Talk:Hessdalen lights

(untitled)
So, is there some reason why this extremely well-documented phenomenon doesn't seem to have any explaination or a larger Wikipedia article? Titanium Dragon 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Men in Black deleting the article and old revisions? --ElfQrin 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculus, why extraterrestial vehicles are not cited as possible explanation? OK, you might consider it to be not true, but isn't it extremly biast not to even mention this possiblility when there are investigator that consider it to be the case? I understand sceptic rationalism clause on wiki, so you might add that it's a 'conspiracy theorists' or 'ufologists' that think so or whatever spin you want to add. But there is no way to call yourself unbiast and not to mention this possibility. 81.190.238.141 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is all abstruse theory and no observation. Judging by the citations there is a good deal of observational material available: this needs to be discussed before there is any attempt to bring in dusty-acoustic waves and the rest of the theoretical apparatus. Greatanarch (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Mostly invalid hypothesis. The article doesn't reflect the findings of the Hessdalen team.
I've never been inspired to file a dispute before and don't know how to. Is simply entering this text initiating my dispute? If not could someone please use this information on my behalf. All rights granted provided this text is unchanged. Thank you.

Firstly I must state that this is a set of phenomena which are well documented and measurable by scientific instruments. Please remove the paranormal tag and start treating this with the seriousness it deserves.

Given the wealth of data that has been collected on these phenomena I find this article to be woefully vague and sparse. When unexplained phenomena of special scientific interest is treated in such a manner it is evident that the system is broken.

Where is the radar and spectrometer data? Where are the photographs? Where is the video and witness reports? Where is the location of sightings superimposed on a map of scandium ore deposits? Where is the hypothesis on why these phenomena bounce off trees and respond to lasers?

The hypothesis made by Brain Dunning is not scientific and should not be included. The radar readings clearly aren't passenger aircraft. Passenger aircraft do not move at 20,000 m/s -1. Passenger aircraft do not create glowing blue double helix formations. Passenger aircraft do not create staggered fireballs in the night sky. Passenger aircraft landing lights do not give scandium readings in light specrometers. Please remove this obvious fallacy.

Sightings which have already been explained as known objects in the night sky are not part of these phenomena. To include them in this report is much like having a section on dogs mistaken for foxes in the fox article. Please remove this unrelated information.

I'm afraid I lack the knowledge to fully understand the two hypothesis which can be considered scientific. But given the wealth of unfounded information in this article I strongly suggest these are examined by somebody with the expertise to confirm their validity. Even with my lack of understanding I can see a few points of dispute. Because there is so much information gathered on the Hessdalen phenomena, I would suggest that these hypothesis be cross examined with the gathered concrete data too before being considered suitable for this article. If they are not verifiable as self contained experiments, or do not concur with the data, then please remove them.

In summary: Considering the controversial nature of these phenomena, wikipedia should be at pains to uphold the scientific ideal of only using information gained through verifiable observation and experiment. If you insist on using unfounded hypothesis then you're also duty bound to include aliens from outer space as a hypothesis. It's certainly holds more validity than Brian Dunning's ill informed guesswork. I want data, not guesswork. This article requires urgent and comprehensive revision.

Sincerely -iain_clark88@hotmail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.39.181 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stereoscopic video recording
If there is to be any hope of understanding this phenomenon those who are enthusiastic enough to research it and go there to film it must make a stereoscopic recording of it - that way there would be more than just a flat image/video which is all we have thus now - you can't really feel if those glowing objects and mists are closer together or further behind each other or what their actual arrangement and even shape of the individual lights is on these ordinary (mono) videos. Stereoscopic videos allow us to feel those things and they are extremely easy to make (you don't need any special recording equipment) - just use two cameras to record the same event (ideally two identical cameras with identical settings - manual settings - don't let those cameras do anything automatic), and make some distance between them (1 to 4 meters should be enough (if they are too close or even too far from each other the effect might not be as impressive, but experiment), mount those cameras on tripods so they produce stable videos and if you have to move them - move them synchronously so the scene they eventually frame is identical) - you should use some zooming, but make sure the values are the same and that cameras are really facing the event (also: light sensitivity should not be too high because if it's too high the contrast would hide the details within the lights), and, finally, when you capture the event play those two videos together (side-by-side, parallel) - youtube has all the options for stereoscopic playback, even the side-by-side parallel viewing option - you don't need any viewing aids for that option (which is really cool) - just overlap ("in-mind") the images from your two eyes as you watch those two videos side by side (you can find loads of side-by-side parallel stereoscopic video examples on youtube). That should give much MUCH more insight to what's actually happening during the events. Also - long exposure stereoscopic photos could be interesting as you could then see the paths of lights and really feel the space the lights go through. ...And Of course, there's always an option of flying a helicopter (or quadcopter) through the event as it happens... or a small camera on a balloon... or kite... or spinning a camera on a really long string...

Also, I must add (READ THIS!), if there are already existing footages of the same event from at least two cameras on the site (say, those installed automated ones), if they are not too far apart, those already existing archive footages can be used for a parallel stereoscopic playback! Too further the idea even more - such method could be used on various other events - think about it: the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor event - just find two existing footages from those security cameras posted on youtube or some other video site and you could play them stereoscopically - not just natural events, man-made events too (tell me - what did you think of first?) - all the events could be seen in completely new light this way! If this sparks you to tinker with this particular idea please post your youtube upload links of it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.148.88 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, but the cameras should be as far apart as practical and have some sort of accurate time marker on each frame. By comparing two images at identical times it should be possible to establish the position of a light, its altitude, size and even (from a sequence of images) the velocity vector. Greatanarch (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My "recent edit" to the "Hessdalen light" page was removed
I made an edit to the "Hessdalen light" page and today I received this notification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.73.248.235&diff=cur

Which says:

Recent edit to Hessdalen light[edit] Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Hessdalen light article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ƬheStrikeΣagle 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No. This was not a test. What I wanted was for someone connected to wiki to LOOK at the article and edit the remark I drew attention to by adding my own remark underneath it.

The article I found fault with is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_light

The particular line I found fault with is the second to last bullet in the "Possible explanations" section, which states:

"Another hypothesis is that an extraterrestrial intelligence is behind the Hessdalen light.[18] This hypothesis has not been discussed in mainstream science, and it is worthy of consideration only if all of the prosaic explanations are falsified"

This is complete WOO and has no place in a scholarly article.

There is ZERO evidence that ETs actually exist (although reason implies that aliens of some type or form probably do) or that any of these ETs have achieved a technologically advanced state, or that any of theses technologically advanced ETs have ever visited earth (and physics and reason both imply it is physically impossible for ETs outside our solar system to know we exist or that they could get here if they did).

With such a woeful lack of evidence or indication supporting his vacuous assertion, it will NEVER be any more "worthy of consideration" to explain a phenomenon than would invoking "magic" or "gods" as what the writer laughably calls a "hypothesis" - EVEN IF ALL OTHER "prosaic explanations are falsified"

As I said, it is complete WOO and I ask that somebody at wiki consider revising or removing it because woo is even more "disruptive and confusing" to readers than my lowly "test edit" could ever be. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.248.235 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

History and description
"can appear above and below the horizon". Is this a mistake? How can a light appear below the horizon?  Tigerboy1966  08:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * View of Medellín at night.JPG
 * Lights can definitely appear above and below the horizon. See pages 2–3 of this report (which is currently the first reference in the article). That said, the wording might be inelegant. Thanks! —LLarson (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hessdalen lights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014214015/http://www.ufonorway.com.ar/archive/PHB/ to http://www.ufonorway.com.ar/archive/PHB/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

edit reverted
I took the liberty to revert. First, I'm not sure this is how WP works (use a template or infobox.) Second, I think that while the nature of the Hessdalen lights is mystifying, the reality of the phenomenon is relatively uncontroversial, the user's vague insinuations about the supposed lack of photos of it in the age of universally available digital photography notwithstanding. If user thinks otherwise (for example that it's a hoax or a mass delusion), they can always write that into the article and add sources to that effect. Aecho6Ee (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

copy-pasting
Some of this article has been copy-pasted without attribution from here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00017/full. Godograpes (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

New research July 2022 has good explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228873038_Optical_spectrum_analysis_of_the_Hessdalen_phenomenonThe Hessdalen phenomena is composed of ionized gas, not a solid. Here's an extract from the conclusion.

- The dominant chemical elements is O and N, suggesting that this is “burning” air.

- Other elements like SI, sand, and some metals FE, SC, TI suggest dust from the valley.

- The occurrence of SC, Scandium, a rare Norwegian metal, suggest why the

phenomenon is only located in Hessdalen, a valley known for its metal mines.

- Scandium, SC, reacts vigorously with acid and air, and may be the ignition mechanism.

- TI, titanium, is the only element that burns in nitrogen and may explain the long living time.

- Titanium is used in fireworks, and makes spectacular fires

Thelisteninghand (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

thought I'd ping you on this update. I haven't edited the article but I'll put something short in at some point. Researchgate may not be RS what do you think? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the Journal of Scientific Exploration is not a RS. And Researchgate is just a website anyone can post/share a paper to, it's not actually a publisher. But you're right, it is an interesting explanation. Is the Bjørn Gitle Hauge paper available (or discussed) anywhere else? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just this brief mention - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rGpyDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA653&lpg=PA653&dq=Bjorn+Gitle+Hauge+press&source=bl&ots=Mb6Hvj8Vln&sig=ACfU3U1rhXGaUA-tIeecsA0OZPbHLfXLSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigsITPs9H8AhUMfMAKHQAQCDs4HhDoAXoECCAQAw#v=onepage&q=Bjorn%20Gitle%20Hauge%20press&f=false I just noticed the paper dates from 2007 despite the date on Researchgate. I still think the article should not be classified as paranormal. We don't fully understand lightning but that doesn't make it paranormal - if you get my point. I wonder what the best position is for an encyclopedia? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Western Esotericism in Scandinavia" book is a good RS for a couple sentences in the "hypotheses" section of the article summarizing what this secondary source says about Bjørn Gitle Hauge's conclusions. No need for our own analysis of the paper as you did above. Re the "paranormal" characterization; I think this is a holdover from citations to UFOlogy sources (UFOs falling under the general paranormal category on WP) and probably could be dispensed with along with any other references to UFOlogy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. I've made a start. I wonder how much of the speculation needs to remain - the piezo-electric section can be deleted perhaps? Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the piezoelectric hypotheses reliably sourced? No, we don't delete RS text because we've personally decided one explanation is better than another. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RS partly. There's an unreliable source tag on cite 13 ("temperature 5,000 K") Yes I know it's not about my preferences - it depends on what weight should be given to other theories (piezo is very long), in light of the press statement. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Frustrating that this is behind a paywall https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229680-600-norse-ufos-what-are-the-glowing-orbs-of-hessdalen/ is there a way round it? Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)