Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 67

Thread: The Hessdalen Lights

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Unicorn research .... Ha ... ha ...

    That's pretty funny .......

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    Unicorn research .... Ha ... ha ...

    That's pretty funny .......
    Not at all...all he was saying is that there is as much need to investigate unicorns as there is need to investigate UFO's.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    70
    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
    The "phenomena" frequently identified by conspiracy theorists and these "amateurs" all too often warrant no investigation. Rather, the task invariably comes down to debunking baseless speculation and imagination in forums like this when people who have no business speaking on a subject, speak anyway.

    because science is not fulfilling its mandate to humanity in this aspect of the investigation of our reality ....
    What mandate? What aspect?

    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.
    The videos you claimed were "intriguing" have been more or less discredited over the span of a few posts. How mainstream science bears any responsibility for such failures by amateurs, conspiracy theorists and outright charlatans, is a mystery to me. Moreover, you'd think that, out of these "many millions" you refer to, a handful of them would be able to perform proper science, if these alleged issues are really that important to them.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Not at all...all he was saying is that there is as much need to investigate unicorns as there is need to investigate UFO's.
    Yes .. I know that .... ha .. ha .. ha .....

    I still think it's funny .....

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    [
    The videos you claimed were "intriguing" have been more or less discredited over the span of a few posts. How mainstream science bears any responsibility for such failures by amateurs, conspiracy theorists and outright charlatans, is a mystery to me. Moreover, you'd think that, out of these "many millions" you refer to, a handful of them would be able to perform proper science, if these alleged issues are really that important to them.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah ... what a bunch of losers ....

  6. #36
    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?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,293
    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 ..
    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.
    unless you get of your butt and look at the vids, you will see that purportedly a university and the SETI insitute in Italy is looking at it.
    the fact that the docu makers obviously have not studied anything before making this mockumentary cannot be helt against scientists.
    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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post

    Yeah ... what a bunch of losers ....
    Eric, apart from making these loose comments, why not address the points that I made in my lengthy discussion of all 5 youtubes?

    If you really believe there is something to it, you would do better to show where I go wrong. But when in the documentary the let a "social scientist" discuss non-mainstream physics, and try to give it more credit that it deserves by saying only Dr. so-and-so from the technical university is saying this, then you are really moving on very thin ice.
    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

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    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 ..
    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.
    How do you know these images haven't been shown to mainstream scientists who have offered plausible but rather dull explanations? And thus didn't make the cut in this documentary?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    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.
    On the contrary, that has to be the most entertaining and insightful commentary I’ve ever read on the subject so all is not lost. I’ve been meaning to take a closer look at the alleged “Hessdalen Lights” phenomena for some time as it’s frequently touted as being one of the most well documented but now thanks to you, I don’t think I need to…

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    224
    Well said ....! .. Congratulations ...!!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric12407 View Post
    ...
    What I found intriguing is that there seems to be an effort by mainstream science to collect data and try to interpret what it is they see.

    There is a modest ongoing attempt to collect data systematically. However the interpretation presented in the film is clearly pseudoscientific, as is much of the methodology described. Specifically, leading conclusions are being drawn and interpretations are clearly biased and inexpert.

    I agree with Jay that most of it is wild speculation...

    Then why were you so adamant that we view its entirety? You seemed quite anxious for us to do so when no specific objections were being drawn. But now that its many flaws are laid bare, you backpedal away from the film. At the very least you owe an apology to those whom you insinuated were lazy or closed-minded for having declined to waste an hour watching the film, when in fact they had merely quickly seen the low value of this production.

    I don't know how rigorous their methods are because I'm not a scientist...

    That's exactly what the filmmakers count on. They count on you not knowing that the photographic "analysis" is a sham. They count on you not realizing that the method by which visible light spectra are extracted are completely unsuitable for spectrometric analysis. They count on you not realizing the many unfounded assumptions and unchecked biases that run rampant in the investigation of the Hessdalen phenomenon. They count on you not realizing that "hadronic mechanics" is a useless fringe theory at best, and pseudoscience at worst; and that the "expert" they choose to quote on it has no expertise in physics.

    This latter consistutes deliberate deception, and therefore a disqualification of the filmmakers' trust.

    Pseudoscientists count on your not being able to distinguish their brand of rhetoric from honest science. They'll dress up their claims in the most scientific-sounding way they can. They want it to look as much as possible like real science. When real scientists see through the hogwash (which they always do, and fairly easily and quickly), the pseudoscientist can often credibly say that the mainstream is just jealous or feels threatened. He isn't out to convince real scientists; he knows he can't. He's out to win in the court of public opinion (and public donations, sometimes).

    ...I like some of the comments from the observers who say they are counting on science to help them explain what they saw...

    And for only US $100 per year, you can help these researchers in their struggle for legitimacy. Send money now.

    Let's hope science doesn't abandon them...

    "Abandon" them? To what? Have the Hessdalen lights injured anyone? Damaged any significant property? Proven a nuisance or hardship?

    The Hessdalen Project lists only benign reasons for study: the abstract furtherance of human knowledge, and the possible exploitation of some unknown energy source. (The latter is based on an unsupported assumption, so it makes little difference.) There is certainly no supposed or suspected threat. It seems science is "abandoning" a sleepy little Norwegian valley to nothing more sinister than ongoing curiosity.

    ...my brothers in science will someday have the compassion and trust in their fellow man and apply their knowledge and intellect to a mystery that is begging for their attention...

    "Brothers in science?" "Compassion and trust?" There's no need for the melodrama, which sounds an awful lot like the standard rhetoric heaped upon mainstream science by the UFO true believers. Scientists are not lazy, hard-hearted, or closed-minded simply because they don't passionately pursue every curiosity that grabs someone's attention.

    You want to characterize the efforts of the amateur scientists studying Hessdalen as well-intentioned and limited only by their lack of resources and professional training. You don't seem to consider the possibility that they are not well-intentioned, but are instead clearly biased toward notions of free energy and interdimensional portals. You don't seem to consider that people may be deliberately overstating their case for a particular desired hypothesis. You don't seem to consider that this might be the work of amateurs "playing scientist." You don't seem to consider that this might just be pseudoscientific hogwash painted over what is little more than a fervent desire to believe some farfetched proposition.

    Here's what typically happens if mainstream scientists involve themselves in an ideologically charged study. If the scientist rejects the farfetched hypothesis, even for the best scientific reasons, he is denounced as a tool of the Establishment. This is because UFO "research" is just a thin pseudo-intellectual veil over a socio-political agenda. If the scientist suspends judgment or expresses any sympathy, then the UFO enthusiasts extrapolate and spin his findings to make it seem like it's mainstream support for their claims.

    In short, mainstream science shies away from UFO claims because of the behavior of the UFO fanatics. Who wants to risk his professional reputation endorsing self-proclaimed "researchers" who can't even recognize the simplest optical artifacts? Frankly, science will trust UFO enthusiasts when they show themselves to be trustworthy. As long as they are grasping at straws for even the slightest semblance of credibility (by way of recognition from the mainstream), they won't get it.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    ...
    I had neither wine nor chips, nor a strong sense of adventure. But I did watch the entire thing. I wasn't interested in a point-by-point rebuttal, but I can amplify and echo your comments.

    The first vid shows, as has been said before here, pictures that look much more like long exposures of handheld cams...

    Indeed. Nothing worth attention or susceptible to much analysis.

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

    Indeed, the methodology is not explained anywhere I can find. Typically to measure speed one must have reliable measurements of distance from the viewer, and then speed is only measurable via motion transverse to the line of sight for point objects. With some estimate of size you can make defensible arguments for motion toward or away from the camera.

    Nine times out of ten, claims of fantasic speed trace themselves to reflections in the optical assembly or in other objects such as window panes or the front glass of camera enclosures. As the angle of these transmissive reflectors changes, point light sources reflected in them (and therefore superimposed on the transmitted image) seem to move in non-inertial ways.

    Since an object moving at 30,000 mph through air would be expected to have a decidedly sonic effect, we have to wonder why no such evidence was noticed. The parsimonious explanation for non-inertial apparent motion and no fluid dynamics effect is a misinterpreted catadioptric effect. The insinuation that it's a real object moving at fantastic speed with no inertia and no sonic effect is clearly wishful thinking.

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

    And again, the methodology doesn't seem to be easily located.

    I routinely work with photographic lighting instruments in the 10-15 kilowatt range. These are some of the largest luminaires in common usage, and one of those will light up the terrain (at least to the extent that it can be visible in photographs) for miles around at night, if they are the only light sources. The "researchers" here postulate light strengths 100 times brighter, but the surrounding terrain in the photographs does not seem to be much illuminated as a result.

    The object was lit by the sun not on the south side, as it should be, but at the north side.

    The witness is really describing a perception of apparent brightness, which he interprets as shading contrary to the prevailing illumination. Further questions should be asked by the conscientious interviewer, but none was. What, for example, is the witness's understanding of the object's geometry? Where was the sun actually in the sky? Where was the object perceived to be?

    As you say, it's a curious statement made with no followup and no attempt to explain it; added likely for random mystery.

    Then there is a Dr. Johansen talking about "hadronic mechanics" which is rather ATM I would say.

    Indeed, and connected only speculatively to the matter at hand. There is no evidence that the lights are being caused by any extraterrestrial force.

    And then, the only Stein E. Johansen I can find at NTNU university is in the social sciences.

    Which would explain the subject matter of the books in the background, which I took to be his office. They are appropriate reading for a social scientist, but have nothing to do with physics -- speculative or otherwise.

    ...suddenly in the noise it looks like "a second light comes up from beneath." No, sorry, that is just camera noise.

    Indeed. There appears to be no attempt in any of the analyses presented to investigate and eliminate optical effects as responsible for or contributing to the visual presentation of the subject. Clearly you have an optical system working at the limit of its useful resolution, and a sensor system working at the limits of its dynamic range. Instead the researchers simply ascribe to the object directly all visual aspects seen in the photography.

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

    However he, and one of his assistants, are just babbling away, saying nothing specific...

    Agreed. The filmmakers seem to throw in SETI and "hadronic mechanics" simply to open to the door to speculation of an otherworldly origin for the Hessdalen lights. Those tangents provide no explanation of the lights, or any proposed connection between them and their research.

    ...the scientific conclusions are:

    "Scientific" is pretty loosely applied in this case.

    The phenomenon is identified as a bright flying object, with special characteristics making it unique to science.

    But many of these "special characteristics" are conclusions drawn on the basis of unfounded assumption and supposition. Fantastic speed, enormous energy output -- these are not observations but rather interpretations and conclusions drawn according to lines of reasoning that aren't fully disclosed.

    The phenomenon is more complex and diverse than expected, indicating more than one single kind of phenomenon.

    Kudos to this one: it's likely the only piece of wisdom in the entire opus. The fantastic nature of many UFO claims derives partly from assuming that unconnected phenomena are, in fact, connected. The superset of unrelated observations defies simple explanation and therefore "must" be fantastic. If the assumption is relaxed that all

    At Hessdalen we likely have optical effects, geophysical effects, and misperceptions all being wrongly classified as homogenous Hessdalen "lights." What we have is the bias created by the focus of attention. If a few extraordinary events occur, attention is concentrated on one particular place and therefore everything that occurs is noted, in contrast to other places on Earth that simply aren't watched as closely or systematically.

    Most UFO researchers don't admit that the differences in observations are likely due to completely different phenomena at work. That's a step in the right direction.

    The speed varies from still to 8 km/s.

    But no experiment or confirmatory secondary evidence appears to exist. This estimate is based purely on incomplete photographic analysis.

    The phenomenon changes course in speeds indicating no mass by physical means.

    And this should lead the experienced analyst immediately to consider and test hypotheses having to do with optical effects, specifically reflections.

    The phenomenon seems to be able to take on pieces of plasma or energy from the ground while passing by.

    No. This is simply an interpretation of isolated photographic evidence that fails to address the sophistication of the data gathering. There is no evidence that "plasma" or "energy" is involved. Those are just buzzwords commonly applied to farfetched claims. They sound cool to the general public.

    The interpretation of the effect as high-energy incandescence then drives a whole boatload of speculation about containment and so forth. In fact the requirement for containment argues strongly against the plasma hypothesis. This is pseudoscience at its worst.

    The phenomenon seems to radiate energy due to the light and frequent change of color.

    No. Again, this is apparently based on a singular, clearly biased interpretation of isolated photographic evidence. No secondary test for high-energy emissions seems to have been done, nor any hypothesis for how such radiation occurs and is sustained. Hence the "portal" theory -- it is not a hypothesis for which any evidence exists; it is wishful thinking to explain a farfetched belief.

    I have a great photo taken in Sedona, AZ of a high-energy phenomenon that I will post presently. We'll discuss it.

    Many interesting spectra in the optical and radio frequencies have been detected, but more data is needed to draw proper conclusions.

    That's because the means by which these data have been collected are uselessly crude. Yet all manner of speculation occurs on the basis of it.

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

    I can't agree more. I can't see where any actual experiments have been done to test these hypotheses, or to formulate and test competing hypotheses. A megawatt of light simply doesn't shine in isolation. You can't simply conclude that something has no apparent mass.

    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

    Well, she is a scientist -- she's a biologist. If they can have a social scientist talk about theoretical physics, why can't they have a biologist talk about geophysical or aerial phenomena?

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

    There are numerous typos in the English subtitles. I presume the filmmakers are not native English speakers. I tend to disregard errors like that.

    Then an interesting pic 30 sec exposure with a large bright trail and a spectrum on it.

    A fairly useless spectrum. The researchers are rather dishonest in suggesting that the type of analysis they are doing on this data is supported by the nature of the collected data.

    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...

    Indeed. There is no basis for estimating distance from the camera, hence no basis for determining the transverse distance traveled.

    The optical phenomenon was only a few minuted, but there is a radar signal for over 4 hours, but that is just an aside.

    In fact the interpretation is that the object is "invisible" which is causing the radar signal. The researchers simply gloss over the incontrovertible fact that the visual and radar observations do not correlate and cannot simply be automatically assumed to derive from the same cause.

    The discussion moves to the non-expansion of the phenomenen and to the conclusion that it might be a plasmoid...

    Or rather, the wild speculation. The speakers commit the classic fallacy of converting the conditional. If the phenomenon is plasma, then indeed it would need a substantial method of containing it, one that likely would not arise easily in nature. However, you have to mitigate that proposition by noting phenomena like ball lightning and St. Elmo's fire, which manage to maintain locality without the external imposition of high energy.

    But the plasma speculation seems to obsess the Hessdalen researchers. They seem to believe that when they understand the true nature of what's going on, they'll have discovered some new form of energy.

    Of course then we move to Tesla and on to zero-point-energy...

    Standard fare in against-the-mainstream productions.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    This is because UFO "research" is just a thin pseudo-intellectual veil over a socio-political agenda.
    Um...Jay, would you mind clarifying that statement? I have little use for goofy UFO "researchers," but this is the first I have heard about some hidden "socio-political agenda."

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,939
    Daffy, I would presume it to mean a general distrust in government or government cover ups and so forth.

    Pete

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Daffy View Post
    Um...Jay, would you mind clarifying that statement? I have little use for goofy UFO "researchers," but this is the first I have heard about some hidden "socio-political agenda."
    Sure. What I mean by that statement is that when one debates a UFO enthusiast one usually and very quickly arrives at a claim that something important is being covered up or ignored. Either some government is hiding evidence connecting UFOs to space aliens (or the aliens themselves), or the military is, or (as in this case) the intellectual elite refuse to dignify UFO reports with their attention. When that arrival finally occurs, the cover-up and suppression argument begins to dominate the discussion.

    Note here how we began talking about the evidence at Hessdalen, but the original poster very quickly abandons the evidence and shifts the discussion to a perceived abrogation of responsibility. Scientists Behaving Badly, as it were. This is a strong underlying current in UFO rhetoric. The UFO "evidence" seems to lead only to the conclusion that certain people in perceived positions of power and authority are misusing their positions.

    When Barack Obama was first elected President of the United States under a banner of change and transparency, there was belief in the UFO community that he would "open up" the files on UFO-related discoveries.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Sure. What I mean by that statement is that when one debates a UFO enthusiast one usually and very quickly arrives at a claim that something important is being covered up or ignored. Either some government is hiding evidence connecting UFOs to space aliens (or the aliens themselves), or the military is, or (as in this case) the intellectual elite refuse to dignify UFO reports with their attention. When that arrival finally occurs, the cover-up and suppression argument begins to dominate the discussion.

    Note here how we began talking about the evidence at Hessdalen, but the original poster very quickly abandons the evidence and shifts the discussion to a perceived abrogation of responsibility. Scientists Behaving Badly, as it were. This is a strong underlying current in UFO rhetoric. The UFO "evidence" seems to lead only to the conclusion that certain people in perceived positions of power and authority are misusing their positions.

    When Barack Obama was first elected President of the United States under a banner of change and transparency, there was belief in the UFO community that he would "open up" the files on UFO-related discoveries.
    Makes sense. Thanks!

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    When Barack Obama was first elected President of the United States under a banner of change and transparency, there was belief in the UFO community that he would "open up" the files on UFO-related discoveries.
    Actually, he did open up the files on his very first day...



    ...And saw there was nothing interesting in them. His desk was wobbling a little, but everyone was so busy that day and he didn't want to bother them. So he just shoved the files under one of the desk legs to even it out.

    And that's the story of how UFO research became useful.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Quote Originally Posted by ZappBrannigan View Post
    And that's the story of how UFO research became useful.

    What makes it worse is that in my head I hear Zapp saying that. Though he would probably say "very sexy UFO research".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post

    What makes it worse is that in my head I hear Zapp saying that. Though he would probably say "very sexy UFO research".
    "Kif! Write that down!"

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    "Kif! Write that down!"
    [annoyed sigh]

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    [annoyed sigh]
    Oh Kif, one more thing. I need you to clear the 'Captain's Log'. [Hands Jay a plunger]

    I have mentioned that my mind is but one continuous, imagined cartoon . . . haven't I? Blah.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,623
    And now I'm imagining your posts in the voice of Professor Frink.

    -------------------

    I've been reading about the Hessdalen Lights for a while now; it worries me that the best efforts of a group of observers have failed to gain any useful insight into their origin. It has crossed my mind that some of these lights may be deliberate hoaxes by persons unknown- it would only take a few chinese lanterns, balloons or model aircraft carrying light sources to produce some of the observations recorded by these investigators.

    There are a number of previous cases of hoaxes played on perfectly earnest investigators;
    here's one
    http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/ufo-hoaxing/
    some mischeivous party might be hoaxing the Hessdalen observers in a similar fashion.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    I know I would.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Very interesting video. Not to bothered about the witness Testimony as there is no evidence to back up there claims. The lights, i believe are natuarl. Maybe something to do with the minerals in that area.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    How so?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    14
    Well, its just a theory, and as i know little about these lights, then im most prob wrong. Just seems that these lights seem to appear where there is a high level of minerals. I have heard of theories for other lights around the planet that may be caused by plasma discharge caused by the release of gases from within the Earth and are electrically charged in the air. This seems to happen after earthquakes, or just before, so i have read. But then again it could be something completly different. I just watched the documentery, and i do admit that my knowledge in these "earthlights" i very limited.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,884
    Quote Originally Posted by perfection View Post
    Just seems that these lights seem to appear where there is a high level of minerals.
    Where isn't there a high level of minerals?
    _____________________________________________
    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!"

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Where isn't there a high level of minerals?
    I think he's alluding to the mining activity in the area that may uncover minerals not previously exposed to atmosphere. It's a reasonable hypothesis; you have to look at everything that makes the Hessdalen area potentially different from its surroundings.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,605
    CT is not my normal stop at BAUT, but had to throw in some food for thought:

    http://www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjon...7/2007_023.pdf

    Also, if you've ever heard of the phoenix lights, look into "Quartz Peak" at the top of the Esrtella Mountains (interesting name, given long ago) near south phoenix (i've hiked it)

    Finally, Q: what type of clock would be best suited for deep space travel?

    Have fun.

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
  •