I snapped these photos seconds apart on a ghost tour in salem mass.
Notice the second pic has a huge orb outside the jailhouse window. I will zoom it in and post that pic as well.










Orb is in first pic sorry

We've been orbless for a good few days

Thanks for sharing your photos. It looks like a creepy place! I'm not an expert at analyzing photos, but thought I'd point out that there seem to be additional orbs in the photo that are lighter. Also, there appears to be one light orb in the other photo. I hope you don't mind me pointing them out.
[attachmentid=28776]
[attachmentid=28777]

No problem, I'm just happy to get feedback! I believe the spot in the photo is a real orb. Not dust or anything. I don't know if this board get alot of them photos, it's a first to me. Salem is haunted that is for sure. It's just odd those pics are taken seconds apart I feel that sets them apart from other orb photos you guys see.

What are orbs anyways? Why are they showing up in "ghost tour" photos only. I have 300 pics from my trip to the east coast and salem is the only place I get orbs. Especially that big bright thing. Zoomed in it has a thick white ring that goes clear and at the center is a bright white spot.

You've opened a can now.....LOL....can't wait to see what comes next!!

Doesn't matter, mine stands out because I have 2 pics taken seconds apart. Proves that it couldn't be dust its to large and clear also. The orb is big and bright I was 40 feet away from the jail when that was taken. There is no de-bunking it to dust.

Great pictures! Sure looks like a good possibility of an orb.

i cant be bothered. look at other threads for opinions/views etc

That's cool! Scary place tough, gives me the creeps.

That proves nothing HoD. The orb isn't 'big', you are perceiving it to be big because you want to. You are clearly not going to accept the rational explanation that it is a particulate.

Was it raining at the time?

no

Well then smarty tell me what it is. Did you not notice there were 2 pics taken seconds apart. The "orb" or whatever is not in one and large and clear in the second. End of story just look and think instead of trying to de-bunk it un-informed.

Have you got an original untouched copy of this pic?

No offence but you are the one who is misinformed. Please see all the multiple threads on orbs. They will explain so much.

What part of "it is a particulate" requires clarification?

As Coldethyl suggests, read the various and lengthy 'orb' postings here before debunking research.

Well, actually, there is instantaneous debunkment for this photo.

1. Blatantly been edited consideribly, both in contrast and saturation. thus your "large and clear" orb is far less impressive (not that it was terribly so in the first place.

2. 2 seconds is not possible with the combined change of angle in the photos (obvious POV movement) and time it takes for a camera to cycle with a flash. Restate the time lapse.

3. The timing is not important here in the sense that the 'orb' is there in one photo and not in the next. Since it is clearly either dust, moisture, or any number of particulates (as Shadow would say), the combination of moving the camera (changes the refraction point of the orb, thus removing the illuminated particulate from the lens field) or the fact that dust et al has a tendency to move...

Not paranormal. Nothing about this photo meets even the weakest requirements for paranormality.

I third the comments that one should read the extensive posts on UM about orbs before jumping to conclusions.

In addition, before accusing those of us, whose opinions you so obviously crave, of ignorance or being un-informed you might want to stop and think. I personally do this (evidence review) professionally for FGHS/IPR and have years of photography experience reviewing thousands of photos for paranormality. Shadow has reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of orb pics, as has Cold.

Please do not insult us because you have presented poor evidence and don't want to hear our educated and well thought out responses which are contrary to your own hopes for the photo.

Regards and pre-emptive apology for the rucus this post will cause-

Wookie

Well it's obvious you don't know what your talking about. I said a few seconds not 2 exactly. It's hard to believe a piece of dust or particle could appear in a matter of less than 5 seconds. I took numorous shots in a row because of this. I've seen the so called paranormal orbs and mine looks better and more clear. I've also looked into your dust orbs and there is no match. Sounds like you just gave a glance and then enforced your thoughts. If the orb was any more clear it would be slapping you in the face. It obviously is a distance away and clearly looks out of place. The sun was already down and the only thing I did to the photo was lighten it up because it was dark. The orb was even more visible then.

The fact that the OP isnt dealing with just reasoning is obsurd. First and formost, what the heck makes this that much better than any other DUST particle out there? Ohh its so much bigger? Seriously, it does not matter of the size of the orb, they can be anywhere from a golfball to a basketball in size. Your logic behind this being truely paranormal is a slap in the face to anyone who deals with this as a hobby. If you can not take criticism on a site full of opinions, then you shouldnt have posted such a ridiculous picture in the first place. By taking a picture seconds apart and having one orb in one picture, and nothing in the next doesnt prove jack. First, it was outside, so there is air movement, could easily get swiped away within milliseconds. Second, nobody, even my 9yr old niece would suggest that a particle lighter than air, would remain stationary or even in the focal range of the first snap shot.

My suggestion, obviously and without being my normal sarcastic self, do research. Don't even bother doing research on the place of question. Im talking dedicate your life to the study of orbs, only then will you even remotely come close to possible realization that orbs are nothing more than natural anomalies.

Now to those who follow my posts, yes I know I have a few followers, Im not saying EVERY SINGLE orb is a natural anomaly. We all know how controversial this subject is.

Yes, you're right, I have no idea what I'm doing at all whatsoever. I think that is tremendously clear from my long and detailed response.



Actually, you said a couple, which equates to two or three seconds. Lets not quibble over a completely pointless aspect of photo which has no bearing on it regardless.



You're right. I mean, geez, photoshop works wonders doesn't it?



Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess my enumerated and clearly stated post and debunkment was an afterthought... lmao to the 'slapping face' comment.



Actually, one cannot tell how far away an orb is within a picture. It's a little optical illusion based on depth of field. So it's not obvious.



You're lying if you say all you did was increase the brightness. Color saturation, contrast, and sharpening have all been clearly and obviously done as well. You're right, a dust particule WILL become more obvious if you photo shop the hell out of it, lol.

Go do some research as Noah suggested... It'll reduce the amount of time we have to waste explaining basic evidence review techniques and pointing out n00b mistakes.

-Wookie

Look. Here is a confirmed dust orb:



It looks just as good if not better than yours and it's only dust.

Do you understand?

was this either a kodak or an hp camera?

Your arguement is weak just like your opinion on orbs. No one can prove it's dust or a ghost. I simply think it could be an energy ball. Ghost will show up different. I have 300 pics of my trip to th east coast and no pic has an orb besides the ghost hunt in salem. Funny, hmm. For that matter out of 1000's of pics I have there are no orbs like this. I didn't photoshop anything just simply made it brighter. Your just have no logical sence of arguements.

Remember "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence"

**EDIT** That looks nothing like mine. Zoomed in mine has a completely different structure and make-up. "Do you understand?" I can live w/ out the **EDIT** comments. Sorry I'm not an expert and I find this topic rather interesting. Orbs could be paranormal as easy as it could be dust.

**Hand-of-Doom, you are reminded of the forum rules regarding insults and flaming.**

Your not going to get very far around here talking rude like that Everyone is intitled to express their opinion.

My opinion is your pic is to difficult to examine because of the grainy and whatever other effects that have been laid on. Any structure is lost zooming in on your orb, just a bunch of pixels.

My other thought is that it would have been more impressive to have actually caught the same orb in a second pic if only taken a few secs apart. If that was truely an energy ball of somesort I would expect it to hang around a little longer or even be visable to the naked eye.

It looks much like every other orb that I've ever seen. If you were going to find paranormal material ANYWHERE Salem or Gettysberg would be the places. I must agree with the consencus here, though.......just dust......oh, and brace for a "slap"

I'm neither blind nor dumb.

Your comments are against the rules of this board.

I asked if you understood because I was trying to show you with visuals how dust can look like way more than just dust.

You have convinced yourself already, so believe what you want to believe. Good luck with that.

I guess some people just react differently to getting their bubble(or orb) burst, eh?

Very much so.

Honestly, this person praises this orb religiously. All hail mighty mighty orb of.....of........ dust. Its funny how people can not take criticism

Newbies

Protecting an "orb" with rudeness is just priceless.

I think i need to buy a new pair of shoes !!!!!!!!!

I think he took his "orb" and went home.

How fast were you taking the pictures? within seconds leaves open to debate unless you have a camera that can take a bunch of pictures consecutively within a matter of seconds or milliseconds. If this was the case then dust would be highly unlikely.

While photographers with archives of photos report having occasionally seen "orbs" in their photos gained with film cameras, the recent rise in reports of orb photos may be directly related to the common availability of digital cameras and associated rise in the number of pictures taken.

It should be noted also that the size of the camera is another consideration in the recent proliferation of orb photos. As film cameras, and then digital cameras, have steadily shrunk in size, reports of "orbs" increased accordingly. As cameras became smaller, the distance between the lens and the built-in flash also shrank, decreasing the angle of reflection back into the lens.


There are a number of naturalistic causes for orbs in photography and videography.

-Solid orbs - Dry particulate matter such as dust, pollen, insects, etc.

-Liquid orbs - Droplets of liquid, usually water, e.g. rain or snow.

-Foreign material on the camera lens.

-Foreign material within the camera lens.

-Foreign material within the camera body.


Orb photos have become so common that most ghost-hunting organizations are no longer accepting submissions of them.

LMAO. I think you might want to rethink that logically there bud.

First off, you're contending that there IS proof, thus your orb photo.

We have debunked this photo completely. It is a particulate of some kind. It is not energy manifestation. It is not paranormal.

Now, I want to address the comment in the quote.

So you're saying, really truly, that if something is not in a picture, that it doesn't prove that it's not there? Like really? Is that where we're going with this? If something is there, it can be seen or percieved (in various forms). Before people freak out and start talking about radio waves and solar flares and all that, those are all perceived and measured aspects of the natural world. Thus, we know they are there.

If you are trying to say, through your quote, that absence of say... a person in a photo does not prove that they weren't in the photo... Man, you need to go take a logic course at University or something.

And you say I make weak arguments. Lmfao.

I understand that the directly preceeding scenario is a tad basic and obvious, but working from the logic presented, it can be applied to virtually any situation.

You brought photo 'evidence' to us to hopefully prove something. And you did. It is a magnificent photo which proves the existence of dust. Good job!

In addition, before mouthing off, swearing, and generalized freaking out, perhaps you should sit back, think about what you want to say, and then smack yourself in the head reeeaaalllllyyy hard, as many times as needed. The urge to embarasses yourself should pass.

cameras are getting better not worse, if it was backwards then photos wouldnt be taken seriously in courts of law. There is a point to where a new camera is defective but the chance to have a defective piece of equipment at every convenient time to debunk is hardly worth taken seriously as well.

I think you need to go back and re read Hazzard's post. He wasn't saying that they were defective, just that the proximity of the flash to the lens has increased the possible refraction rates of particulates.

And He's right, btw, Many Ghost hunters won't accept orbs as proof of paranormal anymore. They are considered as secondary evidence, nowhere near enough proof to deem someplace haunted without some major primary evidence.

At least that's how it work at FGHS/IPR. Though, I'm sure there are some disreputable teams out there still accepting dust as paranormal.

Whether or not orbs are valid is not being questioned by skeptics but if reducing the explanations with only equipment as always being the alternative then i dont need to re-read his premise err post. There are plenty of pictures that are "spot" free yet it is universally known that a lens is never spot free. So to state that dust and defective equipment must be the case for it must be defective, so as to alter the validity of the proposed evidence is not always 100% everytime all the time.


Im sure there are people who dont believe heraclitus philosophy and "panta rei" isnt exactly on everyone's mind here on this thread.

You're right, why look at scientific and natural causes for orbs, when screaming and yelling that they're ghosts is so much more fun.



EDIT: Way to change your post there Bud. Just so everyone knows, the quote on this post was the original post by Boggle before he retroactively changed it to make himself seem... Not so boggle ish.

One would think that, by the elmement of chance, that you would get at least ONE post right by now. No such luck I guess.

Here is the key to the orb phenomena....

As cameras become smaller, the distance between the lens and the built-in flash also shrank, decreasing the angle of reflection back into the lens.


The orb is created because a reflective solid airborne particle,raindrop,pollen,insect or dust particle, is situated near the camera lens and outside the depth of field, in other words out of focus.

Have a look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_%28paranormal%29#Solid_orbs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_%28parano...%29#Liquid_orbs




EDITED TO MAKE IT EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

Well its nice to see you contributing to a thread instead of acting as tho you are some kind of ref for a change So far you are still speculating and the distance relative to an airborne particle to the lens using a raindrop.. is still inconsistent why?

1. if it was rain and not on the lens itself then it definitely holds inconsistencies in the visual characteristics. If it was on the lens itself then the image itself would be different and there would be multiple like objects, where is the source of light to highlight the other particles? he didnt even use a flash.

2. If it was a dust particle it would take on different characteristics especially if there isnt an opposing light to highlight the dust particle or any particle.

I will edit my posts as many times I see fit.

What is it with you and reading and understanding the simplest posts.

Boggle, you are doing the exact same thing as you did on the 911 thread with aftershocks and a plane hitting WTC7. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...9677&st=135

You are making yourself look like a fool when trying to debate arguments that do not exist.