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.

 

Norway: UFO “Hyperdimensional Portal Area” over Hessdalen.

page: 12
126
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I notice they didn't bring Dr Massimo Teodorani and Gloria Nobili in on this study.

Considering the CIPH brought in some doctoral student and published his report claiming the Hessdalen phenomenon was merely car lights, which the two earlier scientists had mistaken for an unusual phenomenon, it damages their credibility in being objective.

Obviously with this later study, it is clear that the car lights rebuttal explanation is nothing but pure garbage. I wonder if the author of the rebuttal is embarrassed by his cavalier attitude towards Dr Massimo Teodorani and Gloria Nobili?

jackphotohobby, anything you would like to say about your comments on my questioning of the rebuttal?

The thing about Scandium, it that it is pretty rare, and only found in compounds.

Considering these reported facts about Scandium.

www.britannica.com...


Scandium is found in small proportions in many of the heavy rare-earth ores of Scandinavia and elsewhere and in many tin and tungsten ores; it also occurs in the products of nuclear fission. The cosmic abundance of scandium is relatively high. Although it is only about the 50th most abundant element on Earth, it is about the 23rd most abundant element in the Sun.

Scandium is easily separated from the other rare earths by precipitation of the very insoluble potassium scandium sulfate or by extraction of scandium thiocyanate by diethyl ether. The metal itself was first prepared (1938) by the electrolysis of potassium, lithium, and scandium chlorides in a eutectic mixture (i.e., a mixture having the lowest melting point possible with those components). Scandium is now produced on a small scale mostly as a by-product of uranium extraction from the ...


How is it that this rare metal, only found in compounds from what I have read, from which is must be extracted, happens to be scattered all over this valley in a manner by which some sort of acid is able to extract from the soil to create this plasma (burning gas) phenomenon?

Where does the acid come from that extracts the Scandium from the soil? Was there any effort to take an air sample to identify this acid, and how much of it was in the air?

If there is no soil sample containing Scandium, why does the author reach this conclusion?

Ah, finally found the page where research papers are posted. Looks like Dr Teodorani has been brought back into the fold. In this recent paper he presents some pretty good concepts, in my opinion.

www.itacomm.net...


And now let’s discuss “spectra of earthlights”. Experience shows (The Brown Mountain Lights, website; Teodorani, 2004a; 2008a) that, in reality, such spectra do not represent at all the identity card of a plasma, as such spectra may change (presence or absence of certain lines) according to where the plasma is activated and to the temperature of the plasma itself at specific times. If it occurs in the sky we might expect simply excited atmospheric lines, whose intensity may vary according with the air density at a given time. Aerosol lines might be transiently present and sometimes not. If the plasma occurs close to the ground it might excite elements that are on the ground or over it, such as dust made of several chemical elements, such as silicon for instance, or it might trigger strange effects if other elements such as mould spores are present (Teodorani, 2004a), which might be more abundant in specific places than in others.

According to the few collected data so far in terms of optical spectroscopy the plasma itself doesn’t highlight specific chemical elements other than the surrounding ones that are transiently excited by its field of force (of which we do not well yet the nature, but on which we can so far venture work hypotheses). Earthlights are not at all like stars when we consider their “photosphere”: their spectrum may change all the time, and they may not offer relevant physical information on the intrinsic nature of the plasma, unless we analyze the specific shape of spectral lines. In particular, if spectral lines are split symmetrically we may suspect the presence, inside the plasma, of a more or less strong magnetic and/or electric field producing respectively Zeeman and Stark effects (Lang, 1998). This may be the physical information that can be really important if we want to build up some physics from the spectroscopic observation of earthlights such as the Hessdalen ones. If the plasma is spinning fast we might also find the signature of a rotational broadening effect of spectral lines (in case mixed up with a turbulence effect): this might be another signature of real physical importance that must
be considered in this research. In order to record such features of spectral lines we absolutely need that the spectrum is of sufficiently high resolution. On the contrary these features will not be visible and/or analyzable at all with sufficient accuracy.


This statement is the one I find particularly interesting.


In particular, if spectral lines are split symmetrically we may suspect the presence, inside the plasma, of a more or less strong magnetic and/or electric field producing respectively Zeeman and Stark effects (Lang, 1998). This may be the physical information that can be really important if we want to build up some physics from the spectroscopic observation of earthlights such as the Hessdalen ones.


This fits well with my hypothesis that electrons are long thin strings, not tiny particles moving very fast. They form long chains in space consisting of electrons and protons. Magnetic lines of flux are long tangled chains of electrons and some protons, er hydrogen.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Well I dont know much about air quality in the region but I do know there are sulphur deposits in the area as well , its mentioned in the video. Perhaps the ground is also acidic (rather than alkaline ). I wonder how much research into the geography of the locale has been done?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Being that this phenomenon is observed at specific locations, I wouldn't think it would be too hard to take samples and analyze the soil in those areas.

In the 2002 study Teodorani did take a sample in an area reported to be frequented by this theoretically observed plasma.

That is a good concept, maybe the acid is in the soil. Could acid and Iron also produce this effect? Scandium seems too rare to be a likely source, but once again, soil samples could provide the answer.

Maybe this plasma doesn't come up from the ground, but descends from the sky, and goes down to feed on mineral deposits in the area. Being that this phenomenon has been observed all over the planet, and even in space, chasing airplanes and ascending from storms, why not entertain the idea that this phenomenon does not originate from locations where it is most commonly observed?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I was kind of thinking (although my scientific abilities do not allow me to test this myself) , what if the scandium gets released from the ground when it rains on the sulphur deposits, carrying acidic matter from one part of the valley to the other, or even through the water table to the site of the scandium deposits. I still dont quite get how that would cause the balls of light and such, but its a thought anyway . It might be that if the weather is just right, say on the point of storming but not quite , then the energy that would normaly be released as lightning, might be reacting with these minerals and chemicals in the ground to some how produce this effect. Or maybe its to do with how close to the north pole all this is . Hell , I am really just throwing something out there, I dont know. I mean I dont know how the hell you get a naturaly occuring energy ball like that ... its freaky.
Something you said there rang with me so Im gonna react. Perhaps rather than originating from the deposits, the energy merely resonates or reacts in a more stable fashion in this sort of area ? Like lightning is more likely to hit a rod than the building its attatched to for instance?

[edit on 4-1-2010 by TrueBrit]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I think those are all reasonable ideas. Brainstorming kind of stuff, which is why I like these forums. Maybe these plasma forms are only more visible when they are absorbing minerals? You don't see them descend because they are low in energy. Then as they feed and grow stronger they become more visible.

The same would apply to the plasma form which ascend from thunderstorms.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


also check these great links.... posted by lunacognita......



Originally posted by LunaCognita
Electrostatic charging of lunar dust
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Effects of levitated dust on astronomical observations from the lunar surface - PDF
ntrs.nasa.gov...

Electrostatic effects on the lunar surface - PDF
www.lpi.usra.edu...

A Dynamic Fountain Model for Lunar Dust - PDF
ntrs.nasa.gov...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TrueBrit
...

Obviously with this later study, it is clear that the car lights rebuttal explanation is nothing but pure garbage. I wonder if the author of the rebuttal is embarrassed by his cavalier attitude towards Dr Massimo Teodorani and Gloria Nobili?

jackphotohobby, anything you would like to say about your comments on my questioning of the rebuttal?
...


You'll notice I've repeatedly linked to all of the documents (pro and against) in this thread, first here, on page 5:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, as people can see (all my posts in this thread): Click 'thread' below.

I have consistently linked to both sides of the story so people can make their own mind up. Not just the bits I agree with.

I noticed you started linking to actual evidence much later in the thread, after I and others had done so. A bit late to the party.

The rebuttal you refer to wasn't a rebuttal of the Hessdalen Phenomena. It was a rebuttal of the measurement methods used, in 2002, which I agree with, I don't think the methods were adequate. I think it was a solid argument. He argues that headlights were misidentified. I have the self-confidence to not be too bothered if people disagree with me.

However, unlike you I have consistently presented both sides of the story. (anyone who doesn't believe me can check the thread link below).

You seem to find the bits that agree with your theory and then take it very personally when things disagree with you.

Your debating method is finding things that agree with you and then repeatedly, disproportionately, posting to a thread until anyone who disagrees is bored into submission. It's cherry-picking with a bulldozer.

I've even said I'm fine with you disagreeing, but you obviously have so little self-confidence you feel a need to bring it up in a later post. I find that very sad.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Thanks mcrom901, I will read through those later.

It is starting to look like vacuum changes things so much we haven't even began to scratch the surface in our understanding of physics.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Obviously you don't have the self confidence to avoid making personal attacks.

Maybe you have the links, but apparently you don't have the ability to read and understand what is written and make an independent analysis.

You claim that you think the 2002 study by Dr Massimo Teodorani and Gloria Nobili was based on car headlights, but for some reason you can't explain why, which most likely means you are incapable of supporting your position.

My analysis of the rebuttal in question is in fact accurate. It looks like the rebuttal guy got a map, found a road, observed a car on that road, and then declared that was what is in the photographs based on his calculations of the light spectrum in comparison with halogen headlights, ignoring that most of what would have been seen would have been reflection which would have given a different, much broader range of spectrum.

What is really sad is that even though a later study by more experienced scientists than the doctorate grad confirmed that this phenomenon exists just as Dr Massimo Teodorani and Gloria Nobili described it, you continue to claim that all they observed were car lights.

Not only did the doctorate grad make inaccurate statements about the positions expressed in the 2002 study, so have you. Did your brain get too full before you reached the end?

All I see is pure bias and arrogance from you. You don't even have the good sense to apologize when it is more than obvious that you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


...

Not only did the doctorate grad make inaccurate statements about the positions expressed in the 2002 study, so have you. Did your brain get too full before you reached the end?

All I see is pure bias and arrogance from you. You don't even have the good sense to apologize when it is more than obvious that you are wrong.



This is what I don't understand. I've consistently linked to both sides of the story in this thread. I've stated what I believe. I don't understand why you have such a problem with people disagreeing with you.

The reason I haven't gone into why I think the issues discussed in the 2002 rebuttal are pertinent is a) I think cut and pasting is occasionally interesting, but basically amounts to cherry picking, b) the paper's argument speaks for itself, and c) if I were to post a serious commentary of the paper it'd take me hours, possibly days, because I'm not going to be shallow about it. I don't have time to waste on things I think speak for themselves.

So I linked to it, stated that I agreed with it, and let people make up their own mind. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

So, I'm quite bemused that you seem to have such a problem with any sort of dissent, to the extent that this whole exchange was prompted by me posting a link which disagrees with you. You disagree, which is fine. Why make such a fuss about it?

I'm sorry if what I wrote was a bit personal, or hit a nerve, but basically you seem to want to crush any opposing opinion, and there aren't many good motivations for that (I think a lack of self-confidence being one of the least insulting).

Again, it's fine with me if you disagree. I genuinely don't care. But please don't make a fuss about it.

This whole exchange was prompted by this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which I find extremely silly.

Sorry for posting a link that disagrees with you, and holding an opinion that disagrees with you.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


So tell me, why did you decide to insult me because I disagreed with the rebuttal? Why do you continue to insult me and demean me because I disagree with your position?

At least I took the time to explain why I disagree with the rebuttal.

The rebuttals argument does not speak for itself, and the fact that you are unable to defend this rebuttal which you agree with essentially illustrates how obstinate you are, and in-pliable with reason or logic.

Oh yeah, that's it, you can insult me and then blame me for taking offense, but for you to take the effort to defend your position is not worth your effort.



Here is what is obvious.

You aren't going to write anything to defend you position because you are incapable of such a feat. Your claim that it is below you is such a cop out.

Your big mouth has written checks that your little brain can not cash.

Rather than show some fortitude and admit you are wrong and apologize for your personal attack against, and slight dismissal of, the analysis I took the time to write, you choose instead to further insult me.

What a waste of time this exchange has been. I actually expected you to have something intelligent to say. I should have recognized that after your second reply this was beyond your ability.

My position stands for the reasons I have taken the time to explain. The phenomenon at Hessdalen is real, and has now been confirmed by two different teams of recognized scientists. We still don't know the nature of this phenomenon, but it certainly resembles phenomenon seen around the planet and in space for at least a century now.

Once again, plasma science shows that if it is an illusion, it is a very persistent one.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I find it bemusing you still want a rebuttal to your selective cut and pasting, (from a paper written 7 years later), leaps of imagination, and general moaning.

I disagree with you. Get on with your life.

For anyone actually interested in the phenomena, do read the published documents, both for and against:

scholar.google.co.uk...

I think the 2002 rebuttal is pretty good also
.

Edit: Grammar. Date of rebuttal.

[edit on 6/1/2010 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Obviously you are incapable of stating your position. If you can't summarize you reasons for thinking all they saw were car headlights in a few sentences, then you won't be able to do it in a thousand words or ten thousand.

Anybody can post links, that doesn't much intelligence, and doesn't contribute, unless you are providing links to new sources.

I thought I made it clear in my last post that these exchanges with you have been a waste of time. Until you find an opinion of your own you are capable of expressing, I am not going to waste my time exchanging insults, as it seems be your only capability.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Look guys, this whole swirl thing is defianetly going to be an ongoing discussion among the ufologogist and believers alike, however, the question of will we ever know what kind of missle it was that created the swirl will proablly be an even longer discussion and debate. I said missle, because I don't believe anyone in this thread or debate truly believes this was a black hole, because if it was a black hole surely we can all agree we wouldn't be sitting here posting in a thread about a missle testing gone bad, or did it?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Obviously you are incapable of stating your position. If you can't summarize you reasons for thinking all they saw were car headlights in a few sentences, then you won't be able to do it in a thousand words or ten thousand.
...


The reason it takes a lot of words to rebut something that is complicated, is that it is complicated, and I've been quite clear that people should make up their own mind. Rather than getting all het up and personally aggrieved because people disagree with me.

I just found another interesting paper by Leone - just to keep this thread on topic, rather than a particular poster's need for a response. They're new to this thread because they don't seem to have freely available versions via Google Scholar, called "Questioning Answers on the Hessdalen Phenomenon":

www.scientificexploration.org...

And a response from Teodarani:

www.scientificexploration.org...

Again, I'd recommend anyone reading this reads as many of the available documents as they can (I have linked above and elsewhere in the thread), for and against, and comes to their own conclusions. I don't think its the sort of thing that can be summed up in a few sentences. That would be dumb.

Edit: Grammar.

[edit on 6/1/2010 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ucalien
 


The Anunnaki (if they even exsisted at all) could be extinct by now.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Is there any relation (do you think) to this Norwegian UFO related phenomenon and the spectacular Spitzbergen Norway UFO Crash in 1946 (which was said to have been back-engineered before the Americans took it and the 17 occupants/visitors away?) There seems to have been another one just like it crashing near Spitzbergen Island in 1952 as well.

Also what about the so-called Black Forest UFO crash in Germany in 1936 which seems to have interested Hitler no end and seriously back engineered for years by the Nazis?

The Black Forest Crash was probably one of the main reasons why the US (Project Paper Clip &tc.) and the former Soviet Union (USSR) 1945-1949 were SO anxious to get as many German scientists as possible over to their respective sides, i.e. to join their missile programs and share what they discovered from their back engineering efforts (to hear Lt Phillip Corso tell it, at least)

ufo.whipnet.org...

www.ufo.no...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Interesting articles, I did not know about this.

What seems to be overlooked is that if the theory is correct about what is cause the dust to rise up at the points of sunrise and sunset, a difference in electrical potential, then we are seeing electrical potential overcoming the force of gravity, although in this instance we are talking about micro particles of dust, but a whole lot of dust. I wonder how much of this dust gets thrown out deep enough into space so as not to return to the moons surface for a long time, and possibly travel out beyond the grasp of the Moon's gravity.

I think static electricity is a phenomenon that gets overlooked far too often. We see static electricity charges that build up to 30kv, if my memory serves me right. That is a lot of voltage. Sure its current capacity is equally low, so its overall power is low, we are still talking about a lot of force, or, er, pressure. This is here on Earth.

In the environment of space, where conductivity is so low in comparison with the driest of atmospheres here on Earth that it is essentially in an entirely different scale than what we experience here on Earth, maybe we could be looking at 30 mega volts of charge, or even far higher.

Now if you have this extremely high voltage forming a plasma, maybe it could develop some kind of outer sheath that prevents conductive material from entering the formed plasma, and then you have a very cohesive body that might be able to endure Earth's atmosphere. It is all just throwing ideas out there, but this is a conspiracy site.

What would draw these spheres down to Hessdalen? I wonder if it is because it is very cold, so very dry, at a high altitude, and not covered in snow and ice, which allows these plasma bodies to draw minerals. It may be that they are not after anything exotic at all, merely silicon.

While there is a large abundance of silicon on the surface of the Moon, it is not as eroded as Silicon on Earth, which may make silicon on Earth more palatable.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I read once on here that the scientific community are still largely unsure what the relationship between static electricity as we know it (ballons and so on) and gravity is . I have heard/read things which suggest that science cannot fully explain gravity, although they have been theorising about its effects for centuries.
Its astounding, but I guess until such questions get realisticaly answered , theres very little that can be done to explain this sort of energy, if indeed it has some relation to gravity and static action.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


We don't know how gravity works, how electricity works, or even heat. Essentially we have no idea how force works.

We can measure it, we can predict it a certain degree, and we can harness it, but we still don't understand it, and we don't have a working model to explain how the forces work.

Personally, I think we have the structure of the atom wrong. I think an electron is a long thin strand with natural curve and elasticity, a proton is short but thick, and also has a natural curve and much stronger elasticity, while the neutron is gummy. At least that is my amateur physics theory.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join