The "Chandelier" UFO

[jjjdanny]

The line in the image that is perhaps a contrail seems to me to indicate that the object is in fact moving. The camera appears to be pointed in a fixed stabilized direction.

The camera system it was determined this was filmed by is, as far as the public knows, exclusively hosted on aircraft. However much motion the thing being imaged has on its own, if the line is something in the scene, it should be moving plenty unless it's very distant. And even if it is very distant, over the course of 90s it should have moved.

It's possibly like the trail (though it does not appear to get back to a normal "temperature" like the trail) but also possibly damage to the camera. We don't have the system in question to test with but anyone willing to sacrifice theirs with a scratch to the outermost glass or otherwise knows what that looks like?

 

[john.phil]

Embarrassing you guys came to that conclusion.

So moving forward from the parachute nonsense (a good example of type 2 error, and confirmation bias of "skeptics" IMHO)

A parachuting flare is a proposed hypothesis that fits the visuals at first glance; however, it may be a good example of dynamic pareidolia, instead of "nonsense", or a reason for embarrassment. Other hypotheses are that the "parachute" might actually be a lens flare caused by the Sun, or by a laser, or by another heat source.

A hypothesis is not a conclusion.

Although people may lean towards a certain hypothesis and start providing corroborating evidence in the thread, it does not mean we are your personal adversaries just because you are committed to a different hypothesis.

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

Let's not rule out the Sun based on timestamps alone. The fact that the Sun can be positioned very close to bearing 115° and 5° elevation, depending on the date and time, serves as supporting evidence that it could be the culprit.

Although, the location of the footage, combined with Iran's known capabilities and stance, corroborates the possibility that it could be a military laser instead. However, the US also operates airborne and shipborne laser platforms, so this could be a field test, or crew members messing around with expensive equipment, or a mistake, or target misidentification, or another reason.

Iranian Forces Harass Marine Attack Helo with Laser in Persian Gulf
September 28, 2023

A Marine attack helicopter was harassed by sectarian Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf, a U.S. 5th Fleet official told USNI News on Thursday.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy shined a laser several times at an AH-1Z Viper helicopter flying over the Persian Gulf.

"The IRGCN interacted in an unsafe and unprofessional manner with a U.S. AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter, assigned to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit as the aircraft was conducting routine operations in the international airspace of the [Persian] Gulf, Sept. 27. The interaction took place at approximately 7:30 p.m. local time," reads the statement from U.S. 5th Fleet.

"IRGCN vessels shone a laser multiple times at the aircraft while in flight. Fortunately, no injuries were reported and the aircraft was not damaged."

source: https://news.usni.org/2023/09/28/iranian-forces-harass-marine-attack-helo-with-laser-in-persian-gulf

The winds at that height would have blown the trail if it was smoke. But it maintains perfect stability through the video.

Following up with the laser hypothesis, the "contrail" could be sensor damage from a previous pass, as it does not seem to change position despite the heat source displaying apparent movement.

If it were a parachute it would be visible throughout the video, not inconsistently.

Not necessarily, an object may drift in and out of focus depending on the optical instrument characteristics, operator input, depth of field, and the direction and magnitude of the displacement.

 

[Ann K]

If it were a parachute it would be visible throughout the video

Not necessarily, an object may drift in and out of focus depending on the optical instrument characteristics, operator input, depth of field, and the direction and magnitude of the displacement.

It's apparent that the parachute appears and disappears off the edge of the screen, so it isn't just focus that changes, but position. The camera simply isn't looking at the (mundane) parachute, but at its payload instead, with no regard to keeping the parachute in frame.

 

[Arthur 33]

A parachuting flare is a proposed hypothesis that fits the visuals at first glance; however, it may be a good example of dynamic pareidolia, instead of "nonsense", or a reason for embarrassment.

I would agree with you, but if you go back on this thread Greenstreet's video proposing this idea quickly went from "apparent parachute" (Greenstreet's language which is fine). To definitive statements that it is a parachute. Less about scientific inquiry, and more about persuasion and fighting perceived disinformation on social media; and dunking on the so called "believers" IMHO.

Now Greenstreet's viral debunk has been debunked. Which is actually the most satisfying type of debunk.

If you watch this video both the question of the parachute, and the "smoke" get definitively answered IMHO.
Video: ProPixel Video Analysis and Research, It's still not a parachute. Let's talk about optics.

 

[Arthur 33]

Following up with the laser hypothesis, the "contrail" could be sensor damage from a previous pass, as it does not seem to change position despite the heat source displaying apparent movement.

The possible contrail shows some odd formation at 12 seconds into the video. To me this looks more like a coastline with a dock or something.

Also I noticed that even earlier in the video at 3 seconds in the "contrail" has a formation on the left side and is angled in the opposite direction. Are we dealing with some sort of mirroring effect as the camera changes modes?

 

[jjjdanny]

There are some jetties in that direction that could appear this way but the view as seen in the leaked image is 5 degrees up, not down.

 

[Ravi]

The possible contrail shows some odd formation at 12 seconds into the video. To me this looks more like a coastline with a dock or something.

Also I noticed that even earlier in the video at 3 seconds in the "contrail" has a formation on the left side and is angled in the opposite direction. Are we dealing with some sort of mirroring effect as the camera changes modes?

The line and little triangle in the lower corner are camera artefacts I think. The mirroring in the beginning of the video might be camera internal mode change with hardware (using mirrors) changing.

 

[john.phil]

It's apparent that the parachute appears and disappears off the edge of the screen, so it isn't just focus that changes, but position. The camera simply isn't looking at the (mundane) parachute, but at its payload instead, with no regard to keeping the parachute in frame.

There is a moment in the footage where it fades away and then vanishes whilst its apparent movement is towards the crosshair. When it reappears, it does not emerge from the edge of the screen:

 

[Ravi]

There is a moment in the footage where it fades away and then vanishes whilst its apparent movement is towards the crosshair. When it reappears, it does not emerge from the edge of the screen:

Also at the end of the video, the "light" appears to move upwards, and the "parachute" is briefly seen on the bottom-right.. 100% a camera effect, not a chute.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Also at the end of the video, the "light" appears to move upwards, and the "parachute" is briefly seen on the bottom-right.. 100% a camera effect, not a chute.

So are there other examples of this kind of geometric effect caused by a known human countermeasure system? Is the contrail persistent enough to show sensor damage?
What kind of system could produce the artifact? Is that why it is classified as an unknown?

 

[Ravi]

So are there other examples of this kind of geometric effect caused by a known human countermeasure system? Is the contrail persistent enough to show sensor damage?
What kind of system could produce the artifact? Is that why it is classified as an unknown?

Hold your horses!

Is the contrail persistent enough to show sensor damage?

What do you mean? Contrail?

 

[Todd Feinman]

What do you mean? Contrail?

Oh sorry, the persistent trail. Not contrail.
<retreats to stratosphere>

 

[Arthur 33]

There are some jetties in that direction that could appear this way but the view as seen in the leaked image is 5 degrees up, not down.

I found a nice sand beach with a dock that matches pretty well IMHO. White sand reflects light making it white cool. The angel hasn't been confirmed.

As for the theory the line is a artifact and not a beach or contrail. I think we have a example in the video of what a persistence of vision looks like with the central object. If you are claiming a different heat source burned a line into it, there is not fading (it's a actively cooled camera). And it is brighter and wider than the artifact lines from the central object.

To me this all points to the object moving. Which rules out many possible explanations.

 

[Ravi]

I found a nice sand beach with a dock that matches pretty well IMHO. White sand reflects light making it white cool. The angel hasn't been confirmed.

As for the theory the line is a artifact and not a beach or contrail. I think we have a example in the video of what a persistence of vision looks like with the central object. If you are claiming a different heat source burned a line into it, there is not fading (it's a actively cooled camera). And it is brighter and wider than the artifact lines from the central object.

No I don't believe "a different heat source burned a line into it".
With "camera artefact", I meant a camera internal reflection or highlighting of parts. Could for instance be a segmented window being illuminated by the bright light.

 

[Arthur 33]

Could for instance be a segmented window being illuminated by the bright light.

To me if it was some broken lens artifact or some other artifact it wouldn't change as the zoom changes right?

Also the beach/coast is about 125 miles away. I don't know what the capabilities of these cameras are but that may be too far to make that a coast? How strong is the zoom?

These are like multi million dollar cameras.

 

[Arthur 33]

Also some other details. It appears there was an attempt to "lock on" or "box" the main object. 1m 26s in

Also there is some odd color information early on in the video.

 

[Ann K]

I found a nice sand beach with a dock that matches pretty well IMHO. White sand reflects light making it white cool.

Apparently you've never been to the beach on a sunny day. Quartz sand, such as is found all over the Middle Eastern countries, gets blazing hot underfoot and can easily burn your feet. Gypsum sand, such as White Sands, New Mexico, is also hot at first but icy cold if you just wiggle your toes down a quarter inch.

 

[jjjdanny]

To me if it was some broken lens artifact or some other artifact it wouldn't change as the zoom changes right?

Also the beach/coast is about 125 miles away. I don't know what the capabilities of these cameras are but that may be too far to make that a coast? How strong is the zoom?

These are like multi million dollar cameras.

View attachment 90332

The narrowest IR mode without zoom is .31 degrees across. With 2x zoom, a feature half a mile long can cross the frame at that distance (I encourage double checking my angular size math). The final zoom is digital so if the line is the result of some physical defect, it could be cropped and magnified like anything else.

 

[Arthur 33]

Doesn't match flare

 

[Arthur 33]

odd color information

I think this rules out the laser hypothesis. It acts like a laser in that it is producing a static refraction pattern over time, but a laser only has one color light.

 

[Arthur 33]

Apparently you've never been to the beach on a sunny day. Quartz sand, such as is found all over the Middle Eastern countries, gets blazing hot underfoot and can easily burn your feet.

True, but it's about relativity. White sand has high albedo. On IR sand would show up as cooler than surroundings. If you think white sand gets hot try walking in the black volcanic sand.

I could be wrong on my beach theory, the logic is sound though.