The "Chandelier" UFO

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAG_JIqPcOQ

[The above is a summary video of the this thread]

Chandelier posted by Jeremy.jpg

Looks like a diffraction artifact - i.e. glare around a bright light.


The following is the subtitles of the discussion between Jeremy Corbell and an unidentified person claiming to be from the Intelligence Community. Emphasis mine.

00:00:43,320 Kind of shocked that a buddy of mine is gonna talk with me, but you know, it's an individual that has direct insight into what I call the Chandelier UAP.
00:00:54,579 (eerie music)
00:00:58,350 It was classified UFO UAP by our intelligence agencies.
00:01:03,198 (ominous music)
00:01:11,598 (phone ringing)
00:01:14,108 - [Intelligence Officer] Hello?
00:01:15,000 - Hey man, how's it going?
00:01:16,267 - [Intelligence Officer] Good, man.
00:01:16,267 How are you?
00:01:17,160 - I'm good.
00:01:18,259 (ominous music)
00:01:19,560 So you are aware that I have to receive something multiple times if it appears to be a military based assessment, that something is a UFO, right?
00:01:28,758 - [Intelligence Officer] Correct.
00:01:29,591 (ominous music)
00:01:34,310 - So I've got a still image of something that I have learned to be called the Chandelier UAP.
00:01:40,080 Does that ring a bell to you?
00:01:41,310 (ominous music)
00:01:44,190 - [Intelligence Officer] It does.
00:01:45,023 (ominous music)
00:01:52,488 (birds chirping)
00:01:55,233 - This still image, it was filmed, I can tell by the coordinates, it was filmed over the Persian Gulf.
00:01:59,947 - [Intelligence Officer] It's called the Chandelier, because if you lay down at your dining room table and look up at your chandelier, it looks just like that.
00:02:06,060 It's very thin, and the object does not circulate on its own.
00:02:11,550 It is going in very small circles.
00:02:14,596 (ominous music)
00:02:16,500 - So what was the most impressive thing to you about this video, which the world has not seen yet?
00:02:20,977 - [Intelligence Officer] The fact that it just, it makes no sense.
00:02:24,690 It is just the most bizarre structure with no purpose and the speed that has everyone across the intelligence community just asking questions and trying to figure out what this thing is.
00:02:38,040 There is no wings.
00:02:39,720 There is seemingly no place for anyone to sit on.
00:02:43,380 It's just a bizarre shape that has a strange propulsion and disappeared immediately.
00:02:49,740 - So you have obviously had had great access to things that the public hasn't seen yet, and it is your determination that this UFO thing, there's something major to it and the public should know?
00:03:02,671 - [Intelligence Officer] Absolutely.
00:03:02,671 Absolutely, 100%.
00:03:05,453 (ominous music)
00:03:08,730 I can tell you that, across the US intelligence community, there are people like me and David who have seen things and are asking questions and trying to figure out what we're seeing, because there are no answers.
00:03:21,237 And when the higher ups see these, they just find an excuse.
00:03:25,290 - Yeah, I've heard, - That's what's frustrating.
00:03:27,150 - Are you convinced that UAP are from some technologically advanced group that we don't directly know of?
00:03:35,216 (ominous music)
00:03:37,774 - [Intelligence Officer] That's a loaded question.
00:03:39,600 There are so many possibilities.
00:03:42,420 It's not us now.
00:03:42,420 It's not adversaries.
00:03:45,990 Is it us from some other place or dimension?
00:03:49,770 Or there are so many possibilities that probably sound crazy, but I think about it a lot, and there are a lot of people in the intelligence community that don't make, you know, the large decisions, but are interested in this.
00:04:01,320 Where they come from, whether it's in the sea, you know, someplace else, it's, that's a mystery.
00:04:08,940 And one other thing I'd like to say, Jeremy, is there are many, many videos that can't be released of surveillance of other countries that we are doing with UAP all the time, especially around aircraft and around ships.
00:04:26,310 - Like Russian ships and two bad boys flying by.
00:04:29,250 Not that I've seen it with my own eyes, but just saying.
00:04:32,899 - [Intelligence Officer] Yes, I've seen quite a bit of that, and that will never be released, I'm sure.
00:04:36,702 - Yeah.
00:04:36,702 - But as far as our collection in the skies, I have no problem with that.
00:04:41,520 It's not new.
00:04:41,520 - Wow, man.
00:04:42,570 Imagine what we're capturing with our sensors now.
00:04:45,450 Well, thanks, man.
00:04:46,290 I appreciate, you know, for all this time, just kind of giving me your insights.
00:04:51,630 You know, there's a lot of people that I talk with that I kind of cross-reference, you know, if something is legitimate or real, just even knowing that what I received is an actual, you know, mystery to our intelligence agencies.
00:05:04,200 That's a good heads up.
00:05:04,200 So I appreciate that.
00:05:06,007 - [Intelligence Officer] It is a mystery.
00:05:07,650 - It is a mystery.
00:05:07,650 - It's mystery across the IC.
00:05:09,450 Yes, it's a mystery.
00:05:11,133 - I know, dude.
00:05:11,133 There's some good stuff out there.
00:05:14,730 I mean, here's the deal.
00:05:15,563 I'm just glad that there's people in the IC interested in this, and hopefully, if something is of that importance, people keep coming forward and giving that information to journalists or whatever, because I think it's, you know, it's key.
00:05:26,310 I don't know if the normal process is gonna move this forward.
00:05:29,220 I think that, unfortunately, we have to rely on whistleblowers and maybe even leaks to some degree, but whistleblowers in particular I think is going to move this ball forward.
00:05:37,920 So anyway, man, thanks for your insights as always.
00:05:41,280 Good to talk with you and yeah, man, you just take care.
00:05:45,129 - [Intelligence Officer] Thank you, and please keep doing your work.
00:05:46,795 - All right, thanks, brother.
00:05:47,670 - Bye.
00:05:48,503 (tense music)
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Anybody have thoughts on the faint trail it seems to be leaving, (red dots in picture below, there also seems to be an even fainter one crossing the loop above the 'BRG".)?

It's a point of discussion out in the wild Internets...Capture.JPG

Edit: Like a dummy, forgot to include the referenced picture...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Anybody have thoughts on the faint trail it seems to be leaving, (red dots in picture below, there also seems to be an even fainter one crossing the loop above the 'BRG".)?
I suspect that's the smoke trails of a missile, maybe fired from the aircraft with the camera, hence perspective compression makes it look like wilder ride than reality.
 
View attachment 65105

Looks like a diffraction artifact - i.e. glare around a bright light.
The spikes are classic diffraction artefacts, but that single circle is weird. Airy disks would ring, and would be around a larger central peak. Just a solo ring is strange.

Edit: Unless I'm just "joining the dots" between peaks on spikes, which do occur in diffraction-limited imaging. The image has been through multiple satages of adding noise to the signal.
 
This shape certainly seem like a diffraction spike from an energy outburst, for example an explosion. But all the explosions I saw so far (on infrared) show straight lines instead of the 4 arrowheads we have here. Which makes me believe this might be a controlled reaction, similar to thrusters on an engine. If this is an energy outburst on par with an explosion and the diffraction spike shows us a peculiar shape then the logical conclusion might be a controlled source of energy/propulsion or whatever scifi idea comes to mind. I believe explosions hardly gives us a similar result but a rocketlaunch watched from the underside could. This is all conjecture obviously and I couldn't even find a similar image.
 
I wonder if it might be the targeting laser reflecting off something.
Something about the sharpness (I'm searching for the right word there. maybe "crispness?") of the Chandelier image makes me think of lasers. Possibly a reflection, possibly a laser targeting the camera platform vehicle that took the picture?
 
Something about the sharpness (I'm searching for the right word there. maybe "crispness?") of the Chandelier image makes me think of lasers. Possibly a reflection, possibly a laser targeting the camera platform vehicle that took the picture?

Yup. Lasers are notorious for having a mathematical precision to their side-effects, the crispness you refer to. As soon as you're single-frequency and coherent, all of the smooshing that happens with normal light disappears. Unless you also have access to very high end optics, that is.

Perfectly engineered optics can show similar mathematically-precise and predictable (mathematically modellable) patterns from/around near point sources, Hubble (after refit) and JWST are "diffraction limited", which means that the optics are as perfect as they can possibly be, it's only the unavoidable wavelike behaviour of light itself (obliged by the laws of quantum-electrodynamics) that is perturbing ("diffracting") the light and causing the spikes. However, all frequencies bend in the same direction, only by different amounts, so the spikes still keep their crispness as pointy things. Were these to take photos of single-colour objects, you would see beading along the spikes as there would be brighter parts and dimmer parts.
 
2024-01-11_07-36-57.jpg

Any ideas why the "arrows" are 45° off in the two images? Diffraction spikes form at right angles to the struts, so I'd naively expect the long spikes to be on the diagonal, as the struts are. But then what's causing the arrows in-between? Clearly they can happen, as we see them in the MQ-9 visible light footage.

Could it be that the different wavelengths changes which spikes are long and which are short "arrow"-like?
 
2024-01-11_07-36-57.jpg

Any ideas why the "arrows" are 45° off in the two images? Diffraction spikes form at right angles to the struts, so I'd naively expect the long spikes to be on the diagonal, as the struts are. But then what's causing the arrows in-between? Clearly they can happen, as we see them in the MQ-9 visible light footage.

Could it be that the different wavelengths changes which spikes are long and which are short "arrow"-like?

Spitballing - 4 come from the support vanes, but the 4 offset at 45 degrees come from the edges of the aperture.
And from that, change (narrow?) the aperture, and their influence increases?

Which raises the question why you'd align the edges of the aperture at 45 degrees to the support vanes, they're independent of each other - was it considered better to get the diffraction spikes as out of line with each other as possible, rather than having reinforcing ones?

Edit: JWST chose to line theirs up as much as possible:

img: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...kes.svg/508px-JWST_diffraction_spikes.svg.png
via: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike
 
Would be nice if Jeremy shows a bit more than 1 frame. But yeah, it looks like spider vane diffraction to me. I wonder how many more optical artifacts Jeremy will claim to be alien. It is getting ridiculous.
 
IM gonna come out and say we need better naming for these things.

That is a snowflake, or star shaped ufo not a chandelier

And the "jellyfish UAP" looks more like a forest dryad starwars probe droid from D&D than a jellyfish.

I think it matters. People conflating "jellyfish sightings" with this or the other one, is totally wrong IMO

Even using chandelier is like saying "jellyfish but with glass" so I think it's like, people narratively subconsciously trying to connect these UAP sightings to each other.
 
Phil, the screenshot we tried to use as an example is not made by a drone. It is made by a regular camera from the ground. Can you at least admit this obvious fact? I think this is the main issue here.
It looks a bit lower quality than the ground footage, it looks to be taken from the air. It has diffraction spikes that match the physical design of the camera in the drone. It is sequenced after a ground shot of the drone flying into the sun and it shows the sun as a glare. Cameras like those used in the other footage are unlikely to have 4 blade apertures.

It's most probably taken by the drone in my opinion and then edited in to the sequence.
 
1704962835168.png
29°09'41.4"N 49°26'56.7"E = 29.161500, 49.449083
1704962940311.png

Seems to be the same camera type as on this MQ-1B
1704964286222.png
1704964260902.png

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSctEE3krMU

According to wikipedia it used the AN/AAS-52 Multi-Spectral Targeting System. Data sheet here: https://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/200907/20090718001213.pdf

1704964486359.png



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugrRRxirC0


Nice diffraction spike seen in the video at 0m46s.

1704964751904.png

...well spotted! That's that sorted I think. Amazing how exotic and strange looking some cameras internal lenses and mechanisms can make glares look.
 
Like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), they have eight diffraction points because of a secondary mirror. Or at least, that's what happens with JWST. The diffraction at the center is longer because it's combining two, as suggested earlier on the forum. However, I haven't a clue what's happening with this image. Way out of my league, but interesting.
 
Anybody have thoughts on the faint trail it seems to be leaving, (red dots in picture below, there also seems to be an even fainter one crossing the loop above the 'BRG".)?
Ha! If I didn't know better, and I probably don't, it looks like a stray missile that didn't fire properly. The faint trail being the heat trail of that missfire. It looks like it exploded and left diffraction spikes. Eight of them, like the James Webb Space telescopes and other telescopes. It will be entertaining to see you all figure this one out. Fun puzzle, but I might add, if you do figure it out, it might prevent some from worshipping camera anomalies as if they were gods. Godspeed to you.
 
I've carried out an assessment on the diffraction pattern for the MTS-B, and it closely resembles the "Chandelier" shape. See attached pdf for details on the methodology.

1705296950067.png1705297037839.png
 

Attachments

  • Chandelier_diffraction.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 55
I've carried out an assessment on the diffraction pattern for the MTS-B, and it closely resembles the "Chandelier" shape. See attached pdf for details on the methodology.

Wow - above and beyond! Given the level of noise in the image, I'd say all you need to do is pass the squint test, which it does *perfectly*, however, it's nice to know what you're squinting at. Good find on the crenulation on the vanes, that was something I overlooked in my more slapdash analysis earlier.
 
I've carried out an assessment on the diffraction pattern for the MTS-B, and it closely resembles the "Chandelier" shape. See attached pdf for details on the methodology.
Hi great analysis. You've obviously put some time into that. Could you add a few lines to the post just summarising your method & conclusion for those who don't have time to read through the full pdf?
 
I'm anticipating Jeremy Corbell's rebuttal that whatever this thing was, it was observed by multiple people/sensors, and this is only an available image of it. Therefore the observations and testimony should stand above whatever this indeterminate image shows. Possibly, he would say "Whatever the object was, it caused the diffraction pattern captured by the camera".

As a newbie to diffraction patterns, I'm not reading that they are caused spontaneously - examples above show explosions and reflected glare off a surface as causing them - is that right? If so, I see above that Mick's hypothesised the white wavy line is a smoke trail from a missile - is there a way to confirm or discount this, or entertain the idea that the diffraction pattern was caused by something else - prosaic, or tic-tac like?
 
I'm anticipating Jeremy Corbell's rebuttal that whatever this thing was, it was observed by multiple people/sensors, and this is only an available image of it. Therefore the observations and testimony should stand above whatever this indeterminate image shows. Possibly, he would say "Whatever the object was, it caused the diffraction pattern captured by the camera".

As a newbie to diffraction patterns, I'm not reading that they are caused spontaneously - examples above show explosions and reflected glare off a surface as causing them - is that right? If so, I see above that Mick's hypothesised the white wavy line is a smoke trail from a missile - is there a way to confirm or discount this, or entertain the idea that the diffraction pattern was caused by something else - prosaic, or tic-tac like?

In the same way that a mirror "causes" an object to have a reflection, any edges/blockages that get in the way of light from an object will diffract that light, causing it to spread out on the far side. However, the wave nature of light will mean that this spread out light will meet other bits of itself, and either cancel out or reinforce depending on differences in path travelled. (Check out the classic "double slit experiment".) I'm not sure if the concept of "spontaneity" applies - the effects could be said to have a cause, but that cause is simply that they are unavoidable because of the existence, not the action, of the objects involved. It's just Maxwell's Laws.

"Explosions" is fair, the light rays are diverted in wild directions, but take care to avoid expressions like "reflected glare" - reflection is also just light obeying Maxwell's laws, but diffraction is different. The light rays that are diffracted and are seen as spikes in the image are not really bouncing off the edge/blockage that "causes" them.

Trying to simplify it further, you can consider reflections as something that particles could do - bounces, basically - but diffraction (and similarly refraction) is a wave-only phenomenon.
 
I'm anticipating Jeremy Corbell's rebuttal that whatever this thing was, it was observed by multiple people/sensors, and this is only an available image of it. Therefore the observations and testimony should stand above whatever this indeterminate image shows. Possibly, he would say "Whatever the object was, it caused the diffraction pattern captured by the camera".
The "Intelligence Officer" seems to think this is its real shape:


00:01:59,947 - [Intelligence Officer] It's called the Chandelier, because if you lay down at your dining room table and look up at your chandelier, it looks just like that.
00:02:06,060 It's very thin, and the object does not circulate on its own.
00:02:11,550 It is going in very small circles.
00:02:14,596 (ominous music)
00:02:16,500 - So what was the most impressive thing to you about this video, which the world has not seen yet?
00:02:20,977 - [Intelligence Officer] The fact that it just, it makes no sense.
00:02:24,690 It is just the most bizarre structure with no purpose and the speed that has everyone across the intelligence community just asking questions and trying to figure out what this thing is.
00:02:38,040 There is no wings.
00:02:39,720 There is seemingly no place for anyone to sit on.
00:02:43,380 It's just a bizarre shape that has a strange propulsion and disappeared immediately.
Content from External Source
 

There is seemingly no place for anyone to sit on.
Content from External Source

You COULD sit on it, but those spikes would HURT!

I'd like to think a real intelligence officer would not be this silly... Ah well, a man can dream...
Meanwhile,
...this video, which the world has not seen yet?
Content from External Source
Once again there is claimed to be the real, astounding evidence that can't be shown, but trust us, and enjoy this picture of glare and diffraction spikes. This is all getting tiresome...
 
2024-01-15_09-07-11.jpg

The Maskulator link on http://www.njnoordhoek.com/?p=376 is not working, so I downloaded it from archive.org, and combined with the the 3.3.5 64 bit library into on zip file (attached). It runs fine on Windows 11 (which I'm running on a Mac, using Parallels). You run the "fresnel.exe" program.

@john.phil, could you attach all the masks you used as .PNGs?
 

Attachments

  • Maskulator With FFTW 3.3.5 64 bit.zip
    1.4 MB · Views: 27
Hi great analysis. You've obviously put some time into that. Could you add a few lines to the post just summarising your method & conclusion for those who don't have time to read through the full pdf?

Sure, I'm unable to edit the original post, so I'm summarising it here:

As a quick summary, the shape and proportions of the aperture of the instrument were used to produce a diffraction mask, which was loaded into the astrophotography software Maskulator v5.0 to produce the initial diffraction pattern. A close inspection of the spider vanes that hold the secondary mirror in place showed that they are actually apodizing, instead of just flat and boring.

View attachment 65315View attachment 65321

The software then produced the initial diffraction pattern, already resembling the "Chandelier", but it was missing the horizontal spikes that are clearly visible on available footage from the same instrument.

View attachment 65324View attachment 65325

Thus, a square iris was added to the optical path by creating an additional mask and loading into the software. The resulting diffraction pattern for the square alone is a star cross.

View attachment 65323 View attachment 65326 View attachment 65327

Both diffraction patterns were then added constructively, producing the final pattern, showing remarkable similarity to the "Chandelier". Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the shape of the "Chandelier" is just a diffraction pattern inherent to the instrument's optics, and not the actual shape of the object. The real object presented itself to the camera as a small source of heat, with its actual shape hidden behind the glare in the core of the "Chandelier".

1705297037839.png1705296950067.png
For more details, see pdf attached.
 

Attachments

  • Chandelier_diffraction.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 41
So let me understand...

There is a diffraction effect caused by light passing the edges of the square aperture. There is then constructive interference involving the diffraction effects caused by the spider and the square aperture.

What would the diffraction pattern of the square aperture alone look like?
 
@john.phil, could you attach all the masks you used as .PNGs?

Sure, please find attached the two masks I used for producing the final diffraction pattern in .PNG format (MTSB_Apodizing_Aperture.png and Square_iris.png), and a third mask I used before I realised the vanes had more detail.
 

Attachments

  • MTSB_Aperture.tif
    45.7 KB · Views: 40
  • MTSB_Apodizing_Aperture.tif
    46.6 KB · Views: 42
  • Square_iris.tif
    28.8 KB · Views: 32
Back
Top