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.

 

[john.phil]

Yes I watched the footage of the parachute flare.

Did you watch the first two videos in post #73?

 

[Ravi]

It is indeed lens flare i.e internal reflections of mirror optics. The flare is rectangular shaped and moves in sync with the "high contrast area".

 

[NoParty]

Enhanced footage of the sections where the parachute is most noticeable:

View attachment 90191

This is the section of the footage where the parachute is most obvious:

View attachment 90192

An example of a ground-launched, parachuting illuminating flare for comparison (from 01:41 to 01:48):


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw6_ZrL-rNk&t=101s

Helpful visuals.
Maybe I'm a little overly sensitive, though, being a Californian who's watched far too many thousands of acres burn,
hearing him ask, as an afterthought (as embers fall to the ground): "Do we have a fire extinguisher?"

 

[RobertBillyBob]

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.

View attachment 90233View attachment 90234

That's the 2D distance on the screens. The 2d projection of the distance changing doesn't mean the 3D distance changes.

 

[Arthur 33]

I noticed the rectangle shape too. This shape is used in parachutes that are the paraglider style. But the parachutes on flares are classic half dome. Another reason this is not a parachute.

As for the counterarguments as to why my distance argument is wrong. I will concede that. It's still not a parachute though.

 

[Arthur 33]

Is there any reason this is not the sun?

I guess we don't know if this was day or night. And the size just looks a little too small for me. But I could be wrong.

Whatever it is it is very hot as it is burning into the sensor.

Here is a good example of what a flare looks like on military far IR.

 

[jarlrmai]

It would seem that here is a great place to share such videos

 

[Arthur 33]

I still can't decide if the object is moving or not. There is a persistent horizontal line in the frame which could be the horizon. If that is the horizon that would rule out a stationary object right?

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

It'd be useful to know what the background of the shot is. Is the 5 on the right hand side of the unredacted image the camera elevation angle above horizontal? Meaning the camera is essentially looking across the sky horizontally?

Them redacting all the position and angle information from these videos makes them harder to interpret and does not help with transparency, because it leads to more speculation.

Considering the sun possibility for a moment, we can take the bearing and position from the unredacted screen grab that was leaked via Corbell.

Aircraft position:
29º09'41.4"N
49º26'56.7"E
Bearing:
115º

Assuming the 5 is +5º elevation angle, we can try to see if that lat/lon has plausible time frames in which the sun would be visible 5º up and at a bearing of 115º. And it does. For example 2025-11-19 at 03:40 UTC.

https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.1615,49.4491,8/2025.11.19/06:30/1/3

 

[jarlrmai]

As is common the Corbell leak is unredacted

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

As is common the Corbell leak is unredacted

And if the 14:06:17 at the bottom is the time of recording within the video, and the 5 is elevation angle and 115 is the bearing, then the hot point cannot be the sun. It does look like a different UI element style though, so could be the time on the computer doing the playback, or a playback timestamp relative to the video duration.

That position on the display is redacted in the DoD's released version though, which suggests it is in whatever copy of the video the DoD has. So it could be the recording time timestamp within the video.

Unredacted screen grab overlaid with DoD redacted frame below. It's interesting that in the leaked version they cropped out a lot of the frame.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Another thing to consider is rotor or fixed-wing drones which have deployable parachutes.

https://www.suasnews.com/2005/12/boeing-australia-and-iai-win-australian-uav-contract/