Not if we have "evidence!"



I wasn't proposing that all orbs are caused by dirt on the camera lens, just that a dirty lens increases the incidence of orbs. I get orbs with a clean lens also.



But in some places, people sense activity, whereas in others, not, right?



Right. But if you shake your stick over some flowers and not over others, and those flowers are otherwise the same, and then they grow the same, then you can safely say the stick didn't make a difference.



Yes, it could be coincidence. It would be a coincidence that is remarkably consistent with the proposition on offer (that the orbs are caused by dust, etc.), but still, it could be coincidence. So if you want to be sure, you take some pics with a dirty lens and some with a clean lens, in random order, and hold all other relevant conditions equal. If the incidence of orbs is greater in one group than the other, at a level significantly exceeding chance, then you can conclude that foreign material on the lens is a factor that causes orbs.

You're not actually disagreeing with the assumption: If these orbs are spirit manifestations, then cleaning the lens should not decrease the incidence of them. You agree with me, I think, that the spirits don't care whether the lens is clean or dirty. So this is a test we could really do.



Lots of people have said that orbs or "light anomalies" are late-stage manifestations. But even if they're not always accompanied by other manifestations, you say they "often" are. That's good enough to test. You could set up an experiment to determine if the incidence of orbs correlates with other kinds of reports of paranormal activity, or if they're unrelated to the "hauntedness" of a place.

I think you'd agree, though, that a large number of high-quality orbs would indicate a high level of spirit activity-- if orbs are spirit manifestations. And if this is the only way these particular spirits manifest, one would need to ask why.



If photographs of "genuine" spirit orbs are indistinguishable from photographs of bogus ones, then photographs of spirit orbs have no value as "evidence," and I feel safe in disregarding them.

If, on the other hand, there is some visible distinction, then we should be able to say what it is and consistently detect it.

Either way.



Then "evidence" is of no use. Which is OK. All of us probably hold certain truths to be self-evident.



Not entirely, though!



Yep, it's my girlfriend taking the picture! Very acute observation. I hadn't noticed it, focused as I was on the big ol' orb. We were both surprised to see how clearly her face showed up. This photo is a favorite of ours, too.

It's great to talk to someone like you who's paying attention and who's serious about the subject.

Thanks!

--Scott

boorite from what ive tested, orbs arent caused by dirt on the lens, Unless there is a strong source of light such as a torch or sunlight hitting the lens directly. then the dirt can be lit up and captured by the camera.

orbs are caused by dust in Front of the lens being blasted up by the flash gun of the camera, also the flash unit being in close proximity to the lens causes them to show up a lot more.

usually dirt on the lens looks different to dust orbs

Yes, and I've caught orbs from dust on the lens even when the strong light is hitting the lens more or less obliquely. My Undead Buddy Holly pic (linked above) is an example. That was just a flash, but there were lots of highly reflective surfaces in frame and just out-- so the effect was like shining a light into the lens.



Yeah, I've got most of them that way. I've even seen with my naked eye a floating piece of cat hair that printed to digital as a "vortex." My girlfriend is fond of taking pics after pouring a bowl of cereal, when there's lots of cereal dust in the air, and with the sun streaming in the kitchen window, the results can be fantastic ("Large orb," linked above).

Anyway, what it comes to is: Can "real" orb pics be distinguished from the ones we can produce at will? If the proponents say "no," and if they say that a certain amount of "faith" is involved, then orb pics are not truly being offered as physical evidence of anything. They're just neat.

--Scott

Then dirty lens doesn't even correlate.



Indeed. I have not had much experience with known haunted places. The only thing I've ever tried was taking photos at a cemetery at dusk. I captured plenty of orbs and spirits figures of dogs and cats, but honestly the photos were not nearly as cool as some of the photos I've taken right at home.



Perhaps, but your argument was that the dirty lens did make a difference.


If you are so inclined, then yes. I admire your desire to test the orb concept. I come from the angle of intuition, so scientific experiments, while valid in many ways, don't appeal to me. But, yes, there has to be the side that seeks validation from a scientific viewpoint to create a richer perspective on orbs. Not to say that orbs can be scientifically measured given current concepts.


Yep.


I agree and think it is worthy of trying. Unfortunately, whether other manifestations show up remains subjective. What I see as a spirit, others say is glare, etc. Or in your case, I see a spirit and you see your girlfriend's face in the coffee pot.


Well, I think that orbs are spirit manifestations not only of humans and animals, but also another creature (that is snake-like and possibly a species in and of itself, or maybe just a spirit snake), but that is another topic really. However, I could not with confidence say that the level of spirit activity directly correlates to orbs. It might. I just don't know at this stage in my experience. Why do spirits show up as orbs? Within this topic are several posts that allude to the answer. I believe it is has to do with efficiency and is the form for spirits to travel and conserve energy while within this dimension.



I have to agree with you to some degree. I think there must be a better answer and a way to distinguish them. I just need more experience and research before I could confidently say that I can distinguish them all. Maybe I can, but I can't be sure until more time passes and I experience more. But excellent point you make.


True!


If it is your girlfriend, why is there no camera in front of her face? If this is a spirit photo, I hope you won't discount it...



Ditto! P.S., you have a great website!

I think the first picture(s) clearly depict a dust particle. As it moves off center, only the part that is towards the flash/camera is illuminated, and it becomes like a waning moon shape. The bottom picture, however, is very interesting and whether it's the real deal or not, it's a pretty unique one. Congrats! As there seems to be some dust blobs in that pic too, it seems likely that the brighter blobs wouldn't be dust. One possibility, though I'm not exactly sure how it would work in practice, would be to take a shot with the flash and then as the exposure continued for a millisecond if the camera was pointed down a little (intentionally or not) then all external light sources would show up as bright trails of light, while the dust would simply be in one clear spot because it was only illuminated by the temporary flash. That's a run-on and a half... If this wasn't clear let me know and I'll do a little paint thing to illustrate what I'm talking about. At first I thought this might well be a real spirit photo, but as I think about it, it seems more likely that they're simply external light sources.

ps: I haven't read most of these posts as I don't have that much time, so this is just a reference to the first set of pics.

I have a digital camera with a large LCD screen. I never look through the viewfinder to take a picture; just hold it in front of me so I can see the LCD screen. For this picture, I was holding the camera at chest level and not even looking at the camera; I was more interested in getting my cereal poured at the right time than getting the picture perfectly in frame.

Judging by the angle of the face, it matches perfectly with where I was standing.

tokoyo by leaving the shutter open after the flash you will most likely just get streaks of light from normal lighting, reflections etc which will probably be mistaken for "Supercharged orbs" i see these a lot and are more irritating than orbs

eg this:

this photo taken from a google search for supercharged orbs, you can see that the light source looks like it is made up of smaller lines making it sausage like, but this happens because the light is being 'refreshed' by the power supply like the monitor does so it goes on off on off but fast enough for us to not notice.
the person must have taken the photo, and moved the camera downwards to look at the screen or to just put it away, making the light streak on the sensor/film
http://img.meetup.com/photos/event/d/b/a/9/event_236233.jpeg

make sure you keep the shutter speed fast and hold it still after the flash! or dont use flash!!!!!! or get a good flashunit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


oh and great buddy holly pic boorite i just noticed hahaha

I am not to sure about orbs either
they could be so many different things like water or dust. I have saw some pretty impressive pics of them though. So i guess I am trying to say that I am still up in the air with this theroy

I'm interested to see what people think of this photo I took in my office last night.

http://weirdscience.officeweasel.com/isitw...p?album=4&pos=3

if you wanted you could create that effect with aerosol cans easily:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v450/dea...urrent=mist.jpg

Corn starch works really well too.

I hadn't seen that effect before with a digital camera, thanks for the example. Was the original picture on this thread taken with film or on a digital?

Digital.

Actually, it does. Given "if the lens is dirty, then the incidence of orb pictures increases," one cannot derive "if the lens is NOT dirty, then the incidence of orb pictures DOES NOT increase." The reason should be intuitively clear: A dirty lens might cause orbs, but it is not the only thing that might cause orbs. Debris in the air might also cause orbs.

Succinctly, given "if P then Q" and "not-P," we may not derive "not-Q." Doing so is a fallacy called "negating the antecedent."

It is for this reason that when a causal or correlative relationship between variables is established by observation, it is seldom, if ever, claimed to be the only such relationship.

Example: "If I fell down the stairs, I could have broken my leg. I did not fall down the stairs. Therefore, I could not have broken my leg." Clearly fallacious. I could have been hit by a car instead. Does this mean that falling down the stairs therefore "doesn't even correlate" with broken legs? Clearly not.



Just curious: why a cemetery?



Yes. More fully, my argument is: If the incidence of these particular orbs is increased by the presence of debris on the lens, then these particular orbs are not spirit manifestations (and I think you'd agree with this first assumption); the incidence of these orbs is increased by debris on the lens; therefore these orbs are not spirit manifestations (by modus ponendo ponens this time).

(Originally I stated the first assumption the other way round and used modus tolendo tolens, but it works the same way.)



Are you sure? You did subtitle this thread "my evidence." Couldn't this indicate that you have a latent scientific orientation?



And I'm not saying they can't be scientifically shown to be spirit manifestations-- just that the observations I have so far tend to negate that theory. Like I said, I'm open to assumptions and observations that may contradict mine.



But reports of manifestations exist objectively, and an experiment can be designed to see whether reports of paranormal activity in a given locale correlate with the incidence of orbs in photos taken there. Do you think we'd get more orbs in a place people felt was "haunted" than in a place that felt neutral?



Because that's her face in the coffee pot!



We could find out.



She (ivytheplant) posted here explaining that she uses the LCD instead of the viewfinder and so doesn't hold the camera up to her face.



Thanks! I just put it up the other day and am hoping it gets rolling. You're welcome to upload pics, post stories, whatever. Scientific method NOT required.

--Scott

I am sure you are right.



Because people's bodies are buried there, and according to channeled spirit accounts I have read that I believe are true, the spirits say there is a strong attraction to be near their body even after a period of (our) time has passed. It is a very popular belief that cemeteries are haunted, and when I was offered a chance to photograph an animal burial area on a friend's property, I captured several dog spirits that were the breed of the dogs they had buried there. So, I wanted to give photographing human cemeteries a try.




Again, I am sure you are right. I am just more interested in the spiritual side of the paranormal, not trying to be difficult about your methods or reasoning.



I have done my stint with scientific method (university) and I have great respect for it. It helped discipline my thinking. But after thinking skeptically (and sometimes cynically) for most of my life, I found that thinking intuitively made me happier and opened up much more of the spirit world for me. I realized that experiencing spirituality was what I had been wanting (craving) all along. I was just going about my goal inefficiently by insisting all spirit-type issues were untrue until proven so, instead of believing spirit-type issues to be true until proven otherwise.



I do like your thoughts and find you fair and logical. I want to ask you: what would it take to convince you that orbs are spirits? And do you believe in spirits as existing in the first place? Looking at what you expect to be true is helpful because expectations definitely affect results (the scientific method acknowledges this, at least in school of psychology).



This is a valid assumption. But I really don't know if we can assume more orbs would appear in a place that people felt was haunted because I'm not sure what makes orbs appear. Is it the place? Is it the person? Is it a combination of both? Is it other types of conditions (much like the weather) but that have yet to be identified? I do think your assumption is reasonable and definitely worth considering and testing of course. I am just not clear whether there is a direct correlation. I guess we'd only know by testing (if one were interested in doing so).



After looking at several of your posts, and ivytheplant's posts, I am wondering if you intended to create orbs in this photo of the cereal/coffee pot/Grandma's knives? Because apparently ivytheplant was trying to take a photo of her cereal while not holding the camera to her face (and I believe as you said it was to create dust to make orbs). So you were not expecting anyone to find anything truly paranormal in the photo and you immediately thought the face was not a spirit. True or false? What were your intentions?





Thanks.

I've been wondering about the hauntedness of cemeteries. On the one hand, lots of people hunt ghosts there. On the other hand, ghost hunters like Lloyd Auerbach say that ghosts like to go someplace they enjoyed in life, and so there's not a lot of reason to think cemeteries are all that haunted, except that they do have a spooky atmosphere. I notice there's support for Auerbach's view in the NDE studies of Raymond Moody, where some experients report wanting nothing to do with their dead bodies.

Then again, I notice psychics seem able to pick up information in cemeteries, and even to locate lost burial sites. So I wonder.



I don't insist anything is true (including untruth!) in advance of evidence. I may lean one way or another, and it really doesn't matter which way. What matters more to me is to find a way of thinking where truth statements either hold up to the evidence, or they fail. I might posit that some paranormal experience is all in a person's head and be proved completely wrong-- and to me that's a victory! Because right or wrong doesn't matter. The game (to me) is to pose the question in such a way that evidence can answer it. As you've seen, it's tricky, especially when it comes to investigating such elusive things as spirit manifestations.



I can think of a few things that would cause me to think orb photos are related to spirit activity, and other investigators might come up with more. One I've already mentioned is if their occurrence correlated with other spirit manifestations, even when causes like dust and moisture are controlled for. Others would be if anyone could systematically distinguish between "authentic" spirit orb photos and those created on purpose, or if the orbs appeared and disappeared without regard to the presence of dust or moisture on the lens or in the air. As you can see, the conventional explanation for orb photos is falsifiable, and I await its falsification.

Now-- I've heard of orbs that are visible to the naked eye and which have been photographed. That's a whole different ball game. If those exist, I can offer no plausible conventional explanation for them.



The short answer is yes. The long answer is I don't even know what spirits are supposed to be, but I do know that people experience things that are extremely difficult to explain without assuming the existence of either telepathy or survival of bodily death.



I made up the part about Grandma's knives. I intended that to be obvious. As for whether ivy was trying to get an orb photo-- I think she was, but she'd have to answer that.



Actually, the not holding the camera to her face had nothing to do with it. That's just how she takes pictures. AFAIK, no one holds a 2" LCD up to his face like a viewfinder!



True in a way, but false really. We thought it was her face in the glass because it looked like her, and at the time she took the photo, she was standing directly in front of this reflective surface. So what would you expect it to show but a reflection of her? If I stood in front of a mirror and took a pic, I would be pretty sure it was my own reflection in there. This is the same thing.

Anyway, you needn't allow hardcore unbelievers monopolize the term "skepticism." It is just as valid to be skeptical of conventional explanations for unexplained phenomena. Why not scoff at the scoffers? Hoist them by their own petard. It can be fun.

--Scott

It is a good point that spirits might not want to hang out with their decaying body. I surely would not. But, everyone is different and some people are really, really tied to the material and to being alive. So I imagine there are quite a number of spirits that can't see past their body for a while (whatever "a while" is outside of time ).

I also believe in haunted objects and that spirits can follow beloved objects or objects they identify with. I also believe that spirits/souls are not confined to one place "at a time". I believe that a part of them can remain with an object, with their body, and somewhere else as well, simultaneously. Somewhat like when a person's spirit/etheric body astrally projects or bilocates.



I think this is a very realistic point of view. Though in the end, every person will view the evidence in a different way, some interpretting it as not upholding the initial posit, some feeling it is iron-clad. This is why I titled the thread as "(my evidence)", because it is evidence of orbs being spirits to me. And clearly, not to everyone else. I of course hoped that some others would interpret the information I presented as evidence in support of orbs being spirits, but many do not agree. If one is looking to prove anything, they would be joining the billions who have tried over centuries to prove the spirit world exists and that God exists. If spirits and God exist, apparently proof is not their preferred method of being found.



I appreciate your logic, and it seems very tight. And I would not discourage pursuit of these tests, I am sure they would be more helpful than not. But you'll be waiting a mighty long time for orb photos to be unfakeable. It is the same with UFOs and bigfoot, apparently they can be faked. If you want to write off all occurences because fakability exists, then you will never be able to believe one is true, becausing faking ability isn't going to go away.

I believe that most people are genuine. I therefore think the odds are in my favor to believe that people are telling me the truth when they present me with some evidence (especially if they aren't selling magic beans). If someone takes a photo and an anomaly shows up in it, and they say that they don't think it is rain or dust and that they have reason to believe it is paranormal, I am going to believe them completely.

This is also why I prefer, if someone is faking a photo or experimenting, that they are upfront about it. For people to fake photos with intent to fool people, while perhaps not malevolent, does add confusion. It won't make me skeptical to be "taken in" by a huckster, but I also find them to be the ones that should be ashamed for preying on my openness, not me for believing in the sincerity of my fellow species.



Fair enough.



No, but it is usually parallel to line of sight, not at chest level, no?



But you see, I thought you were offering up a photo that you considered paranormal, which is why I spent time finding and pointing out the face, not a photo from a camera held at chest height with the intent to capture anomalies from bits of cereal dust.



Thanks, and I see what you are saying. Nevertheless, I don't really wanna touch their petards.

spirits have a new enemy, one which consumes their eter world being, survival is hard in the afterlife when you must come against one of these:

jonb...look out or I'm going to hoist you up by your petard...

haha, no harm intended. i just saw a photo of it in a book and thought hmm!

What would it take for you to believe that some orbs in photos are spirit manifestations?

a Lot

Could you be more specific? If you are going to require scientific proof, you must nominate some specific criteria that must be met. Expect vague, get vague.

Not really, no. I have an area of my home where I can take a picture of my reflection, holding the camera straight out to my side, get a full body picture of me, EXCEPT my right arm, which is sticking straight out, and the camera are nowhere to be seen in the picture. This reflection has nothing to do with line-of-sight. If so, then any picture or video that involved any kind of reflection would show the camera taking it. Only my face is shown in the picture, not even my hair is visible because the surface area is too small to incorporate everything. Otherwise, you'd also be able to see my chest in the photo.

I don't know why on Earth you thought that. Here are some excerpts from the message where I linked to my pics.

"I get orbs all the time, and although orbs are supposed to be the penultimate manifestation in a series leading up to an apparition, I have no reason to think the location is haunted...

"I have not noticed anything that would help me tell bogus orbs from 'real' ones. I've looked closely at my 'fake' ones, and they look identical to photos offered as 'real' spirit orbs...

"So these orbs are not spirit manifestations...

"...the ostensibly 'real' spirit orbs aren't spirit manifestations, either...

"...given my experience with orbs and the logic above, I feel safe in disregarding them until some new information is called to my attention...

"Here are a few orbs and a vortex caught quite by accident in my own apartment. I invite people to look at them for features that would allow me to distinguish them from authentic spirit manifestations."

Alisa, is there any possible way you could have read this and thought I was offering up a photo I considered paranormal?

Yes. Sorry. I probably just wanted to believe you were offering what you thought were spirit orb captures and so I interpreted it that way. I see now that you are investigating this theory from various angles.

Are you sure those rainbow orbs aren't paranormal?

Also, thanks for all of the explanations, ivy. You two make quite a team.

Nope, I can't be sure, can I? Thanks, Alisa.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/angelsluvin2...208.jpg&.src=ph

I definitly believe orbs are spirits, this is just one of the many pics I took when I went to waverly hills tb sanitarium, in louisville ky, just last month, this is not the best one I have but I am trying to figure out how to put them on here for all to see, I hope it will show it, I put an album on my yahoo, but although I can see them with no problem on my end, somehow people say they cannot see them, its not marked private or anything so I don't understand what I am doing wrong, well hopefully you will see this pic, if it shows, I will try to add one of the many more pics that has hundreds of orbs taken from that night at waverly, I think I may have gotton 2 photos that nite without orbs, and i had about a 100 photos using a brand new excellant digital camera!
hope it shows, I just previewed this b-4 adding it and it "should" take you directly to my yahoo photo album!
Laura

hi alisa,
welcome to u-m.your view on orbs is very strong and that's great.this is my experiences.in 20 years of paranormal investigating i have went through thousands of pictures of orbs.a spirit is said to be ectoplasmic energy while an orb is considered pure energy.orbs are made up of electricity,that's why more are seen during rainy weather when electricity is closer to the ground.someone said spirits take the form of orbs to travel.one question:why?a spirit being is not bound to the gravity of the earth and travel through a different dimension than we do.spirits don't have to call a cab to go to their next haunting.i have never seen an orb take the shape of a spirit or vice versa and wonder if that is possible.you will find as you go along that everyone has varying opinions about things and that's good.it makes you stop and think.good luck on the forum and thanks for your time.

hi its matt1 here

over the past 12 years I have been doing secret research into orb manifestation, and I belive that they change size and colour depending on viewing conditions, I also belive that there are atleast 23 differant types of orbs that I have seen since my research began.

Hope this helps

Matt1

Matt1:
I am beyond intrigued! How can I find out more about your research and how you define the at 23+ different types of orbs?

Greywolf:


I find the idea of orbs being electricity and therefore being seen more often in rainy weather an interesting thought, as I have captured more orb photos before, during and after rain, and on overcast days, though I can capture them virtually anytime if that is my intention.

As for spirits taking the shape of an orb to travel, I came to this conclusion through spirit messages in answer to my questions, and by the looks of them in photos where they appear to unfurl into a snake form when relaxed, then roll back up into an orb when they are ready to move on. Other people that see orbs from a similar perspective to me (such as Chris of Haunted Earth) have seen orbs take partial human form and also believe that the sphere shape serves a purpose. I really appreciate and enjoyed your comments.

Laura: thanks for your contribution of photos. Nice.

Is the most obvious explanation for orbs under damp atmospheric conditions, not the water droplets themselves, given what we know about lenses and flash, and that you accept these conditions throw up more orb photos?

I can see your point, Rik13, and I find it perplexing myself that orbs coincide with conditions that are conjectured to cause supposed false orbs. The main point to me is that orbs appear in my photographs during the driest of conditions as well, inside, outside, day, night, virtually every time I intend for them to or ask them to. I have captured many orbs with blatant spirit faces within them and/or nearby manifestations. I have asked of the spirit world and received confirmation that orbs are spirits. I have opened my mind to the idea from both perspectives of it being a delusion and being a manifestation of multidimensional and eternal life. Coupled with the amazing, numerous, multi-faceted spirit world interactions I have had, I have chosen to accept orbs as spirit phenomenon. I could easily reject them, but that would go against my intuition and logic based on my personal experience.

I have hundreds and hundreds of these photos that I enjoy studying and I spend time each day doing it. I see so much meaning and detail in these manifestations. And like anyone, I cannot transfer that understanding and experience to others entirely. So I try to explain as sincerely as I can, and choose some of the best, clearest photos to aid others interested in seeing orbs as spirits.

we need some square camera lens' to be made, then we can wonder why all the orbs are suddenly square :s

Then we can start a new topic called spirit cubes.

I will dig up some pics of different shaped orb-like spirits to see if that makes any difference to your thoughts.

If you get an orb the shape of a volkswagon beatle, It could be HERBY

Befor you know where you are you have spirit triagles, hexagons, dodecahedrons...........The list goes on and then things get REALLY silly

A close look at some of the orbs in this recent photo reveal that they are not completely round and have other intersting variations that make them look more complex than water/mist/particulate.

usually they wouldnt be completely round, this would be because your cameras aperture:

Is making them an off roundish shape, it depends on their distance from the lens though with dust.

I replicated the shapes they can be and also got the effect of the 'guts' of the orbs with a green laser shone against the wall, and with the camera out of focus, i tried different apertures but only included these ones as they were more interesting.. the higher the f number the smaller the points of lights or your orbs will be, because more of your image will be in focus.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/dea...rylaserguts.jpg

Thanks for your response. And for going to all the trouble to show the lens and then take the green orb-like photos. I admire that you actively investigate your theories, putting your $ where your mouth is. Still, I don't think these simulated orbs look quite like the photos of orbs that I have taken, nor are their guts in a coiling-like pattern. Though they are interesting.


The concepts that keep me believing in orbs are the fact that they respond (intentionally or strongly coincidentally) to my requests that they appear to have their photo taken; that I have captured some orbs with faces in them, one of which, is beyond all doubt to me a person who once lived in the physical; that I have photographed them "behaving", smiling, uncoiling, and coming near me when I physically reach out to them; and most importantly, I asked on several occassions and received very clear spiritual messages that "orbs are souls".

I really do appreciate your position and efforts. I feel that some orbs may be explained by particulate, but even so, that is not a straight forward dismissal of the phenomenon for me. I am even prepared to accept that in the physical these souls may appear as tiny particulate. I don't know. That's where we differ, I suppose. While I can't say I don't care about science and the physical, the spiritual meaning is more profound to me and remains the constant, whereas the physical evidence must conform for me to what I know is a spiritual truth. I'd say for you, the physical evidence is a constant and must back up the spiritual explanation in order for you to believe. The camps will probably alas remain divided. But that's okay.

you know what? i think orbs are fake. sue me.

not worth it

No one will "Sue you"....you're entitled to your opinion. I think that 90% of photos are either doctored, (a rarity, and easily seen) or a photo of some other anomaly; (dust, water particles in the air, developmental problems, lens flares, ect...) But there have been many photos that I could not have a scientific basis to explain even through intensive examination. Being the skeptic that I am, it doesn't hurt to consider the possibilities and consider the scientific evidence disproving it as well. Who knows?

Fascinating, care to explain why? ...

I'm 95% skeptical since I can replicate orbs with a camera like many others. Catching dust/lint/water drops(or particles) is simple and many geniune people who are not too certian send thier photos of possible orbs so that they can get some clarification and/or a second opinion on what they have which usually is the orb-like shapes made from the materials I meantioned and there is the not so genuine people who have thier 'photoshopped' images, however theres that 5% which are a bit of an unknown and hard to explain therefore im a little unsure about a very few select images.

I thank everyone for sending in thier photos of what they believe might be orbs for us to see and to comprehend thier points of view as it proves an interesting and educational read.

...so um... yeh like theyre fake n'stuff, yeh... so like, um... sue me too! Shyeh!

care to explain how to recreate some of the footage i linked, on a thread i started.

two words, five percent

your right those were 2words, intelligable? none.

hi matt1 here I agree 100% that there are some orb photos that are hard to explain, but as you said 90% can be explained

please e-mail me when you find out any more info

I couldnt be a**ed with your 'proove this then!' type attitude towards influencing me to your specific topic so didn't actualy look at your footage so technically it was in that 5% due to me not knowing whether its real/faked/natural lighting effect .

P.S. And it's intelligible.

Blimey!!

I've been away for a while and people are still wondering if 'orbs' are spirirts????????



Come on now......stoppit! Even the guy who invented the phrase 'orb' has now admitted it's just dust and stuff...........