Scientists in Norway presents photographic evidence of the Hessdalen Phenomenon

a reply to: beetee

See my post at the bottom of the last page...

a reply to: intrptr

Well, I am all for excluding the mundane when documenting the extraordinary.

Just some points for your consideration:

- The picture in the OP is one of an automatic series, taken by a camera with 5 second intervals.
- The picture is taken 1,5 hours after sundown when the moon was not up
- The light is not on the previous and subsequent exposures
- The ligth appears to light up the ground below it, according to the scientists (not me)
- The researchers have been investigating the valley and documenting the phenomenon with various instruments for 30 years.
- The researchers have sat on this photo for close to two years before going public
- The scientist felt confident enough in the result to take their findings to an international scientific congress.

Don't you think they have gone to great lengths in those 2 years preparing for their 1,5 hour presentation to exclude that this is a picture of a lens flare or the sun?

BT

a reply to: beetee


You attach all the scientifcum to it they like. Its good for views. In the case of this one photo...


Haven't you seen that before? Its a hollywood film trick to give images a ghostly appearance.

a reply to: intrptr

I am not sure what other possibilities you are speaking of?

There is an ongoing (since 1983) scientific study to establish what the Hessdalen lights are and that means painstakingly studying the data to establish what causes this phenomenon . Studies have been made since the 1980s and continue. No one is saying that whatever is happening is more than unexplained at present. There are a few working hypotheses and the work continues.

a reply to: mirageman

I am not sure what other possibilities you are speaking of?

Just that every country almost has its mysterious lights phenomenon. Lots of people go there to this day, set up cameras and film it, and mostly it appears for them, too.

And mostly, like in the three examples I presented, they are man made.

Especially if you can go there and stand in that spot and see it too. Like a train coming in the distance, car headlights approaching on a road, or a hi flying satellite dipping over the horizon.

I already gave my impression of the OP phenomenon. All the 'direct' evidence presented so far had explanations I couldn't rule out, filming thru oil smeared glass, fireworks, military flares, for instance. I don't believe what anyone says, no matter their 'credentials'. Gads aren't we tired of being lied to all this time by every official, media outlet and spokesmen.

I'm planing to go to area 51 some day, stand outside the gate and maybe if I try real hard I'll see aleeens.
Especially if I get bored waiting and decide to make stuff up. Everyone else does, why not?

I'll buy a fancy camera, wear a white coat and talk some scientific gibberish to help convince all but the most skeptical critical thinkers.

Hey, where'd they all go? ATS used to be full of them.

Now they go elsewhere, who wants to be ridiculed for debunking what, according to a tidal wave of consent, is obviously proof of nothing.

a reply to: intrptr

OK I still don't exactly where you are going with this. The general consensus is that Hessdalen is certainly not man made. But it's probably not made by aliens from another planet either. Maybe a start would be to read this analysis.

HESSDALEN: a perfect “natural battery (pdf)

a reply to: mirageman

Whatever, I don't buy into stuff until all possibilities have been exhausted. Read into here...

Skeptoid

Big difference between skepticism and bloody mindedness.

Reminds me of the OPs avatar..... When one guy was trying to light a fire all those years ago, I bet there were 100 other guys running away from him.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Uberdoubter

I do a lot of photography, and I can assure everyone that the picture does not show a lens flare.

I can smear a camera lens wth some fine oil and get the same spectrum break up, or use thin plastic or even oil smeared glass or plastic placed between the camera and the subject, in the case of the OP, apparently the sun.

Good for you. Everybody needs a hobby.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Uberdoubter

I do a lot of photography, and I can assure everyone that the picture does not show a lens flare.

I can smear a camera lens wth some fine oil and get the same spectrum break up, or use thin plastic or even oil smeared glass or plastic placed between the camera and the subject, in the case of the OP, apparently the sun.

A smartphone will do that for you with monochromatic light (from Sodium lamps).

Given that there is lake down there, could it be some kind of gas? Will'o'the'wisp? Possibly a slow burning or ionized gas?

en.wikipedia.org...

IOW, we have to rule these out first before we entertain other possibilities

So you aren't convinced that a group of scientists who have been studying the Hessdalen phenomenon for years have not already ruled out other possible explanations? I completely agree with the "satellite" explanation for your third example video, but so what? This has nothing to do with Hessdalen. You can't simply dismiss one piece of evidence just because another (completely unrelated) piece of evidence is suspect.

The initial photograph looks to have what I'd say are reflections to the extreme right of it, I get the impression its photographed through glass so what is seen may be behind the camera...

For me that's a fake no matter how many times the lights are seen...

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Oh, well...

Just out of curiosity did you read the OP before making up your mind?

BT

originally posted by: mirageman
Research in other areas of the world has hinted that this phenomena might be global and not something unique in the Hessdalen valley. However the mechanism creating these lights is still somewhat unknown.

From my reading the mechanism is still entirely unknown and the researchers are quite steadfast in their adherence to a policy of little to no speculation when asked for their opinion by speculators. The researchers have experienced a number of different phenomenon but have attempted to communicate that while that is personally of interest to them, and I should imagine an exciting aspect of their work, they only attribute those events that have been verified by the various equipment to the "Hessdalen Phenomenon". It is a pity that other researchers have not had the ethics, or presence of mind, to understand that whatever other patterns can be discerned, the consistently subjective nature of these type of experiences or interaction is beyond obvious and has to be discounted, to some extent, if we are to proceed with understanding what it is.

We have a sound comparison, in terms of appreciating that this is a potentially "global" phenomenon, with the research of Dr Harley Rutledge in Piedmont, Missouri. The light phenomenon that Rutledge recorded and documented seems incredibly similar to that of Hessdalen. That should be confirmation enough, given the vigourous use of the "scientific method" by both teams, that something is happening, for the wider scientific community at least. Wouldn't you think? But, the only way to really get some science done is to get funding for that science to take place, and those that have the money to invest in the search for the "truth", such as De Longe, Vallee and Levenda, to name but the latest in the line for "truth" seeking, seem more inclined towards fame seeking and seem a little too scared to burst any one's bubbles in case it means they won't buy their books and associated merchandise. Or perhaps I'm being too harsh?

First off, hell yeah. A mysterious subject as a front page post is a win.

Secondly, these have fascinated me for years. YouTube has "top ten mystery" videos and some are just so interesting.

There's other pictures out there that make it look even more odd and such, though I do not know if they are altered in any way.

originally posted by: Uberdoubter

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Uberdoubter

I do a lot of photography, and I can assure everyone that the picture does not show a lens flare.

I can smear a camera lens wth some fine oil and get the same spectrum break up, or use thin plastic or even oil smeared glass or plastic placed between the camera and the subject, in the case of the OP, apparently the sun.

Good for you. Everybody needs a hobby.

I learned those tricks from other ATS posters right here over the years.
Debunking faked UFO imagery is an acquired skill.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Uberdoubter

I do a lot of photography, and I can assure everyone that the picture does not show a lens flare.

I can smear a camera lens wth some fine oil and get the same spectrum break up, or use thin plastic or even oil smeared glass or plastic placed between the camera and the subject, in the case of the OP, apparently the sun.

A smartphone will do that for you with monochromatic light (from Sodium lamps).

Given that there is lake down there, could it be some kind of gas? Will'o'the'wisp? Possibly a slow burning or ionized gas?

en.wikipedia.org...

The 'Skeptic' article I linked up the page had this to say...

Earthlight researchers must be vigilant for artifact lights.

---

...an important source of artifact lights are commercial and private aircraft operating near observation sites.

Using simple commercially available navigation software, she identified a number of air traffic corridors, VOR navigational stations, and local airports. These included one corridor that I found particularly intriguing: a corridor 18° North from the Tolga VOR, proceeding directly up the Hessdalen valley, straight toward the Automated Measuring Station, from exactly the direction it's facing.

Theres more to it in the article down towards the bottom. Just one, mundane ordinary possibility that seemingly has gone overlooked, for whatever reason.

a reply to: intrptr

I think we can exclude an aircraft for this picture, at least, unless you know about an aircraft that is so fast it can be out of the cameras FOV in 5 seconds at most.

As to ionized gas, I think that is plausible and also one of the theories being investigated at present, if I am not mistaken.

One would, however, have to a lot more research to discover the exact mechanism behind how the ionized gas might form, why it is so prevalent in Hessdalen and so forth. Which I am hopeful will be done.

What I find curious is that you would be so reluctant to accept that it is quite plausible that they have done this kind of vetting of the data before going public and before taking their results to a congress. In stead you seem to think it is just at likely that they have not done even the most rudimentary examination in 2 years?

BT

a reply to: beetee

What I find curious is that you would be so reluctant to accept that it is quite plausible that they have done this kind of vetting of the data before going public and before taking their results to a congress. In stead you seem to think it is just at likely that they have not done even the most rudimentary examination in 2 years?

That is what skeptoid is suggesting...

the possibility of approaching aircraft is not been addressed.

Big investigation, but leaves out that aspect. Omission of emissions is standard procedure for gubments, corporations, military's the media and yes, even UFOlogy.

Lest ignore the facts and keep the mystery alive.

originally posted by: beetee
What I find curious is that you would be so reluctant to accept that it is quite plausible that they have done this kind of vetting of the data before going public and before taking their results to a congress. In stead you seem to think it is just at likely that they have not done even the most rudimentary examination in 2 years?

Unfortunately, the Hessdalen team in the past was not familiar with optics artifacts (lens flares):



Source from Project Hessdalen

The above example can be explained without any doubt by a simple lens flare effect in the camera optic:



My hope is that, for the image subject of this thread, they double-checked the lens flare possibility before as well as the airplane hypothesis:

originally posted by: beetee
I think we can exclude an aircraft for this picture, at least, unless you know about an aircraft that is so fast it can be out of the cameras FOV in 5 seconds at most.

IMO, it's not essentially the speed of the aircraft that have to be taking into account in this hypothesis, but rather three others parameters:

1- The exposure time of the photo. The more this duration is important, the more any faint ligth might be visible. What is interesting here is that some stars can be visible at the upper right corner (Capella...) while they shouldn't be visible with naked eyes (twilight at 5.30PM UTC and the picture taken half an hour later, where no star should be visible yet).



2- If this exposure time is enough important, then any other faint light might be visible as well, like the landing lights of a distant airplane for example.

3- If this airplane is, for example, 20 miles away from the station (and I personnally already met this configuration in some analysis), then any light cannot be visible unless the more powerful one, like the landing lights.

As for why this light is visible on one frame and not and the previous and on the following one, let's not forget that the landing lights are not supposed to be visible around a 180° angle. At a certain angle, it simply disappears from the view of the distant observer, for an airplane that is doing a turn.

Of course, all of this is speculative and need to be proven.