Klipprunden - 1983 02 21

Magazine Overview

This issue of UFO-Norge magazine, primarily from February 1983, features a collection of newspaper clippings and a handwritten note discussing various UFO sightings and related debates in Norway. The content reflects a period of heightened public interest in UFO phenomena, with a focus on local Norwegian cases and the emerging scientific and journalistic responses.

Handwritten Note

The issue begins with a handwritten note, dated 'Hallo igjen,' referencing a committee meeting with 'Erling' on Sunday, February 27th. The author urges recipients to compare UFO-Norge's standard report forms with what they use, seeking feedback. The main concern highlighted is the difficulty in getting completed forms returned, questioning if they are too complex for the average person. The note also touches upon a perceived 'harassment' against certain individuals and praises one person's extensive contributions, albeit with a hint of sarcasm regarding self-contradictory submissions.

UFO Sightings and Incidents

Several newspaper clippings detail specific UFO sightings and related events:

• Lakselv (Finnmark Dagblad, Feb 9, 1983): A witness reported seeing a bright object moving upwards at 'colossal speed,' then spiraling like a corkscrew before disappearing. The witness questions if it was a hallucination or if others saw it too.
• Hunstadmoen (Nordlandsposten, Feb 9, 1983): A waterspout formed, lifting a snow shovel, metal, and other debris. While a meteorologist suggested it was a terrain-induced whirlwind, the article notes that UFO enthusiasts might link it to a simultaneous strange light in the sky.
• Vargsundet (Glåmdalen, Feb 10, 1983): Witnesses saw a rotating, fiery object, possibly over Sennaland, described as a rocket with intense heat.
• Mehamn (Finnmarken, Feb 11, 1983): An unusual luminous object was seen at low altitude over the mountains, described as rotating and then gradually disappearing.
• Græsberget (Glåmdalen, Feb 10, 1983): Helga Seterberget and four children observed a stationary, blinking red and white light for about fifteen minutes.
• Seljord (Romeriksnytt, Feb 16, 1983): Arne Bekkevold reported seeing a mysterious flying object hovering over Seljord, moving horizontally or slightly downwards, and not resembling a jet or parachute.
• Norway (Glåmdalen, Feb 11, 1983): Multiple witnesses reported seeing three luminous spheres or points in the sky moving south-west. The article notes that no known aircraft were in the area.
• Arendal (Agderposten, Feb 14, 1983): An article discusses a historical UFO sighting from November 18, 1769, documented in the 'Kongelig Privelegeret Adresse Contoirs Efterretninger,' describing a 'strong fog' and subsequent 'spots.'
• Hessdalen (Various articles): Multiple articles focus on the Hessdalen phenomenon, noting its frequent sightings since September 1980 and the interest from Swedish media (Expressen) and UFO enthusiasts.
• Mo i Rana (VG, Feb 12, 1983): Photographs of a UFO phenomenon were identified as a weather balloon.

Debates and Scientific Perspectives

Several articles highlight the ongoing debate between UFO believers and skeptics, often featuring the views of UFO-Norge and scientific institutions:

• Trondheim University Debate (Arbeidets Rett, Jan 21, 1983; Nationen, Jan 22, 1963; Adresseavisen, Jan 10, 1983): A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to an upcoming 'Saturday University' event in Trondheim featuring a debate between Leif Havik of UFO-Norge and Rolf Brahde from the Astrophysical Institute. Havik intends to discuss Hessdalen sightings and criticize Norwegian authorities' lack of engagement with UFO research. Brahde, however, is presented as a skeptic, suggesting natural explanations for UFO phenomena and dismissing extraterrestrial hypotheses.
• Critique of Pseudoscientific Literature (Agderposten, Feb 10, 1983): An article by K. Stenødegård criticizes the 'off-beat' literature and sensationalism surrounding UFOs, particularly referencing Erich von Däniken. It argues that many UFO claims are based on misinformation and that organizations like NIVFO aim to provide a scientific counterweight.
• Soviet UFO Reports (Arbeidets Rett, Feb 9, 1983): This article discusses UFO reports from the Soviet Union, suggesting that while the government officially denies extraterrestrial visitation, rumors are tolerated as a 'safety valve.' It names Soviet ufologists like Feliks Zigel and Alexander Kazantsev, while also mentioning a dissenting voice from Dr. Vladimir V. Migulin of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Technological Speculation

• Constructing UFOs (Agderposten, Feb 10, 1983): Johannes Wallestad speculates on the technological requirements for building UFO-like craft, focusing on the potential of new metal alloys and magnetic fields to overcome gravity. He suggests that human technology is close to achieving this, and that ancient civilizations might have possessed such knowledge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently presents a dichotomy between those who believe in extraterrestrial explanations for UFOs and those who advocate for scientific investigation and natural explanations. UFO-Norge is portrayed as a proponent of the former, while institutions like the Astrophysical Institute represent the latter. There is a recurring theme of criticizing the lack of serious scientific inquiry and media attention in Norway compared to other countries. The editorial stance appears to be one of encouraging open debate and critical examination of UFO claims, while also acknowledging the public's fascination with the unexplained. The magazine seems to lean towards presenting a balanced view, but with a clear undercurrent of skepticism towards sensationalist UFO theories.

This issue of Adresseavisen, dated January 29, 1983, focuses heavily on the UFO phenomenon in Hessdalen, Norway. The main cover story, "Hessdalingene føler seg dypt ærekrenket" (The Hessdalen people feel deeply defamed), highlights the local community's outrage over an article published in Arbeiderbladet that attributed the sightings to inbreeding and psychological issues. The issue also features a report on a public lecture by astronomer Rolf Brahde at Lørdagsuniversitetet, where he presented his controversial theory that the Hessdalen UFOs might be reflections from train lights.

UFO-Mysteriet i Hessdalen: Brahde's Theory and Local Reaction

An article on page 1 introduces the "UFO mystery in Hessdalen" and the upcoming lecture by "landskjent astronom" Rolf Brahde. Brahde dismisses the idea of alien visitors, suggesting the phenomena are "jordnære ting" (earthly things). He is set to debate Leif Havik of UFO-Norge, creating a "duel" between a skeptic and a believer. Brahde hints that his explanation is simple and not from outer space, and later reveals his theory involves train lights.

Page 2 delves deeper into the local reaction, with an article titled "Hessdøler og hallusinasjoner" (Hessdalen people and hallucinations). It details the anger of Hessdalen residents, particularly Ruth Mary Moe, over an article in Arbeiderbladet by Asbjørn Hallan. Hallan's article allegedly claimed that inbreeding and psychological problems in Hessdalen led to hallucinations and UFO sightings. Residents vehemently deny these accusations, stating that many inhabitants are not native to the area and that such claims are "direkte ærekrenkende" (directly defamatory). They are considering legal action.

Page 3 features a letter from Asbjørn Hallan to Arbeiderbladet, where he claims his previous article was intended as a "fleip" (joke) due to the media frenzy surrounding Hessdalen. He apologizes for hurting anyone but maintains his skepticism about UFOs, stating he needs scientific proof. Another piece on page 3, "Dagens Hjørne" (Today's Corner), sarcastically suggests NSB (Norwegian State Railways) could profit from the UFO sightings by marketing the Rørosbanen as the "UFO-express," playing on Brahde's train light theory.

Page 4 presents a more lighthearted take on a "UFO-history" from Rana, suggesting that sightings might have been weather balloons intentionally kept low. It also includes a report on UFO photos from Mo i Rana being sent for professional analysis in the USA.

Page 5 returns to the strong local reaction, with residents of Hessdalen expressing their frustration with Arbeiderbladet. They feel "stemplet" (stigmatized) by accusations of inbreeding and psychological issues. They demand a public apology from the newspaper.

Page 6 features a more detailed account of Brahde's lecture at Lørdagsuniversitetet. Brahde reiterates his skepticism about extraterrestrial visitors and discusses the Condon report, which he believes scientifically explains most UFO sightings. He specifically suggests that the Hessdalen phenomena could be "toglys" (train lights) from the Rørosbanen, aligning with observed times. Leif Havik of UFO-Norge counters, presenting observations of objects with unusual speed, movement, and behavior that he argues cannot be explained by simple reflections or natural phenomena. Havik also notes that some sightings occurred when trains were not running.

Page 7, an opinion piece titled "Engler, spioner og annet mellom himmel og jord" (Angels, spies, and other things between heaven and earth), reflects on the history of unexplained aerial phenomena and the scientific community's tendency to dismiss such reports. The author expresses skepticism towards simplistic explanations and highlights the growing number of UFO reports in recent decades.

Page 8 provides a summary of the confrontation between Leif Havik and Rolf Brahde at Lørdagsuniversitetet. Havik details the characteristics of the Hessdalen phenomena, including their speed, movement, and interaction with the environment, arguing that many cannot be explained naturally. Brahde, however, maintains that most sightings have natural explanations, including planets, atmospheric disturbances, and reflections, and points to the Condon report as evidence. He reiterates his train light theory for Hessdalen.

Page 9 includes a direct response from Rolf Brahde to the Hessdalen residents' criticism, suggesting that some might be "luring" (tricking) others, perhaps with UFO balloons or radio-controlled aircraft. He stands by his theory that the phenomena are natural and not extraterrestrial. The page also includes a list of reported UFO sightings with specific times and locations in Hessdalen, compiled by NIVFO.

Page 10, "Ingen «skinnegående» UFO" (No "rail-going" UFO), presents further reactions from Hessdalen residents, including Ole Lillevold and Martin Aspås, who dismiss Brahde's train light theory as absurd. They provide specific examples of sightings that occurred when no trains were running or when the objects moved in ways inconsistent with reflections. The article emphasizes the locals' frustration with the scientific community's perceived unwillingness to seriously investigate their experiences.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the Hessdalen UFO phenomenon, the conflict between scientific skepticism and local belief, and the media's role in shaping public perception. The newspapers, particularly Adresseavisen, seem to be giving a platform to both sides of the debate, but the strong local voices suggest a sentiment of being misunderstood and unfairly judged. There's a clear tension between the scientific establishment, represented by Brahde, and the community experiencing the phenomena, who feel their observations are being dismissed without proper investigation. The editorial stance appears to be one of reporting on the controversy, allowing local voices to express their anger and frustration, while also presenting the scientific counterarguments.