Hah, the software can't load PNGs. I converted them to TIFFs in your post.
I got it running, and replicated your results
The "Chandelier" UFO
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I got it running, and replicated your results
So, would one expect that in video, rather than still form, there would be a running constant of this diffraction pattern, or is the pattern caused by particular angles of light? ie. Would you expect that other parts of the video capture would show a more accurate view of the object?
Ravi
Senior Member.
Constant effect would be expected (thus the "chandelier" moving around), not changing much. Only when the luminosity of the source changes, the diffraction would dim or get bigger. The camera's setting also play a role, but diffraction occurs before the light enters the camera's internals.
PS, Great work @john.phil , very informative post.
Last edited:
adams_at
New Member
I was able to get similar results to @john.phil using the Diffractsim Python package. It’s not as user-friendly as Maskulator, but it has a lot of options that someone with a better understanding of what’s being simulated might be able to use to get better results.
I pushed my code and aperture images to a Github repo.
I pushed my code and aperture images to a Github repo.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Would rotating either one of these by 45 degrees make this a better match?
For more details, see pdf attached.
I'd like to see what it looks like in MWIR (3000-5000 nm). Maskulator seems limited to visible and near IR light (350-780nm)
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Nice work also. The colours are a bit of a distraction, alas.I was able to get similar results to @john.phil using the Diffractsim Python package. It’s not as user-friendly as Maskulator, but it has a lot of options that someone with a better understanding of what’s being simulated might be able to use to get better results.
I pushed my code and aperture images to a Github repo.
adams_at
New Member
I'm afraid Diffractsim has the same limitation. It has color system data for several visible light sources (e.g., mercury vapor, LED 6770K). I'll see if I can modify it for IR.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Surely just scaling up the structure linearly will have the same effect, as long as the range of wavelengths input is 1:1.6 rather than the typical 1:2 visible spectrum? I think the problem in the visualisation is that we see greener as brighter, so it mostly needs passing through some curves to undo our arbitrary sensitivity biases (probably best done in HSV space, HSL at a push).
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Almost perfect.
"Apodising" does sound like blinding with science, alas. From a greek root meaning "removing feet", it simply means "reducing artefacts that you really don't want at the expense of increasing artefacts that you don't care so much about". A simple example would be to reduce the first "ring" (that's both a "ringing" effect, and ring-shaped) around a central point with the effect of blurring the central point a little more, the ring being considered more of a distraction.
And of course, ending with the final mathematical model monochrome, black-hot, and suitably blurred might emphasise how indistinguishable the two are.
"Apodising" does sound like blinding with science, alas. From a greek root meaning "removing feet", it simply means "reducing artefacts that you really don't want at the expense of increasing artefacts that you don't care so much about". A simple example would be to reduce the first "ring" (that's both a "ringing" effect, and ring-shaped) around a central point with the effect of blurring the central point a little more, the ring being considered more of a distraction.
And of course, ending with the final mathematical model monochrome, black-hot, and suitably blurred might emphasise how indistinguishable the two are.
So, still no strong theory of what the object generating this diffraction pattern could have been? I note Mick's suggested that it may be a missile as the wavy white long looks as though it may be smoke, but could it equally be just about anything else?
Are there any other clues that can be taken from the image, or does the diffraction pattern destroy them completely?
Are there any other clues that can be taken from the image, or does the diffraction pattern destroy them completely?
The reason why this topic lost momentum is because we are trying to compare apples to a laser.
There was a pdf here by john.phil on the previous page:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/chandelier_diffraction-pdf.65311/
In this argument Phil successfully proves that this picture does not show visible light, because he cannot reproduce the same pattern with the same inputs using visible light.
The reason why the results of Phil shows a colorful rainbow effect is simple: He is using white light as an input. Yet we know the FLIR camera does not see visible light. White light breaks down to its colorful components when it goes across a lens. That does not happen in an FLIR, this is why the simulations are colorful and the FLIR is not.
This was a very good approach because at least we are trying to reflect light to reach the same pattern. At least this is somewhat similar to what may have happened in the FLIR camera. And there is a really interesting conclusion here, but it was dismissed because it does not fit the narrative.
Source: https://i.imgur.com/9wDSdNU.png
I took a screenshot of his simulation's result.
There are long 90 degree spikes. There are shorter 45 degree spikes. All of these spikes have a high amplitude, these are the bright parts of the pattern. If this was a picture, this would be where diffracted light reached the sensors.
But there are diffraction spikes at 22 degrees. Check the picture above. These are not high amplitude spikes, these are created by the destructive interference of two waves. The spike is only visible because it is darker than it should be, because it is a result of two waves meeting and reducing each other into nothing (even making the entire diffraction pattern darker in their wake)
And this one of the reasons why this topic is silent. The more people look at visible light diffraction patterns the more proof they got this is something dissimilar. You cannot have 45 degree diffractions but no 22 degree diffractions for example. Not addressing this problem means there is nothing to talk about.
The chandelier UAP picture is made by an FLIR system, it does not use visible light or regular lenses. There will be no colorful image because the light is infrared, even if a lens breaks it down it will still remain just infrared. No green, no blue, no red, just invisible infrared. We need sensors to tell us there is light shining there because we do not see it, this is what an FLIR camera is. But no lens breaks the light down. This is the problem. Those rectangles are not diffractions because no lens can possibly break our infrared input to show such a result without the expected artifacts. Physically impossible. If that was the case, if a lens caused that shape, there would be a 22 degree diffraction pattern aswell. But there isn't.
Common sense says the rectangular shapes are the result of a thrust vector control of a vehicle using thrust as a means of propulsion, which is so far the only credible explanation to why there is only 90/45 degree "diffraction patterns" on the picture but no 22 degree ones.
There are countless examples in this thread showing FLIR diffractions. All of them are the same. The FLIR produces those 45/90 degree diffractions, those are actually diffraction patterns. This is true to every FLIR image on the internet. But the rectangular shapes are not visible in any FLIR image, because the FLIR cannot physically produce them.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
There is not enough information in the image to determine that. Any small/distant hot IR source would suffice.
Yes.
The diffraction pattern is the reason why the image looks strange and chandelier-like.
If the object has a discernible shape (not just a blob of a few pixels), then it would have an effect on the diffraction pattern. However, to determine that, the diffraction would need to be modeled/simulated more perfectly, and that would presumably require access to the engineering drawings or an actual camera. I expect those are classified.
However, it's really not important what the object is, as any object with a small hot IR signature would produce a "chandelier" with this type of camera.
Yes, but basic shapes could be the source as well. I see no reason to assume there's anything odd about the shape.
See the example images posted earlier in the thread, of identified objects producing chandelier-like diffraction patterns.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Since the Chandelier image is out of focus, the 22.5 degree diffraction patterns may be present, but too blurred to be seen clearly, or at all.
Ravi
Senior Member.
Common sense that they are "the result of a thrust vector control of a vehicle using thrust as a means of propulsion"?
Jumping to conclusions..
Last edited:
You are onto something. This is what got my attention. Some of the patterns we see in the simulations show up in the original picture, some don't. This does not make sense, and "blur" is obviously not an explanation. Here is why.
First of all, we cannot have a rectangular diffraction effect without 22 degree spikes. It is hard to prove this without dwelving deep into math equations but we have a lot of evidences posted here and there is no counter-evidence. If we still don't want to accept this then here is an in-depth explanation trying to use layman logic.
There is a lot of information in the differences. The simulations (by definition) show no blur and there are obviously no particles in the air altering the data. The simulations show us what the effect would look like in a sterile environment. We can tell by looking at the simulations (posted here by users) that the rectangular effects on the four sides (square shapes) are much weaker than the 45 or 22 degree refractions. This is what the simulation shows us: where the colors are bright the diffraction effect is stronger. Simple as that. We can easily see that. This is what was proven by the simulated tests: the rectangular diffraction patterns are much weaker than the spikes. But that is not the case with the original picture. And we can rule out that "blur" only affected the places where the missing spikes should be. Totally impossible.
This is by itself a proof that the 22 degree refraction HAS TO BE visible if it exists. That 22 degree spike diffraction is proven to be a stronger effect (in the simulation) than the rectangular shapes which are visible with a really high contrast. The picture shows the outer rectangular diffractions as a strong effect yet we cannot see any 22 degree diffractions. This is a proof that the simulation does not give us the theroetized result shown on the original picture. This proves that the effect was created differently, it is certainly not JUST diffraction.
Also keep in mind that the 22 degree refraction effect is a "negative" effect, it occurs because two interceding waves of photons interfere with each other and reduces the amplitude. Just look at the picture in my post please. There should be nothing visible there, where the 22 degree spikes meet the pattern. It is physically impossible that you can see a diffraction where there should be an interference removing diffraction. If the original was a diffraction pattern then the 22 degree negative spikes should be much more visible than the rectangular shapes on the outside. Simple logic based on the data provided here. Yet we see a so called diffraction pattern where our simulations prove there should not be. Gee, I wonder what can explain this? Certainly not blur.
Also, the third and most important information: this is a FLIR. It does not see visible light, what can make it blurred? If it was blurred then you could see blur... But you cannot. I honestly don't think mentioning "blur" is a good faithed argument.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I see no 22 degree spikes in the two simulations given, and I find your snipped argument entirely unconvincing as I don't even accept the premises. I don't see why there should be any 22 degree spikes. The only bright points that are not at multiples of 45 degrees are ones which look to me like a reinforcements with/of ringing - which you would get because you can't avoid it (apart from the aposidation mentioned upthread).
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Infra-red light is longer than visible light, therefore it is more likely to be blurred. The sharpest images are those made by shorter wavelengths.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Most pods have a lower IR sensor resolution too, typically by a factor of about two. (In part that's a consequence of the above, of course.)
Ravi
Senior Member.
Optical blur can be caused by a number of things, like slight defocus, dirty lenses, etc. But, when designed right, an IR objective, which is in many cases based on mirrors, can make images just as sharp as in VIS. The different tech image sensor for (far) IR is causing the problem of "blur".
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Yes, that was kinda my prior point, but you do also need more optics to achieve the same level of detail when the wavelengths are longer, and practical geometry dictates that you can't carry an Arecibo around with you in a pod. The big glass we see in the pods is an early 2000s camphone to MIR/FIR.
You missed the point. I said IF there are rectangular shapes there must be 22 degree spikes.
Those 22 degree spikes create the illusion there is a rectangular pattern on the picture. This is my point.
See? We can only get these rectangular or diamond shapes when we also get 22 degree spikes. Those 22 degree minima areas create the illusion of these rectangular shapes.
https://www.telescope-optics.net/spider.htm
You can find the equations here, fill the variables with data and count until you find a rectangular diffraction pattern without a minima-spike creating it.
So as you can see, the original chandellier picture MUST NOT be only a diffraction effect. You cannot create a rectangular diffraction by only using maxima areas of functions but no minima areas. This is basic logic everyone can tell by looking at the examples. So the question is: how come the chandellier picture has no minima-spike at the 22 degree angle which can create a rectangular shape in a diffraction pattern?
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Wow - you "highlighted" the dark patches. Is this some new "black spike" that I wasn't previously aware of?You missed the point. I said IF there are rectangular shapes there must be 22 degree spikes.
Those 22 degree spikes create the illusion there is a rectangular pattern on the picture. This is my point.
See?
Ann K
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Since the IR image is "black hot", i.e. works like a photographic negative, these minima show up bright white-ish, and they can be seen in the spaces between the eight 45⁰ spikes:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Non-things between things aren't things.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Since the IR image is "black hot", i.e. works like a photographic negative, these minima show up bright white-ish, and they can be seen in the spaces between the eight 45⁰ spikes:
He used the word "spike". Show me the spike.
Similar threads
