Does anyone else think, like me, that pictures of orbs are just dust or light or something else? Honestly, I've still to see a picture of orbs that convinces me. I'm not saying I'm a non-believer, because I am a believer ghosts and/or spirits, but these pictures really don't get me excited at all.

I agree. Orbs or whatever are nothing but dust specs of moisture or what not. basically nothing that people r trying to make into a big deal of nonsense. Its simple science. wish people would use their brains...

I would much rather see a floating skull or something cool!


Orbs, IMHO, are related to environmental conditions.

My house is haunted with 2 ghosts. In almost every photograph we've taken over the past 13 years we've lived here, there have been the same 2 orbs.

I have also taken pics in over 40 cemeteries, various haunted locations, schools, historical monuments, and even restaurants, and have gotten orbs in thousands of those pics.

When I take a picture in a place that's never had any kind of haunting activity attached to it, I get no orbs, no distortion, no ectoplasm, nothing...

I'm very skeptical of orbs as evidence as ghosts. Check this out

http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimat...000992/p/1.html

There is a picture of it raining. Look at the "orbs." Dust, pollen, moisture, etc. all seem to be the real causes of orbs. However, I don't know everything so I won't bash another's beliefs.

I'm certain that "orbs" are real but, I don't think that they are solid proof of ghost activity. Even if some of them are ghosts then that still allows for many of them to be dust, water droplets, etc. If something has a 50/50 chance of being a ghost then it is not conclusive proof.

Orbs are real, in the sense that they are dust or light particles.

There is nothing paranomal about them at all, they are nearly always explicable.

This website gives a good explanation for orbs that I found pretty convincing.

http://ghostgadgets.com/_knowledge/orbs.html

I was pretty on the fence about orbs before reading that. There is nothing more boring than going through a picture gallery of "ghost" pics and just seeing orb after orb and nothing else.

But orb pictures kind of called to mind Carlos Castaneda's ideas of the energy body as a "luminous egg".

Now it's just, "Oh, another picture of the spooky dust."

If orbs are the real deal, they look so much like dust that no one can tell the difference. Since there is no way, (that I know of anyway), to conclusively prove that it is a ghost then it is unprovable. For this reason alone, we should try to find other types of evidence that can be either proven or discarded.

For instance; a black car and a red truck look the same to a blind man. For all intents and purposes they are the same to him. Visual evidence is useless. If he were to touch them he could tell the difference.

sylvia brown stated yesterday on the montel williams show, that orbs are angels. Or more correctly speaking, a speck of dust for those who need a comprehensive explanation that fits in with all of their other theories on dust & dirt.

If a spect of dust is an angel, what does that make the vacumm cleaner?

That must've been fun to watch. What was Montels reaction?

pray to the kirby
she's on his show all the time. really rather fascinating to hear her speak

I believe that orbs are real indeed! Especially those that are caught on video. I have seen some pretty convincing footage, where both the camera and the light source are both stationery and an orb zips by several times. I myself have taken a few pictures that I believe to be that of true orbs and not dust, nor moisture or bugs. Sure most orbs taken are that of dust etc, but there are truly some authentic orbs out there!

Sylvia Brown....lol

All I can say

One thing about orbs...

On Ghosthunters grant says several times that orbs are a natural phoeninum (i cant spell..yay!) and are just forms of energy..like lightening. and arent proof of ghosts.

i do suspect almost all "orbs" are dust etc but it does confuse me that grant says that but doesnt go on to explain how the natural energy etc forms them. i havent read anything scientific which explains them.. the only thoery other then they are ghosts is the dust and rain etc thoerys.

I would like a fuller explanation from grant as to what he means when he says that....and if what he says is true...why dont we all see them all the time?

I personally think most are natural objects etc....but i do think that thier is enough support from a increase in "orbs" or similer in supposly haunted places to suggest something paranormal in some cases however.

But i agree with one of the above posters on the point that it is so annoying to check out ghost pic after ghost pic at some sites and see nothing but orbs.

Rogue

Yeah, the site I posted above did a pretty good job of convincing me MOST orbs were just dust. But they include some pics that they saw appear paranormal because they display motion (and rain or snow has been ruled out) or because they appear to be partially behind an object.

I'd love to read more about what Grants theories are based on, that's a great show. Most of the time when they get orbs they just roll their eyes but on one recent show they caught one pic of three orbs in formation next to grant. Then in another pic taken shortly afterward there were three orbs in the same formation on the other side of him. What are the chances of dust behaving that way?

If you have any real familiarity & knowledge of basic photography & lighting...You'd know "orbs" always show up under the same lighting conditions. Basically, the lighting coming from behind the lens is illuminating the area being photographed with the background being less illuminated than the "orbs" in the forground & flaring becasue they are closer, reflecting more light, and out of focus.

Orbs are dust, moisture, or bugs, nothing more...Could they be something else? Maybe, but odds aren't in favor of it.

Edit - Additionally, film cameras are less susceptible to capturing "orbs" as they typilcally have a much larger DOF (depth of field) than digital equipment...Anyone ever notice this "orb" stuff started to gain steam once digital cameras became mainstream? Basically, what your seeing when you see "orbs" is bad photography.

I did notice that, but never knew why. Thanks for the explanation.

I took some shots a few weeks ago, and when I downloaded them I was frustrated to see several 'orbs' in most of them. Initially I chastised myself for not cleaning the lens, but then, as I went through the sequence of shots I noticed that these 'orbs' moved around, and looked to be the same orbs in the sense of size and some were interconnected. Intrigued, I cleaned the lens, and took the shots again...and the results? No orbs!

Typically dirt & dust on a lens will produce dark splotches on the image...However, moisture or anything that dries clear or opaque on the lens can produce a flare depending on lighting and create orbs on the image.

Flash photography is notorious for creating orbs. Most flash photography is using a camera mounted flash, while beneficial in capturing an image where more light is needed to obtain enough shutter speed to eliminate motion blur, it creates a bad images if there is alot of particulate matter in the air. "Bouncing" flash or using a remotely synced flash virtually elimintes this problem as the light is not being reflected directly from the camera back to the lens.

So let me ask this...How many of you "orb" believers ever seen an "orb" that wasn't captured on a photograph?