It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists in Norway presents photographic evidence of the Hessdalen Phenomenon

page: 6
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

For those who have followed this for years this is very significant. From radiation effects on the ground, the moving of turf, and snow, it's been quite clear that these phenomena can give the appearance of being more than simple lights.

I believe there are some reports of signalling being attempted with a laser and a response?




posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The U.S has said it's swamp gas.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Hmm, round here we call those sun dogs.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Well, there is no doubt that there have been a lot of strange things being reported in the valley over the years. Most of them by the locals and visitors, who found themselved laughed and joked about for years.

The scientists have been focusing on trying to get measurements from the phenomenon.

BT



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

I think sun dogs, barring some translation issues, is especially mentioned in the article. as something they considered and ruled out.

BT



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Thank you for a thoughtful posts and for putting some effort into your comment!!

I think the full photo sequence clearly shows that the light, whatever it is, lights up the ground. We only have this one picture, but as the researchers seem confident they can demonstrate this, I see no reason to doubt this.

I would think that rules rules out this being a landing light or a lens flare, would you not agree?

They have also estimated the light in the picture to be under 500m from the camera with some confidence, using footage from other cameras. The estimated distance to the light is approx 100m and the height is an estimated 30 m above ground.

I would guess the full presentation would be valuable in order to get the details, but it is not (yet?) available as far as I have found.

BT
edit on 28-4-2017 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
There is a reflection of the object in the water below if you look closely...

It does look dark enough for the moon to be out...



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
just looks like the picture was folded



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

Im not particularly interested in the lights, just some odd phenomena like the aurora borealis. But it does highlight the childish behavior of many scientist who smell heresy at the slightest mention of something ET. Listening to one of the primary researchers explain how he had to choose his words carefully so not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the scientific community was comical.

Its no wonder we havent gotten anywhere with some of the better sightings when you cant even get many people to acknowledge something so well documented.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

This is the first time I read about this phenomenon, thanks for posting it.

For some ball of light to just appear out of nowhere and be able to light the ground 30 meters below it, it requires quite a bit of energy.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It is indeed very interesting.

If you look at the abstract for the actual presentation on page 1 of this thread, there has been some attempts at measuring the energy of the phenomenon. Estimates vary quite spectacularly from as high as 1 MW to a more moderate 19 KW.

As explained in the Abstract, one reason the calculations vary this much is a problem with measurimg the distance to the phenomenon from instruments.

In this particular case the confidence is pretty high that they can place the light at under 500 m to the camera, and thus get more accurate measurements.
The estimated range is 100 m, but with a possible maximum distance of up to 500m.

BT



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

This is a huge problem.

I recently read a study that attempted to look into this in more detail. The research goal was to see if there was a difference in various fields, age groups, and so forth.

They got some results, but the most telling fact, I thought, was that of over 6000 scientists who were sent a questionnaire about whether they thought UAP was worthy of further study, less that 300 bothered to respond.

You can read about the study and download a copy in pdf here from the Frontiers in Science Journal website.

BT
edit on 29-4-2017 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SecretKnowledge



It does look dark enough for the moon to be out...


The light in the picture is not present in the previous and subsequent exposures taken 5 seconds before this one and 5 seconds after this one.

Further, the estimated distance to the light is less than 500 m with a high degree of confidence.

The moon was not visible in the relevant portion of the sky at the time the picture was taken.

The date is 16.09.2015 at 21:11 GMT+1 in Hessdalen, Norway. I guess someone with access to Stellarium can establish where the moon was at the time.

The object did light up the ground as you point out.

BT
edit on 29-4-2017 by beetee because: Typo



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust

Thank you for a thoughtful posts and for putting some effort into your comment!!

You're welcome!

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 claims?
- 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 picture...

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.
edit on 29-4-2017 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BullwinkleKicksButt

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: BullwinkleKicksButt

ETA: There were witnesses, but they were watching the camera exposures on a screen inside their tent.

BT


So they were watching the lens flare of the camera on a computer screen.

You'd need to be outside the tent and physically witness the scene with your own eyes to rule out lens flare.

I don't see the ground being significantly lit up.

yes, I'm sure these highly intelligent scientists somehow aren't smart enough to tell the difference between lens flare and environmental phenomenon, and/or didn't bother to rule that out before making this public. good thing you're here to set everybody straight...



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
My personal theory is that geological pressure deep underground generate electrical charges along with discharges of gasses such as methane which find their way to the surface. It creates an effect similar to ball lightning but clustered in pockets of gas in the atmosphere. Interesting phenomena to be sure.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: beetee

It's thors rainbow bridge😃😃😃



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Well, again, thank you for a well written post.

I can see you might be suspicious of their work if you have had a negative experience with them before.

However, regarding this photo and the analysis I expect that a more thorough presentation was given. They had 1,5 hours to present their data at the coference in Vienna, so I expect that the full presentation will become available. I have been looking for the video, because some sessions were filmed, but I have not been able to find it.

I have never met the Hessdalen team myself, but I think it is.obvious that they believe there is something there. Would you not agree? Or they would not spend 30 years trying to gather data on it. Or try to get other scientists to come up there and do their own research. That would be very silly if you have something to hide.

I am not a photo analyst myself, but I should think that there is a few points that seems relevant to the validity of the data.

One is whole sequence of photos, showing the light conditions before and after this photo. If a comparative analysis were to demonstrate that the light is only in one frame, we can perhaps exclude such things as the moon and sun. Further, should the frame sequence show that the light does light up the ground, not only cast reflections in the water, perhaps you would agree that it is most likely a light in the immediate vincinity of the camera and not some celestial object, an airplane or lens flares?

If the flight records for the day and time were presented, and showed no civilian traffic, we would also be a small step closer to adressing your concerns. As for military traffic, I guess it should be possible to fimd out if they had any planes im the area with landing lights.

As to them presenting only one image and not the original, that is not really fair, because the OP is taken from the national news site, and not an scientific article.

If you read the abstract on page1 of this thread you will see that a large part of their presentation was indeed a spectographic analysis, although as this work is not published yet, we do not have it at present.

You may also be aware that other scientists have done work in Hessdalen, some of which is published. The paper I linked to furter up in this page, which can be found here have some references you can check out of you want.

So it's not only this lot.

Anyway, it's a fun discussion, and although I am still leaning towards this being what they are claiming it is, it would surely be a disaster for both Project Hessdalen and UAP research in more broad terms if they have indeed held a 1,5 hour presentation of a lens flare..Or landing ligts, for that matter.

If someone manages to get hold of the whole presentation, that would be great. Or the full article.

BT



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

To be honest your approach is unreasonable. You, and your group, seem to be asking for the original, and I am guessing they only have one original since the op states this several times. For all that they know your group could simply wisk the photo away from the owner and they would never see it again.

A more agreeable approach could be if your group requested to be able to look at the original photo in the presence of the owner/s, and that any tests being done are done in conjunction and in agreement with other scientists chosen by the owner/s of the original photo.

The way you put it, that your group requested to be given the original photo is not reasonable at all.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Honestly I believe it. Only reason is because I've seen the same looking glowing orbs 4 times in my life. First time in a hot tub in Mexico. With tooooons of people watching it. Bout 5 years ago
Last year in January and March twice here in Kamloops bc. Where there is a supposed airbase to the north. Same area I always seen them the last one was werird because it was moving slowly to the right in the sky as I was driving towards it and when I got to a set of apartments I couldn't find it until I looked waaaay south east of me up on the mountains and it was so small but had to have moved lightning fast to get there that quick. And I watched it lower and rise behind the mountain a short while long and disappears.
First time in January 1 orb appeared and than another and another and they started moving in formations like a triangle
Back to straight left nd right and again up and down again I seen a man walking his dog to make just I wasn't just seeing anything and we stood there bout 10 minutes watching them move until 1. 2. 3. Faded 1 by down going down but every time it's always the same look. A bright glowing orb. So I definitely believe there's something going on as they don't look natural or like any plane or helicopter. No. Form to them just round.

Now I know the situation is different than this but because the orbs looked the same I had to chip in.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join