AST Moving Cylinder UFO on Live Newscast - OKLAHOMA

i took a look at the video....it's only 12 feet max from the camera the first half second it's in view......one can perceive the extremely rapid apparent speed drop due to the lens catching it fisheye therefore and thusly very close ....and small....so it disappears at a distance of about 100 feet....200 feet max

cant figure the illumination.....must be a big light up by the camera....twould explain it well

a reply to: GBP/JPY

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is much closer to the camera?

I don't see any evidence supporting this.

Also, the straight trajectory at that speed does not look like a bug or a bird to me. Right at the end of the clip, as the picture fades, you can actually see it changing its trajectory sligtly upward.

I think this is very puzzling.

ETA: The change in trajectory happens at about 8 seconds, right before it goes out.

a reply to: humanoidlord

Any object has a tail on a video if it moves more than one pixel during the time the camera captures a frame.

a reply to: six67seven

Apparently there never was a conclusive explanation although they sought the opinion of the OKC Astronomy Club who said it is a meteorite. Take that for what its worth.

OH

FFS.


ITS a bird illuminated by the lights.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: EartOccupant
Notice how it is actually descending in the city, so rule out falling star and alikes too.

Why? That's exactly the behaviour (if we can call it that) of a falling star: fast, in a straight line

But not below the horizon. If a bolide enters the atmosphere it either burns up, or cools off and falls like a stone would. By the time it gets that close to the ground it is no longer emitting light.

a reply to: EartOccupant

How can the angle still be so flat after traveling all the way trough our atmosphere ( drag ) and gravity influence?

Exactly.

a reply to: pirhanna

It doesnt look like an actual object to me. Not sure what it is, but the path goes down into the landscape and is still on top of everything, like its an overlay.

Or a reflection in glass.

After joining all the frames with the object in it it looks like it did not had a perfectly straight trajectory, as it was making a slight down curve, as seen below.



While making that image I noticed two things: the more the object moves the brighter it looks and the camera appears to miss a frame every four frames, which is a little strange but may be the result of the conversion from the original camera format to the YouTube format.

And there are two things I find strange for a meteor: the colour and how constant the light was.

originally posted by: intrptr
But not below the horizon. If a bolide enters the atmosphere it either burns up, or cools off and falls like a stone would. By the time it gets that close to the ground it is no longer emitting light.

Is it impossible for a meteor to keep on burning until it hits the ground? Why?

Apparently the camera appears to be behind glass, like inside a building. The smudging of the scene overall and the misty appearance of lights in the foreground make this apparent.

If the runway is behind the camera perspective, this could be a reflection of an aircraft landing lights descending on the runway.

Where is the runway in relation to the camera view?

originally posted by: seattlerat
I'm pretty sure it is a skyfish- they travel up to 1000 mph.

SOURCE

Flying rods (or simply 'rods' or 'skyfish') are flying linear anomalies caught (usually) on video, having not been seen at the time of filming. They generally have appendages along their sides. Their overall appearance is of a long straight stick with horizontal branches. Sometimes these 'branches' may have curved 'flaps' (called 'membranes' by some people) trailing behind. They occur all over the world and have even been observed being pursued by swallows!*** So what are they? Some people believe they are cryptozoological and represent a previously undiscovered form of life, maybe even of alien origin. Others think they are paranormal, perhaps related to orbs. However, many people think they are actually insects (or bugs) caught in the act of flying.

I would be more apt to go with this. I’ve seen one UFO blatantly and fairly close really, and it didn’t look anything like this. I’m not talking crap, I’m just going off of my experience.

Ummmm has anone stopped to think maybe it’s a bug flying through the light?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: intrptr
But not below the horizon. If a bolide enters the atmosphere it either burns up, or cools off and falls like a stone would. By the time it gets that close to the ground it is no longer emitting light.

Is it impossible for a meteor to keep on burning until it hits the ground? Why?

Quick reference guide to trajectory of meteors in atmosphere reveals the terminal phase of smaller objects:



The apparent flat descending trajectory 'white light' is more like a landing aircraft, depending on the position of the camera relative to the runway.

a reply to: intrptr

Shouldn't a reflection be more blurred on the glass? I've never seen a reflection that is a point of light that moves across a surface, withouth at least some glare, blurring or scattering happening.

BT

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: intrptr

Shouldn't a reflection be more blurred on the glass? I've never seen a reflection that is a point of light that moves across a surface, withouth at least some glare, blurring or scattering happening.

BT

Pic redacted, thanks Mods...

Depends on how flat a pane of glass is... headlights of vehicles are visible moving as well.

I have demonstrated why it cannot be a meteor, waiting for someone to do the work on relation of camera to airport runway.

a reply to: intrptr

That image is not taken from the video in the OP.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: intrptr

That image is not taken from the video in the OP.

Oh, thanks.

What about the runway, its relation to the perspective of the camera? You did some work further up showing the overhead view of buildings in the foreground...

I like where your eyes end up at the end of its trajectory. Hello mama!

Seriously though what's that anchors name please? If it's a true-FO then the "why" is far more important than the "what". Not that anyone here seems inclined to look into the "why" and only the "what". But still, it could, if a true-FO, for all we know be telling us, or more importantly, her, to get herself health checked. You can connect the dots on that one.

As for the "what", it reminds me of this...



I'd say it's similar to another video but I have never found it since so can't repost it, sadly. Cos it was a good one of something like this (well, 3 of these) passing over an airport in night vision.

originally posted by: intrptr
Where is the runway in relation to the camera view?

If my analysis of the camera direction is correct, the closest airfield is a small one, 8 km to the right of the scene in the video, there's another one (just one runway) 10 km behind the camera and there's another one runway airfield 20 km away, slightly to the left (I suppose it would be in the field of view). Oklahoma's airport is 20 km away from the camera, in the direction the camera is pointing.

There's also Tinker AFB, 30 km away from the camera slightly to the right and (supposedly) also in the camera's field of view.

a reply to: intrptr

OK, not impossible but highly unlikely, as it would probably need to be part of a bigger meteor.