Hessdalen live ufo camera is working!

reply to post by hande


Ok that explains it, so it is an industrial camera ?

Here's a very interesting video:
Report 991204 - From the measurement station December 4, 1999

The video-recording start the 4.Desember 1999, at 16:20:29. The watch in the screen shows summertime, which is one hour wrong in the wintertime.

The whole video-sequence is 13,0 seconds long. 25 frames ii recorded every second. The second counter in the screen shows 29 in the beginning of the recording. 16 frames later it change to 30. That tells that the recording startet 9 frames out in the second 29. - The second counter shows 42 when the recording stops. It is 9 frames that shows the number 42. That tells that the whole recording is from second no. 29 and 9 frames, up to second no. 42 and 9 frames, total 13,0 seconds.

In the first sequence below, you see a part of the screen and a part of the recording. It is one picture for each second frame. Totally 59 pictures cover a sequence of 118 frames, or 118/25= 4,7 seconds. The second counter start at 37 and ends at 41. That cover the part when a small light, just below to the right of the big light, moves up in the big light. That can be seen on the pictures from no.12 to 15.

www.hessdalen.org...
www.hessdalen.org...


Professor J. Allen Hynek in Hessdalen.

During the second fieldwork of Project Hessdalen, professor J.Allen Hynek did visit the Project Hessdalen headquarter. During that visit, Hynek was interviewed several times. You will find some quick-time movies of a interview made in Hessdalen January 27. 1985.

Professor Hynek says:

I am impressed by Hessdalen itself, because Hessdalen is really a UFO laboratory. It is a place where things are happening and where things can be studied.
(9 seconds, 10 frames/sec., sound: 16KHz sample, size: 1619 KByte

Hessdalen has had the best equipment and the best periode of operation and observation of the UFO-phenomenon any place in the world.
(12 seconds, 5 frames/sec., sound: 16KHz sample, size: 1251 KByte

Whatever it turns out to be, it is terrible important.
(2 seconds, 5 frames/sec., sound: 16KHz sample, size: 278 KByte




[edit on 19/12/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Hi Internos,

On this specific capture & video presented by the OP, what I find ridiculous is to claim that this is the HP without verifying & checking the data first. As you know, I spend over a year writing to some of the so called scientists involved in Hessdalen and gathering data from Hessdalen, I do know a little bit what I am talking about.

Show us if you can, why these lights could be the HP ?

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck



[edit on 19-12-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by muriaz
This picture is one of many interesting photos from Hessdalen.
It was taken in 2007, and shows how the phenomenon moves
through the sky.



(photo: Bjørn Gitle Hauge)

Hi there,

Wrong, this shows that the photograph (30 s exposure time) moved :

i263.photobucket.com...


I am still waiting for the spectrum analysis done by Mr Bjorn Hauge...


Cheers,
Buck

reply to post by internos

Internos I dloaded that clip from their website and was watching it as well. I am not following their explanation on the time sequence. Watching the clip it stops at second 41 and resumes at second 52 do you see an explanation on this? Would be interested to see the rest of the path of travel myself.

Originally posted by Europa733
reply to post by internos

 

Hi Internos,

On this specific capture & video presented by the OP, what I find ridiculous is to claim that this is the HP without verifying & checking the data first. As you know, I spend over a year writing to some of the so called scientists involved in Hessdalen and gathering data from Hessdalen, I do know a little bit what I am talking about.

Show us if you can, why these lights could be the HP ?

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck

I was referring to the phenomena in general, just in case it was being claimed that the Hessdalen lights are man made (ecause it wasn't clear to me). The subject of the OP is that the webcam is streaming again, and regarding the capture by itself nothing can be said unless something is detected by the other instruments: besides that camera just streams, it's not recording anything, so even if we would investigate on the genuinity of the shots, we couldn't. I'm always very careful in expressing opinions, all know this, except you, it seems.
The so called scientists ARE scientists, and since you are talking about them in this way, I will let THEM know about it. You speak as if you would have some vaste knowedge about what is being done there, but: you know what they want to let you know. Your purpose seems to be to discredit their work, isn't it? Do you know what exactly is being done every day there: how the monitoring is being done, what instruments are being used, what detection system have been developed, etc.? Have you found out that they are not scientists? Did you check personally their background? Please, share your findings.

Interesting also your analysis on

Wrong, this shows that the photograph (30 s exposure time) moved

Now, care to explain how comes that since what we see is due to the movement of the camera, the pattern of the lights is limited to only a few of them: and the OTHER ONES? Are you claiming that in a scenario with many static lights, some of them may appear like a dot and just a few may appear like what we see? Only some area of the camera was moving, was a paranormal photograph or WHAT?

And what you are waiting for?

I am still waiting for the spectrum analysis done by Mr Bjorn Hauge...

Optical spectrum analysis of the Hessdalen phenomenon.
Preliminary report June 2007
Bjørn Gitle Hauge
Assistant Professor
Østfold University College, 1757 Halden, Norway

ABSTRACT: Identification of the unexplained luminous phenomenon in Hessdalen has always been difficult to do, since these phenomena’s often is mixed up with artificial and natural lights as cars, aeroplanes, meteors, planets etc. Although the Hessdalen phenomena has some spectacular manifestations, like; “huge blinking and spiralling lightball”, these manifestations are rare, and in most of the cases it shows itself in a more modest manifestation, often mistaken as a natural source of light. The latest development in digital SLR cameras, and the use of transmission gratings to obtain optical spectra, has made it possible to identify the Hessdalen phenomenon, and to find the chemical elements which the phenomenon is made of.

www.itacomm.net...

Is there since 2007: is this one you are talking about or there's something else that you want? Is there something missing in the analysis and, if yes, WHAT?



[edit on 20/12/2008 by internos]

Hi Internos,

You said this :

Internos : "DONT be ridiculous claiming that they are man made lights. They are Hessdalen lights, and who knows this stuff also knows that there IS a phenomena that has NOT been explained so far.
HP = Hessdalen phenomena
LTPA = Luminous Transient Phenomena in the Atmosphere"

In response to Waldy's message :

Waldy : "Those lights must be man made light sources from houses or light poles."

And he was talking about the video in THIS thread, how can you generalize when answering him ?

So now, you are trying to get away with this :

Internos "I was referring to the phenomena in general"


Doens't matter anyway (intellectual honesty), let's get to the subject...

Internos : The so called scientists ARE scientists, and since you are talking about them in this way, I will let THEM know about it.

First, you do not even know who I am talking about, who I contacted, and who I think are pseudo-scientists or bad ones. So you would be the one acting like a fool if you did since I didn't name them exactly, but I can if I want. (by the way, I am not aiming at the ICPH-CIPH but some people...)

Internos : You speak as if you would have some vaste knowedge about what is being done there, but: you know what they want to let you know. Your purpose seems to be to discredit their work, isn't it?

I started an initiative in the biggest french skeptic forum, and my goal was to obtain enough data to proove them (skeptics) that there is such a thing to start with (HP).

Now, let's see your claim again :

Internos : DONT be ridiculous claiming that they are man made lights. They are Hessdalen lights, and who knows this stuff also knows that there IS a phenomena that has NOT been explained so far.

Ok, let's talk in general then, there is not one single ounce of scientifical & empirical proof to validate & back up this claim. Hessdalen Lights ARE NOT a phenomena known or recognized by the main scientific community and their studies (Project Hessdalen) started over 20 years ago...

A long time for not much...Now bring some credible peer rewieved documents & studies validating the EXISTENCE of such a phenomena, even if it isn't understood yet. I am not only interested but I would be happy to get this kind of information to present to the french scientific community (GEIPAN included)

Why do I say all that ?

Not because I am a specialist of the subject (which i am not) but because I was like you, I did believe these people had something interesting to provide. Something to send to some scientists in my country and make skeptics realize that we should really take the matter seriously. But it never happenned, I failed and I never got what I and they* (as my partners in the forum) asked for.


Now, you can follow the thread here if you understand french, I am Buckwilld :

ufo-logic.xooit.com...


Some of their work has been debunked by some of my fellow partners in this forum and guess what. It is precisely something (a picture) coming out of the report you linked : Optical spectrum analysis of the Hessdalen phenomenon. Preliminary report June 2007

Internos : "Your purpose seems to be to discredit their work, isn't it?"

My purpose is to find out what's going on in Hessdalen, that's it. You do not know who I respect in this field (there are some) but I shouldn't have generalized when I said "the so called scientists" but I do not want to name them precisely.

Internos : Now, care to explain how comes that since what we see is due to the movement of the camera, the pattern of the lights is limited to only a few of them: and the OTHER ONES? Are you claiming that in a scenario with many static lights, some of them may appear like a dot and just a few may appear like what we see? Only some area of the camera was moving, was a paranormal photograph or WHAT?


Well, let me ask you this question, can you tell us why the star draws the exact same pattern and there you got your answer :

i263.photobucket.com...


Now, let's make things clear, I did promote their research (Hessdalen project), not anymore, but I do promote the ICPH research (SOSO Inititative). Just read my french thread about it or click my name and read some of my threads here on ATS talking about the HP. But there are quiet a few scientists involved in the Hessdalen Phenomena study that are just pure amateurs. I mean that they don't even know how to use an astronomical software (I do have proof of this), so do not expect to see reliable or rigorous work and it does require at least this and much more....


Internos : Is there since 2007: is this one you are talking about or there's something else that you want? Is there something missing in the analysis and, if yes, WHAT?

Nope, not this one, I am waiting for the Bjorn Hauge's spectrum analysis of their famous picture : www.hessdalen.org...
But guess what again there's a bias in the document you linked, and a BIG 1...wanna know which one ?

They talked about it here :

22.04.2008 Erling Strand and Bjøsh Gitle Hauge have a meeting, where the analyzing of the picture from Science Camp 2007 is discussed. This is really interesting!!

Link : www.hessdalen.org...

You are completely wrong about me, because the skeptics in "my" forum want to have their contacts (scientists) to review their studies & data. It won't be me, I am just coordinating this documentary research & data gathering.

And one last thing, I do "believe" that there's such a phenomena, but the answers I got to my mails from some of them did not convince the skeptics and even myself.

Oh by the way, the skeptics I am talking about are well known and even respected by the French GEIPAN, not your average debunker...

Want proof ? Here, some of their work is linked in the GEIPAN's website :
www.cnes-geipan.fr...

So I might not know & understand everything about Hessdalen (how could I anyway) but I do know quiet a few serious scientists thant can take a look at their work and that is what matters.

Now, read our thread in the french forum and you will understand my pov.

EDIT : Anyway, since I do not know what foolish things you are about to do, I will contact the people I respect in this field to let them know about this thread and what I said exactly.

Cheers anyway,
Europa aka Buck







[edit on 20-12-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Europa733
Now bring some credible peer rewieved documents & studies validating the EXISTENCE of such a phenomena, even if it isn't understood yet.

Would this be good enough for you?

"A Long-Term Scientific Survey of the Hessdalen Phenomenon", by MASSIMO TEODORANI, CNR—Istituto di Radioastronomia / Radiotelescopi di Medicina:

www.scientificexploration.org...

It is from Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 217–251, 2004, published by "Society for Scientific Exploration:

The Society was founded in 1982 by fourteen scientists and scholars and now has approximately 800 members in 45 countries worldwide. The SSE publishes a peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) and holds annual scientific meetings in the USA and periodic meetings in Europe. Society members include scholars from a broad range of disciplines. Topics addressed in its journal and in its regular meetings cover a wide spectrum, ranging from real or apparent anomalies in well-established areas of science to paradoxical phenomena that belong to no established discipline.

www.scientificexploration.org...


I find your attack on Internos rather puzzling. He stated that he was talking about the Hessdalen Phenomena in general, to clear up any misunderstandings. You seem provoked by the fact that he generalized.
And yet you yourself generalized about the scientists studying this phenomena...

When presenting links to written material in French, you should also provide a translation of it or get someone to translate for you. I don't think I am the only member of ATS who doesn't understand a word of French.

Originally posted by ziggystar60

I find your attack on Internos rather puzzling. He stated that he was talking about the Hessdalen Phenomena in general, to clear up any misunderstandings. You seem provoked by the fact that he generalized.
And yet you yourself generalized about the scientists studying this phenomena...

When presenting links to written material in French, you should also provide a translation of it or get someone to translate for you. I don't think I am the only member of ATS who doesn't understand a word of French.

Ziggy:
once he posted a photo of a BIRD, the general consensus was that the photo was the one of a BIRD but you know what he did? He went to Jeff Ritzmann asking for his opinion (and claiming he "was sent by me" while all i've said was: "You can open a thread in Jeff's forum: he's simply the best. " ) and when even Jeff told him that it was a BIRD he started trolling him, until Springer had to chime in and STOP him:

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Europa733

 

Europa and xxxxxxxxx:

I have some very good advice for you, when you come to someone's house and ask for FREE HELP and THEIR TIME you accept what you get.

Jeff doesn't have to answer any bloody questions, you asked him for an analysis and that's what he gave you.

I suggest you both move on before I get really disgusted and very mad.

Springer...

He's trying to do the same here, NOW: start trolling with some loooooooooong story, loooooooong list of questions, looooooooong series of claims claims etc. etc.: well, he's wrong, 'cause im going to ignore all his posts since NOW.
Now, look at what Mr. Europa, aka Buck aka Intellectual honesty in person has been able to do, so you'll have an idea about his intellectual honesty:

Originally posted by Europa733
Hi everyone,

Well, French Official UAP (PAN in French) study group (GEIPAN) recently released the case. You can easily find it in their archives, just by clicking on "recherche" then click on the map in the South Eastern most region. Here is the direct link anyway :

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

Let me just remind you that the GEIPAN is a branch of the CNES which is equivalent to NASA in the US. Anyway, here is the most important part of the tiny report that I will translate for you :

NOTE: translation starts here:
==============================================

"A rigorous study of this case has been conducted by the French Military Police (Gendarmes) and the meteorological phenomena hypothesis has been
excluded but brought to light the fact that an unknown radar trace composed of 1 object "buzzing" on the radar 3 times were recorded by the PSR (primary radar of the Nice Int'l Airport) more or less during the same time the picture was taken. This echo showed an "object" accelerating at an incredible rate.

Another radar echo seems to show that a military aircraft (Mirage 2000)* was "escorted" by another unidentified object."


==============================================
NOTE: translation ends here.

Well, this is good news, I do not think one second that the French Military and the GEIPAN would have posted this case in their archives, if it would simply be a bird.

I am still working on the bird hypothesis and will keep you uptdated with this story...

* : I know it was a Mirage 2000 because the witness told me that his uncle told him about the fighter jet story. Just remember that the photograph called the Military Police and his uncle in the French Air Force.

Peace,
Europa

There's a COUPLE of PROBLEMS with Mr. intellectually honest Europa aka buck:
in his translation from French to English he "forgot" to mention that in according to GEIPAN the hypothesis of a bird passing close to the camera was "perfectly acceptable". He also "forgot" to mention that the report reads that there's a colony of pigeons in the clock that can be seen in the photo: ah, he also "forgot" to mention that GEIPAN conclusion was that the BIRD explanation was the one to favor since it was the most likely.

Do you really think that i can accept lessons about intellectual honesty by someone who deliberately LIED in order to make us believe that GEIPAN was claiming that it was NOT a BIRD?

Originally posted by Europa733
Well, this is good news, I do not think one second that the French Military and the GEIPAN would have posted this case in their archives, if it would simply be a bird.

Uh, and how comes that the following is their classification

Class A UAP: Observation explained without any type of ambiguity.
Class B UAP: Observation where the selected hypothesis by GEIPAN is very probable.
Class C UAP: Observation that couldn't be explained, due to lack of information.
Class D UAP: Unexplained observations, in spite of the information available.

and that to the bird has been given the Class B UAP (Observation where the selected hypothesis by GEIPAN is very probable) wich is the BIRD one?
So, Ziggy, whenever you need some translation from french, you'd better to use google translation, at least it doesn't deliberately LIE, lol.

Originally posted by Europa733
In response to Waldy's message :

This is another one of your MANY LIES: please show me the "reply to waldy" link: or do you want me to have problems with other members because of YOUR LIES dude? If waldy will ask for some clarification, i will clarify it, while i think that now it's clear enough for all, except for YOU, of course.
Europa, WHAT are you supposedly doing? You want to what? To review the work being made by them? Do you think to be in the position to review their work? And you think that GEIPAN would need YOU in order to get in touch with them? Are you the official coordinator between scientists or what? What makes you think to be needed? What makes you feel so important? And why you keep blaming some anonymous people, since in this way EVERYONE involved in the research can be thought to be the pseudo-scientis? Who are the pseudo-scientists in your opinion and why? Care to provide some name, so the pseudo-scientists themselves will be able to defend themselves? What would be the purpose of your claim otherwise? I trust in the research being done by THEM, not in your french forum, which i don't even bother to loook at due to lack of time to waste: i read their pubblication and whenever i need to know something, i just ASK: and i've always obtained SATISFACTORY replies from them. Regarding to contact them about your behavior: well, it seems that at least some of them already realized many things about you, so there was no need at all, lol.

Now I have some very good advice for you:
below my avatar, you'll find a link which reads. "ignore".
To click on it would be a VERY wise choice from you: i wil ignore all your posts as well, it won't be such a huge waste though.
Goodbye, Europa aka buck: and give the credits when you use enhancements made by me.


[edit on 21/12/2008 by internos]

Hi Internos,

Why didn't you answer to any of my questions ?

Busted ?

Cheers anyway,
Europa aka Buck

Hi Internos,

Internos : once he posted a photo of a BIRD, the general consensus was that the photo was the one of a BIRD but you know what he did? He went to Jeff Ritzmann asking for his opinion (and claiming he "was sent by me" while all i've said was: "You can open a thread in Jeff's forum: he's simply the best. " ) and when even Jeff told him that it was a BIRD he started trolling him, until Springer had to chime in and STOP him


You said it yourself, you told me to open a thread in Jeff's forum = I was sent by you following your advice. What is the difference buddy ?


Internos : There's a COUPLE of PROBLEMS with Mr. intellectually honest Europa aka buck:
in his translation from French to English he "forgot" to mention that in according to GEIPAN the hypothesis of a bird passing close to the camera was "perfectly acceptable". He also "forgot" to mention that the report reads that there's a colony of pigeons in the clock that can be seen in the photo: ah, he also "forgot" to mention that GEIPAN conclusion was that the BIRD explanation was the one to favor since it was the most likely.


Never forgot to translate anything since the final report with the conclusions
came out LATER than the problem I had with JRittz, actually I got it just before it came out from Mr Patenet himself (head of GEIPAN), here is the message I posted in the french forum on July 11th 2008 right after I received his mail.

FLASH INFO :

Bonsoir,

J'ai quelques infos provenant de Mr Patenet du GEIPAN et en avant première :

Le cas de Bar sur Loup est maintenant bouclé du point de vue du GEIPAN et seul quelques contingences matérielles font qu'il n'est pas en ligne. Je précise que le cas est classé B avec une forte probabilité pour qu'il s'agisse d'un oiseau bien que la
possibilité d'une avion de ligne qui a été identifié ne soit pas à écarter. Quoiqu'il en soit pas d'ovni à Bar sur Loup et c'est là l'essentiel de ce cas assez peu intéressant (pas d'observation visuelle) qui a été artificiellement monté en épingle par la presse en exhumant des poubelles de la DGAC une pseudo trace radar. C'est la raison qui nous a poussé à y travailler et c'est dans ce sens là que j'ai indiqué que, une fois la trace radar éliminée, le cas n'avait plus d'intérêt (j'en ai au moins un par jour de ce type là ...) et que l'énergie passée à identifier l'objet devait rester limitée pour le GEIPAN compte tenu du nombre d'enquêtes en cours. Bien sur je n'empêche personne de faire d'autres recherches et je serai même tout à fait preneur de tout complément intéressant traité de façon sérieuse (pour éviter de dire "scientifique").

Link (and proof) : ufo-logic.xooit.com...

And if you translate that, you'll see that the GEIPAN thinks that it would be a bird or a plane. You are talking about a conclusion....
So the problem I had with JRittz happened 4 MONTHS BEFORE THAT in March 2008. Are you gonna keep saying that I am a liar ? Get your stuff together before you do so buddy.

Link (and proof) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Internos : Goodbye, Europa aka buck: and give the credits when you use enhancements made by me

Well, I did, you did not read well (another lie of yours or a mistake, people will choose) :

Je tiens à remercier Internos d'ATS qui m'a donné pas mal d'infos sur la mission : www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes

This means, I wish to thank Internos from ATS for giving me lots of data for this mission : www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes

Link (and proof) : ufo-logic.xooit.com...

So, what else, where are my lies ? I explained everything and I can back up my claims. You tried to make me look like a liar but you failed. Maybe it's you the liar since either you were wrong telling all those things about me, either you lied...

Now for Ziggy, the Journal of Scientific Exploration is borderline, they got everything from UFOs to parapsychology. I have asked documents that can be found in the mainstream scientific community. This is not the case.


Now I did ask you a couple of questions and you did not answer them, all you did is start an pseudo-accusation out off topic and you FAILED. So now answer them if you can...and what about the famous Science Camp 2007 picture, you still think it moved ? lol

One last thing : I WANT you to APOLOGIZE because I demonstrated that I DID NOT LIE ONCE and that everything you said is wrong.

While on my side, I have to admit that I should have said that SOME scientists involved in these studies are bad, NOT ALL OF THEM.


Cheers anyway, I won't ignore because I still respect you and I still appreciate you. Ufology field is rough...
Europa aka Buck


EDIT : And by the way, anyone can go read my threads (photo surprise) by clicking at my name and they 'll understand why I and shakesbeer were pissed at JRittz. They will also notice that I am not a debunker so why would I want to debunk Hessdalen ? I want to know the truth, it's different...


[edit on 21-12-2008 by Europa733]

I've saved this to take a look when there is daylight / dusk as it is difficult to see anything on the night one.

does anyone know why this picture is so crappy at night time ?

i really don't understand why this camera is even on at night.

is there a reason or is supposed to look this bad ?

Originally posted by easynow
does anyone know why this picture is so crappy at night time ?

i really don't understand why this camera is even on at night.

is there a reason or is supposed to look this bad ?

Hi easynow

Couldn't tell you why it is "crappy" but remember that the HP and the reports
that comes out of this place mostly describe luminous phenomenas with a statistical tendancy to occur more often in winter (when it is dark) and when humidity levels are pretty high.

ps : just to let everyone know that the problem between Internos and I is over, I love this guy, it's a logical ending (I am no gay)



Cheers,
Europa


[edit on 24-12-2008 by Europa733]

So I've been doing a bit of observation of the Hessadalen Phenomena. I find it interesting that they seem to parallel in similarity to the Marfa lights in Texas, Mt. Shasta and most recently, what I and the ATS team experienced at Mt. Adams in Washington. Although I have no explanation for this type of phenomena (and I want to avoid conjecture at this time), I find it very interesting.

So i was watching the other day and taped the ending of one erratic light that jumped all over the place, by the time I got the video-recorder to start recording it was in it's final stages and was very far away. I can say that the way it jumped around "appeared to cover many feet to sometimes kilometers at a time. it's rather hard to actually determine a speed (and of course the distance) as the sequence I was watching/recording were in 5 second segments.

The video I'm including is of what I watched (again this is the ending of about one minute and 30 second event) on the 23rd and daybreak had just broken about 15 minutes prior.

reply to post by easynow


It is all about money.
www.hessdalen.org...

When these plans can be accomplished is dependend on how much money that will come from sponsors. The main sponsor today has been Østfold University College, in Norway. This amount has not been enough to bring the project up on to a high enough level, to get an answer on the question: "What is this UFO-phenomena".

[edit on 24/12/08 by muriaz]

[edit on 24/12/08 by muriaz]

reply to post by muriaz



thanks for the link and i understand that a lack of money would be a problem in having superior equipment but honestly i have seen many remote camera pictures but never seen a picture this bad at night time.

i guess the obvious answer is the camera is just not good enough for the needed clarity ?



to Johnny Anonymous....nice capture ! very interesting thanks

Sorry for any smell of thread jacking, but I was bean counting a similar set up yesterday for my farm in Spain. The costs didn't seem that high given I need to finance this myself, the image quality of the kit was a lot better than that shown on the H site and bandwidth didn't seem to be a big problem even with satellite uplinks.

I think they need to approach one of the video streaming hosts or resellers for sponsorship given that most resellers of this sort of kit have live demo feeds. It might be a benefit to those companies to have live feeds from remote countryside, with a ready made audience and the possibility of "associative" advertising via news networks if anything did pop up.

Trying to get money out of academia on an "old" project is a thankless task.

Shame though.

Today I checked Hessdalen camera picture and it is quite good. You can see tracks/road on the hill. Maybe they fixed camera? Ok, tonight I must watch it.

www.hessdalen.org...






[edit on 25-12-2008 by hande]

reply to post by hande


They appear to be power lines buddy.

You're right though, the day picture does seem clearer, you can see the main road clearly now.