Bright light shooting across sky seen on newcast

During a tulsa oklahoma weather report a bright light can be seen streaking across the sky in the background

News on 6

looks like a meteor falling ..and in fact that is what they are claiming it " most likely" is.......


However

Several people said they thought it was just a shooting star, while others said they heard "buzzing" along with the light

made almost like a fizzling sound as it went over."

"It was pretty unreal and it lasted too long to be a shooting star."

Misty Lyons-Moffitt from Stroud commented, "I saw it. That was no shooting star I've ever seen. It looked like something blew up and then fell from the sky. I've seen lots of shooting stars it was not anything I've ever seen."

source


What do you guys think?

reply to post by okiecowboy


pfft, AMATEUR astronomer, MOST LIKELY a meteorite. damn, media has worse contacts than ATS.

How about you get a PROFESSIONAL astronomer, and figure out WHAT it is. before you report the news.

It does look like a meteorite to me, but lots of things look like other things. who am I to say.


is it possible that there was a chemical in the meteorite like phosphorus or something (im no chemist lol) that would have ignited in a way to create the brilliant light as well as the "fizzle" sound?

I think it's safe to assume that this was indeed a meteor. The fellow in charge of the camera appears to be telling the truth or at least stating what he truly thinks it is because as he is talking, he keeps looking to his right which IS a sign of telling the truth/trying to recall what exactly he saw and what happened. I have mentioned this in another thread about how you can tell if somebody is lying or telling the truth. It's all in Psychology.

Thanks for posting this, that was quite a big meteor there! Thank God it didn't hit us!

I've seen shooting stars myself and not only do they zip across the sky very quickly, they don't last longer than 1-2 seconds.

Whatever that is looked like it exploded and then slowly dissipated. It was moving too slowly to be a meteorite...

Also notice how the astronomer says "things don't fall off of airplanes like that, and then I realized I got a really good one" and the anchorman immediately "Good what, a meteor?", "basically this is just a meteor, and they're very common" etc.

reply to post by Skate


not lying, and telling the truth are 2 different things. just because your not lying dosent mean your telling the truth, you could be stating what you strongly believe.

very interesting although earlier today i was looking at sky, i saw a flash and then an unmarked black helicopter, but with a white front to it just appeared, i was pretty sure it wasnt there before, but i gave it benefit of doubt maybe it was behind a cloud

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Also notice how the astronomer says "things don't fall off of airplanes like that, and then I realized I got a really good one" and the anchorman immediately "Good what, a meteor?", "basically this is just a meteor, and they're very common" etc.

I found that dialog a little strange as well, and how can that astronomer say with 100% certainty that its a meteorite when he himself says that -> its the first one hes ever captured on film.

Why is it that even good ol faithful ATSers even believe what people tell them?? I feel strongly that meteors do not change shape? I am no professional though, looks like a UFO to me but still that is my opinion, not someone else's that I just agree with..

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

Also notice how the astronomer says "things don't fall off of airplanes like that, and then I realized I got a really good one" and the anchorman immediately "Good what, a meteor?", "basically this is just a meteor, and they're very common" etc.

yeah I noticed that as well...he said as well that he almost deleted the pic because he thought it was a airplane at first????

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn

pfft, AMATEUR astronomer, MOST LIKELY a meteorite. damn, media has worse contacts than ATS.

How about you get a PROFESSIONAL astronomer, and figure out WHAT it is. before you report the news.

It does look like a meteorite to me, but lots of things look like other things. who am I to say.

Actually, in the field of meteors, much of the work is done by amateurs, and there are some extremely knowledgeable amateurs. Edward Majden for example. I've seen professional astronomers (who don't specialize in meteors) get things wrong when it comes to meteors on occasion, so even a "professional" is no guarantee.

I've been studying the subject as well as observing/photographing meteors for over a decade now, and the footage I saw of the event certainly looks like a meteor (not a meteorite, which is only the name of a rock that makes it to the ground. A meteor is the luminous phenomena we see in the sky, when a meteoroid/asteroid enters the atmosphere).

I still have not seen the "weather report footage"... anyone got a link for that?

Originally posted by OUNjahhryn
is it possible that there was a chemical in the meteorite like phosphorus or something (im no chemist lol) that would have ignited in a way to create the brilliant light as well as the "fizzle" sound?

edit on 25-3-2011 by OUNjahhryn because: (no reason given)

The "fizzle sound" is a well documented phenomena that occurs at the same time when a meteor or fireball is visible in the sky, although it is quite rare.

Another form of sound frequently reported with bright fireballs is “electrophonic” sound, which occurs coincidentally with the visible fireball. The reported sounds range from hissing static, to sizzling, to popping sounds. Often, the witness of such sounds is located near some metal object when the fireball occurs. Additionally, those with a large amount of hair seem to have a better chance of hearing these sounds. Electrophonic sounds have never been validated scientifically, and their origin is unknown. Currently, the most popular theory is the potential emission of VLF radio waves by the fireball, although this has yet to be verified.

American Meteor Society Fireball FAQs

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
I've seen shooting stars myself and not only do they zip across the sky very quickly, they don't last longer than 1-2 seconds.

That is true. Most meteors don't last longer than 1 second, but then most meteors are the size of a grain of sand. There are much fewer big meteoroids around, but even so around 1000 fireball class (brighter than the planet Venus/-4 magnitude) meteors occur around the world every day it's been estimated. A meteor the size of a walnut can create a fairly impressive fireball that can last for a few seconds.

Yet larger meteoroids, and small asteroids, can create fireballs that can last for many tens of seconds under the right conditions (if they are slow enough, not too fast or coming in at too steep an angle, and made of not too fragile material).

There have been some very long lasting fireballs caught on film, the longest (over 70 seconds as I recall) was the
Peekskill fireball/meteorite.
www.youtube.com...


The Great (Jakson) Lakes fireball of 1972 was another very long lasting fireball:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
Whatever that is looked like it exploded and then slowly dissipated.

It's not uncommon that a large meteoroid will explode when it hits the lower/denser layers of atmosphere. There are a few examples of it in this compilation of footage (which also includes lots of Peekskill footage):

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
It was moving too slowly to be a meteorite...

Not true. How fast a meteor appears to move depends on your perspective.

Even though meteors enter the atmosphere at speeds of between 11 km/s and 72 km/s, there are times when a meteor will appear to be absolutely still. I wrote this reply on the subject to someone just the other night:

Technically, a meteor is never still. A meteor is the streak of light we see, when a meteoroid enters our atmosphere. It's only luminous because its moving very fast through our atmosphere, yet a meteor can appear to be still under the right circumstances.

If you stood in the middle of the rails, and looked along a very long and straight stretch of railway tracks, and a train far off in the distance was coming towards you - would appear to move from your perspective?

The key here is perspective - just as a train coming towards you wont seem to move, only get slowly bigger and bigger (till it eventually ran you over if you did not move), a meteor coming directly towards you in the atmosphere, will simply look like a stationary star that suddenly appears and grows in brightness before disappearing as fast as it appeared. I've seen this for myself, and it is a well documented phenomenon, known as a "point meteor" that most people only see during periods of strong meteor activity:

More about it here (scroll down a few paragraphs)

You can only see the "true speed" of a meteor if it is moving at a right angle to you. If it is traveling towards you at all, it will appear to travel more slowly than it actually is, and as I mentioned above, even not show and side to side movement at all.

As for the comment quoted in the OP - "I have seen lots of shooting stars - therefore this can't be a shooting star", that is an erroneous statement made by someone who may have seen some shooting stars, but has not seen enough to make a truly qualified statement. The fact is that all meteors are different, and most people haven't seen lots of fireballs.

Some people will see a few meteors, and think that they have seen it all. I've spent 100's of hours observing meteors, seen over 10, 000 (including many fireballs), and I am confident that I have not seen "everything".

It happens whenever there is a large fireball that is seen by lots of people. Not all, but a fair percentage of the general public has difficulty identifying a bright fireball. There is a thread discussing this here - North Carolina Residents call 911 in fear of meteorite!!!.

Strange as it may seem, people have reported confirmed natural meteors that left meteorites on the ground, as looking like all kinds of things; planes crashing to the ground in flames, missiles, fireworks, as well as just plain UFOs (ie they could not identify it).

There are many similar reports like this, like this one posted by Arbitrageur, a classic case where many pilots misidentified a satellite reentry:

Now, what can we make of these impressive testimonials? The satellite reentry was occurring right before their eyes, and these pilots made many, many perceptual and interpretative errors, including:

1. In FSR, the anonymous BA pilot (obviously D'Alton) recalls: "One of the lights . .. was brighter than the others, and appeared bigger, almost disklike." It was just as light, a piece of burning debris, and the "disk" interpretation was a mental pattern conjured up from previous experience, not from this actual apparition. Note that later, Good alters this comment to have the pilot unequivocally call it "a silver disc".

2. The main light "was followed closely by another three that seemed to be in a V formation," according to the pilot. Referring to a "formation" is an assumption of intelligent control. The pieces of flaming debris were scattered randomly in a group and stayed approximately in the same relative positions, but the pilots misinterpreted this to mean they were flying in formation.

3. FSR reports the pilot saying "I watched the objects intently as they moved across my field of view, right to left," but the objects' actual motion was left to right, as reported elsewhere correctly. Either the FSR writer, or the pilot, jumbled this key piece of information.

4. The pilot did not believe the apparition was a satellite re-entry because "I have seen a re-entry before and this was different." These re-entries are particularly spectacular because of the size of the object, and the pilot was speaking from an inadequate experience base here.

5. The RAF military pilots in the Tornadoes concluded that "the lights 'formated on the Tornadoes', which is the kind of thing a fighter pilot is trained to detect and avoid, not dispassionately contemplate. The lights, of course, never changed course, but the pilots who were surprised by them feared the worst.

6. The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights that he "broke away" and took "violent evasive action". This move would be prudent in an unknown situation, but there's no need to believe that the perception of dead-on approach was really accurate. Since the flaming debris was tens of miles high, no real "collision course" ever existed, outside the mind of the pilot.

7. D'Alton in the National Enquirer is quoted as claiming " it made a sharp turn while flying at high speeds -- an impossible maneuver that would rip any man-made aircraft to bits. " Again, the actual object never made such a turn, and the pilot's over-interpretation of what the object MUST be experiencing was based on mistaken judgments of actual distance and motion.

8. After two minutes of flying straight, said D'Alton, ". . .it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight." But we know that the actual observed object never made such a maneuver, but D'Alton remembered it clearly when trying to explain in his own mind how it disappeared so fast.

9. The newspaper account, quoted in Good's book, has D'Alton claiming that "ground radar couldn't pick it up, so it must have been travelling at phenomenal speed." Actually, the speed would have had nothing to do with radar failing to pick it up, but the actual distance -- which D'Alton misjudged, leading to subsequent erroneous interpretations -- did.

10. The Tornado pilots described the flaming debris as " two large round objects, each with five blue lights and several other white lights around the rim." Since they were used to seeing other structured vehicles with lights mounted on them, when they spotted this unusual apparition, that's the way they misperceived and remembered it.

11. "In Belgium, dozens reported a triangular object with three lights, flying slowly and soundlessly to the south-west," but these were separate fireball fragments at a great distance, which witnesses assumed were lights on some larger structure. Their slow angular rate was misinterpreted to be a genuine slow speed because their true distance was grossly underestimated.

12. "A British pilot . . . reported four objects flying in formation over the Ardennes hills in south Belgium." The pilot may have been over southern Belgium, but the objects he saw didn't have to be, they were hundreds of miles away. And despite his instinctive (and wrong) assumption the lights were "flying in formation", they were randomly-space fireball fragments.

13. Note that Good writes that "Jean-Jacques Velasco,. . . said an investigation would be launched," but Good saw the results of that investigation before his book went to press, and he neglected to tell his readers that Velasco proved the lights were from the satellite re-entry.

Such selective omissions make many such stories appear far stronger than they really are.

14. One Air France pilot told a radio interviewer: '. . . It couldn't have been a satellite (re-entry) because it was there for three or four minutes', but such reasoning is groundless since near-horizontal re-entriers can be seen for many minutes, especially from airplanes at high altitude. The pilot didn't know this, and rejected that explanation erroneously.

15. "In Italy, six airline pilots reported 'a mysterious and intense white light' south-east of Turin. Pilots also reported five white smoke trails nearby." They may have been near Turin when they saw the lights and assumed incorrectly they were 'nearby', but the lights were far, far away.

Note how many erroneous assumptions the pilots (intelligent and well educated people) made that led them to believe a confirmed satellite reentry was something much stranger. That includes one pilot who had previously seen a satellite reentry so assumed that he could identify one.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
The "fizzle sound" is a well documented phenomena that occurs at the same time when a meteor or fireball is visible in the sky, although it is quite rare.

Oh yeah... like this one that 'fizzled' on FOX news... reported by 'professional' news casters



Actually it was space debris in this case

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
I feel strongly that meteors do not change shape?

They most certainly do change shape, physically (since they are being ablated/eroded away by the atmosphere), and in terms of what you see in a photograph/on film, which is related to the brightness...

Have a look at the compilation of meteor footage I posted in my post above. Some of the meteors are so bright that they almost completely over power the cameras sensor. Flares caused when debris breaks off the meteoroid and fluctuations in brightness only make it look like there is a change in size of the object.

I posted this on another thread

a few days back:

Here's a photo of a fireball that dropped meteorites in the Czech Republic.

Source: APOD

Look how the apparent size increases as the meteor becomes brighter.

The meteor in the photo above appears to get brighter because it's penetrating deeper into the atmosphere, where the air is more dense. More air molecules slamming into the meteor means more light is produced, as long as the object is large enough to sustain its momentum. If you notice how wide it is towards the end of it's path, that is caused by the meteoroid exploding, although it's not clear from the photograph exactly where the explosion begins. Right at the end of the path, you can see a hint that there were surviving fragments - it looks like a "nipple".

reply to post by zorgon


Yeah, man-made objects can also produce electrophonic sounds as well it seems.

That footage you posted is actually footage of a Russian SL-4 rocket body (used to launch a French space telescope) reentering the atmosphere early in 2007. More info here

In this case the fireball (or fireballs!) are slow since objects that were in orbit around earth can only have a maximum velocity of 11 km/s (otherwise they would leave orbit and head out to space), where as natural meteors are much faster than this usually (11-72 km/s).

One simple answer. HAARP

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

One simple answer. HAARP

care to explain that??

or was that all you have?