jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Why don't you set about answering some of your questions then?
The "Chandelier" UFO
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
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.
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.
So my best guess is Sun.
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
Senior Member.
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.
NoParty
Senior Member.
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
Senior Member.
That's the 2D distance on the screens. The 2d projection of the distance changing doesn't mean the 3D distance changes.
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.
As for the counterarguments as to why my distance argument is wrong. I will concede that. It's still not a parachute though.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
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
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
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
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
Senior Member.
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/
https://www.suasnews.com/2005/12/boeing-australia-and-iai-win-australian-uav-contract/
I think flare is still probably the best guess. But it's not a perfect match (see video I posted of flares with military IR). Whatever it is it is VERY VERY hot/bright. Like the sun but smaller in size. And if the trail represents the movement of the object and not the camera it is not acting like anything I have seen before. Of course wind does all sorts of crazy things so who knows. Still in the unresolved bucket IMHO.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
DOW-UAP-PR34 shows an example of a targeting camera box the object as a subject, after which time it appears the camera system stabilizes and goes into a tracking mode (it's being manually moved in more erratic motions around prior to that), but it does not center the subject in frame nor maintain its exact position relative to the center. The box's position relative to the center moves around a bit. Is there some kind of "loose" tracking mode on the system? Where it tracks a selected subject but not strictly centering it? May be relevant here.
Clip from 45s to 1m45s from that video (reencoded, don't rely on for exact frames):
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1006080/dow-uap-pr34-unresolved-uap-report-greece-october-2023
Clip from 45s to 1m45s from that video (reencoded, don't rely on for exact frames):
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1006080/dow-uap-pr34-unresolved-uap-report-greece-october-2023
Starflint
Senior Member
It is rare to find a daytime shot of a parachute flare used for air force target practice. While it cannot be confirmed that the PR38 is definitely one, its erratic trajectory, the fleeting glimpse of a "parachute," and the long smoke trail dragging behind the light source seem to be a high match for a parachute flare
Source: https://youtu.be/iga9DpjKIng?si=HvO20-CpR3P9XgYN&t=27
Starflint
Senior Member
That line could also be lens flare diffraction or an aircraft's contrail ，Even just the wires and cables; considering the object is descending toward the ground, the shooting angle of PR38 appears to be an upward-looking shot
Last edited:
JJB
Active Member
The key point is this: none of those questions require alien craft or exotic technology to explain them. They are exactly the kinds of ambiguities you expect from low detail infrared footage of distant unresolved targets.
People keep jumping from "this looks odd" straight to "there must be more to it," while skipping over the fact that IR systems are notorious for producing odd looking imagery in the first place.
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
The second shape is not parachute but a lens flare . The "parachute" / "chandelier" pair is rotating in sync around the red cross, which would be the optical axis I guess :
Comparison of frames 313 and 3192 :
The north indicator show that the camera rotates about 15° between the two frames but the "background" remains the same
Comparing frames horizontally mirrored frame 110 to frame 313 gives similar results.
It doesn't feel like the camera is filming a real outside scene, everything in the images is a camera artifact. Could it be a calibration bench? A faulty camera being tested in a lab?
Comparison of frames 313 and 3192 :
The north indicator show that the camera rotates about 15° between the two frames but the "background" remains the same
Comparing frames horizontally mirrored frame 110 to frame 313 gives similar results.
It doesn't feel like the camera is filming a real outside scene, everything in the images is a camera artifact. Could it be a calibration bench? A faulty camera being tested in a lab?
Attachments
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Not arguing against the lens flare interpretation, but I'd expect that same sort of thing for some mass swinging pendulum-like under a small chute.
Edit to add this link,which hopefully no longer goes to Wikipedia talking about The Andromeda Strain:
SKIP TO 21 S3CONDS IF IN A HURRY.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i-FIA2dvwco
Last edited:
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
For the rotation center to stay in the same place through the video would means the camera is tracking the rotation center of the pendulum/chute system. Here it's outside of both "objects" so the camera doesn't have anything to lock on. It's not impossible but it's highly unlikely.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Ahh, I had not noticed that, am packing like mad to drive home from a week of showing off flying fabric of different sort, I'll provisionally accept your point but in the spirit of true skeptical enquiry will watch the video again while watching fir that specifically!
Starflint
Senior Member
Regarding whether it is a parachute flare or lens flare, Mick, I wonder if you could try a supplementary experiment? Use a thermal imager in black-hot mode to capture a descending flare at an appropriate distance (where the spot size is similar to the one in PR38). See if the color of the parachute matches what is seen in PR38 (assuming it is a flare), or if a similar lens flare effect occurs (assuming it is a flare). Additionally, I am very curious to know if the smoke trail of a flare in black-hot mode appears light-colored as it does in PR38 (though this might be influenced by the ambient temperature at the time)
Ann K
Senior Member.
Well, you eventually got to the right conclusion, but of course the "color of the parachute" would also change in thermal imaging, depending on the ambient temperature.
Ann K
Senior Member.
This link goes to the Wikipedia article about The Andromeda Strain, not a video.
Excellent work geolocating and ruling out the sun. I was thinking there are a lot of ships in the Persian golf. Could this be a direct reflection of the sun from some mirror like object on a ship? Just spit balling theories here, as a daylight flare that doesn't look like a flare just doesn't add up IMHO.
Also it could be hostile action by IRAN shooting a laser into the optics in an attempt to damage it.
Also it could be hostile action by IRAN shooting a laser into the optics in an attempt to damage it.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
That smash odd. When I looked at the link, it was to YouTube but when I clicked on it it went to Wikipedia, even after I deleted the link and redid it. It seems to be working now after I edit and saved it with the link just totally removed, and then edited again to add the link. It is working for me now, hopefully also for anybody else who tries it. If not, I hope you will find an article about the Andromeda Strain to be of interest...
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
I agree the longer straight line looks like a possible contrail. Though could be something else. If the background is the cold sky I'd expect a contrail to be darker, not lighter than it, in black-hot. I also was thinking about the viewing angle being either at a steeper downward or upwards angle because it may better fit the parachute possibility. But the shallow "5" angle here is problematic for that theory of the viewing angle being steep. I think typically that would be the elevation angle relative to horizontal, not relative to the vertical axis.
The idea of it being an infrared laser is also interesting. Either in a test/calibration/training setting, or an actual laser countermeasure being used against the aircraft.
Here is a video and some photos of me pointing my cheap little infrared camera at the sun (bonus: a few birds too). There are some spiky artifacts and a very large glare/bloom, but the diffraction spikes are not to this extent. That will all come down to calibration and other camera factors.
When I move the camera around there is a ghosting trail behind the center of the sun that fades with time (and gets wiped out when the camera shuts the shutter and recalibrates every 30 seconds). This is black hot.
What's maybe more interesting and relevant to this thread is that when I record a video like this which shows a ghost trail behind the sun motion and then point the camera away from the sun in order to get a more reasonable contrast background than the sun and cold sky, parts of the trail actually look very white (cold). This stuck out to me because the sun is very hot and I would assume the trail left by it would also persist only very "hot" values in the pixels. But below, parts of the trail actually look like they're the maximally white pixels in frame.
While there's a sun trail artifact still present, pointing the camera at the window of my car:
Pointing it at the plastic on the inside of my car door:
I think my main takeaway is that the 'smoke trail' in the chandelier video is probably a pixel saturation / ghosting artifact, and my other takeaway is that the way infrared cameras work is very non-intuitive and can produce weird imagery.
Last edited:
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Nice work. I certainly like the idea that it is some structured laser or infrared beam acting as a countermeasure and overwhelming the sensor, and this would create the relatively static geometric image. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with on this one.
Similar threads
