The "Chandelier" UFO

[jarlrmai]

This is the most interesting video.

A few questions,

1. Is the area of contrast many are calling a parachute a physical object or simply lens flare?

2. If this is a far IR camera why is such a far off object overwhelming the sensor and producing bloom? Are there examples of this besides the sun or reflection of the sun?

3. Is the trail smoke or is it "persistence of vision"?

4. Is the object moving or is the camera moving?

5. If the object is moving would you expect the claimed diffraction pattern to remain as static as it is?

Bottom line I see how AARO has still not resolved this video even though they have had it in their hands for presumably many years. It is odd, and while at first glance you could come to the conclusion that it is just a bright heat source off in the distance producing a lens pattern I think there is more to this than that quick evaluation.

Why don't you set about answering some of your questions then?

 

[Arthur 33]

To answer my first question. There is no parachute, it's clearly lens flare. Embarrassing you guys came to that conclusion. If you observe the video closely you will notice the distance between the claimed parachute and the central object changes. They don't make rubber bands for parachutes.

 

[Arthur 33]

To answer my third question, it's clearly persistence of vision and not a smoke trail. The winds at that height would have blown the trail if it was smoke. But it maintains perfect stability through the video.

 

[Arthur 33]

Answering the question of is the object moving is more difficult. Now that we know the "smoke trail" is not smoke but a image artifact that makes it possible the object is static. It could be the sun, and the perceived movement is just the camera.

So my best guess is Sun.

 

[john.phil]

To answer my first question. There is no parachute, it's clearly lens flare

Did you have a chance to watch the footage in post #73?

 

[Arthur 33]

Yes I watched the footage of the parachute flare. I guess I may have been harsh. I see why someone could incorrectly come to the conclusion that it was a parachute. It does look very similar. But you are just seeing patterns like animals in the clouds. If it were a parachute it would be visible throughout the video, not inconsistently. And as the object moves past the central axis it disappears. Classic lens flare.

 

[JMartJr]

They don't make rubber bands for parachutes.

I'm not ready to take a position on whether or not it is a parachute, but I don't think this point is compelling. In turbulence or in other conditions where the parachute and flare-or-whatever are moving about relative to one another(the chute is oscillating, or the weight is, or both) they are likely to sometimes be closer to the same line of sight from the camera but other times further away. So will appear closer together at some times than at others.