I've started to post my best ghost photos onto the internet at http://www.angelfire.com/realm/paraportal

I was just wondering if any of them impress you.

Thank you for your comments

im a bit skeptical of the skeleton in the window. seems too convient and 2 dimensionally visible. the other orbs seem like flash created manifestations. take some photos during the daylight hours and see if you still get orbs.

the one i have a hard time explaining is the large one, but i still doubt its real because ive yet to see a negative or something that i could examine closer. seems photoshop to me.

please don't take my skepticism the wrong way, its just that i have quite high standards and have seen many fakes

There are no negatives since all the photos were taken with a digital camera.

The huge orb really startled me when it appeared on my viewscreen but I can assure you that it isn't any debris on the lens or directly in front of the camera.

If you were to enhance the picture you should be able to see inconsistancies between the orb and the picture if it were placed there using a photo editing program. The graininess (due to the camera being on a zoom setting) would have made it even harder to fake


Thanks for the critism though. The skeleton is a little far fetched, but I though I'd add it for the benefit of the doubt.

Hi MostlyGhostly... really liked your photos..

Never seen an orb like the one you have with the dog.... look forward to seeing more. :-)

Kelly

Yeah, everybody who sees the photo of thr huge orb that's in front of the dog (who knows about orbs) expresses extreme shock and adulation that one was caught like that!

I liked the photo's you put up, but the skeleton seemed to me to be a bit to vivid in the window, especially after it was enhanced by flipping it.

The pic of the dog looking at the orb, well after looking at the pic, I have to say that I personally think that the dog is looking at the camera and not the orb, which just happens to appear in the pic in front of the dog, as the dog only seems to be looking at it with one eye.

the one that impressed me the most is the pic of the big orb, although it does seem to have rings in it, that run parrallel to the edge.

But other than that, thanks for sharing.

I've enhanced the huge orb in that picture which some have claimed is one of the best orb photos ever taken. Enhanced it looks like this:



The feature that I've never seen before is the 2nd skin just inside from the outer layer. I love the plasmaesque flame effect that's coming from the surface too

I remeber seeing a UFO photo a few years ago that looked similar to the enlarged pic above, it too was a sphere that had two layers, the only difference was that the UFO was a lot bigger than the one on this pic.

Althalus,

Are you referring to the Derbyshire UFO?

i added a reply to this topic the other night that was lost in transfer so i feel i should type it up again:

i enhanced your orb photo and have found a few things that lead me to believe it is either 1. fake or 2. caused by your camera. the main reason i believe it is faked is that it is precisely positioned on the dog's jet black coat- against which it has little background to make faking it a messy job. in fact, it follows the contours of the dog with such precision that it never strays off the black at all. i find that too convient. all one would have to do is find an "orb" pic and then layer it with a transparent background over the conviently negative area of the dog's black fur. id say a 5-10 minute job at most.

i also believe it could be a result of using a flash with a digital camera. i see dozens of 'ghost' photos claiming these type of predictable occurances are proof of a haunting. nonsense! i can make an orb photo very easily by taking a picture with a flash on in the right conditions. flash orbs are not ghosts. i have personally taken 100's of photographs in "haunted" locations and have ONE unexplained pic out of all of them- i would make sure not to use a flash at all and never take a pic where lighting would produce that effect. if you want to prove you have a real ghost get a real camera and take a real picture. when your negative shows something abnormal, i might believe you have something unexplainable. negatives that contain abnormalities are really hard to fake- since chemicals react in a predictable manner and the process is out of our hands. some faked negatives exist but they are the result of a great deal of effort that the common hoaxer would not exhibit the patience to create- much less submit to public scrutiny by experts.

and on a side note... i am always skeptical of any new visitor to this forum with an anonymous name presenting ghost photos. i use my real name because i don't feel the need to hide away behind an alias when i post something. maybe you should spend some more time working on your reputation before you make grand claims of your pic being the 'best orb pic ever'. just who made those claims? who has put your pic through scrutiny?

BAH....

Schwartz,

He isn't exactly a new visitor, he's visited our site in the past under several other member names, with similar claims. Here's a link to an older post;

CLICK HERE

You have to give him credit, he certainly is tenacious, considering the response he received the first time. There are many here dubious about any connection between 'orb' photos and the supernatural, ghosts and/or spirits, which is why there wasn't much in the way of response to his post, except those unfamiliar with his previous visits. No harm done, really, people will believe what they see, no matter what others opinions are, won't they?

As a sidenote, he isn't anonymous either, if you were to visit his website where the pictures are located, his full name is at the bottom of the page. I think you owe someone an apology.

Magikman

Opps, thought I was logged in when I posted that, sorry.

me... apologize? haha, never

thanks for the link though... it was nice reading all that criticism

Why must people think that every time somebody posts a photo which contains an anomalie they think it's faked. I admit though that there are sad people out there who think that if they can create a fraudulent picture good enough to fool people then it makes them popular. I believe fraudulent pictures should ONLY be created to see if any effects can be achieved during controlled conditions.

I'm also surprised of your instant dismissal of orbs. Orbs are deemed a paranormal phenomena because they're something that science has not yet caught up with to explain rationally. You've only got to look at the millions of digitally taken photos to realise that it can't just be dust or reflections or lens flares etc. They are a documented phenomena - but this doesn't mean that they are spiritual.

I personally believe that orbs are balls of pure energy. How they are created I don't know, but I feel that they could be very weak forms of ball lightning (something else scientists thought was a hoax until just a couple of years ago).

Since normal film cameras only capture images using pure light, it's kind of a what-you-see-is-what-you-get type of thing. The light that goes through the lens is the light that is developed onto the film. Since orbs have no physiciality to them they do not have a mass for light to rebound from. Hence they're invisible to the naked eye.

However, digital photography uses a different way to take pictures. I believe that infra red technology is used within them to create more finely defined pictures. This is why you always get a crisp image with a digital camera - even if the camera is being shaken at the time (this is a conclusion following my own research using my own digital camera). Infra red technology can also photograph temperatures. Since orbs are a ball of energy then they should surely give off some kind of heat - therefore infra red cameras should be able to detect them. This is evident in digital photography and night-vision cameras.

Orbs are real.

It was like the comment made by the discoverer of Rods. He said that because we're such an "advanced" race, we immediately have to claim that any phenomena that scientists have not found to exist must therefore be a hoax. If scientists were more open minded to the paranormal side of science, then perhaps many new types of phenomena would be discovered.

yep, that certainly looks like the UFO I was trying to refer to.


Thanks Magik

"orbs are real"...

turn off your flash and show me an orb- i guarantee that your orbs are the result of reflected light. the round/ball shape is the exact same shape you see when you point a camera towards the sun- video camera or regular camera. the spots you see are the result of a camera having a round lens and light shining into that lens. when you take a photograph using a flash, you don't have to be in front of a mirror to get that reflected light- it can come sideways from any reflective surface or even something light colored. ive gotten orbs when using a flash in a room with just a white wall that is out of view of the picture.

i am a university trained photographer. i have studied more books on photographic effects than A LOT of people. i also have my own darkroom in my apartment where i develop my own pictures- so i know a thing or two about what light does to a photograph. i also know a thing or two about flashes and when and where they should be used. most 'orb' photos are the result of using a flash when there is enough light not to need one or far too much space to light with one. flashes are notorious for producing this effect and if you have them it is considered more a reflection of your lack of skill than something unexplained. i find it ironic that orb photos are pushed as ghosts or energy when all you really have to look at is the shape and tell it is light causing the effect.

btw. you never answered my question about who is calling your photo the best orb photo ever...

Here is the topic in a different message forum which you so early wish to see : http://pub105.ezboard.com/fghostystudyloun...icID=1795.topic

I personally have never seen a light relection with an outer skin and inner texture. Instead whenever I capture them on my camera I can instantly tell that they are what I have captured because they appear as dull balls of white with absolutely no texture to them whatsoever. I've also seen light reflections appear as hexagonals.

I have never seen a light relection be able to move on its own accord as orbs do in numerous videos shot using infra red 'night-vision' video camera technology.

I have never seen light reflections be able to move so fast that they can appear as a blur in a photo which only had a shutter speed of microseconds.

There was a television program on a few years ago called "The Worlds Scariest Ghosts ever Caught on Camera". One particular article focused on orbs that were being captured on camera. A respected scientist was at the evening to try and capture any details about what they could be. Using a laser thermometer he was able to conclusively state that these 'light reflections' as you call them were about 10 degrees hotter than their surroundings, which led him to conclude that they were in fact balls of pure energy.

Don't get me wrong. I value all aspects of scepicism. However, it sometimes fustrates me a little when certain people announce that certain phenomena is a light reflection or dust or whatever, and then never go into why they think this. In other words, a closed-minded skepic. (Not that I'm accusing you of being one )

As the old saying goes - "To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the skeptic, no proof is available."

wow. 10 degrees hotter than their environment? i wonder what chemicals they use in a flashbulb. could the flash be 10 degrees hotter than the environment? could a flash be a source of energy that produces an aura? hmm.

ive seen a ghost once. i know it wasnt an orb. im not skeptical of the phenomenon, but rather people who look to make me look bad for believing by faking ghost pictures. ghosts are VERY rare. i judge this by the fact that in my whole life i have only seen one. ive even gone hunting ghosts only to come up totally empty time and time again. when i see a website of some ghost hunting group that touts their orb pics as ghosts i sincerely doubt they are seeing ghosts. you can't see ghosts every little field trip you take a group on, so naturally they have to embellish their claims. the 'orb' photos provide that ability. you can claim an orb is a ghost and keep foolish people interested in your little ghost hunter cult and thus maintain your outlandish lifestyle and popularity. it doesn't make what you are seeing a ghost.

sure, every little sect of society can find some scientist to justify their belief structure- look at the Raelians- but it doesnt make them any more real than if only one person believed it. im telling you as a photographer that your orbs are flash created phenomenon. whether you choose to believe that or not is your right, but just give taking your photos without the flash a shot and see the proof

I will tell you this again. Although I believe that orbs exist, I do NOT believe that they are extra-terrestial in origin.

I believe that they are an extremely weakened version of ball ligntning. The scientific findings I highlighted in my previous posting can be used to confirm this suspicion.

May I ask how a flash on a camera can make the entire room 10 degrees hotter when a photo is taken? I personally have felt no such heat when people have photographed me with both digital and analogue cameras.

I have trouble accepting that some orbs are merely 'light-reflections' as you continually claim they are. Although I believe that the majority that are captured can be attributed to natural causes (for example, I've seen a number of ghost investigation sites displaying classic examples of 'rain orbs' and confusing them for the genuine article), there are a small number that defy this hypothesis.

May I ask a few questions for considerations?

1) I have personally seen a non-manipulated orb photograph that showed the globe partially behindan object that was also in the room. How could this have happened if light reflections are formed on the lens and always appear as a circle?

2) How can light reflections be used as a convincing conclusion in regards to orbs captured on stationary cameras that are using 'infra red' recording technology in areas where nobody is present? Most of the time, these stationary cameras pick up objects that come from behind walls and seem to be able to move as if they were consciously aware of their surroundings. Surely if these were merely light-reflections then they should also be stationary?

3) Since light reflections only come from a single, non-moving point when the photograph is taken, how can they produce orbs that seem to be travelling so fast that they can be blurred - even when the shutter speed is in the nano-seconds? Blurred orbs have also been captured on stationary cameras.

4) If orbs were merely light reflections, then if 2 photos were taken immediately in succession using a stationary camera they would show an orb in each in exactly the same position, including when the room is empty at the time? I personally have done numerous tests using this method where I place the camera in an un-movable position and set the timer. At this time I leave the room and the photo is taken. Then I immediately go back in and set the timer again and leave the room awaiting the taking of the next photo. When the two photos were viewed afterwards one photo contained a faint orb whilst the other contained nothing.

I look forward to your answers.

Here is an orb photo i took just a moment ago.Or should i say faked a moment ago.
Orbs are nothing more than reflected light from DUST particles close to the camera lens.

Good fake

But other than that, Londo Mollari and Marcus Cole: long time no see

i think Crosis' photo answers those questions but i will give my opinion just for the hell of it:

1. was the object dark? light may appear to be behind something when it is actually over something of a darker color which gives the illusion that it is behind it.

2. they could be bugs that appear as an orb due to the inexactness of an infrared camera. they could be related to a warm draft that appears as something else. im not familiar with infrared cameras but i know they are quite expensive to get a nice one. most bizarre effects on an infrared camera can be attributed to the fact they are cheap and don't have the proper equipment on them to prevent this kind of thing.

3. motion of any kind can produce this effect. even with an extremely high shutter speed, if you use the wrong type of film you will get this effect. cameras are finicky little creatures that require skill to use properly, put one in the hands of a novice and lots of strange things can occur. i know this because ive personally screwed up my pictures in several different ways. the same is true of digital cameras- they have a myriad of settings that require some skill to not produce wild effects. just setting your camera inappropriately will cause this type of effect even if you percieve the camera is stationary. just as an example of a way to make a 'ghost' effect with a 35mm camera all you need to do is slightly rock a "stationary" camera with a long shutter setting and you will get a magical ghostly mist. you could have a friend jump in front of the camera and make a face and you will get a ghostly figure in the photograph. there are hundreds of ways to make a 'stationary' camera produce motion if you are so inclined.

4. see Crosis' picture.

Actually, Crosis has provided a worthy example as to how some orbs are NOT created by dust.

Here is an enhanced picture of the dust orb along with my orb...



If you look closely at the dust orb, there are no characteristics that would suggest that is it genuine. It is just a monotonous ball of dull grey mass with no skin or inner texture. The main feature that appears on many dust / pollen orbs is a dark dark hole in it, not unlike a mini Star-wars esque 'Death-Star'. This is known due to extensive research like Crosis has done where various objects and particles are placed in front of the lens and photographed. In all cases, artificially created orbs (dust, pollen, water droplets etc) showed these common characteristics.

Compare that to my orb, which has no such characteristics that the dust orb has. Instead it has a thick outer skin and a complex inner texture. There is no hole within it and there is just one.

It would be highly unusual to have just one piece of dust floating around, and if there was only one then it would be an experience to capture it on film.

Responding to your raised points in your last post:

1) The object in question was in fact a branch on a tree. Since there were other orbs within the photo that were in front of other branches I'm afraid that I find it hard to accept your theory on this. I am doing by best to try and find the photo that I am talking about so that I can show you the copy.

2) Since the various clips I've seen were all taken with still cameras that were indoors at the time, it would be highly unlikely that the orbs could be attributed to merely 'bugs'. The only way that a bug could appear as nothing but a globe would be if it was so close to the camera that it couldn't focus on it, nulling the beating of the wings. However, since the orbs have been seen to have appeared from behind a wall some six foot away from the camera, this cannot be the case. The resolutions on night-vision cameras are quite high, so I'd personally think that if it was a bug then its wings would surely be seen?

3) Orbs do not appear on 35mm film since those particular cameras develop light, and since orbs are non-mass in structure, there is nothing for light to reflect off to cause an image of them to develop on the film. Digital cameras use infra red technology to ensure a crisper picture. When the photo is taken with a flash, the shutter speed has to be down to almost a microsecond so that the picture would not appear to be too bright. I have tried moving the camera as fast as possible whilst also moving my hand very quickly in front of the lens whilst taking a photo, and this still produced a crystal clear photograph. How then can a stationary camera take a photo of a streaking orb when a quickly-moving one can capture a stationary orb?

4) But when I do this experiment, the camera is literally locked down so that there is no possible way for it to move. The two photos are taken in the conditions that I highlighed in a previous posting and still the classic orbs are appearing in one and not in the other. I will conduct this experiment again in the near future and show you the results here.

well I can't say wether or not it is real I can say that the picture of the orb is Bueatiful up close

btw... did you happen to notice that when you 'enhanced' the orb the background became so black? that is an awful lot of enhancing you've done there and i doubt the 'complex inner texture' would exist if you didn't take such liberty with light and contrast.

But I thought that because it was on a black background to begin with that you blatantly blasted it's authenticity. If you're going to argue a point, try not to hypocritate yourself first.

Orbs are a GENUINE, but NATURAL phenomena; and it's extremely small minded to just assume that they're one thing when many other photographic experts continually conclude that ORBS ARE NOT DUST OR LIGHT REFRACTIONS.

Many theories are made regarding orbs, yet NONE have been able to be successfully recreated to the standards that are caught accidentally. You say that they're light reflections. Well, how about you create one using this method under scientific conditions and post the results. Then we'll compare.

And when are you going to answer the following question I asked. Saying that a photograph that I immediately managed to use for my benefit in this arguement is hardly a plausible answer.

4) If orbs were merely light reflections, then if 2 photos were taken immediately in succession using a stationary camera they would show an orb in each in exactly the same position, including when the room is empty at the time? I personally have done numerous tests using this method where I place the camera in an un-movable position and set the timer. At this time I leave the room and the photo is taken. Then I immediately go back in and set the timer again and leave the room awaiting the taking of the next photo. When the two photos were viewed afterwards one photo contained a faint orb whilst the other contained nothing.

Those zoomed in photos of the "orbs" look like ovum. I don't know why this occured me but it did.

ahh, let the insults fly. yes.... it must feel good to belittle your critics because it gets so hot in that kitchen where you cook up your fake ghost photos

of course i said it was a black background, but i also said notice how the background becomes SO BLACK. you adjusted the contrast to such an insane level that it creates things that don't exist in this reality. there are no 'inner textures' to that orb in reality, but when you contrast them that intensely you can see shapes. well, you could do that to any photo and get the exact same thing.

in your unenhanced photo the background is black but its a washed out black of a regular photograph. when you enhanced it, it became a very stark black that is not even remotely close to your original photograph. its just a total abstraction and your 'inner textures' are total abstractions too.


maybe you choose to believe in what some kooky 'photo expert' says, but i am a photo expert and i believe what i know to be true from my own experiences. i am much more a critic of my own photos than anyone could be- in fact, i wont even show a questionable photo (one that could be a result of light and not an actual unexplained phenomenon) to anyone because i would rather maintain my integrity than be called a fraud. apparently that doesnt bother you, so i am assuming you are a fraud

ME insult YOU???

You have openly called me a fraud throughout this entire topic, and have not yet managed to successfully answer a single question I have raised regarding orb phenomena. Everything you say are just biased opinions and theories. You still have not managed to prove how 'light reflections' can appear in one photograth and then disappear in another when the camera is locked and in a static position.

You still haven't managed to explain how orbs can be captured on video using night-vision cameras. Saying that they're just insects or dust is just being small minded. Anybody can instantly tell when it's a flying insect coming into view because the wings are a dead giveaway, and I don't think dust would show if it came out from behind a wall 10 foot away from the camera.

If they're that easy to do, I am asking you from a scientific point of view to successfully recreate this 'light refraction' process you so whole-heartedly believe in.

Anybody can dismiss things that they don't believe in - it shouldn't mean though that you should resort to such demeaning methods to try and make people think in the same context that you do. Are you trying to say that because it's your opinion it must be the right one?

You don't think orbs are real, therefore I must have faked them. Good scienfitic stance there!

I have seen a lot of photographic analysis experts both in person and on the television who stress that the orbs they see in photographs are not specks of dust or light refractions, and they are at a complete loss as to explaining them. Does it mean that their many decades of experience are wrong simply because you don't believe in them?


So come on, I am throwing down the gauntlet to you. I would like to see you recreate an orb using light refraction into the lens and then post the results here.

And the fact that you won't post this orb photo that apparently proves that orbs are no more than 'light refractions' speaks volumes.

I truly believe orbs are of a spiritual phenomena.

Do I believe all orb photos are neccasirly spirits?

No, there can be a lot that might be dust, or bugs, but to say all orbs are nothing, I think is being cynical, not skeptical.



I have witnessed orbs in my night vision scope, and let me tell you it is very exciting to see. I have literally seen them come up to me, and hover a few feet away, as if it is just looking at me for about 20 seconds, I also have witnessed and followed them go right through a tombstone in a cemetery. That means it is not physical if it can go through a tombstone and come out the other side.

One thing I will say, when I see photos where there are hundreds of orbs, I tend to believe that is probably dust, because when using my nightscope I have never witnessed more then two orbs at anyone time in my field of view.


Someone said earlier, about infared and they are right. Digital cameras, and certain models are more senstive can cputer when the light is above 700nm

Here is a very good page that details digital infared technology, and remeber not all digital cameras are as sensitive then others, some work better then others.

http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/ir.htm


-Bannor

I agree that if there is a huge cluster of orbs then it is most probably dust, although there have been documented examples of orb clusters that have been examined by experts and deemed unexplainable in terms of just being dust.

All that is known about orbs is that they exist, they're approximately 10 degrees hotter than the sorrounding air and are balls of pure energy.

If orbs were merely 'light reflections' then surely they would have also appeared in film cameras as well as digital cameras (Because they're both dealing with identically concaved lenses and so the light entering the camera would be identical in terms of angle and intensity). They both use the same kind of lens - it's only the development process that's different. I have NEVER seen an orb that was captured with a film camera.

i knew i shouldn't have even posted that thought to begin with...

i answered your questions but you seem unwilling to accept my answers. i am quite honestly too lazy to go and produce a picture to satisfy you- im also honestly too tired to even argue with you anymore

you win!

<dinnertime, yummy>

This is not an agruement, but a discussion with a difference of opinion.

However, for a discussion to be constructive, then opinions must be offered and considered. Every time I have put forward a case against why what you're stating cannot be used as an answer in regards to all orb captures you've fobbed me off, and have even gone so far as to call me a fraud because I don't agree with what you say.

What's the point of coming to a paranormal discussion forum if you aren't going to be open minded when certain phenomena is presented?

I have personally tried to capture a light reflection my pointing my digital camera straight into a mirror and taking a photograph. Even by doing that I could not capture any orbs! If light finds it so difficult to reflect back into the lens when a 5 foot tall mirror is in front of it, how is it going to be able to reflect back into the lens with such precision when it's (for example) a lampshade off shot?

I'm not trying to be petty while I'm doing this. I would just like to see some justification behind your claims that all orbs are light reflections.

Why i can't see the photos?

The pictures are at http://www.angelfire.com/realm/paraportal

I found what the problem was.My internet security program at my job didn't allow to see them.
I saw them now!Thanks for sharing your photos.
These orbs can be dust?Cause i have 4-5 pictures from a party i went.I took pictures with my digital camera and some circles like in your photos appeared.I thought it was dust.

See you around...>>>

Orb's aren't dust, and tests have been done to disprove this theory. Light reflections have also being disproved.

I personally believe that orbs are just a natural phenomena that science has yet to catch up on.

Here are two very well written and researched articles that go a long way towards disputing and demystifying the 'orb' phenomena. I personally don't believe 'orb's' are manifestations of 'ghosts', 'spirits', or anything having to do with the paranormal, but that's just my observation and opinion based on the credibility and reliability of available information. I submit that these articles have quite a bit more substance to them than anyone else has offered yet, but in the end everyone will make their final determination as to what they choose to 'believe'. Admittedly neither article completely dispells the 'possibility' of a genuine 'orb' photograph, but the rigorous conditions that must be met for viability would, I believe, eliminate 99% (there's always the rare 'unknown') of the current pictures being touted as genuine.

Toronto Ghost Article

Farshores Article

Magikman