I would appreciate opinions on this photo!

[George Ford]

So, what are your thoughts on this photo now?

I'm not sure. I can see a demon skull like entity under the orb and as I believe in demons and shadow people it could possibly be some sort of manifestation of one, although I don't know why it would be related with the orb. Also I might just be looking at too much pixilation as you said and then I could be suffering from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia Maybe just seeing things that are not here. I mean, I actually have a skull on the desktop next to me and was drawing a skull this morning so my caffeine soaked brain could be seeing skulls where there are none. I dunno. That's all I have to say on the subject.

[Bendy Demon]

I am sorry (well, actually I'm not) but I still see nothing odd or unusual about the image.

I examined the image over and over, tried making myself see something "paranormal" but I just do not see anything unusual at all.

[Kahn]

You're really reaching. It's an orb, i.e. dust. Nothing more.

[Brian Topp]

I agree what Ryu said, which is a good, truthful and classed as an opinion.

[ChrLzs]

I was dead right in my interpretation of the 'like minded' bit. Clearly, as demonstrated by the stuff in my initial post that has been completely ignored, nothing that doesn't confirm the OP's desired outcome will be listened to.

I'm out.

[rashore]

My opinion: it's dust. Others have already explained it well in this thread.

[JesseCuster]

How would it be flashing off a babies head?

It's not. It's flashing off a small particle such as dust near to the camera.

Okay, another thing.... If it were a flash from a dust speck, how would the big girls hair be able to be obstructing the view (even if only a smidge, by her hair). If it were a dust on the lense, it wouldn't be able to have detected her hair on it. See here :

Orbs are out of focus and thus are a small object spread out to look larger than they really are. The result is that they are somewhat transparent and it's common enough to be able to see through them and see some of what's behind them.

It's simply in enough focus that it's clearly visible but out of focus enough to be semi-transparent.

There's a common theme in these 'orb' photos. Taken indoors with flash. Indoors means dust (no matter how fastidious a cleaner you are, you don't live in a scientific clean room) and flash means illumination of any dust that happens to be near the lens. There's exceptions of course. Take a photo outside of it snowing with the flash on and you'll have a photo full of the things.

Out of curiosity, what's the make and model of camera? It's not in the EXIF data but can be useful when examining photographs.

Sorry, but this is a very common phenonemon that is well understood. Nothing paranormal to see here.

Edited November 8, 2013 by JesseCuster

[Nenaraz]

In my experience as a photograph I've never seen just a singular dust orb. Given the picture, it's not dust particle because it's too far away from the lens to have such a velocity.

while it's logical that there's a lot of movement during a party event it's also logical to have a certain reflection from a certain point when the picture is taken, especially if it's done with a flash and especially during the night.

The ghost orbs, as a phenomena, are documented and they can come in different colors, shapes but most importantly they appear as amoebae with high intensity in color, often in luminous green or weak purple (similar to an amethyst in plasma state).

The orb usually comes in a much bigger state than the one presented here on the picture and is often much clearer.

The famous scientist, and also a person who believed in God which I like to state, Nikola Tesla was first to use kirlian photography to portray and prove that bodies do emit aura. He was also the first one to actually use electricity in the healing properties and the first one to actually do what we call today "x-ray scan". While I can talk about Tesla all day long the point is that he was aware of the non-hertzian waves which works with a different pattern to what modern science takes into the account today. I do believe that someone of his knowledge and experience was not mistaken in what he spoke about.

So I do think that these orbs function on the basis of the non-hertzian waves, the same waves which you may find in the pyramids such as the long forgotten Rtanj where people have reported to have seen the big balls of light which float.

Also, the orbs seem to appear in higher velocity when near the cathedrals, graves and such places. It's possible to see a clear distinction between the dust particles caught by the lens or floating in mid-air as well as the actual orbs which appear in a three-dimensional space, often near the actual grave or a particular place.

The best description for them is "Ghost orb" and in pop culture referred to as "Wisp"

There're people who're very fond of discovering what Tesla spoke about, you may find more informations here

http://issuu.com/duhrtnja/docs/rtanj_experiment_2013_-_saopstenje_

As for your picture it most definitely isn't dust particle, but I'm afraid that it might be the lens reflection, especially from an earring or from the above-placed decorations.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Nenaraz

[Kahn]

Really? Please explain the difference between "orbs" and dust particles by appearance.

On a side note, what the hell is a "non-hertzian" wave? Do you know what the definition of a "wave" and a "Hertz" is? I have read many of Tesla's writings and I have never seen any reference to this.

[Nenaraz]

Really? Please explain the difference between "orbs" and dust particles by appearance.

On a side note, what the hell is a "non-hertzian" wave? Do you know what the definition of a "wave" and a "Hertz" is? I have read many of Tesla's writings and I have never seen any reference to this.

Hi, Kahn.

Much of the Tesla work is not published and quite some of it was kept and given only to his friends. As for Tesla's work he stumbled upon that discovery during this research http://www.tfcbooks....nts/1119732.htm for transmitting wireless eletricity.

I also gave the links which should prove to be a potent reference from where to start looking if your curiosity leads you there. Investigation takes time and patience and there're quite a lot of non-hertzian discussions among the scientific societies who built their reputation based on Tesla's work. As for Tesla himself, I'm a great admirer, but not every solitary information about his work comes in an english written form solely from the U.S.

As for the dust particles they will appear in much higher numbers than a single, solitary unit of dust, especially not when it's not stuck on the lens as it's the case on the given photo of the OP. That's why it looks more like a reflection, to me, than an actual dust particle.

Dust particles usually come in brownish-orange-ish colours and not in luminous forms, especially when there's no such light to be emitted from. I based my opinion on the fact that I see a solitary "dust particle", which in my experience would prove to be a light reflection.

Regards.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Nenaraz

[Kahn]

You do know that "non-hertzian" is just a pseudoscientific word for direct current? There is no such thing as a wave without a period. You might be getting confused with his frequent mention of "resonant waves" which, in the most of his references to them, were very low frequency waves as he was referring to the resonant frequency of the earth.

I actually have many of the books listed on the website you gave me. I'm looking behind me at my bookshelf and can see a few of them. I've always have been intrigued by the man.

--------------------------------------------------------------

On the Orbs note I would have to diverge as the lighting, angle, lens structure, particulate material and distance will all effect the color of the orb produced.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Kahn

[Nenaraz]

How do you mean a direct current? Didn't you just say that you've never heard for the term "Non-Hertzian" and all of a sudden you call it pseudoscientific? Pseudo with Tesla? That's quite a claim.

No, it's not a DC. Can you offer any proof for that?

It still, by the laws of physics, fall under the category of AC because there's no known method of measuring the units, just what Tesla spoke of. In fact, in the link that I've provided there's talking about the scientist from Europe who're experimenting with it driven by Tesla's work for quite some time now. The EM field that Tesla spoke about wasn't following the rules of the physics known to men, even now. Just because there's no actual evidence for it it doesn't necessarily mean that it is in the category of pseudoscience since the scientists, physicians etc are working on it with proper experimentation suitable for such a clam. So, it's a sort of non-recognisable property of the EM which works far below the Hertz (Thus non-hertz)

That electrical energy can be economically transmitted without wires to any terrestrial distance' date=' I have unmistakably established in numerous observations, experiments and measurements, qualitative and quantitative. These have demonstrated that is practicable to distribute power from a central plant in unlimited amounts, with a loss not exceeding [/size']a small fraction of one per cent, in the transmission, even to the greatest distance, twelve thousand miles—to the opposite end of the globe. This seemingly impossible feat can now be readily performed by any electrician familiar with the design and construction of my "high-potential magnifying transmitter," the most marvelous electrical apparatus of which I have knowledge, enabling the production of effects of unlimited intensities in the earth and its ambient atmosphere. It is, essentially, a freely vibrating secondary circuit of definite length, very high self-induction and small resistance, which has one of its terminals in intimate direct or inductive connection with the ground and the other with an elevated conductor, and upon which the electrical oscillations of a primary or exciting circuit are impressed under conditions of resonance. To give an idea of the capabilities of this wonderful appliance, I may state that I have obtained, by its means, spark discharges extending through more than one hundred feet and carrying currents of one thousand amperes, electromotive forces approximating twenty million volts, chemically active streamers covering areas of several thousand square feet, and electrical disturbances in the natural media surpassing those caused by lightning, in intensity.

link : http://www.tfcbooks....<br /><br />I'd also point that the fields that he spoke about were not constant, as in the DC theory given that the DC field is constantly active, but varied.

Also, the DC wouldn't really fit in the fact that certain pyramids do emmit what Tesla wrote (and spoke of) as non-hertzian waves.

Regards.

[Kahn]

Look at the citation you posted. Where does it state the term "non-Hertzian"? It speaks of a "resonant circuit", which when taken in context to his other published writings, refers to the resonant frequency of the earth.

[/url]hertz, unit of frequency. The number of hertz (abbreviated Hz) equals the number of cycles per second. The frequency of any phenomenon with regular periodic variations can be expressed in hertz, but the term is used most frequently in connection with alternating electric currents, electromagnetic waves (light, radar, etc.), and sound. It is part of the International System of Units (SI), which is based on the metric system. The term hertz was proposed in the early 1920s by German scientists to honour the 19th-century German physicist Heinrich Hertz. The unit was adopted in October 1933 by a committee of the International Electrotechnical Commission and is in widespread use today, although it has not entirely replaced the expression “cycles per second.”

Just because something is below 1 Hz, does not make it "non-Hertian", it just means it's below 1, i.e. 0.045 Hz. Very low frequency, or VLF. If you believe in Schumann Resonance, then the frequency of the earth is somewhere between 7.83 Hz and 7.7 Hz. Tesla spoke of several experiments that were well below this level, though tantalizingly, he rarely recorded actual values. Presumably to keep others from copying his ideas.

... and I am making an inference as to what "non-Hertzian" means as there can be such no such thing as a wave without a period.

[Nenaraz]

Er, my goal wasn't to prove it since it's still quite an ambiguous term just to use it as a reference point to point that it might be given the reputation of Tesla which doesn't follow the strict scientific routine (quite the contrary). If I'd want to present the certain analyses and the actual scientific data I'd need to have the info of the people within the project that I posted a link to (again, as a reference point). You're completely obliged to your view that there can't be anything beside AC in terms of waves, but I think that Tesla was on something and that there's more to it which needs further analysis.

What I disagreed upon is that it's some form of battery since the goal was to transfer electricity without any ground. Like teleportation, basically, but with the electricity.

[ChrLzs]

That's very fine word salad, Nenaraz. My favorite part was this:

Just because there's no actual evidence for it..

Yes, indeed...

Now, could you please show, with pertinent diagrams and logic and NOT made-up terms, what the heck you are talking about and how, precisely, it relates to the out of focus object in the OP image?

If you claim it is not an out of focus object near the lens, please elaborate in terms that will be familiar to a photographer. I expect to hear about apertures, sensor sizes, bokeh, circles of confusion, airy disks, diffraction. And either numbers and measurements, or examples of similar objects that are known and proven NOT to be dust particles.

If you can't do any of that, then you can toss your word salad as far as you like but it won't mean anything at all.

[ChrLzs]

BTW, here's an example showing pretty much all of the effects in neneraz's image of multiple (often over-post-processed) bokeh blobs. And as you can VERY CLEARLY see in this video, all of that 'detail' is caused by the optics and is affected by the aperture, focus and focal length settings of the camera. It is EASY to prove this - watch the video.. No need whatsoever to invoke ghosts, spirits or old-school inventors. (don't bother turning the sound up, there is none!):

[media=]

[/media]

Replace the word UFO with Orb... And yes, that video was done by me, so if you have any technical questions and want them answered by someone who doesn't think everything needs a Tesla miracle to explain it, do feel free to ask... I'm also happy to post lots of examples of bokeh effects (but I tend to avoid the bright colours that are favoured by those without a clue about post-processing..)

Edited November 19, 2013 by ChrLzs

[Nenaraz]

Hi, ChrLzs. I'm sorry, but in your video you're not really portraying a dust particle nor you explained each and every single color which digital camera caught. If you have somehow missed this sentence in your apparent wish to self-promote photographic agenda, where you deem necessary to mock/bash to prove how you're a professional , you'd notice that I consider it to be an earring reflection coming from a light source, however I also claim that there're particular orbs which come in luminous green color when there's no apparent reason for a dust particle to appear in such a high luminous value.

As for this

Just because there's no actual evidence for it..

There were no evidences for the germs, yet people washed hands to reduce the mortality rate. There was no evidence for magnetism, yet people used compass long before it was discovered. So your point is that because there's no evidence, it can't work or exist?

The picture I posted was, again, for the reference point that dust particles do not come in such different colours unless there's an actual light source which will illuminate the area.

The conclusion I made was based on a simple fact that dust particles do come in abundance, and for your video any single solitary light, whether it's a planet, a star or whichever can and will produce the same effect as long as the resolution is low. However, the effect is illogical to exist in a very dark places and less logical to come in a particular colour which seems to be, the most, luminous green.

For the reference, this is how dust particles look like and there's the dust/sand below the two people. Light is also needed in order to produce the effect and the rest is done with the low resolution. They also come in hexagon way same like the snowflakes.

And this particular one when there's no chance for such a high luminous value to exist on a solitary spot, unless we're talking about the actual glass reflection which, given the surroundings in the picture, is way off the charts for a possibility and there would be rays around the orb which would signalize what's at hand.

So, mr.pro photographer I'd like to see you explain the given solitary orbs which do come in high luminous value of the color green.

I also hope that you're familiar with the term ball lightning. You'd do yourself a great favor learning about the phenomena. Next time I hope that you'll find yourself in a less condescending manner and actually try to be constructive.

Oh, and because you simply adore Tesla

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nenaraz

[ChrLzs]

First up, why on earth are you using spoiler codes???? To annoy readers by making them click on stuff? This isn't a preview of a movie...

Hi, ChrLzs. I'm sorry, but in your video you're not really portraying a dust particle

Wow, you spotted that! Well done. Up above YOU posted a whole pile of images that showed nothing but bokeh effects and silly unwarranted post-processing effects. My video shows the sort of stuff that causes bokeh, it shows the concentric and radial lines, the moving 'debris' - it shows EVERY feature of the images you made so much of, and also shows how you can easily identify it. I see you took none of that away with you. Bit of a shame, but I'm not surprised.

nor you explained each and every single color which digital camera caught. If you have somehow missed this sentence in your apparent wish to self-promote photographic agenda

This is about photography isn't it? Do you understand how color balance works? In what way have you defined or analysed these colors? Do you know why cameras may over-emphasise greens? (Do you know what RGBG stands for?) Or is it just about wrongly claiming, as YOU have, that the incredibly common effect of brightly lit nearby o-o-f stuff is somehow special and requires Tesla-tinfoil or paranormal interpretations? Well, I'm sorry, but that is to stop now and I am calling you on your claims. See below.

..where you deem necessary to mock/bash to prove how you're a professional you'd notice that I consider it to be an earring reflection coming from a light source

That's just lovely - then why all the other stuff about Tesla and ...

I also claim that there're particular orbs which come in luminous green color when there's no apparent reason for a dust particle to appear in such a high luminous value.

Righto, that's where I call your bluff. Consider this a formal request - you have just made a fairly easily testable claim - so now 's the time for you to back it up or withdraw it. You will now show us a full example, with proper documentation of what you are claiming - I hope for your sake the best example isn't the 'spoiler' images...

That should include a full-resolution image, with EXIF intact, and also a full description of the circumstances under which the image was taken, and an explanation of how you came to your conclusion that "there're {sic} particular orbs which come in luminous green color when there's no apparent reason for a dust particle to appear in such a high luminous value".

No more word salad, no more appeals to incredulity, no more handwaving - show us precisely how you came to that conclusion.

The picture I posted was, again, for the reference point that dust particles do not come in such different colours unless there's an actual light source which will illuminate the area. The conclusion I made was based on a simple fact that dust particles do come in abundance

Absolute HOGWASH. It depends entirely on the environment and local air movements. There may be no visible dust whatsoever, one particle that happens to drift into the right place, two, three, thousands or however many there just happens to be.

and for your video any single solitary light, whether it's a planet, a star or whichever can and will produce the same effect as long as the resolution is low.

It has got nothing to do with resolution, it is an out of focus effect, It depends on aperture, lens design, actual distance/focal distance, zoom setting, whether it is closer or further than the focal plane - all of those will affect the bokeh size and appearance. All you need is something out of focus and illuminated - whether from the camera flash or some other source.

However, the effect is illogical to exist in a very dark places

Even more HOGWASH. It's all about whether anything, be it a bit of dust or an insect or whatever, is in the field of view. How can you, with a straight face, tell me that dark places don't have dust or insects (or out of focus cameras..)? That is ludicrous.

and less logical to come in a particular colour which seems to be, the most, luminous green.

So, show me the statistical analysis showing how much more green ones there are, and how you have investigated possible reasons. Even a Google search that shows predominantly green results would do (although if your search terms include 'green' that might be questioned...).

In other words, STOP making claims with nothing to support them but your own cherry picked images.

For the reference, this is how dust particles look like. Light is also needed in order to produce the effect. and the rest is done with the low resolution.

That's NOT a reference, it's simply one example. Yes, light is needed to illuminate things, otherwise they will be .. dark. And NO - it is out of focus it is NOT 'low resolution'.

They also come in hexagon way same like the snowflakes.

Yes, bokeh does come in hexagons, on cameras that have six aperture blades. Septagons for seven bladed apertures, pentagons for five blades - are you spotting the pattern? I suggest a little googling might be required. Some cameras with tiny sensors have fixed apertures of odd shapes, so sometimes you may see hemispherical ones, triangles, squares, or just plain round..

And this particular one when there's no chance for such a high luminous value to exist on a solitary spot unless we're talking about the actual glass reflection which, given the surroundings in the picture, is way off the charts for a possibility and there would be rays around the orb which would signalize what's at hand.

MORE hogwash. On what basis? How did you measure the value and why exactly do you think there's no chance? STOP handwaving. First up, note how bright the foreground is - see that big washed out bright area at the bottom? Answer a simple question, Neneraz. If a small (yes, greenish) object was anywhere near as close to the lens as that completely washed out white area was, just how bright would you expect it to be? Then, feel free to show me the circle of confusion calculations that would tell us what an object at say 2" (5cm) from the lens would look like, if the camera was focussed on say 10 feet or so, as it appears to be. Also, please explain what the OTHER big round things are... And as for the rays business, you only get rays if the camera optics make them, or the window glass is smeared or scratched. If it is clean, you will simply get refractions. May I suggest a basic optics course?

So, mr.pro photographer I'd like to see you explain the given solitary orbs which do come in high luminous value of the color green.

What a ridiculous request - it could be as simple as you cherry picking the images, that the object was green, that your camera is very poorly white balanced, or it could even be that at such an oblique angle to the flash (as you would surely realise) it is being illuminated by highly refracted light, as you often get around the outer edges of glass/plastic diffusers - the same effect that makes newer car headlights show blue/green/magenta colours at slightly different angles.

I also hope that you're familiar with the term ball lightning. You'd do yourself a great favor learning about the phenomena.

Right, so now you bring out something that is completely unrelated to the thread, and also make it into a put down. You should check the mirror when telling me I'm condescending. At least I stay ontopic and do not try to distract. Yes, feel free to believe I know FAR less about ball lightning than you - now, does that make you feel better?

Next time I hope that you'll find yourself in a less condescending manner and actually try to be constructive.

Coming after what you just said - that is hilariously hypocritical.

In your next post please answer the questions I have put to you, and stop wasting bandwidth with silly offtopic images.

ADDED PS - please do NOT substantially revise your posts!!! It's very poor netiquette.

Edited November 19, 2013 by ChrLzs

[Nenaraz]

Oh, no, no, you're the one who's a professional who seems to be frustrated here . I asked you to tell me why is there a single, solitary particle of high luminous value in two pictures.

I'm not going to make a whole discussion so that you get an essay for a single particle analysis, so don't be ridiculous. I asked you for a single things to explain, yet you started barking with no real evidence asking me "Do you even photo?" nonsense.

I claimed one thing, I do not need to provide a full scale doctorate and even if I did you'd still bark, so what's the point? As i imagined, you called on the glass particle which proves to me that you didn't take into the consideration that one of the photos was not done with a digital camera but actually does have a film. Because you were so inpolite and furthermore aggressive in your approach I do not see why would I, or anybody, prove anything to you. Rudeness and challenges are not really mature imho therefore I do not deem necessary to answer your questions nor to be obliged to answer your demands after what you just portrayed followed by incompetence to supplement your accusations. I do not see what terminology might prove to you whether I speak from a standpoint of an expert or someone who just took a photo with 35mm or to provide whether I do possess the knowledge of digital photography. This is a forum, it's not like I'm going to waste much time discussing this with you just to please your needs based on your accusations.

In your next post please answer the questions I have put to you

You're not in a position to ask me anything after portraying impoliteness, for whatever reason, which is a shame since I was quite potent in replying and who knows - I might have actually wasted my day on a solitary particle that you so dramatically refused to revise.

As for the ball lightning it was a reference to your video, therefore you might have noticed that it provided no reference to what we spoke about earlier on. Quite logically so, if I may add.

Anyway, I was hoping that you'd take more time to actually look at the pictures provided with luminous green light and tell me which one of them was done without the digital camera. Since you're the professional who takes images of the stars et cetera It'd be ridiculously easy for you to answer that question and it goes to your benefit as well.

As for me, I've been tracking a lot of Orb phenomena so, yes, I'm quite potent in finding what they are and what they're mistaken for when someone makes a shot with poor resolution and with digital method.

On a side note, why are you so frustrated because of all of this?

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nenaraz

[Hazzard]

Okay, another thing.... If it were a flash from a dust speck, how would the big girls hair be able to be obstructing the view (even if only a smidge, by her hair). If it were a dust on the lense, it wouldn't be able to have detected her hair on it. See here :

This reminds me of a similar phenomenon,... There are three reasons why this happens: Bleeding of the emulsion, saturation of the dynamic range, and low-quality reproductions. Some people have the same problem with the crosshairs – also known as “fiducials” - in the Apollo pictures from the moon.

Have a look at this - http://pseudoastro.w...red-and-tilted/

Edited November 19, 2013 by Hazzard

[Kahn]

Nenaraz, since I did not say so at first, welcome to out forums. You should first understand that there are some very competent engineers and scientists on these forums and that if you begin to cloak your posts in any type of pseudoscience, or worse, try to explain them in pseudoscientific terms, you will be challenged. It is obvious by your posts that you do not have a scientific background. That's OK, many folks don't. But the last thing you want to do, if you want to maintain any shred of credibility, is to use pseudoscientific sounding terms and try to argue that they are superior to reality. I tried to gently educate you with your use of the word "non-Hertzian". To us with engineering and/or mathematical backgrounds is comes off as uneducated. Let me reiterate one more time.

You can't have a wave without a period! To do so would be a straight line, i.e. direct current in the case of electricity. The unit of measure for a period is Hertz.

This is why you perceive a hostile reaction, because what you are stating makes no sense. Please take note of what others are telling you and you will be rewarded by their experience.

[Nenaraz]

Ok, then, I'll also put a slight offensive in that case.

The unit of measure for a period is Hertz

I can see that you do possess the knowledge of elementary school. The same way like that other Snoopy possessed the knowledge of how the lens operate and deemed necessary to write an essay. So much free time, I'm amazed, more so since you actually are trying to prove to me what a Hz is. If this is the way you greet new members, I'm simply speechless. What I see is that you fail to educate yourself about the term which I've given, though the term itself is an oxymoron, more or less, it's still a term used as a reference point. That much should be clear. But obviously you wanted to prove how knowledgeable you are by posting simplicities. To me that's as good as an insult, practically.

I didn't realize that for placing an opinion and possibilities I'd need to provide a full-scale scientific peer-review research for having credibility (?) for simple possibilities and to use scientific terminology for a forum post. Your backlash makes me highly cynical. What I've witnessed here is a strong vanity on the basis of discovering something or hearing something "for the first time", as both you and that other person with Snoopy stated, you for the "non-hertzian" waves and the other person for "ball lightning". Those very refferences which I've used should be taken into consideration as a source of information. It's completely up to you whether you're going to inform yourself of the scientific research about those things or not, but stating "doesn't exist" and "pseudoscience" will only prove your ignorance.

The aggressive approach to a nonchalant forum surfing will prove to be fruitless. I, for one, am not here to prove or disprove anything and for one I didn't invent the term, Nikola did. It's also a quite famous term and one which repeatedly comes through the work of Tesla. I also gave you a link to a team of scientists who are working on the project for non-hertzian waves. So, to me, they have far more credibility than you telling me how "non-hertzian" doesn't exist as if you've condone debunkery for the subject.

Aside from that, proving things on a forum, really? That's a waste of time for me, specifically more so since I don't have anything to gain from.

To weight purpose to what I spoke (wrote) about was also to lead this particular topic discussion to a different level offering the possibilities which also have to be taken into consideration since not every single orb taken is something made of dust, pollen or to that effect.

I also don't deem the particular topic to be the subject for purposeful scientific analysis, more so since everything's done via internet therefore it's hard to actually prove anything (at least I'd take such stance) without the actual physical evidence coming from different perspectives, views et cetera.

I'm also not here to discuss terminology to prove my credibility, there're always search engines and my motto is that you might learn something new each day.

So that's as far as it goes from me. I will give you links, I will send you terms but don't expect that I offer a full scale research to prove something which is still without an explanation in the scientific society, such as "Non-hertzian" waves. What I state makes perfect sense and I already have proven that there're experiments at work for the given terms.

I'd expect that you look more into it instead to deny it's existence.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nenaraz

[JesseCuster]

That's a lot of words to avoid actually explaining yourself.

[Nenaraz]

If you're referring to me, the exact words have been quite explanatory. Also, how writing and replying means "avoiding" explaining?

If I ask you to write an essay on how the refrigerator operates to prove that you understand how vacuum operates and if you decline to do so I call you avoiding to answer and you have no credibility? Please... And then I start telling you that refrigerator uses the cable to put into the plug where electricity is and continue to explain how it all works together because you've used an ambiguous term that I have never heard of. If you deem that logical to do, i applaud you. In my book, that's rude.

Also, I've done with answering to all this nonsense.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Nenaraz

[Kahn]

You just don't get it.