ANOMALY
ARCHIVE / 001
← ENCOUNTERS DIRECTORY
E-009601LANDMARK CASE · HIGH CORROBORATIONDATE PRECISION: rangeRECORD COMPLETENESS: 100%

Project Hessdalen Instrumented Radar/Visual Study

January 21–February 26, 1984Hessdalen Valley, Trondelag, Norway

Project Hessdalen operated an instrumented field study in Hessdalen Valley during early 1984 after recurring reports in the area. Hall records numerous radar and radar-visual observations and the first four of a larger photographic series on February 18.

// LINKED CLASSIFICATIONS:Scientific & Observational Types(P-000101)→
Claims are displayed with the source wording, locator, relationship and verification state. Competing claims remain separate rather than being averaged into a single answer.
SOURCE COMPARISON

Encounter · Hall Volume II Encounter Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953012reported
“Hall describes Project Hessdalen as an instrumented field effort from January 21 through February 26, 1984, producing numerous radar and radar-visual observations and the first four photographs of a larger photographic series on February 18.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Project Hessdalen radar/visual case summary; uploaded PDF pp. 261-261
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Encounter · Hall Volume II Source Caveat

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953013reported
“Hall situates the 1984 project within a broader Hessdalen concentration beginning in 1981 and continuing intermittently through 1986, with a relative lull during 1983.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Project Hessdalen scope caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 261-261
CONTEXTUALIZES
CLAIM-953236reported
“Hall does not assign the Hessdalen series a normal single-case rating because it represents a complex multi-event research program.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Hessdalen complex-series rating caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 316-316
CONTEXTUALIZES
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.
SOURCE COMPARISON

Encounter · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953235reported
“Hall records February 18, 1984 as the date of the first four photographs in a larger Project Hessdalen photographic series.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Project Hessdalen first photographic series; uploaded PDF pp. 316-316
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Framework

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953001reported
“Hall says the 1964 report listed 81 radar UFO cases through 1962 and that at least 34 additional radar cases had accumulated since 1964, but that complete technical data often were unavailable and there was no systematic unclassified scientific collection program.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Radar evidence framing and methodological limitations; uploaded PDF pp. 256-261 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Interpretation

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953002reported
“Hall concludes that accumulated radar reports suggest unexplained aerial phenomena worthy of rigorous study, while repeatedly noting the inadequacy of available technical documentation.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Hall interpretation of post-1964 radar evidence; uploaded PDF pp. 256-261 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Radar-Track Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953003reported
“Table 1 begins a post-1964 radar-case index including Flying Tiger over the Pacific, Wynnewood, Wichita, Michigan–Minnesota, Edwards AFB, Skowhegan, Dexter/Selfridge, Columbus and Atlanta.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — first page; uploaded PDF pp. 257-257
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953004reported
“Table 1 continues with Atlantic City, White Sands, Minot, Alberta, Bismarck, McAlester, Turin, Milan, Tequesquitengo, Falconbridge and Port Austin radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — second page; uploaded PDF pp. 258-258
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953005reported
“Table 1 continues with Tehran, Bogota, Omaha, Oxnard–Los Angeles, Colorado/South Dakota, Ocala, New Zealand, Hailey and Dover radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — third page; uploaded PDF pp. 259-259
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953006reported
“Table 1 concludes with Burlington, Perth, Hessdalen, Brazil, JAL 1628, Toronto–Winnipeg, Pereslavl, Wavre, Skibo and Concepcion radar cases.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Table 1 radar cases — fourth page; uploaded PDF pp. 260-260
SUPPORTS
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Framework

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953200reported
“Hall retains the 1964 principle that a still photograph is only approximately as reliable as the person who took it and the documented circumstances surrounding it.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Photographic evidence witness-reliability principle; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953201reported
“Hall evaluates six factors: witness character, strangeness, camera technical data, direct testimony/circumstances, completeness of analysis and peer review.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Hall six-factor photographic rating methodology; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-953230disputed
“Hall discusses an anomalous October 1978 DMSP weather-satellite image obtained through an Elmendorf AFB weather center. Bruce Maccabee reportedly ruled out several image artifacts but could not fully exclude a satellite or space-debris object.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · October 1978 DMSP weather-satellite anomalous image; uploaded PDF pp. 312-313
CONTEXTUALIZES
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.
SOURCE COMPARISON

Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Caveat

HOW TO READ THIS →
CLAIM-953202reported
“Hall stresses that a technically authentic image does not by itself establish the identity or extraordinary origin of the photographed object.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Image authenticity versus object identity caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SUPPORTS