Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Hessdalen Project

  1. Dec 20, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D.
    Astrophysicist
    CNR – Istituto di Radioastronomia
    Via Fiorentina – Medicina (BO) – North ITALY
    E-mail : mteodorani@ira.cnr.it and mteodorani@libero.it

    2000
    http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/hessdalen.pdf
    2001
    http://www.itacomm.net/PH/embla2001/embla2001_e.pdf
    2002
    http://hessdalen.org/reports/EMBLA_2002_2.pdf
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2004 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This is just silly.
    It is no mystery in Hessdalen; just a combination of local pranksters, reflection of headlights of cars and a couple of Norwegian crackpots not willing to face up with reality.

    It's about as real as the Seljord wurm (the reputed Norwegian Nessie)
     
  4. Dec 20, 2004 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you have any links? On what do you base this claim?
     
  5. Dec 20, 2004 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It has been debunked thouroughly enough in Norwegian publications.


    I don't bother to chase down in painstaking detail every counterclaim which exist against every hare-brained idea which gets concocted by some crackpot.

    If anything, that ought to be YOUR job, as Mentor of a SKEPTICISM forum.
    So, learn some Norwegian, and find the evidence yourself.

    In passing, you shoul read what stands in the conclusion in one of your own pdfs:
    It goes somewhat like this (was unable to get it out)
    "...the light phenomenon remains highly elusive..variable.and unpredictable"

    In plain language, this means:
    It is only a wishful fantasy to say that these phenomena exist; only the most devoted enthusiasts can attach any significance to the "results".
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2004
  6. Dec 20, 2004 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you wish to make claims then you need to back them up. The anti-crackpot claims can be crackpot themselves.

    I find it interesting that debunking claims are often expected to be taken on faith.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2004
  7. Dec 20, 2004 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes, I have noted your over-fondness of anecdotal evidence
    (for example, in the case of dowsing)
     
  8. Dec 20, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I never claimed proof of dowsing.

    Why are you changing the subject?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2004
  9. Dec 20, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is widely percieved as a credible effort. If there is information showing this to be nonsense then please post it. Since I'm not exactly equipped to handle Norwegian papers maybe you could help us out? Why are Norwegian scientists allowing this to go unanswered everywhere else?

    Next, if the author and everyone else believes this to be nonsense then the project wouldn't be funded. I don't agree with you interpretation of the author's conclusions.

    Finally, I have no personal stake in this or most any claim. You shouldn't assume that I do.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2004
  10. Dec 20, 2004 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Whoa Arildno, settle down! This is a scientific investigation which may find actual scientific explanations for what is being observed. Their hope is to either expose it as fraud or find a scientific explanation. Ivan is only posting information about the research, he made no claims one way or another.
     
  11. Jul 18, 2007 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  12. Jul 18, 2007 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The guy in question is a crackpot engineer who has also "investigated" the claims concerning the Seljord serpent, our national version of Nessie.

    He is not to be credited, before he publishes something in a peer-reviewed journal.
     
  13. Jul 18, 2007 #12
    Do you really believe that? I can hardly believe every scientist or "scientist" that has spent money investigating the loch ness monster, bigfoot, etc. actually believes it exists, or that they'll find something.
    Sometimes people just like attention. Sorry to take the discussion more offtrack.

    But I do agree Ivan, if anyone has some information about the debunking of this project then please post some links. I don't trust anyone here's opinion more than the scientists that did the experiment. (I don't truely trust anyone's knowledge of anything really...)
     
  14. Jul 18, 2007 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As always, Ivan, I object to your characterization of the scientific method requiring an equivalent responsibility between claims and evaluations of those claims. If what you suggest were true, scientific journals would be ethically bound to launch a research project to verify every claim they received instead of doing what they do now if they get something of questionable merrit: throw it directly into the trash.

    There is only one burden of proof here and it lies on the one making the claim that something is happening.
    It is widely accepted that people will fund research (and buy penny stocks, spend venture capital, buy lottery tickes, and hit on the hottest girl at the bar) based on Pascal's Wager alone. You've brought up the DOE's cold fusion research before (NASA has also researched crackpot anti-gravity claims). Research of a subject, even by the most reputable organization does not imply at all that that subject has any merrit.

    And certainly the fact that the guy doing the research believes in it means nothing whatsoever. Pons, Fleishman, and Joe Newman all believed in their work as well.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200208/ai_n9105951

    Regarding the article in the OP, it contains some very mundane pictures, no control data for the spectrum analyzer, an awful lot of idle speculation, and no conclusions. There just isn't anything there to debunk - it doesn't say anything useful.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  15. Jul 18, 2007 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Oestfold College is a very low level institution with minimal prestige.

    The only scientific establishments in Norway worthy of mention are our 4 universities, in Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim (NTNU) and Tromsø.
     
  16. Jul 18, 2007 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What are you talking about? "It ain't true because I said so" is not debunking. That is just blowing off steam, and worth nothing.

    People claim to make observations and bring back photographic evidence. What do you want; the dead body of an orb?

    So how does this relate to venture capital? Are they going to sell tickets to watch the lights? :rolleyes:

    Oh my... So are the lights there, or not? Are they explained, or not? I suspect that the real answer is that you don't care, which may be why you chose engineering over science.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  17. Jul 18, 2007 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What he has examined does not make him a crackpot. Did he posit any theories not supported by the science? Did he make claims not supported by the evidence?

    We allow anecdotal evidence, which, unless and until published in a peer reviewed journal, this shall remain. That is always true. If we had a published paper, this might be moved to Earth Sciences.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  18. Jul 18, 2007 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That may be true.,but again you expect us to all take your word on faith. You can't be bothered with all of that evidence nonsense to support your claims. But either way, the quality of evidence is not determined by the institution of origin. Science has higher standards than personal preference.

    If this is all crackpot, then back up your assertions with more than lemons. Personally, and apparently unlike you and Russ, I don't know or could care if this is all credible or not. I have no personal vested interest. It is what it is, but we are interested in the facts and not just clearly biased opinions.

    I asked you to post some of those many Norwegian papers debunking all of this. Where are they?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  19. Jul 18, 2007 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And let's be clear here. The objections are not related to crackpot theories or claims. We find that presumably the honest investigation of claims [potentially unexplained phenomena] is what inspires the debunkers to revolt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2007
  20. Jul 20, 2007 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Why should I bother to give credit to a moron?
    Why should any one of Norway's scientists do so?

    If his claims are valid, then he will have no trouble whatsoever getting them published in the most prestigious journals in the world.

    Until that time, I ignore him.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Hessdalen Project
  1. Junk projects (Replies: 13)

  2. A fun project (Replies: 0)

Loading...