1) "The area I was in wasn't dusty."

Well, unless you were in a NASA or other high-tech clean room, there was dust or something else in the air. Be it earth-floored basement or forest glen, there will be particulates in the air. Guaranteed.

Folks will say, "I was careful not to disturb the area" or "Nobody was moving around". You also see things like, "No wind, so no dust" and "It was a calm day". There is always dust drifting around, even if the day doesn't seem particularly windy. And there are other factors indoors. It takes hours or days for dust to settle out of the air in even well-sealed rooms -- and of course just opening the door to that "well-sealed room" will set up air currents and kick the dust up again. But it doesn't take much to start dust moving -- even a bit of heat can set up a convection current, and of course we are always breathing...

(Just the other day I was amusing myself by watching dust particles as they approached a bare light bulb. They drifted slowly toward the hot bulb, then would suddenly be taken by the updraft near the bulb and shoot upward -- exactly like a "famous" video one sees from an allegedly haunted location.)

And we bring dust with us! Even if an area is relatively clean (meaning a lower particulate count per cubic yard of atmosphere, still far above zero) we contaminate it the moment we enter it with the dust and particulates we carry on our clothing and the skin and hair cells we are continually shedding. (Sorry, if you don't like to think of us as mammals. But we are constantly shedding bits of ourselves -- in fact, a significant percentage of the "dust bunnies" we find in our houses is actually old skin cells. Gross, but true. Look it up.)

You just can't find a dustless environment on Earth. The air is certainly cleaner in the Antarctic, but as soon as people enter the scene... Even the "vacuum of deep space" still has some atoms present in any given volume. Folks daydream about taking photos in clean rooms and seeing if they still get orbs, but I have yet to hear of someone getting to do this.

And let's not forget insects. The first "orb" photos I got -- actually, among the very first photos I took with my first digital camera -- were demonstrably caused by insects, and I can reproduce these photos pretty reliably, not by asking the orbs to appear but rather by walking around in the grass for a moment first.

OK -- just to prove that last point (and back up my claim) I last night walked out in my back yard and took photos with my Nikon CoolPix 7600. I walked across the grass, then took some photos toward the back of the yard, then shook the branches of the tree and took some more photos, then walked back across the grass and turned around and took some photos behind me.

The result? Of the 9 photos just taken, 7 have at least 3 "orbs" in them, and one has about 20! One was big and bright enough to show on the camera LCD. The remaining 2 photos have tree leaves as a background, so there may be "orbs" there which do not have enough contrast to show against that background.

I know from previous experience that if I get out a bright spotlight, the source of the orbs will prove to be the insects I disturbed from their roosting on lawn and leaves (not to mention the nocturnal insects which were already flying around). They will come to the spotlight -- it is almost like being underwater with plankton. Lots of bugs, which normally we would not see.



2) "OK -- If orbs are caused by dust, why don't all my photos have orbs in them?"

This question is predicated on the notion that all dust particles are basically identical, as with salt crystals which are mostly similar. This presumption is far from the actuality!

Dust comes in a wide array of shapes and textures; household dust is particularly varied, with fibers, skin cells, and small bits of paper evident. Microscopic samples of household dust look sort of like mulch you would use around your flowers. For practical purposes, each dust particle can be thought of as unique in shape. (Conceded that pollen of the same type will be similar in structure, but pollen is typically bumpy or spiky.)


* It takes a reasonably flat surface of a certain minimum size to act as a reflector of the camera flash, or a light-colored surface closer to the flash. Most dust is irregular or rough (visualize dust particles ranging in shape from tiny coarse asteroids to long fibers) and doesn't make for good reflection.


* There is a fairly narrow area (a cone spreading outward from the center of the lens) where the camera's flash will reflect off of the particle in such a way as to bounce the light into the camera lens. Remember, the flash is rather close to the lens, and angle of incidence equals angle of reflection (light bounces off at the same angle that it falls upon a surface.)

* There is a fairly short distance where the camera's flash will be sufficiently bright enough to cause a reflection strong enough for the camera's imaging chip to pick it up.



So, of however many thousands of dust particles there may be within the view of the camera lens, it takes a rather special combination of elements to allow that dust to be a reflector and appear as an "orb". But since there are thousands of particles, and people take lots of digital photos, you still get orb photos fairly often.

That having been said, I maintain that orbs are even more common in photos than many people think, even the "true believers". A faint or translucent orb will not have sufficient contrast to show against many backgrounds, or will be lost in complex background textures. A simple test I subject all orb photos to is to copy the photo into an image manipulation program (I use Ulead PhotoImpact or IrfanView) and invert it -- that is, make a negative of the image. (Turning it to black & white may also be helpful.) Doing this will often reveal many more "orbs" than were being claimed for the image -- sometimes to a factor of ten! I looked at one the other day where the person said, "3 orbs near the tree" and in the negative there were more like 18...

Some cameras are also more prone to getting orb photos than others. I had to get a new camera, because my old one got "orb photos" over 20% of the time, and I was getting tired of having to Photoshop out all the damned orbs if I wanted to use the pictures! (The new one still gets quite a few though -- see point 1 above.)

3) "You get more orbs in haunted places."

I've been at this long enough that I recall some people claiming that you only got orbs in allegedly haunted locations. But that claim was soon washed away by the flood of orb photos from all sorts of settings.

One thing I always ask people who make this claim: "How many other settings do you take this many flash photos in? Do you have a control set of photographs?"

A "control" in any experiment is a set of data or results from a "normal" (in this case, not alleged to be haunted) location for use as a comparison against the test results.

A good control for "ghost hunt" photos would be to take an equal number of photos, with the same camera, in another building not reputed to be haunted. Then spend just as much time carefully looking over the photos for anything anomalous.

Then take just as many flash photos walking around a park, or an empty lot, or in a parking lot...

Some folks have been objective enough to do just this, found out they were getting lots of "orbs" in areas where there was no tradition of haunting, and resultingly downgraded the importance they placed on orbs as proof of haunting.

(Of course, there are those who saw this ubiquity of orb photos as proof that some sort of spirit was everywhere. And it was one short leap of faith to the idea that orbs were monitoring devices from alien civilizations, or the future, or...)

The simple truth is that you can get orb photos anywhere people are using digital cameras with built-in flash, which is just about everywhere. For every orb photo gained in a "haunted house" or cemetery, you can find at least one from a living room, backyard, or city street.

For a practical test to reveal just how dusty your environment is, see "Orbs - See the Light?"

Dust, by any other name, would still make me sneeze...

Here's a very helpful site on doing microscopy on dust samples, with an interesting array of pictures:

http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/dust/dust.htm

A really cool microphotograph of the variety of dust in a sample:

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/onthecas...st/zoom_01.html

A study to determine concentrations of dust in the normal household, and how activities affect the movement of dust:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/i-rite/state...2001/ferro.html

I think if people spent as much time looking into a microscope as they do poring over digital photos, they would find that there is a fascinating, varied, huge and natural world around us, which we normally cannot see. The world we live in is active and endlessly detailed, if we just bother to examine it.

You seem really obsessed with orbs...what is it now, three topics in the past two days on orbs?

Not obsessed -- just "articles" I had on tap.

i dont think orbs are ghosts or w/e its just glitches or sumting else

Wow. you really seem to know your stuff. I will keep you in mind the next time I need advice.

well , at least now we can delete orbs from our fake pictures catagory

Sbd43. I thank you for the long article which I found in my Inbox this day. I found it interesting and well set out. It also invites lots of comment and challenges. I do not consider you to be "obsessed" with Orbs but you DO seem to have chosen the subject for your specialist investigations. I have a suggestion which might well lead to a final and definitive solution to the question of the nature of these Orbs which cause so much consternation on websites around the world. Why don't YOU take it upon yourself to find the solution to the problem by laboratary work? You could carry out experiments with different types of micro particles : ones which tend to have a completely irregular shape, others that may often present flat surfaces and all types of dust particles (and vapour droplets) of many different materials,(fine sand, fibres, skin flakes, metal filings, glass,plastic and so on) Try photgraphing them in different conditions while taking very careful notes.
Try different types of film and camera. Try everything you can think of, in fact and also take into consideration the highly geometrical "ghost images" (by that I mean secondary,"echo" images) that we see in photographs taken when the camera is aimed close to, if not directly AT the Sun. In many pictures taken in Earth orbit for example we get rather beautiful Ghost images with all kinds of shapes such as triangles, discs, circles and different kinds of polygon. The point of this (or these) experiments should be to identify the one type of "dust particle" that we see in ALL Orb photos. You know the one I mean :it is round and when amplified shows a complicated inner structure which often suggests images of figures and faces. This type of Orb has never, so far as I know, betrayed its true nature so that we can know that it is really a piece of polythene or dandruff or whatever else. You should also consider Orbs in motion captured on night-vision and which seem to show a very erratic but intentional trajectory. All the arguments in your article are valid only if based on experiment. Carry out these experiments and identify the type or types of dust particle that cause Orbs and you will have won yourself a place in the annals of science and then we can all start squabbling over something else, like apparitions for instance. I am serious about this. The problem of Orbs deserves PROPER AND CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT in order to lay it to rest once and for all. Lonecat

sbd43, I thank you for giving me a good laugh. It's amazing how people will find a camera glitch and automatically assume it's some kind of alien species or a ghost. I can't even fathom what the next fad's gonna be

Here's another though about orbs: If orbs really are ghosts, why are they all of a sudden turning into orbs? Is the whole mist/ apparition thing just way too 20th century for ghosts?

sbd43, I have one question for you: what's your view on other ghostly photos, such as the ectoplasm, mist, appartitions?

How about those crazy "rods?" Same type of phenomenon?

I know, they're just bugs, but I like to hear other theories, if they're floating around.

Wow, it has been years since I have heard anybody mention "rods"

I believe orbs are just dust, unless they are just super impressive that they could not be explained. I have a great example yet I'm on my home computor so I can't resave my photos t a smaller smaller J-peg but I'll post it from work. I have a picture, broad daylight, no flash used, nothing that would be the source of orbs, not even the sun because if the sun caused it, then our eyes could have seen it, but yet, it id very obvious to tell they are nothing but dust orbs. This is to prove the case of " it could not been dust orbs because I was not using the flash"...well it is just dust orbs.

Please don't be offended -- but I am not perfectly sure that you aren't trying to pull my leg here.

But your post is reasonable in tone (and addresses some important points) so I shall respond in kind.

Orbs are but one "paranormal" interest of mine, and the paranormal is but one of many interests. I take orbs for my text because they make for a fascinating study of paranormal belief in a small package -- while belief in ghosts/spirits goes back thousands of years, "orbs" have only been around for a handful of years and have only "exploded" in the past two. And in those few years belief in orbs as paranormal has developed into a religion for some people. Which means we have a chance to study this sociological phenomenon as it happens. The study of "orb belief" also inherently involves the study of how people interact with new technology; most "orb" photos are gained with digital cameras, and most of the confusion over the possible sources of these anomalies seem to stem from a lack of understanding of how these new gadgets work.

All of my statements are based upon practical experience and experimentation. I have been doing photography since I could hold a camera, with a variety of equipment and lots of darkroom time. I got "orbs" the very first time I used my first digital camera, and immediately set out to discover what was ruining my photos.

And the type of experimentation you prescribe is in fact being done. There are some folks who are putting quite a bit of effort into researching "orb" photos and developing a catalog of types. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but I respect their dedication. Some of them are doing very careful work. You can find them at:
ORBS_AND_OTHER_PHENOMENA@yahoogroups.com

As to the 'the one type of "dust particle" that we see in ALL Orb photos' you mention above -- the whole point of my article is that there are many possible sources/causes for "orbs" in photos. I have personally gotten "orbs" from dust, insects, rain, and a variety of powdery test materials. And a reminder regarding optics: "orbs" appear round because camera lenses are round. Any small out-of-focus reflector will result in a circle on the image, regardless of the tiny reflector's shape. (Note: the internal structure of some lenses will result in more angular geometric shapes on some flares.)

The type of exhaustive research you describe is being pursued by some folks as a hobby, or to prove their particular belief. But if I may lapse into legalisms for a moment:

The burden of proof is not upon me. The burden lies with the person who makes the claim.

Asking me or anyone to spend lots of time trying to disprove an extraordinary claim is the equivalent of a nuisance lawsuit. Especially since no one can prove definitively that all photographic anomalies are not paranormal in nature - it would be a colossal waste of time to attempt to do so. I can prove that "orbs" in photos can be caused by everyday things common in the environment. This throws reasonable doubt on the claims that "orbs" in photos have an extraordinary cause. If people who make extraordinary claims want to be taken seriously, the responsibility to provide proof is theirs, and more supportable proof than just opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I checked out the "rods" thing when it first showed up, lo these many years ago. I scrutinized the footage and the stills, and checked out the very detailed and clever drawings folks came up with for the "creatures".

Personally, I am satisfied that it is a visually-interesting anomaly caused by the "shutter rate" on video cameras blurring the wings of flying bugs. Which is a pity, since I am into cryptozoology and really dig the idea of hitherto-unnoticed lifeforms...

The guy who got the whole "Roswell Rod" thing going is Jose Escamilla. He was the first one to popularize -- "market", I should say -- the notion that they were some odd life form.

He used to have a discussion forum on his site (I'm not sure if he still does - a quick glance at his site doesn't show any obvious link). When I first checked it out, there were just a few posts. One fellow posted with some questions regarding how the videos were taken, what videos were available for comparison, etc. I posted a followup with some more discussion on eliminating possible other causes, using film simultaneously with video, and other tests. Mind you, neither of these were attacks, just discussion of techniques, equipment, and possibilities. Both of us were interested in researching the phenomenon.

Went to check for my post the next day, and it turned out that not only had mine not been posted, but the post I was commenting upon had been removed as well! It was pretty obvious that the "discussion forum" was anything but... Seems Jose only wanted to hear from "true believers". His site, his right. But I couldn't help but feel that this lack of desire for discussion indicated a certain lack of objectivity.

So far as I know, no one but a handful of people are taking "rods" seriously these days. To those few who do, Jose sells videos. And advertising on his site. And his music.

The "ecto" thing is interesting. (Though I hesitate when I use the term -- names have power, and calling a photographic anomaly "ecto" for "ectoplasmic" is already prejudicial for the paranormal...)

In the old film days, I would have suspected bad developing, or film fogged from a light leak. But "ecto" basically shows up mostly with digital cameras.

I've looked at lots of these photos, and many of them remind me of electrical patterns. And digital imaging chips use an electrical charge... I have to wonder if these "mists" are not caused by a small electrical spark/surge across the chip at the moment the shutter is released. Whereas film has been in popular usage for over a century, digital photography is a rather new technology and I think we are still working out the bugs.

While not as common as "orbs", "mists" in photos are still common enough that I tend to lean toward a normal rather than a paranormal explanation.

I did some looking into this -- here's an article I wrote to post somewhere else:

---------------------------------------------------
I've had the opportunity to talk with a number of people about the possible causes of anomalous images in digital photography. Some of these people are amateur/professional astronomers of long experience.

Many people may not realize that, before being used in commonly-available handheld cameras, the first common use of CCD (charge-coupled device) imaging chips was in astronomy. So the folks I was talking with have a history of gaining, cleaning up, and using digital images.

I say "cleaning up" because, according to them, the raw digital image from a CCD is very messy -- lots of noise and artifacts which must be accounted for and filtered out. One source said that some images "look like someone had spilled a Coke across them". Because of this, astronomers have learned to routinely examine all images for artifacts, and also have developed routines for testing the individual chips for the sensitivity range of the chip and the individual pixels. These tests include imaging solid-color surfaces to discover the "pattern" of the chip, which is then allowed for when gaining the final image.

While the conditions involved in astronomy are not exactly like that of handheld units -- the chips are typically larger, and the exposures longer -- it is very interesting to consider that artifacting from digital chips is so common that users must routinely account for them.

Here's a webpage discussing some of the commonly-encountered CCD artifacts in astronomy.

http://www.sc.eso.org/~ohainaut/ccd/CCD_artifacts.html

Of particular note is the "spider" effect, where an imaged star seems to have points or streamers coming off of it. It was an amateur astronomer's premature report of just such an image which set off the chain of events which ultimately resulted in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide -- a sobering reminder of the need to double-check all conclusions... (and question what you hear on late-night radio!)

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/images/hale-bopp/hb_ufo.html

Here's another page discussing the various layers of processing required to achieve a "true" digital image. Note the "flat field" test for the actual senstivity range of the pixels on the CCD chip -- the flat field step looks strikingly like a mist.

http://www.sc.eso.org/~ohainaut/ccd/

Here is a .pdf talking about the need to "clean" CCDs of residual charge before gaining scientific-grade images; it is also interesting to note the discussion of the temperature effect on the chip. (I have long wondered about temperature in the micro-climate within the camera, and changes caused by moving from outdoors to indoors, and vice versa. It is common practice in astronomy to allow your equipment at least 1/2 an hour to stabilize to the temperature/humidity in a new setting, before doing any serious imaging.)

<a href='http://www.roperscientific.com/pdfs/technotes/cleans.pdf#search='ccd%20artifacts'' target='_blank'>http://www.roperscientific.com/pdfs/techno...0artifacts'</a>

It is also VERY interesting to note that two of the artifacts which astronomers commonly have to allow for have come to be known as "smear" and "ghost".

For further discussion of the whole problem of residual images on CCDs see "Residual Images in CCD cameras", UM Forum page

"Rods" & blurred images on video

Here's a link a friend sent me -- it has a nice little analysis of how everyday things cause odd-looking images on video. A good explanation with excellent illustrations.

BLURFOs

One line I particularly like: "Videotape is nothing like film". And digital photography is nothing like film photography. But the cameras look basically the same, so the average user thinks digital works just like film without any thought of the inherent differences.

Here's a link to a group which says they have done the sort of research Lonecat was advising:

Parascience.org

Sounds like they have put quite a bit of effort into researching what they call "ghost lights", and have built up quite a database of images. They have also striven to determine which cameras/conditions are most likely to result in photographic anomalies.

Like many other paranormal groups, they were initially excited by "orbs", then became skeptical when there was a great flood of such photos from non-ghosthunters. And also like many other paranormal groups, they have concluded that the vast majority of "orb" photos may be attributed to normal causes, but are reluctant to say that all of them are natural -- they feel that there are a small number of images which are differentiated enough from "dust orbs" as to warrant further consideration.

This group is to be applauded for the care they have taken in examining the developing "evidence" of orb photos, and the honesty they exercised when their own research caused them to revise their opinions.

Their account is a good overview and timeline of the "orb belief" which we have seen arise in just the past few years.

I would like to just say that I understand why so many people think that orb's are just dust because many of them are. Not all of them are though. I have been able to see them all my life. I have no way to know if I see all of them I suspect that I don't see them all. I would often ask people if they just saw that until I finally realized others don't see them. I had so many people tell me that I had "floaters" in my eyes. After I heard this so many times I think I finally believed it although I thought I knew what they were talking about and I did have those but what I was seeing was different. Sitting here with my husband on the couch one night and I watched as "Sam" dipped and dived in front of the TV. My husband asked if I saw that and I said yes I had been watching it. He looked at me and said what are you talking about I thought you were watching TV. I said I thought someone finally saw one of the orb things I always see. Turns out he didn't see the orb and after I told him I had no idea if it was my eyes or if something was there he went out and bought a digital camera. We kept the camera with us and when I saw the orb I would take a picture and it would be in there. I decided that I would give him the camera and I would tell him where I saw it so he could take the picture. (Just for those that would say that I was able to project the image to the camera or whatever explanation they might have).
I have to tell you that I still don't know for sure what it is that I see but I can tell you it isn't dust and it had intelligence. I believe it must have been a spirit, ghost, guide etc. I have hundreds of pictures from researching what ever it was and I won't go into great detail but it most surely had intelligence. After time it would come when I called it and on several occasions when my husband and I were sitting here watching TV I would ask it to charge itself with the static from the TV. My husband or anyone watching could eventually see the orb dipping and diving in front of the TV after it would "charge" itself. My husband made the comment one day that if it was a ghost how come we don't ever have stuff move around or have anything unexplainable happen. I laughed and said we probably did but either thought it was something someone else did or we blame in on one of the animals. "I guess if it wants us to know for sure it will have to come up with something we can't blame on a cat, dog or bird". Within two days we had coins start showing up on the closet shelf. I also noticed that I started getting LOTS of help cooking. I would start a roast in a presser cooker then go in and work on the computer when the "top" of the cooker would start to rattle. Within a few minutes I would notice the rattle had stopped and I would come out to find the dial had been turned to off. I never use this dial as it is hard to turn (old) and I just unplug it. Now usually the first time something happens you always convince yourself that you just forgot that you did that. Wow I don't even remember going to the kitchen let alone shut that off but that is what you tell yourself. The second time just a few minutes later and you know you didn't do it. Sorry none of the birds were out or able to get to it and the dogs and cats just don't have the ability, and I was home alone. The last day that I know that this orb was still here was very eventful. It had been gone for a few weeks and I thought it had moved on. My son was coming home after being gone for about a month. I was cooking stuff all day so that when he got back all I would have to do is heat something up. Again I cooked two meals in the presser cooker and before the process was complete the presser cooker had been turned off something like 5 times. I was cooking an old German dish that simmers for a few hours on top of the stove. My son came home during this time and when he walked in the room I saw that the orb was about a foot behind him and to the side of his left ear. I had to laugh because it was like "Sam" was trying to come in with my son like he wasn't the one that kept shutting the stove and cooker off. My son and husband and I went down to play games probably or watch a movie but I still kept going upstairs to check the stuff still simmering. It shut off a few times after that so I was going up every 5 minutes or so just to check. This one time it had NOT been turned off and I told Sam thank you that I really hadn't forgotten. While I stirred it up and checked liquid I was talking to "Sam" and said he had been a busy guy that day and I wondered if he was trying to tell me something or if he was just excited that Troy my son had come home. I put the lid back on the pan and turned to go back downstairs. I ran right into two chairs that had been stacked right in my path to return to downstairs. I stood there for a second and just busted up laughing. I HAD asked for proof hadn't I? What better way than to stack a couple of chairs up behind you less than 2 feet away, not make a single noise, while I was talking to him?
That happened about four years and one month ago and I have not seen nor experienced any of his tricks since. I believe he was letting me know it was real and time for him to move on. I know that on one of the pictures I took he casts a shadow on a glass door behind him. This proves they have mass. Since then I have caught several orbs on video. One tip I will pass on is that when you take a picture hold the camera down at about waist high. DO NOT look through the camera when you take the picture. Look out to where the flash will hit and keep your eyes open then click. A REAL orb can easily be seen in the flash of the camera light. You will see the light bounce off of it which means you can also see behind it is blocked from the light. Real orbs are usually between the size of a blue hand ball and a softball. Do I think most of the orb pictures are real orbs, no I don't because I have been able to duplicate the look or a real orb. Unless I am taking a picture of the orb I can see or take the picture so that I can see it show up in the flash I don't believe it. It is sad and frustrating because I know they exist and yet I don't believe pictures I see of them. I have also heard that it is possible for balls of energy to exist and not be a spirit or ghost. I accept that is also a possibility but I will also tell you that I know the one that was in this house at one time had intelligence. In the past few years I have been concentrating on EVP's and orbs don't excite me much. I will look at a video and think I am very good at telling those because an orb moves like an orb and a bug moves like a bug.
I do not conceder myself a psychic. I am VERY sensitive to light and an optometrist tested me and said my eyes let in 90% more light than the average eye does. Has to do with rods and cones in the eye not the type of rods mentioned earlier. lol I do believe that more people see them than what they realize. I also know that from our eye to our brain lots of stuff the eye sees is filtered out by the brain saying it isn't important or isn't what we were looking at so it is disregarded. Same reason a witness can be standing right there and not see it. [sigh]