trying to be muddled with noise, confusion and debunking etc.

It is VERY likely there were TWO separate incidents that night.

It is VERY likely that what the OP video showed could very well have been one of the TWO incidents even THOUGH....it might resemble a rocket re-entry (where did we get that technology from?)

This has not, in my mind, been totally debunked!

And it's okay if an event has no explanation. People seem to have this NEED to explain everything.
I remember reading when Man explained thunder was an angry God and if you didn't believe that, you were cast off and forgotten about!

I think we need to learn from the little history we have that being arrogant doesn't equal truth! Seems the more radical of thinkers were right!

So..........I think in 500 years...most everything we think we know now..will be laughed at! That seems to be the pattern!

reply to post by Human_Alien


You're welcome.

However, I am sticking with Brien McElhatten's report on this story, as I've decided that for the time being, it is the most credible piece of evidence we have. And while he did see the bright orange glowing object in the sky, he did not describe it at all like the one in the video you've posted.

Note: no more spamming the thread with identical posts (once is enough) and, especially, no more personal attacks.

reply to post by seeker11

The trouble is we don't have McElhatten's report of the light he photographed (do we?). We have Slinger's description of the photographs.

From the first image it looks like a light in the sky, that's it. It could be anything (including Jupiter which is very bright now).
The second image, the long exposure shows camera motion. This can be seen by the blurred clouds (which are not blurred in the first image).

reply to post by Phage


Well he said those photos were the ones that Brien took. No?

Adam Slinger: He saw two different events. Now this is a picture of the first event. He saw this little orange dot streaking across the sky it did not make a sound and he says it hovered above the clouds for about 15 minutes or so before it disappeared into the atmosphere.

Then about 30 minutes later he saw a meteorite.

Brian McElhatten: And you could see pieces falling off, it almost looked like almost like a Roman candle flying horizontally through the sky if you're familiar with that and it lasted almost 4-5 seconds.

And taken from the news article..

Our multimedia journalist Brien McElhatten captured two photos when he saw a glowing orange light before an object started streaking across the sky.

One photo shows how the glowing light looked in Chandler.

The other image was taken as McElhatten kept the shutter open to show the object streaking across the sky.

These photo were shown in the news report with the above transcribed dialogue as well as taken from the article itself.

Photo #1 showing bright orange glowing object
Photo #2 Same object with shutter open to show streaking effect

reply to post by Phage


FYI I have emailed the news station asking for verification. I'll let you all know if I hear anything back.

I just don't see why they wouldn't show the photos that Brien took if they had them to show, like they say in the report. Why put fake photos up?

Originally posted by ANNED
First this video is not of a meteor or a video of the Sept 14 object.

Its of something terrestrial that someone is running as a hoax. its way to slow to be what was seen by everyone on Sept 14 and his camera shows that when compaired to the other videos of Sept 14.

Two the statements that a football or basketball size meteor will burn up before hitting the ground is not always true.
I hunt meteorites and have found and seen many that were from gravel to football size that made it to the ground with the fusion crust intact.

Depending on the angle a meteor hits the atmosphere even a small meteorite can survive.

All space craft come in at a planned Angel of attack to safely enter and survive.

I appreciate and respect your point of view but it might behoove you to read (what another poster Seeker11) posted earlier of actual witness reports.

Many people said this 'thing' was traveling slow.

Many others said it was fast.

So right there, I question whether these folks were seeing/witnessing the SAME 'thing'.

I posted a report of a Texas sighting/video the same night and almost the same time. That doesn't look like anything remotely close to what was reported in California, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.

Could it be we're just looking to dismiss this as a 'meteor' and a hoaxed video rather than figuring out what might've occurred that night? I do believe that may be the case!

So although this looks like a meteor and the OP video looks like it could've been duplicated.............the fact that Elenin is about to align (and said to have been broken up) is enough to keep me pessimistic in this matter. Now through the end of this year!

reply to post by seeker11

Yes. I have no problem with McElhatten having taken the pictures. I don't think they're "fake". Just the description provided by Slinger. It doesn't make sense.

He saw this little orange dot streaking across the sky it did not make a sound and he says it hovered above the clouds for about 15 minutes or so before it disappeared into the atmosphere.

Did it streak before or after it hovered? Did it disappear while streaking or hovering? The quote sounds like typical talking head idiocy.

The other description:

The other image was taken as McElhatten kept the shutter open to show the object streaking across the sky.

The object was streaking across the sky yet the McElhatten had time take the first picture, change the settings on his camera and take the second picture? Well, maybe. But it looks more like simple camera shake to me, as I said. Look at the difference in the clouds. In the first picture they are sharp because there is no camera movement apparent. In the second they are blurred. I think both pictures are of a stationary light.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, I had a problem with Adam's description as well. However, I think it was a mix-up on his part, as the photos both look like they were taken at the same time of the same object. And the meteor did not go by until 30 minutes later, which would have made it much darker by that time.

ETA
Sorry I was in the middle of feeding my son dinner when I quickly scanned your post, and see I failed to address your comment thoroughly.

Ok, so if the object was stationary in the sky for 15 minutes hovering above the clouds, I don't see why Brien wouldn't have had time to take a photo of the object. And couldn't he just have easily left the shutter open on the camera when he saw it streaking across the sky? Or is that too difficult...I don't know what camera he had so obviously cannot say.

My problem with Slinger's little voiceover on the images and the way the article was written, is that he makes it difficult to discern for the reader/listener whether or not the 2nd photo that was streaking was the meteor or the first object that McElhatten saw. Also like you pointed out, he doesn't say whether or not the object streaked first and then hovered or vice versa.

More to the point of the matter, McElhatten saw something out of the ordinary, supposedly snapped some photos of it, and the details are a tiny bit muddled. I still choose to believe that he saw what he saw, and I think that his colleagues failed (perhaps distracted by the excitement of the events) to properly clarify what exactly happened. And I don't believe he saw Jupiter streaking through the sky or hovering above the clouds and decided to take photos of Jupiter just for !@#$s and giggles...just my humble opinion.

reply to post by Phage


You're tearing apart a red dot?
Come on Phage. Give it a rest.

If someone saw something red in the sky but yet can't explain its traversal, please don't hold that against them. Because it may not be of this world or dimension.


Until you see something that does NOT fit your belief (or dogmatic) system, you can't even begin to understand this phenomenon (not saying this was one but it very well, could be)

But I can totally sympathize with regular people trying to come up with regular words to describe something totally irregular!

Even colors or movements are hard to describe when they are not of 'this world' or of our word origin!


I had an incident. And to date I still don't have Human words to describe it.
We are so boxed in with our limited understanding and ideologies that it's almost pathetic!

reply to post by Human_Alien

No.
I'm not "tearing apart" a dot. I'm saying that the description from the news guy makes no sense.
I'm saying that the pictures of the dot look like pictures of a stationary light in the sky. I think there's a good chance it's a picture of Jupiter.

There was a thread today by someone asking about Jupiter because it is so bright.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's nice you saw something you didn't understand.

If you focus in hard on a light source, it will display different kinds of shapes and colors. This is probably a helicopter spotlight someone focused in on from a long distance.

reply to post by Human_Alien


I hear you my friend. The reckless speculation by posters here in regards to Elenin supposedly breaking up is the biggest yes man, shut your mouth, theory I have ever recently heard of. Before, it was that Elenin was leaving our point of view very quickly, but since then it's Elenin is breaking up. Basically put, these dummy androids thought that people were not paying attention. Now all of a sudden it's a god damn miracle that we can't see it anymore? Well, Was it not YOU people who said it was leaving our line of view, or not? Which is it?

Personally, I question alot of what has been reported by the so-called Cosmic debunking garbage message board media, as well as the masses of know-nothing posters here who think that they are scientists. In truth, they are really nothing more than yes men protege who are just recently wiggling themselves out from under the thumbs of their masters who trained them.

It's pathetic really. They are the kind of people who need a criminal to knock on their front door before they realize that they should have been armed in order to protect their own family and themselves. What's unfortunate, is these Men are too weak minded to begin with to protect their own people. These weaklings would have perished long ago without the blood and swet of other stronger Men. I know the truth hurts, but Natural law does at the end of the day.

I respect alot of the views here, but some of these yes men are obviously payed hackjobs. I hope that they are payed well, because they must be in order to be conviced to spread these lies to their fellow humanbeings. How do I know this? Because I know a few personally. They never shut their condescending, know it all mouths.

Watch out for these distorters of truth. Don't take your eyes off of them, not for a second. They are like the jews who betrayed their own people. They surely have a safe haven, or atleat they believe that it's safe. They foolishly believe that for their slimey work, that their families and all the other Powers that be's families who are much more lucky than us average sheople, will be protected at the end of the day. LMAO!!!

I know this much, when the crap hits the fan and when the trucks stop delivering food and water to the grocery stores, the masses of hordes are gonna swallow their former power hungry plastic existence up in a few days. It will be ugly beyond comprehension. I don't wish that on their innocent families either. Nevertheless, it's what will occur. That's the truth. Now debunk that robot yes men. ~SheopleNation

reply to post by Phage


I'll have to agree that my main problem with understanding any of this comes from those two pictures. His description of the event really throws me for a loop. However, if it's Jupiter, it looks like the cloud is behind it. It could be the brightness of the object making it appear that way. I agree that it looks like a stationary object.

Ya its def not a meteor.

Originally posted by ThePawnsTheory
reply to post by Phage

 

I'll have to agree that my main problem with understanding any of this comes from those two pictures. His description of the event really throws me for a loop. However, if it's Jupiter, it looks like the cloud is behind it. It could be the brightness of the object making it appear that way. I agree that it looks like a stationary object.

He did say the object was stationary for about 15 minutes. So I guess the problem Phage has is with the 2nd photo of the alleged streaking and if it was in fact a photo of it streaking or a shaky shot of the still stationary object?

reply to post by seeker11


Is that what he meant by "hovered?" I might have missed him saying "stationary" or it has totally left my thoughts, I've been over this so much everything is running together now. Haha.

As for the streaking and what it was doing during the picture, I have the same question. He didn't get really specific in explaining what was going on at the time of the pictures (hovering, being stationary, streaking out into the atmosphere?), only adding to the confusion. These are the pictures I've been most interested in.