43 replies to this topic

[stevenedel]

Nyyprs, I think you forgot to look at this page, linked from the Orbzone page, where there is an in-depth discussion of orbs with tails that's about anything but rain.http://www.assap.org...ailed orbs.html

Sleepyguy, I never mind a good discussion and do not easily take offence. You are of course right, science will never be able to prove that every single orb is a light artefact. But it does offer pretty convincing evidence explaining orbs in general, and can reproduce them under controlled conditions. There is on the other hand, no evidence at all that any orbs are paranormal; this is an assumption, a theory, but nothing more. The question is, why would you want to hold the belief that there are two kinds of orbs, a perfectly natural variety and a paranormal type for which there is no evidence, if you could just as well assume that all orbs are in fact of the first variety? Or, to use Ockam's razor, why would you prefer the latter complex hypothesis to the former simple one, even though the latter doesn't explain anything extra?

Anything is possible in theory. It's possible that twelve green pixies live at the back of my garden, who go invisible anytime anybody looks. But why would I assume such a thing?

(Finally, OT in reply to your OT question: A point often made but rarely understood: the scientific method is not a belief. It is simply the only way we have of examining closely the likelihood of any statement on reality being true. Or do you know of another? It works for atoms as well as for orbs and smurfs (the evidence for the existence of smurfs is exactly as strong as that supporting paranormal orbs, so it is not very consistent to believe in the former but not in the latter). The scientific method has furthered human knowledge way beyond anything ever achieved by any religion or belief. It has doubled the life expectancy of an average westerner in less than 100 years time. It allows you and me to have this discussion from opposing sides of the globe. I stand by it because I am convinced that if everybody would stick to an evidence based worldview and rational thinking, and would be able to truly distinguish those from personal beliefs, the world would be rid of lots of unfounded bias and irrational fear and would generally be a much better place. We could then eradicate popular but evidently (empirically) wrong notions such as, 'Europe will be engulfed by Muslims', 'Allowing gay marriage will stop straight people marrying and result in less births', 'Death penalty works', or 'There is no connection between gun laws and gun-related crime').

PS. This thread is called 'Explanation for orbs'? Why does everyone want to close it as soon as explanations are offered that are impopular?

Edited by stevenedel, 13 November 2007 - 12:25 PM.

[sleepyguy]

The reason I requested a lock was that it is very apparent that there are two opposing opinions and things began to get a bit heated from the looks of it. This is the internet and everything is typed, not spoken, thus there is not a good way that I am aware of that allows us to understand the tone of what people are saying. My interpretation was that it was starting to get slightly heated, and as a moderator on a different site, I'd probably have closed it pretty quick, or at least began to pay more attention to it (which may be the course of action that was decided on). Regardless, lets discuss.

You are right, Scientific Method is not a belief system, but a very good way of going about conducting research. The issue at hand that I see however, is that dissenting opinions are good. If scientists did not go about questioning the data provided then we would not have some of the amazing pieces of technology that we have today. If everyone agreed with the initial empyrical data, then there would be no reason to continue studies of various sorts. Consider this, years ago it was good to eat eggs, there probably was not much empyrical evidence to prove that that was the case, but it was the generally accepted belief. A few years ago, empyrical evidence showed that eating eggs affected your bad cholesterol (HDL I think), then a few years later, research says that while it may affect your cholesterol, there are health benefits to eating eggs on a certain basis. The same was done with wine. Drinking wine was bad for various reasons, now they say in moderation, red wine can reduce your chances of having heart disease. The same could be possible with orbs. Is it? I dont know. But that not knowing is what gives me, and I am sure some others, the idea that perhaps some of those orbs could be paranormal. The big problem is of course, how are we going to come to the conclusion that some of the orbs are paranormal? Well, that I do not know. Which is probably what some of the different discoveries through out science started out as, a big question.

If I take this one study and say ok, I am going to call it quits on Orb information, then there is no way new orb information can ever come about (well, lets make that if everyone did that, not just me). Twenty years from now, we may find that some orbs are paranormal, how? We shall see. Twenty years from now, we may find that some people are still going to argue over whether orbs are real or not. I am more inclined to agree with you on the basis that with the technology we have today, we will probably not be able to make any scientific inferences on orbs, other than that chances are, they are a particle in the air. Now, when there is other evidence supporting that orb photos may be more than just dust particles, then maybe things will change, but just a camera is not going to do it. I definetely learned something from your article, it was a wake up call for me.

At first I started to jump to conclusions, and then your article assisted in bringing me to reality. I need more evidence than a camera. Will EMF readings, Temperature readings, barometric readings, and perhaps EVP prove that the orb I have on a photo is supernatural? No. But it may lend more credance to it, if I find the same or similar readings associated with a picture. All in the end, those same readings could mean that there is something else causing the orbs to show, I can think of a couple of less than likely items that could cause it, but things that are a lot more readily explainable than paranormal activity. Holding the belief that they are sometimes more does not make me or anyone else less intellectual or smart, it just means we are taking the data with a mind that is open to other, less explainable possibilities. In the end, I may be wrong, but I am ready and willing to take the chance that I am wrong. The worst that can happen is that I am proved wrong. The best? Well... perhaps I am right. I doubt that with what tools I have available that I will be able to prove that to be the case though. In the end, its not so much about being right as it is working towards something that could lead to more information on a certain subject.

[nnyprs]

As stated prior, If you research with out having an open mind, you will always come to the conclusion you are expecting. I agree with you sleepy, if you close the book now, how will there ever possibly be an explanation for them being paranormal. Just because one site out there can reproduce orbs, as I have done on purpose to show my team members the difference, doesn't mean they have decided the end all be all, as you alluded to in your posts.

P.S. Again, that page speaks almost excusively that orbs with tails are raindrops.

Edited by nnyprs, 13 November 2007 - 05:03 PM.

[ryanxpromise]

Orbs are condensation/dust in the air that is illuminated with bad flash photography

[AbbeyGal]

The "orbs are dust" sites are a great tool for helping people learn how to debunk orbs. However, they don't explain the small percentage of orb photos that keep me from completely writing off orbs as paranormal phenomenon. I'd be happy to accept a natural explanation for some of the weirder stuff I've seen, but so far no one has come up with an explanation that fits the data.

They claim that orbs partially blocked by an object are either semitransparent dust orbs that give an illusion that they are blocked by something or reflections from something behind the object. That makes sense from the examples they show. I have debunked photos myself using the first explanation. They aren't all that easy to explain, though. I've seen photos taken in the basement level of an old mill at night where a bright orb was partially blocked by a person standing in front of it. The investigators checked and could not find anything that could have caused a reflection, and there were no other possible light sources behind him, either. They had no luck when they tried to recreate the shot. So what could have caused that?

I have also caught "soap bubble" orbs on video in a room where I had visually seen the same kind of orbs in the past. The sites don't show anything similar to what I saw/captured, but even if they did, why was I seeing them visually?

Edited by AbbeyGal, 18 November 2007 - 07:13 AM.

[SeekX]

sleepyguy, on Nov 8 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Hi,

I am not a skeptic, but I've a ton of friends who are. In fact, a lot of them have been giving me a hard time regarding some of the Orb pictures I have taken with friends, on different cameras at the same spot (different nights at this time, but we are going to go and take multiple cameras out and do some better logging when we do it). If I can find a place to host some images, I will post them up, but the images I have found resemble the ones from this site: http://www.southjers...ses4/07034.html

Anyways, if anyone could provide me with some scientific/experiential reasons for why Orbs appear, I would really appreciate it. I would like to try to do my best to keep it from happening in the future (well, the scientific things), so I can say that the ones I do find are more likely to be the case.

(I do have pics up on myspace... www.myspace.com/snoozebrothers My bro and I are starting up our own Paranormal investigations type gig, as we've been amateurly ghost hunting for the past six years, and wanted to get a bit more into it).

Thanks,
Ed

If you are using a digital camera then get an old analog type that should clear up your Orb problem.

Danny

[AbbeyGal]

SeekX, on Nov 19 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

If you are using a digital camera then get an old analog type that should clear up your Orb problem.

That might help, but it won't necessarily solve the problem. I have plenty of photos with dust orbs taken with various film cameras

[SeekX]

AbbeyGal, on Nov 20 2007, 06:31 AM, said:

SeekX, on Nov 19 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

If you are using a digital camera then get an old analog type that should clear up your Orb problem.

That might help, but it won't necessarily solve the problem. I have plenty of photos with dust orbs taken with various film cameras

Ok you have a point but i am curious how do you know they are Dust Orbs? I mean you obviously are certain did you produce the condition as a test or something?
Or is this more of an assumption of probability?


Or is it that you believe all Orbs are dust Orbs?

Danny

[nnyprs]

Hey Danny,

Not that I am answering for him, but many of us purposely create "false" photos to teach our team members what they look like and how to spot them. For example...taking a picture in the rain....or stamping a rug, then taking a picture etc.

[AbbeyGal]

SeekX, on Nov 21 2007, 01:52 AM, said:

Ok you have a point but i am curious how do you know they are Dust Orbs? I mean you obviously are certain did you produce the condition as a test or something?
Or is this more of an assumption of probability?


Or is it that you believe all Orbs are dust Orbs?

LOL, not hardly! As I've mentioned, I have actually seen orbs on several different occasions with my naked eyes, and I know those weren't dust! In one of my batches of film photos with dust orbs, there are also 2 highly questionable orbs that fit in the "possibly paranormal" category. However, there are quite a few that are very consistent with experimental photos taken for comparison purposes, where I shook out my dryer's lint trap and snapped away. They were taken in high traffic indoor areas that weren't spotlessly clean by a long shot.

Basically, if an orb looks like a semi-transparent amoeba as in my comparison shots, I don't see much point in pondering that it is anything other than dust.

[SeekX]

nnyprs, on Nov 21 2007, 01:54 AM, said:

Hey Danny,

Not that I am answering for him, but many of us purposely create "false" photos to teach our team members what they look like and how to spot them. For example...taking a picture in the rain....or stamping a rug, then taking a picture etc.

I think that is a great idea but here is another one to kick around , how do you know that some ghost or whatever they are do not know that your team does this and want to play with that idea by showing up while you are doing that?

LOL! Just kidding!

Danny

[SeekX]

AbbeyGal, on Nov 21 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

SeekX, on Nov 21 2007, 01:52 AM, said:

Ok you have a point but i am curious how do you know they are Dust Orbs? I mean you obviously are certain did you produce the condition as a test or something?
Or is this more of an assumption of probability?


Or is it that you believe all Orbs are dust Orbs?

LOL, not hardly! As I've mentioned, I have actually seen orbs on several different occasions with my naked eyes, and I know those weren't dust! In one of my batches of film photos with dust orbs, there are also 2 highly questionable orbs that fit in the "possibly paranormal" category. However, there are quite a few that are very consistent with experimental photos taken for comparison purposes, where I shook out my dryer's lint trap and snapped away. They were taken in high traffic indoor areas that weren't spotlessly clean by a long shot.

Basically, if an orb looks like a semi-transparent amoeba as in my comparison shots, I don't see much point in pondering that it is anything other than dust.

I have never got a picture of one but i also have seen one , a big one.

Danny

[AbbeyGal]

SeekX, on Nov 22 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

I have never got a picture of one but i also have seen one , a big one.

The visual sightings tend to either get ignored in these orbs debates or summarily dismissed as swamp gas or ball lightning. Ball lightning may be an explanation for some of the orbs I've seen. However, I find it odd that ball lightning would show up in my windowless office on a sunny summer day or in swarms that started off as dark spots. I've heard of cases where there were 3 balls of lightning at once but not 10 -12 like I saw. And neither explanation fits the glowing soap bubble orbs I've seen.

[SeekX]

AbbeyGal, on Nov 23 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

SeekX, on Nov 22 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

I have never got a picture of one but i also have seen one , a big one.

The visual sightings tend to either get ignored in these orbs debates or summarily dismissed as swamp gas or ball lightning. Ball lightning may be an explanation for some of the orbs I've seen. However, I find it odd that ball lightning would show up in my windowless office on a sunny summer day or in swarms that started off as dark spots. I've heard of cases where there were 3 balls of lightning at once but not 10 -12 like I saw. And neither explanation fits the glowing soap bubble orbs I've seen.

It gets harder every time i tell about this as it has been sometime and i get less and less sure what really happened concerning the details.

The one i saw was big at least 10 feet in diameter , sort of goldish and yes i admit to an extent it look electrical but also on a clear day .

It was at least 50 to 100 feet in front of me and about 20 feet up.


it proceeded toward me and over me by about 10 feet above me and then disappeared.


Here is the strange part AbbeyGal , I posted about it on an AOL message board and a lady said she had seen one very similar but about 30 years earlier .

then for some reason i got curious about where she saw it and asked her , she also saw it in east Tennessee , she did not know that is where i saw it.


Interesting you said debate as how can we debate believer or not more like discussions of possibilities and probabilities.

Danny

[Axman]

I think that 97% of the orbs are dust or "particle" orbs. True spirit orbs emit their own light and will appear without a flash. Most are brilliant white light while some are colored. My recommendation would be to use 1200 or even 1600 film. I haven't been able to find 1200 film at any local stores but many camera shops carry it. You can also buy it on line. 1200 or 1600 film can be used without a flash leaving a clearer night time photograph.