Jan 20 Norway aurora photo has strange thingie

No tricks -- this story is about a puzzled astronomer with an unexplained shape on his aurora photo. My only point is -- when it happened, the astronomer asked for help over the Internet -- he didn't burn all his copies on orders from the MIB.


Aurora Mystery Solved?

By Ian O'Neill | Tue Jan 26, 2010 01:58 PM ET

news.discovery.com...


On Jan. 20, 2010, Per-Arne Mikalsen was photographing a vast aurora erupting over the northern Norwegian town of Andenes.

Because solar activity is on the increase, aurora spotters have many opportunities to see the Northern Lights. On this particular night the aurora was intense, stretching toward the southern latitudes of Norway.

In one of the photographs taken by Mikalsen was an "object" that couldn't be identified. Although Mikalsen had taken several images at the same location, just one photo showed a mysterious green parachute-like object hanging with the main aurora. (This time, it appears that the Russian military was not involved in the making of this strange shape in the sky.)

Interesting, S & F.

I am no expert by any means but looks to be too large for a satellite flare, surely detail isn't able to be defined ?

I would have said that it almost looks like a structured object interacting with the electrical discharge until you look closely and can make out it is just the bright part of a circle of light, which may point to lens flare ?

It's really starting to get freaky with all the MSM on this stuff. Maybe we won't be just a bunch of nuts for much longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh it's you..... You got my attention.

What is it?

sincerely, thanks for posting that Jim.

Don't know if I should love you or hate you. I think that was rule 7??








[edit on 27-1-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by JimOberg


Yep, I think you identified an anomaly correctly, yet again. Well done.

That is definitely, as you say, "a strange thingie"

We are seeing more and more strange thingies it seems. What it all means I just do not know.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Malcram]

I'd say the flare is coming from one of the buildings just out of shot, where I've circled:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c13eca6a6b3.png[/atsimg]

For reference some similar shots:



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6360315e065b.jpg[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I'd say the flare is coming from one of the buildings just out of shot, where I've circled:

Classic mistake.

That's typically how "strange thingies" disguise themselves. Posing as flares.

Being serious for a moment. I tend to find a good deal of the 'explanations' offered for anomalies - which are generally very quickly accepted as fact - to be a real stretch and often pretty laughable.

But that's a good un.


[edit on 27-1-2010 by Malcram]

Those thingies look to me to be the thingies off of the Boston album cover from many years ago... Seriously though, good find and very interesting. Definitely something that needs to be researched further.

reply to post by Malcram


The explanation seems perfectly feasible to me, even the flare theory is mentioned in the article.

A weak auroral flare seems feasible, but as pointed out by astronomer Daniel Fischer via Twitter, the green flare might not have anything to do with reflected aurora light, it could just be the color of the lens coating. The lens flare was therefore the result of internal reflections inside the camera lens caused by the bright lights in the lower left-hand corner of the frame. "It has the typical caustic shape and it is opposite several bright point lights," Fischer observed. "Green color could be caused by lens coatings."

Couple that with other examples of lens flare that show identical traits and it really isn't a stretch, nor laughable.

[edit on 27/1/10 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
The explanation seems perfectly feasible to me, even the flare theory is mentioned in the article.

Couple that with other examples of lens flare that show identical traits and it really isn't a stretch, nor laughable.

[edit on 27/1/10 by Chadwickus]

I agree. As I said, it's a pretty good explanation (but that doesn't mean it's now a "fact" as far as I'm concerned, although I expect it to be treated as such quite soon)

But I can see how my comment could be seen as ambiguous.


[edit on 27-1-2010 by Malcram]

It doesn't matter what the object is. What matters is it makes the MSM folks think, even about UFO's.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I'd say you have a slamdunk Chadwickus. Nice work.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I'd say the flare is coming from one of the buildings just out of shot, where I've circled:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6360315e065b.jpg[/atsimg]

For reference some similar shots:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These look like Sprites don't they?




[edit on 27-1-2010 by Cannabis907]

More info on sprites as a possible reason for some of these

Sprites are electrical discharges between clouds of thunderstorms and the lower ionosphere.

An amplified CCD video camera recorded this display during 1995 from a field site near Fort Collins, Colorado. A few lights mark the horizon, above which a distant overcast is silhouetted by glow from intense lightning associated with the sprites.

These high-altitude phenomena typically last a few tens of milliseconds and exhibit a characteristic structure of delicate tendrils merging into a vertical column. The sprite is topped by a diffuse crown spreading into the lower ionosphere (approx. 90 km). A short description of the sprite phenomenon by S. B. Mende, D. D. Sentman and E. M. Wescott with the title "Lightning between earth and space" can be found in the August 1997 issue of Scientific American at pages 36-39.

sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu...

They could have been sprites, if there was some thunderstorm activity in the pictures. IMO Chadwick has it spot on, it's practicly identicle to the "strange thingie" (at least in the first picture) And you can see how it would line up with the lights in the corner of the picture.

Good catch Chadwick, star for you.

(and before anyone calls me a debunkerizer, I'm a fully fludged UFO not)

The problem I have with this explanation is the Iridium communication satellites don't look anything like the thingy in the picture, I don't see any round dome type object on them, unless there are other Iridium communication satellites??...


Iridium communication satellites

reply to post by JimOberg


Thanks for posting Jim. This article is a good example of how image detective work should work. No jumping to outrageous conclusions about ETs and conspiracies. S & F

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Yep, I think you identified an anomaly correctly, yet again. Well done.

That is definitely, as you say, "a strange thingie"

We are seeing more and more strange thingies it seems. What it all means I just do not know.

It may merely reflect better and better imaging equipment in more and more people's hands...

I think that's the case with 'space spiral' UFOs from Russia, for example.

Originally posted by Cybernet
It doesn't matter what the object is. What matters is it makes the MSM folks think, even about UFO's.

Which is why I categorize myself as a 'quasi-believer' --

There ARE phenomena of potential interest behind SOME 'UFO reports'.

Filtering them out has proven immensely difficult.

But the body of literature contains gems. It cannot be dismissed even if MOST of it is misperception and bunk.

I don't see any 'ET' signal but that's not a priori impossible to exist.

Look more, look better, look sharper, look deeper -- I've tried to follow those principles.

Naturally, this gets me flak from 360 degrees.

I don't buy any of the above theories of what it could be. The scale of the image that resembles a top based on where it is in the sky would make the thingy pretty large indeed.

Since the scale is so large, there is no way the light reflecting would carry that distance and then project some thingy image in such a large scale.

I am therefore reserving what this could be, but until then, I am open to anything. Whatever is theorized should consider the distance, scale and the power generation necessary to reflect such a thing in the sky.

I saw the article yesterday. Since I usually have issues figuring out how to properly create threads I left this to someone else to post

Anyway I found it facinating and found the articles tone to be right on target.

thanks OP