originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
Thank you for a thoughtful posts and for putting some effort into your comment!!
The problem is, like I said, they did mistakes in the past and it was proven. Also, they want to take their word for it, and anyone to believe that
this light is an unknown phenomenon. Ok, it could be but even so, sorry, it's a little insubstantial .
Indeed, let me get it right :
- They publish a non-original photo in a newspaper; is the original one available somewhere so everyone can judge by himself and confirm/disprove the
- This photo is a part of a sequence, but we do not have access to it.
- They estimate that this light was 1.5m in diameter, 100m (or 500m?) away from the camera and 30m above the ground. Where are the computations that
lead them to reach these estimations?
- Do they think before (I can't imagine they haven't do that at first) of all the possible misidentification/confusion sources? If so, where are all
the data and why they do not publish them before? It can only be helpful to their research to be transparent otherwise it could appears like there's
some information cover-up or withholding.
- Where are all the spectrum analysis? If they wait two years before publishing their findings, i can't imagine that they do not at first compare the
spectrum to their database (but maybe they haven't built any?). Hauge said that "it looks like a 100 watt old bulb lamp".... Ok, and so? Is it enough
to conclude that this light is an unknown phenomenon?
I can understand the excitement and enthusiasm, but shouldn't :
1-the whole data of the camera be available to anyone in order to be transparent in their work.
2-all the possible confusions be considered and deeply scrutinized at first ? Imagine for a moment that, after all, it is found to be just a landing
light or any mundane terrestrial object. I guess that this could appears then to be at best careless, and at worst incompetence. But maybe after all
they have done all of this during these two years, but if so, why there's no public complete report? Let's back then to point 1...
I also would like to point out two things:
- Yes, the light really seems to light up the lake
(like it is said in one of the paper, not exactly the same as "light up the ground"). And
so? Does this disprove any mundane explanation? You can find thousand of similar examples where the moon reflection can be seen on a water surface,
the same do applies for landing lights.
- About the distance/size/elevation computations, believe me it's not that easy to give such estimation, especially for a bright object without any
reference points. In order to do so, all that you can do is to have two cameras separated by a known distance that simultaneously record the same
phenomenon at the same moment. Then you can do some photogrammetry
analysis. It appears to be
that that's what they have done, but, again, where are the details of the computations? Also, personally, if I would like to reinforce such a finding,
I will publish the two photos...
This remind me when I met Hauge and Strand in 2014 during the CAIPAN workshop in Paris. We, with Francois Louange, were somewhat surprised with this
picture showed in their poster:
The central picture appears to be a cropped version of the original one:
... and the "balls of light" appeared then to be just ... lens flares:
(See the whole story here
When we explained that fact in Paris in 2014 to Strand and politely asked for the original photo so we can better check with IPACO this hypothesis, he
flatly refused to give this original photo, giving the excuse that it will do that later when he will have the time. Of course, we never get this
How this can be interpreted? Personally, I was quite disappointed by this attitude, at the light of our mutual previous good agreement.
Anyway, sorry for the digression, but it was necessary to understand that my previous experience with the Hessdalen team was somewhat disappointing
and that the way they analyze their photos/videos documents is somewhat curious, at the light of my own photo analyst past experience.
29-4-2017 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)