AST Moving Cylinder UFO on Live Newscast - OKLAHOMA

a reply to: humanoidlord

Looking closely at the OP vid I clearly see, in real time, the object go dark for a split second after passing behind something near the 'red light'....then reappear briefly before going behind a hill or treeline. I don't even have the software to analyze each frame...but you can clearly see it dim out and re-eluminate before passing behind a hill or treeline. So, to me the object must at least be as far away as that treeline.

Edit: Therefore I propose the 'object', which could be a meteor or a real UFO is located past the 'red light' as it goes over the visible horizon

a reply to: Bullshark012

nope
ARMAP made an timelapse wich shows otherwise

I think its an insect flying in a straight trajectory from behind the camera towards the ground. The light from the camera is reflecting off its body, and its small size makes it appear to be moving at great speed.

a reply to: humanoidlord

Where is the ARMAP correlation? Who are they? Artic mapping? Dude anybody with good observation skills can clearly see the probable meteor passing over the horizon AFTER it dims out (passes behind something) , reemerges, then exits over the tree covered horizon as it dims out the final time. It's prob A very small meteor at that time.. Hence no explosion. I've seen many real UFO's over the last 37 years....I'm 60 now...It can't be a plane landing at that speed ...it would have crashed. And I've never seen a real UFO come in at that angle so low and fast. My conclusion: It's a remnant of a once larger meteor ...prob golf ball or tennis size or smaller that hit behind the hill behind and right of the red light . No UFO, plane or bug. Really doubt it could be Any spaceship or conventional aircraft....just Not a bird, bug or bat....Just my educated eyes 2 cents......

Edit: ARMAP is from NASA...so you are trusting our gov't (NASA) for your source? LOL

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
the casino is best i tell 13 stories tall, looking at pictures of it. you can see with the naked eye 13 miles from 130 up.i say a camera is just as good as the naked eye in that aspect

Cameras are worse than our eyes. From my tests with a Samsung WB5000, only at x10 zoom does the camera see things the size I see them, but even then the quality of the fine details is much better in our vision.

also if you watch the video at 1/4 speed at the 7 sec mark you can see it appears to land behind the furthest what you called road sign and came back past the closest and then turned right.

I did more than that, I saved the individual frames and stacked them all in one image, that I posted on page 6. Here it is again, so you don't have the trouble of clicking a link.

ETA: if you watch really close in full screen at 1/4 speed,you can see the thing moving in flight and sometimes it appears to be banking.to the right and in order to land behind the furthest "sign" and come back toward the casino it would have to have turned some where in flight.

Could you point on my image above where it "banks"? Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: intrptr
Edit: Oh yah, I reviewed your post too, you found the buildings in camera view, I saw that too on Google map because of your work...

And don't you think the camera is pointing to the opposite direction, pointing to Oklahoma City instead of Shawnee?

originally posted by: Bullshark012
Where is the ARMAP correlation? Who are they? Artic mapping? Dude anybody with good observation skills can clearly see the probable meteor passing over the horizon AFTER it dims out (passes behind something) , reemerges, then exits over the tree covered horizon as it dims out the final time.

Look at the image in the post I made after yours.

Edit: ARMAP is from NASA...so you are trusting our gov't (NASA) for your source? LOL

No, I'm not from NASA, I'm from Lisbon.

a reply to: ArMaP

yea i've seen your stack frame picture in about four posts. doesn't really show anything.

one other thing i would like to point out, if a meteor landed where your implying. behind the road signs. don't you think that someone in that line of traffic would have said something about a meteor landing and moving, bouncing, skidding, sliding down beside the road. i mean the signs are only like 15 20 feet off the edge and surly if a meteor landing there and traveled that far at least the 6 vehicles right there, not counting the one moving towards that point, someone would have seen it and reported it. it would be a uncommon sight and draw peoples attention, where as a aircraft is a everyday thing and doesn't warrant that much attention.

a reply to: ArMaP

ARMAP is what the prior poster said ...so I looked it up. Not ArMaP (you) sorry he threw me off track..ARMAP is some sort of NASA software for artic mapping...sorry for that. Google it if u care to.....But....Not sure how you created that trajectory ... All I can say is it follows yours, but it blacks out somewhere Behind the red light, reappears then ends behind the trees (or hill) about halfway from the red light to where your trajectory ends. The final portion of your trajectory does not fit with what I can clearly see. I can see it go behind the hill right before where your trajectory has it hitting...sorry...my eyes don't lie.....either way, your end point or mine, it's not a plane . My end point proves it's not a bug or bird. Like I said, my have been a small meteor. Doesn't anyone else here see it go dark breifly close to the red light, then pop out and go down behind a hill or treeline? Wow

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
yea i've seen your stack frame picture in about four posts. doesn't really show anything.

Well, it shows exactly what the video shows.

one other thing i would like to point out, if a meteor landed where your implying. behind the road signs. don't you think that someone in that line of traffic would have said something about a meteor landing and moving, bouncing, skidding, sliding down beside the road. i mean the signs are only like 15 20 feet off the edge and surly if a meteor landing there and traveled that far at least the 6 vehicles right there, not counting the one moving towards that point, someone would have seen it and reported it.

First of all, you are letting your imagination go too far, with that "moving, bouncing, skidding, sliding" meteorite. Second, the centre of the area I pointed as possible landing site of a possible meteorite is 400 metres from the edge of the road, not 20 feet (6 metres).

it would be a uncommon sight and draw peoples attention, where as a aircraft is a everyday thing and doesn't warrant that much attention.

I agree that a shooting star that big would be an uncommon sight, but so it would be an aeroplane landing there, as there's no airfield in that piece of land.

PS: I have to look at the original video posted on YouTube by KOCO, as it's slightly bigger than the video from the OP and has a better quality.

a reply to: ArMaP

Well....I must eat some crow after taking your suggestion to look at the KOCO video on UTube...I clearly see from that better vid, it does, in fact, follow your framed trajectory. But my eyes weren't lying to me..looking at the OP vid...just bad resolution I guess. So it 'lands' where you show it.. No plane, really nothing 'landing' . let me review the Utube vid more....starting to not see how it could be a meteor now....??? Puzzling....

originally posted by: Bullshark012
ARMAP is what the prior poster said ...so I looked it up. Not ArMaP (you) sorry he threw me off track..ARMAP is some sort of NASA software for artic mapping...sorry for that. Google it if u care to.....

I know, and people are always messing up my name's capitalization.

But....Not sure how you created that trajectory ...

I downloaded the video, opened it in Avidemux, saved the individual frames and added them all as individual layers on Gimp, with the "Lighten only" mode, so the brighter pixels from the object appear over the dark background.

All I can say is it follows yours, but it blacks out somewhere Behind the red light, reappears then ends behind the trees (or hill) about halfway from the red light to where your trajectory ends.

That "blacking out" happens through the whole video, that's why my image has those empty spaces for every four frames. I didn't remove them, the object "jumps" every four frames.

The final portion of your trajectory does not fit with what I can clearly see. I can see it go behind the hill right before where your trajectory has it hitting...sorry...my eyes don't lie.....either way, your end point or mine, it's not a plane .

I suppose your eyes don't lie but your interpretation of what you see is wrong. I didn't change a thing on the images, I took them from the video, so what we see on my image is exactly what we see on the video. I guess that's way they say eyewitnesses are not that trustworthy.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: intrptr
Edit: Oh yah, I reviewed your post too, you found the buildings in camera view, I saw that too on Google map because of your work...

And don't you think the camera is pointing to the opposite direction, pointing to Oklahoma City instead of Shawnee?

Wen I look close at the google map view of the terrain, I can see the buildings you pointed out , I see the path of approach aircraft (as suggested by hounddog) 'behind' the camera perspective.

Sorry I'm not doing more work here, busy on too many threads at the moment.

a reply to: intrptr

OK, I understand it now, I forgot about that you were mentioning that it was a reflection.

If it was a reflection it could be almost anywhere, just not in the camera's field of vision.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
here are some screen shots taken from the 6 sec frames. these very well could be tail and wing tip lights that you can clearly see if played at 1/4 speed and full screen. you can tell that they are not connected to the main body of light.

if you blow them up before they become pixelated, you can see them better.

I think those are only video artefacts, as the image appears to be an even lower quality than the I used in my first image.

But I decided to look more closely at the video (the better version, posted on page 7 by markymint, the version posted by KOCO on YouTube), and I thought I could see navigation lights in three consecutive frames (frames 15, 16 and 17 of the 76 frames sequence that shows the object).

(resized to 400%)




Then I noticed that the position of that possible navigation light changes from the second of those frames to the third, so I think it's also a compression artefact.

But that made me think more about the possibility of being an aeroplane and one thing that has made think it's not a plane landing: the white light. All the times I see an aeroplane landing, what I see the most is the strong landing lights, so those would be visible on any night video, but if we are looking at a plane from behind, landing, then the landing lights are not pointing to the camera, they are pointing away from the camera and wouldn't be much visible.

Another thing that has made me scratch my head is the fact that the object appears to have a stronger light when it's farther away from the camera, and that doesn't make sense for an aeroplane moving away from the camera.

But it would make sense if we are looking at a reversed video of an aeroplane moving in the opposite direction, a plane tacking off. In that case we would see the landing lights pointing to the camera, and, as the plane moves slightly to the left of the camera we start to get the light from the landings lights more sideways, so it loses intensity the closer it gets to the camera.

If the above is true then it means one thing: someone superimposed a video (moving backwards) of an aeroplane taking off into that night scene video, and that points to, like intrptr said on this post, a hoax from the TV station.

It's all speculation, but that's all we can do.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: intrptr

OK, I understand it now, I forgot about that you were mentioning that it was a reflection.

If it was a reflection it could be almost anywhere, just not in the camera's field of vision.

Including any glass windows, camera housings, lens glass or CCD chips too.

Sorry I wasn't explaining better.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There are no airfields on that area.

Well, whatever it is did land. Do you have a map of the area, or a satellite view, to share?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Well, I grew up on an island and have seen my share of seagulls too, and while I concede that there is nothing preventing a gull from flying in a straight line like that, it is certainly not a characteristic of how seagulls normally fly.
At least not in my experience.

So, why are we fixated on seagulls?

Would it not be more reasonable, given the trajectory and the possibility of this being a light source in stead of a reflection, that this is some kind of drone?

Or even a meteorite?

Why does it have to be a seagull?

BT

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You can see it on Google Maps, here.

And this is that area with some features marked.

(click for full size)

The (1) points to Shawnee airport, the (2) to the area I think is the end of the object's trajectory and the yellow lines more or less the field of view of the camera.

originally posted by: six67seven

Age is but a number.

Really, really old people ALWAYS say this