Scientific proof for orb?

[FlyingAngel]

Found this on google, not sure if it's posted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-469849/Is-proof-spirits-DO-exist.html

[docyabut2]

Try going out in the yard and lay on the grass on a clouded day. I did that once and looked up at the sky for a long time,I could see thousand of these orbs flying around.Maybe it was just my eyes,but I thought gee what if each one of those orbs were a spirit of a person

[Rlyeh]

So where is the evidence they're paranormal or ghosts? If I'm reading it right, these researchers are capturing orbs on film but calling them paranormal and spirits.

Imagine if all researchers did this, the discovery of the atom, electricty, germs, etc, got explained as ghosts.

[Mark is Back]

I'm fairly sure that simply because he Can't duplicate the exact images means it's dust. I've seen some tricky stuff when dealing with 'orbs' - but air current, dust, pollen, all of these things are the best explanations - and they always end up being true. (You'd be amazed at what you're breathing in)

I'll dig into the background on this guy's experience and see if I can find more - because as it stands - it seems to be a misguided concept.

[Chronii]

Try going out in the yard and lay on the grass on a clouded day. I did that once and looked up at the sky for a long time,I could see thousand of these orbs flying around.Maybe it was just my eyes,but I thought gee what if each one of those orbs were a spirit of a person

I see those too. I'm pretty sure those are eye floaters.

[Oppono Astos]

Not this one again, look at the date of the article - 20 July 2007.

[coldethyl]

Just because he's a professor, doesn't make him an expert.

You can't 'eliminate' dust unless you're in one of those dust free chambers for hospitals or labs.

Good grief.

[FlyingAngel]

Agreed that there's high chance that those orbs are dust. But did anyone really successfully capture those dust-orb and put it on a microscope?

[ShadowofaDoubt]

Agreed that there's high chance that those orbs are dust. But did anyone really successfully capture those dust-orb and put it on a microscope?

Here's a collection of dust under a microscope! http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/dust/dust.htm

Edited December 8, 2011 by shadowofadoubt

[Mark is Back]

Here's a collection of dust under a microscope! http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/dust/dust.htm

This... THIS is why I love you folks..

Agreed it's got to be dust, when I saw the article date I immediately dove into the progress in the supposed research.. Figure 4 years.. .. Nothing.. Thanks for the laugh though

[FlyingAngel]

Here's a collection of dust under a microscope! http://www.funsci.co...n/dust/dust.htm

those don't seem to be orbs...

[GoldenRabbit]

I dont need scientific proof that there are dust particles floating around in the air.

[Sakari]

Try going out in the yard and lay on the grass on a clouded day. I did that once and looked up at the sky for a long time,I could see thousand of these orbs flying around.Maybe it was just my eyes,but I thought gee what if each one of those orbs were a spirit of a person

I see those too. I'm pretty sure those are eye floaters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I7_al4mrfg

[coldethyl]

those don't seem to be orbs...

It's dust under a microscope which will look different than dust showing up on a picture or an orb. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[_Only]

those don't seem to be orbs...

That type of orb is a common artifact of a flash of a camera falsely illuminating

the short distance between the lens and the built-in flash, decreasing the angle of light reflection to the lens, directly illuminating the aspect of the particles facing the lens and increasing the camera's ability to capture the light reflected off normally sub-visible particles

wikipoodia

Nothing at all to do with microscopic level of viewing something. Cameras can't do that.

[FlyingAngel]

What I interest more is a scientific experiment on the subject using scientific method; not taking a picture then assuming that it's dust. Wikipedia is never considered a proof since it can be edited by anyone.

[Oppono Astos]

What I interest more is a scientific experiment on the subject using scientific method; not taking a picture then assuming that it's dust. Wikipedia is never considered a proof since it can be edited by anyone.

Oddly enough the explanation of particulates illuminated by the camera flash is the conclusion of experiments and research by both photographers and investigators.

[White Crane Feather]

Round fuzzy thingy caught on Camara = proof of ghosts.

Ok. Can I sell these kinds of photos?

[Mike G]

Round fuzzy thingy caught on Camara = proof of ghosts.

Ok. Can I sell these kinds of photos?

Has anyone ever pondered why there are no orb artifacts in older, black & white photographs? Especially those taken with the old fashioned flash bulb for illumination. You would think those would cast a stronger light and thus reflect back a greater amount of particles in the air.

In fact, it would be interesting if someone could acquire an antiquated camera and actually capture an orb with it. If not, then we might have some evidence or at least a direction towards uncovering the criteria behind what causes the phenomenon if they only appear with contemporary camera equipment.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Mike G

[Oppono Astos]

Has anyone ever pondered why there are no orb artifacts in older, black & white photographs? Especially those taken with the old fashioned flash bulb for illumination. You would think those would cast a stronger light and thus reflect back a greater amount of particles in the air.

In fact, it would be interesting if someone could acquire an antiquated camera and actually capture an orb with it. If not, then we might have some evidence or at least a direction towards uncovering the criteria behind what causes the phenomenon if they only appear with contemporary camera equipment.

Actually there would have been a trade-off; the sensitivity (ISO) of the film emulsion was slow/poor compared with the sensitivity of digicam sensors, so exposures would be different anyway. I'll have to do some checking on guide-number comparisons between old-style flash bulbs and a modern camera flash.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Oppono Astos

[_Only]

What I interest more is a scientific experiment on the subject using scientific method; not taking a picture then assuming that it's dust. Wikipedia is never considered a proof since it can be edited by anyone.

These experiments have been done time and time again. Seek and you shall find.

Wikipedia wasn't intended to be proof for you. It was explaining what we feel is going on, and letting you understand it has nothing to do with microscopic viewing.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Jerry Only

[Sakari]

Has anyone ever pondered why there are no orb artifacts in older, black & white photographs? Especially those taken with the old fashioned flash bulb for illumination. You would think those would cast a stronger light and thus reflect back a greater amount of particles in the air.

In fact, it would be interesting if someone could acquire an antiquated camera and actually capture an orb with it. If not, then we might have some evidence or at least a direction towards uncovering the criteria behind what causes the phenomenon if they only appear with contemporary camera equipment.

[Moonie2012]

Apparently even professors can be morons.

A clean room with rigorous anti-contamination protocols is the ONLY way something like this can be seriously tested. This guy is a joke.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Moonie2012

[JesseCuster]

those don't seem to be orbs...

That's because they are in focus.

The reason dust particles that make orbs look like big bright circular blobs is because they are very out of focus and lit up by the camera's flash.

Here's a pic I recently took of some Christmas lights. I had been using manual focus and forgot to switch it back to automatic focus, so the camera didn't autofocus and the resulting lights are rendered as big circular blobs. The actual lights just looked like little pinpricks of light. I'm using this photo because it illustrates a similar concept quite well, one that photographers sometimes use for artistic effect. Focusing the foreground and leaving the background out of focus and creating an effect called bokeh, which are asthetically pleasing out of focus objects or lights in the background or foreground. Orbs are a similar phenomenon.

In the case of orbs, what you are seeing are tiny little dust or other particles in the air, close to the camera, being lit up by the camera's flash, and outside the range of focus of the picture, thus they look kinda like the blurry lights in my pic above.

What you have to remember is that a camera is not a perfect analogue to a human eye, and thus can create all sorts of odd looking effects we don't see with the naked eye like orbs,.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Archimedes

[FlyingAngel]

What solid proof (or experiment) people used to conclude that those orbs are 100% dust?