The structured shape of the phenomenon, plus its distance from any light sources, seems to indicate that this isn't an equipment problem. There is also no known aurora that could do this naturally. So that leaves the "reflection from space" argument. What do we have in space that could possibly reflect the green light being emitted by the aurora?
"I agree with Pål Brekke [Senior Advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre] that a reflection from a satellite is a candidate," said Hansen. "It reminds of the so-called ‘Iridium flares' - reflections of sunlight from the regularly shaped Iridium satellites."
Satellite flares are well known by astronomers. As a satellite passes overhead, the conditions may be right for the spacecraft's solar panels or antennae to reflect sunlight down to the ground. The result is a short-lived burst of light, known as a "flare."
The network of Iridium communication satellites are best known for their flares, since they have three huge door-sized antennae that act as orbital mirrors. Witnessing an Iridium flare is immensely rewarding; the event can be predicted beforehand because these satellites have orbits that can be tracked.
My personal concern about the satellite flare theory is the question about auroral light intensity. Is the light from a large aurora bright enough to bounce off a satellite and appear as an auroral satellite flare as a point? And in turn produce a parachute-shaped, lens flare-like projection in the photo? I couldn't imagine even an Iridium satellite amplifying auroral light that much (although a stonking-huge orbital solar power array of the future might do a better job).
"The intensity of an intense aurora is not far from the intensity of moonlight, which is 1/100,000 of sun's light, and the solar Iridium flares apparently are several orders of magnitude stronger than this ‘auroral flare,' so the intensity does not immediately exclude the satellite reflection hypothesis," said Hansen.