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: 7
70
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
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.

Since this is a digital document, a simple direct copy can be considered as “original”. Extract from IPACO's methodology:

In digital photography, a photo/video file is deemed original if it results from a simple direct copy (under Windows, Linux, Mac OS…) of the file originally created in the camera, and if the picture has been shot without activating any processing or inlaying of an on-line option.



originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
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.

About this specific case, we do not asked anything at all. I was talking about the photo extract that was showed in the CAIPAN 2014 workshop in their poster. I must admit that the way I presented it in my previous post sounds somewhat rude. To be more correct, we tried several time, in a very cooperative and friendly way to discuss the matter with Strand, showing him how it works with the lens flare effect, alas with no luck.

It’s very frustrating to be able to prove without a doubt with specifics analysis tools that there’s a misidentification in a photo, and to see that firstly you have no answer to your demonstration and secondly that the photo in question is still promoted as an unknown phenomenon, let alone that it cast some doubts on the Hessdalen team approach.




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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 conference in Vienna, so I expect that the full presentation will become available.

Yes, this is my hope as well. However I must say that I’m a little surprised that the press was informed of the finding before any presentation release. If I place myself in the position of a basic reader, the way it is presented in the papers cast no doubt on the validity of the findings. I’m not saying at all that this is fake news in any way, but showing a poor resolution single image in a paper to support a finding of this importance is not really serious. Who is to blame? The newspapers of the Hessdalen team?


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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.

Yes, I agree that they believe there is something there. That said, this is different from “there is something there”.

I’m not saying that there’s nothing in the Hessdalen valley, I will be the first to applause if the scientific proof (using the spectrum data for example) that something new is really there emerge from these 30 years of collecting data. But the first work to do (and my hope is that the Hessdalen scientists do proceed this way as well) is to do an in-depth investigation to dismiss any prosaic stimulus.

Also, let not fall into the trap of the argument from authority. Of course, there’s no doubt that there are some talented scientists that work with the Hessdalen team but as skilled as they are in their own subject, they are probably less competent in photo analysis.

The way the French GEIPAN works is a good example of what can be done. For the most impressive unexplained UFO cases, after a first complete investigation, the cases are submitted to a panel of experts which, in their own expertise field, give their opinion at the light of their knowledge. The expertise vary from weather, psychology, photo, aeronautic, etc.
So, again, what makes me suspicious about their approach is the way they handle all the photo/video matter. Is there any photo/video analyst/expert over there?

I don’t think they deliberately hide something. They act in fact like they are so sure of the validity of all their findings that any other input from anyone else that could help them to separate the wheat from the chaff is simply ignored.


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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 vicinity of the camera and not some celestial object, an airplane or lens flares?

Yes, of course! It’s not that easy to see in the poor reproductions in the papers (low resolution), another good reason to ask for the original full resolution frame.

Also, the moon and sun can be excluded: it’s easy to check this with Stellarium and the right date/hour and the geographic coordinates.


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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 addressing your concerns. As for military traffic, I guess it should be possible to find out if they had any planes in the area with landing lights.

Again, yes! But let’s wait if they will present all these flight data. I can’t imagine that they did not do that kind of (in-depth of course) investigations at first.


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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.

Well, I’m pretty sure that the Hessdalen team had the choice to either refuse or accept to present their findings at first in the press before any scientific publication. Nobody forced them to do a press release… (see my answer above to ElectricUniverse).


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
If you read the abstract on page1 of this thread you will see that a large part of their presentation was indeed a spectrographic analysis, although as this work is not published yet, we do not have it at present.

Yes, I do note that. I also note that Hauge said “it looks like a 100 watts old bulb lamp”. Not that spectacular.


originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: elevenaugust
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 lights, for that matter.

Yes, but unfortunately, it already happened! Of course, we all do mistakes. But the mistakes they have done on some of their photo interpretation is rather worrying, let alone that they do not accept it and do not communicate easily on that matter.

Anyway, I agree that, while there are some photos/videos that are certainly misidentification of prosaic phenomenon, there are some others that are probably still unexplained.
edit on 30-4-2017 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Personally, rather than perceive the Hessdalen phenomenon as UFOs, I prefer to see them as ULOs (unidentified luminescent objects). There is a homepage for the project studying the phenomenon called 'Project Hessdalen. They have 3 web cams set up for you to visit and watch in real time for any phenomenon that might show up.

www.hessdalen.org/station/stream1.shtml

If the scientists studying the phenomena in Hessdalen were able to place seismic sensors in the ground underneath where the lights appear, they could try to correlate the appearance of the phenomenon with seismic readings. Would also like to see another web cam system set up deeper in the valley, closer to where the lights emerge.

Here's a documentary for you to watch...

www.disclose.tv...



edit on 30/4/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

It's interesting that you see the same effect with the lights on the right bottom of the photo. The reflective rainbow above and below the lights as your photos posted above.



I looked at the coordinates and it's difficult to tell if these are simply houses lit up across the countryside. If not, the three group of lights could be lens flares and add validity to the argument that the main light could be the same.



posted on May, 1 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This phenomena appears to be similar to the Marfa Lights in W. TX. U.S. I don't think there's any question that the phenomena is real, the question is, what causes the lights to appear? I favor the natural 'battery' theory that postulates a build up of electric charge in the atmosphere conducted by a piezoelectric action on quartz in the area.
edit on 1-5-2017 by Blarneystoner because: corrected ambiguity



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
This phenomena appears to be similar to the Marfa Lights in W. TX. U.S. I don't think there's any question that the phenomena is real, the question is, what causes the lights to appear? I favor the natural 'battery' theory that postulates a build up of electric charge in the atmosphere conducted by a piezoelectric action on quartz in the area.


I'm not sure, I may be misunderstanding both, but I think that the Battery and Piezoelectric explanations are two different hypotheses.

This is a link to the paper on the Battery Theory, so please correct me if I am wrong and I am missing the electrical input.

www.itacomm.net...

I don't have anything as detailed on the latter otherwise...I like elements (no pun intended) of the battery theory, but whether a combination of the two might actually be a better explanation...I don't know enough about it to know...sadly. I am sure that I read somewhere that they have found no evidence of relationship between seismic activity and the lights at Hessdalen...is that the same relationship?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

You're not wrong. I was less than clear denoting that the similarities between the two phenomena are only that they occur as the result natural processes. And that the lights result from electrical discharge. The Marfa lights are the result of piezoelectric action on quartz. The Hessdalen Phenomenon may be the result of a naturally occurring battery. The valley in which the lights occur contain zinc and iron on one side of the river running through it, and rich in copper on the other side... which produces an electrical current.

Source: DailyMail.co.uk



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Pretty much.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join