Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 67

Thread: The Hessdalen Lights

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224

    The Hessdalen Lights

    Would this have any relation to this phenomena ...? Seems rather coincidental ...

    LIghts over Norway ....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm7YRCXFHVE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Apparently it's a phenomena that's been studied quite thoroughly since 1984 ...

    I recommend viewing the entire 5 part series ... very interesting ... Part 3 especially shows how some scientists are attempting to investigate this mystery ... and part 5 might rock your world ... or not ..

    It's nice to see the power of science and scientists manifested in research rather than in discrediting the observers ..or blithely offering simplistic explanations for an obviously very complex occurence.
    Last edited by Eric12407; 2009-Dec-18 at 05:47 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    It's nice to see the power of science and scientists manifested in research rather than in discrediting the observers...
    Eyewitness testimony is notorious for being faulty....which is usually why it ends up being discredited.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    It's nice to see the power of science and scientists manifested in research rather than in discrediting the observers ..
    You make it sound like it's some personal attack on the observers themselves rather than on their observations. When observers report they see an object in the sky that's not moving when it's demonstrably moving quite rapidly through the sky in the videos they themselves shot, are we supposed to just ignore it? If the observers observations are contradicted by the evidence then it is foolish to continue trusting those observations; the eye plays tricks on us all the time. Turning a blind eye to these contradictions for sympathetic reasons is not science.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,919
    Funny thing about seeing things move in the sky: one evening a few years ago I was walking my dog and noticed Venus shining brightly above some trees. Now, I know it was Venus and I know Venus doesn't move around, but darned if it didn't seem like it was it moving! My point is that it's easy to be mislead into thinking a celestial object is moving, probably more so if it is an unfamiliar one.

    Nick

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Hi there ....

    Will any of you of take the time to watch this series of clips ?
    Then you may decide if it's genuine or not .... and worthy of scientific investigation ...

    What are your thoughts about it ...?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Will any of you of take the time to watch this series of clips ?
    Then you may decide if it's genuine or not ....
    How is this relevant to the idea that eyewitness testimony is inherently untrustworthy?
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    ...
    Will any of you of take the time to watch this series of clips ?

    BAUT does not take kindly to arguments in the Conspiracy section that amount simply to "Go watch this YouTube video and tell me what you think." Please explain why your argument can be made only by making us watch an hour's worth of someone else's video. Did you participate in making the video? Have you done any original research on the contents of the video?

    Then you may decide if it's genuine or not...

    Genuine what?

    and worthy of scientific investigation...

    It is being investigated, but not very scientifically. The researcher speaks of objects photographed moving 30,000 mph without any notion of how distance, size, and other photogrammetric variables were resolved (or indeed could be resolved, given the limitations of their observation equipment). Nor is there any secondary evidence (sonic boom) presented, nor any testable hypothesis for why such secondary evidence would be missing. The researcher also describes radar "observations" for which there is no visible sighting, from which he concludes that the object must have been "invisible."

    This patently unscientific approach is why UFO "researchers" aren't taken seriously.

    What are your thoughts about it ...?

    Five and half minutes in, and it appears to be the standard speculative hogwash. About what I expected from a film whose title alludes to the popular hypothesis that Hessdalen is the endpoint of a "hyperdimensional portal."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    I gritted my teeth through part 1. Sorry but when they use a title like 'The portal' it's clear they aren't engaging in an unbiased look at the evidence. That eviidence seemed to consist of the usual lights in the sky, some distorted by bad camera work. They appear to dismiss all conventional explanations based on claims from the eyewitnesses, which are notably not back by images; i.e. some of the events took place below the tree tops so it couldn't have been meteors or space debris.
    Overall it's the same old same old, bad photos of lights in the sky coupled with outlandish claims.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Will any of you of take the time to watch this series of clips?
    I watched most of the first one and I have 2 comments to make...


    First, at least one of the witness' is what I call a "repeater". he's seen the same "UFO's" over, and over, and over, again which doesn't speak well for his credibility.

    Second, the images shown look for all the world like someone aimed a camera at a light source, and then (with the shutter left open) moved the camera a bit resulting in a streaky "blob".

    What more needs to be said?
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2009-Dec-18 at 07:02 PM. Reason: changed plural to singular
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion" ... that doesn't sound very scientific to me ... sounds like you have your mind made up already ...

    The scientists in the other clips ...if you can be bothered to look at them ... would seem to disagree with your casual dismissal ...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion" ... that doesn't sound very scientific to me ... sounds like you have your mind made up already ...
    Or we don't find "watch this video" a particularly convincing argument. Which, in point of fact, is why I haven't watched any of it. While visual aids can be helpful, videos are generally a terribly inefficient way of presenting information, especially of a scientific nature. In short, if you use your words, I'm more inclined to think they're worth engaging.

    The scientists in the other clips ...if you can be bothered to look at them ... would seem to disagree with your casual dismissal ...
    What are their qualifications? Do they have a history of UFOlogy? Are they even really scientists or just people claiming to be?

    Don't get me wrong; I am not claiming to be a scientist. However, if you're going to argue from authority, it is up to you to demonstrate that you are arguing from valid authority.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion" ... that doesn't sound very scientific to me ... sounds like you have your mind made up already ...
    It's painfully obvious that these "UFO's" are "in the camera" not in the sky. Give us a compelling reason why we should waste our time looking at something that is so easily debunked.

    The scientists in the other clips ...if you can be bothered to look at them ... would seem to disagree with your casual dismissal ...
    It's not casual, it's just that "we've" seen this sort of thing before and see no reason to investigate further.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    ...
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion"

    How much of a horrible-tasting meal must I eat before I conclude that it's of little worth?

    that doesn't sound very scientific to me...

    Are you a scientist?

    sounds like you have your mind made up already...

    Kindly don't call me closed-minded for rejecting obvious hogwash. I've given a couple of good reasons why I don't find the approach of these individuals scientifically valid. Start by addressing my specific comments, not by hurling vague, general insinuations.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion" ... that doesn't sound very scientific to me ... sounds like you have your mind made up already ...

    The scientists in the other clips ...if you can be bothered to look at them ... would seem to disagree with your casual dismissal ...
    Or their comments have been edited to fit. Have you double checked these scientists? Found out whether their views were accurately represented? Or have you just come in here with another questionable Youtube video and expect other posters to do all the hard work?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    Or their comments have been edited to fit.
    Or they relate to the subject matter only in how they were composed with other elements.

    Note how the filmmakers speculate whether the Hessdalen lights could be an interdimensional portal. Then we hear a physicist tell us that interdimensional travel is not precluded by his particular model of physics. But this scientist says absolutely nothing about the Hessdalen lights, and may not even have been asked about them. The connection of the Hessdalen lights to this particular possibility in physics is purely the invention of the filmmakers and is not supported by any evidence or tested hypothesis.

    Or their comments are speculation and not necessarily recognized as such by the viewer.

    That's not necessarily the fault of the filmmakers, but their willingness to include speculation obligates them to include speculation along hypotheses other than their own in order to be fair-minded. It's unfair to consider geophysical explanations (which are largely testable), show a few straw-man falsifications of specific hypotheses, and then entertain farfetched hyperdimensionality claims (which are untestable) and allow that speculation to stand with no attempt to test or invalidate.

    Or their comments are poorly reasoned and not necessarily recognized as such by the viewer.

    The claims of high energy states and phenomenon composition are largely speculation. But from this speculation arises claims of high-strength containment. The viewer is likely to accept it as observed or proven fact that high-strength containment fields attend some examples of the Hessdalen lights, when in fact that is a supposition arising from speculation about the energy state of the phenomenon. The researcher assumes the phenomenon is high-energy plasma, therefore it "must" require such containment.

    Many of the observations (not all, but many) are more likely explained by optical phenomena which require practically no energy to achieve either apparent motion on film, or apparent emission of visible light.

    One need not lie outright in order to mislead.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Why not watch the whole thing before coming to a "conclusion" ......

    It's too boring. A poorly made documentary that mainly shows long sequences of people talking. I've got plenty of other more interesting stuff I need to be watching.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Would this have any relation to this phenomena ...? Seems rather coincidental ...

    LIghts over Norway ....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm7YRCXFHVE
    Eric12407,

    For a variety of reasons, I can not watch a Youtube video (so I can't determine this for myself). There have been reports from other members that this video has nothing to do with the "Norwegian spiral" that is the OP of this thread. If that is true, please let me or another moderator know, and we will spin off this discussion into another thread.

    Thank you for your cooperation.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    To the moderators ....

    If you would like to start another thread .. that May be a good idea ....

    I'd like to hear what you folks have to say about these events and findings.... I find it very interesting.
    I am not proposing any conspiracy theory ... rather .. It seems like a very honest and straightforward observational presentation that is being looked at by some scientists ... There is data, film ... and other analysis.
    It seem to be taken quite seriously over there at least ....

    Thanks ... "The Hessdalen Lights"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    To the moderators ....

    If you would like to start another thread .. that May be a good idea ....

    I'd like to hear what you folks have to say about these events and findings.... I find it very interesting.
    I am not proposing any conspiracy theory ... rather .. It seems like a very honest and straightforward observational presentation that is being looked at by some scientists ... There is data, film ... and other analysis.
    It seem to be taken quite seriously over there at least ....

    Thanks ... "The Hessdalen Lights"
    Really? It struck me as being on about the same level as one of those FOX 'World's Best UFO Evidence' pseudo-documentaries only in Norwegan. And please do your research, see how many threads just like this there are in the CT section and ask yourself why this video should be taken any more seriously?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    ...
    I'd like to hear what you folks have to say about these events and findings...

    I've said already that I find claims of speeds up to 8 km/s (tens of thousands of miles per hour) farfetched. As I watch the various speakers attempt to substantiate claims of speed, distance, and size, I find that they are clearly assuming values for those variables with no rationale whatsoever. The fact that they sit in offices and point to photographs with their pens does not impress me when they are so clearly speculating without justification.

    That's what I have to say. What do you have to say in response?

    I am not proposing any conspiracy theory...

    Unfortunately in order to carry on a discussion in this part of the forum you must propose and defend a hypothesis. This is why discussions of the form, "Go look at this YouTube video and tell me what you think," are discouraged.

    It seem to be taken quite seriously over there at least...

    But the methods of study, which using some pretty toys, are not very scientifically promising. You have a few people in the film who are willing to suspend judgment and say that the "jury is still out," and that there are plausible natural explanations. You have people willing to admit that there is more than one phenomenon at work based on the differences among various observations.

    However this film presents just as many people who are willing to speculate without justification about otherworldly visitors and about exotic energy systems. There is a widespread assumption that the Hessdalen effect is a high-energy phenomenon, and the filmmakers largely explore only the possibility that some phenomenal new energy source (e.g., zero-point energy) is at work. There is no evidentiary basis to connect these observations to zero-point energy extraction or to interdimensional portals (viz. the hadron physics specialist). Only a few straw-man natural alternatives are explored.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    To the moderators ....

    If you would like to start another thread .. that May be a good idea ....
    I have moved the posts on this topic to a new thread. If I have moved a post I shouldn't have, or skipped one, please let me or another moderator know. Similarly, Eric12407, if you would like a different title for the thread, let me or another mod know.

    Eric, since this is now your thread, you are obligated to comply with all the rules of the CT forum, such as answering questions put to you.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Hi there moderators ..

    Well you might as well lock it up ... I don't have anything to defend ..

    Jay's points are well taken ....

    I do hope that some of you might find it intriguing though ......

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    I do hope that some of you might find it intriguing though ......
    Why don't you tell us, in your own words, what you find intriguing about the videos.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    "Unfortunately in order to carry on a discussion in this part of the forum you must propose and defend a hypothesis. This is why discussions of the form, "Go look at this YouTube video and tell me what you think," are discouraged."

    Okay .. I can understand that ..... Thanks anyway ...

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,325
    Well, feeling adventurous behind my new pc, with a glass of wind and a bowl of chips, I started watching.

    The first vid shows, as has been said before here, pictures that look much more like long exposures of handheld cams than "something moving at incredible speed." I have similar pics myself.

    The speed, also already mentioned, of 30000 mph, how did the estimate that?

    And the power of the light over 1 megawatt, how did that estimation come about?

    The object was lit by the sun not on the south side, as it should be, but at the north side. This in broad daylight, kind of strange, not mentioned any further, probably to enhance the mystery.

    Someone filming a bright light in the sky and obviously zoomed in (as the light is rather big in the frame) and cannot hold the camera still, which is not unusual, I have the same when I fully use my (onlz) 300 mm zoom. This will indeed give the impression of a light moving around fast and erratically.

    The "spacecraft" are rather different, either two lights at the front above each other, or a little later a red light at the front and two lights above each other on the back (could be that the spacecraft was just backing up in one of the cases ...)

    The turf cut out, yeah that is a bit strange, but the "tree roots" were cut straight through? What trees? Did you see what they were walking through? No "footsteps" were leading to it, like that is the kind of ground that will preserve footsteps. Indeed, it could be heavy, that slab, but it can have just as well an ordinary explanation apart from "aliens."

    Then there is a Dr. Johansen talking about "hadronic mechanics" which is rather ATM I would say. I could find no mainstream website (apart from wiki but ...) talking about it. But I am glad that Dr. Johansen tells us that FTL and moving throught space and time has been explained for almost 10 years now, using "hadron mechamics." There are even peer reviewed papers on "hadron mechanics" bz Santili, but only he quotes his papers. This is his latest paper. And then, the only Stein E. Johansen I can find at NTNU university is in the social sciences. It is the "University of Science and Technology," but Johansen is managing courses on e.g. The Anthropology of Aesthetics and Social Anthropology.

    I guessed they scared off the aliens with the laser pointers, as in the 80s there used to be 30 observations per week, however in the 90s 20 to 30 per year.

    I can find no "Prof. Eduard A. Manykind" on the web.

    Then finally a movie of a mounted camera (after nicely colorized "objects" in black and white pictures). Interesting light, whatever it may be. But then the zoom in and suddenly in the noise it looks like "a second light comes up from beneath." No, sorry, that is just camera noise.

    Then the city councel man wants the scientists to take them seriously, well that ain't gonna happen after this "documentary."

    Then there is from Italy and SETI Dr. Stelio Montebugnoli from Medicina, and he really exists. However he, and one of his assistants, are just babbling away, saying nothing specific "many peoples over the world ara interresteed in these phenomena" says the assisten, and Stelio is trying very hard to say something that does not say anything. You can almost hear him squirm.

    But since 2004 they have HERA (Hessdalen Research Association). Here is a report called "A few non-questioning answers." I will leave it to others to go through this literature, gotta watch #4 now.

    This starts with a "metallic cloud" and one object was "as big as a barn", however, again, how did they estimate this?

    Now, they should be prepared for anything, but all we get is unsharp pictures and no moving images. WHY??????????????

    Oh, and then after 4 years of cooperation with the Italiens the scientific conclusions are:
    • The phenomenon exists and periodically occurs in Hessdalen. The phenomenon is identified as a bright flying object, with special characteristics making it unique to science.
    • The phenomenon is more complex and diverse than expected, indicating more than one single kind of phenomenon.
    • The phenomenon is sometimes made up of several units, that may depart and fly away.
    • The speed varies from still to 8 km/s.
    • The phenomenon changes course in speeds indicating no mass by physical means.
    • The phenomenon seems to be able to take on pieces of plasma or energy from the ground while passing by.
    • The phenomenon seems to radiate energy due to the light and frequent change of color.
    • Many interesting spectra in the optical and radio frequencies have been detected, but more data is needed to draw proper conclusions.
    • "Voice over" These scientific data are quite sensational, we are dealing with a real existing phenomenon that can be observed and studied even though this is difficult.


    Puhleese, gimme a break! This is supposed to be the conclusions of 4 years of work?

    Luckily, then it moves to the mineral deposits around Hessdalen. Are the aliens after our ore? Apparently, they are after our sulfur. But then why not go to Io, there is lots more sulfur there. However, the connection between sulfur and phenomenon is just another theory (I would say hypothesis, if that), okay it is the guy-on-the-street definition of a theory.

    Then "Scientist" Marsha Adams (chairman of the IEA) speaks, well she is a "scientist" so we have to believe her, oh ... IEA stands for International Earthlight Alliance

    Oh, and then there is the new country "Belgia".

    Hey, that's not gouda! They talk science. 30 second exposure pic, with a car in it, the headlights show as a white trail, on both sides there are spectra of the headlight, and there is a bright spot in the same pic, which is the Hessdalen phenomenon. Spectral analysis of the phenomenon show evidence of oxygen, nitrogen and silica, which means air and dust. But there are traces of the rare element scandium, found existant only in Scandinavia (and guess where Hessdalen is located ...). It is very hard and used in soviet fighter planes, so I guess I cannot be of natural origin in the phenomenon.

    Then they get kids to measure it and the see "a light" in the camera. Now, the youtube is cut in such a way that you really miss that norwegian guy says that the aurora started up at the same time. Then a lot of lights in the sky (kids keep your fingers of the cam!!!!) which is interesting.

    Then an interesting pic 30 sec exposure with a large bright trail and a spectrum on it. But then the nonsense comes again about the distance that the light has traveled "maybe 15 km" How would you know, you only see the projection on the background (which indicatest that it is not a handheld cam this time) They have a continuous spectrum, no lines (well he calls them dots) which should indicate a solid object or a high density plasma. But then it can also have "molecular components" because they have very thin lines and the equipment is not good enough to resolve that. So it might not be a continuum after all.

    The optical phenomenon was only a few minuted, but there is a radar signal for over 4 hours, but that is just an aside. The discussion moves to the non-expansion of the phenomenen and to the conclusion that it might be a plasmoid (with some not so accurate claims, but anywhooo). It stores enormous amounts of energy, which might be better to use than petrol or nuclear energy or or ...

    Of course then we move to Tesla and on to zero-point-energy (so no alien spacecraft anymore? Too bad!) No, maybe it is both, Hessdalen is a portal to a new world.

    This must have been the suckiest documentary I have seen in a long time. Too bad I spend over 1.5 hours on it, writing this commentary. Well it is 1 am now, so I better get some sleep.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Okay ..... until mainstream science and good scientists get off their butts and look into phenomenon such as this .... you leave it in the hands of amateurs ..
    because science is not fulfilling its mandate to humanity in this aspect of the investigation of our reality ....

    It has chosen to discount the concerns of many millions of people who are left to themselves to make sense of what they have observed.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Okay ..... until mainstream science and good scientists get off their butts and look into phenomenon such as this .... you leave it in the hands of amateurs ..
    But pretty much all the unicorn research is not in the hands of mainstream biologists, but just interested amateurs, and almost everyone should be pretty much fine with that.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,963
    And how many of those millions of people do any real research? How many of them spend a lot of time just disagreeing with everything the evidence suggests? And how many just said, "Huh, I wonder what that was," and go about their lives?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    And how many of those millions of people do any real research? How many of them spend a lot of time just disagreeing with everything the evidence suggests? And how many just said, "Huh, I wonder what that was," and go about their lives?
    And just to add to that, since when does what people think have anything to do with what something is?

Similar Threads

  1. Lights in the Sky
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-12, 02:10 AM
  2. How Many Lights?
    By Graybeard6 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-18, 05:49 PM
  3. Lights Out
    By mtaylor in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-28, 10:40 AM
  4. lights in the sky...
    By Sabeth91 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-09, 02:56 PM
  5. sky lights
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2006-May-22, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •