Orbs... The great debate!
Posted 21 September 2012 - 05:37 PM
One thing I thought was quite interesting was on a recent episode of Ghost Adventures... They showed an orb of energy above a man's head, then showed another orb above Zaks head which they subsequently debunked as dust... Funny thing is that they looked identical. Much like the explanations in the book "The Orb Project" by Klause Heineman. Spiritual components aside, that book has a lot to offer those who are looking to investigate this phenomenon which still has the jury out in so many regards...
Posted 29 September 2012 - 02:19 AM
Speaking of the book, "The Orb Project" you say, "Spiritual components aside...." Klause Heinemann, (in the DVD) mentions remembering reading, as a child, "we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses." I think that's in Mathew in the Christian Bible. That really stuck out to me as I believe there is no place where spirits are not. Spirits are all around us all the time. There are many stories from near-death experiencers mentioning spirits appearing to them as "orbs of light".
Spiritual components cannot be put aside. Afterall what are we talking about here but the spirit . We are body, mind, and spirit. Like the Trinity.
Posted 30 September 2012 - 10:01 AM
Now, show me an "orb" that has controlled flight (instead of one or two photos), and I might consider that you'd be onto something; but to show me a photo with an "orb" and tell me that's a spirit? No...you'd have a very hard time trying to convince me of anything aside that your "dust-free" environment wasn't so dust-free after all.
Just because you can walk into a room and not see dust doesn't mean it isn't there. Dust is measured in microns, and even mili-microns (that should tell you how small those particles could be), and if one is close enough to a cameras flash...guess what? You're going to see it. And you wouldn't be expecting it either, because you didn't see any microscopic airborne dust with your naked eye when you came into the room. So, what else could it be, but a spirit orb. Right?
No...I just don't believe in "orbs". But I kick back and welcome anybody to try to convince me that they are something other than environmental.
Posted 30 September 2012 - 04:14 PM
"spiritual components aside", because I don't think ANYTHING should be put aside as a possibility when looking for answers. "investigators" should always expect the unexpected.
After I posted the above, I hoped the OP didn't think I was being snarky or anything like that. I take photos everyday and would never post them on a message board, because they are personal to me. My photos are for the investigation of my own life. And my environment. Everything is in one's environment! Whether it's seen or not, or caught on film or not, it's there and sometimes can be felt , and not photographed.
So I lurk on this message board and enjoy the work of others and read all I can on the subject. Of course I have my own opinions... don't we all?
Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:27 AM
Actually as an investigator this is false. In fact EVERYTHING except the correct answer must be put aside in order to arrive at that answer. That is the goal of an investigation; to rule out everything except what is correct. Of course when starting out one does not rule out anything "just because". But as evidence is studied one by one false positives and wrong conclusions are put aside. Thus at the outset it becomes iimparitive to put aside those things known to be false such as dust orbs. (Note i specify "dust", not those that do not exhibit those characteristics.) Thus the known factors will allow the unknown to eventually be resolved.
"Expect the unexpected" to be sure. But even the unexpected will follow certain rules and conform to certain limitations. Exactly what those are may be debated, but not everything goes. Even the unexpected has its limits.
Edited by CaveRat2, 01 October 2012 - 09:28 AM.
Visit my website
Posted 02 October 2012 - 12:38 AM
My own opinion, of course.
Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:56 AM
While I admire and respect those who follow strict guidlines when it comes to paranormal investigation, I also disagree with them.
I have long maintained that investigators with this mindset throw out tons of genuine evidence... The problem with this method is that once a person "decides" that a piece of evidence is false... They will never go back to it... It's done. They made the decision that the orb is dust, the EVP is really the kids in the playground next door (even though it sounds like a 60 year old man), etc... So the possibility of re-examining such evidence goes out the window when new insights on these phenomena becomes available. Such as new photographic techniques, new audio recording apparatus, or even anecdotal evidience and solid theory...
To me, it illustrates the difference between the skeptic and the optimist. We may all be paranormal investigators to one degree or another, but we not coming from the same places and we all have different agendas...
I say throw it all up against the wall and let people judge for themselves... However some will never do that... They want you to think how they think...
Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:36 AM
Posted 02 October 2012 - 10:41 AM
As it is, I want the evidence to be real, but I won't try to milk a possibility out of the obviously explainable non-paranormal evidence previously determined when something else may reveal even better results. If an orb is spotted in conjunction with another phenomenom, then I MAY take it into consideration, but I'm not going to jump through my butt with excitement over it. I would walk away from those type of investigators.
Posted 02 October 2012 - 04:12 PM
Or to stay on topic consider an orb in a picture. We know that a flash gives off a uniform amount of light.in its field. We also know that as distance increases the area of the field becomes larger. The light is dispersed over a wider area thus the reason in a flash picture there is a limit to how far the flash can illuminate. Its why the tree 50 feet from the camera is much darker than the shrub 5 feet away. If we know the amount of light given off, the amount of light reflected back from point can be accurately calculated in accordance with known laws of physics.
By the same token if the flash gives off a fixed amount of light then that amount can be said to equal 100% This light travels to the object being illuminated and reflects back to the camera. All light must be accounted for in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. It is either absorbed and converted to heat or reflected back. no exceptions; you cannot end with more than you start with. But suppose100 % of the light starts toward a wall. However along the way it strikes an orb. Some of that light is reflected back to the camera thus the orb becomes illuminated. Let's assume 50 % of the light is used to illuminate the orb., and since the orb is opaque the other 50% passes on through it.
That remaining 50% strikes the wall behind the orb. However the light that went near, but did not strike the orb continues on unimpeded. 100% of that light strikes the wall. Thus we should see a dimming of 50% in the light behind the orb, in other words the shadow of the orb. This is in fact the main way to dismiss dust orbs versus anything else. We can rule out ALL passive orb pictures that do not display this shadow for the simple reason the large ball-like orb did not exist as such. It is a small dust particle actually much smaller and closer to the camera than it appears. Now of course if the shadow IS present then we have a whole different matter. But judge for yourself; check out all the orb pictures available and decide how many show this shadow present? I dare say it won't be many! This is an example of using known laws and applying them to evidence. Rule out the dust and see what you have left, don't just assume an orb is paranormal until the evidence dictates such..
Visit my website
Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:42 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users