Interesting 'Orb' formations

[Lucianarchy]

The first picture is an 'orb' from the picture below it, which has been singled out and enhanced to show what is there. It can be located in the bottom picture by looking on the underside of the table leant up against the stage and zooming in. The picture was taken at a childrens' birthday party in a hall used for spiritualist meetings. If you look, you will see other 'orbs' in the picture. Many other pictures in the series also have orbs and are currently undergoing further analysis.

http://angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/orbenhanced2.jpg

http://angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/122.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

What filters did you use?

Can you explain this one, too?

http://www.skepticreport.com/images/emilyorbs.jpg

[Pyrrho]

Of all things people think are paranormal, orbs are perhaps the most ridiculous. Dust never had it so good.

"Orbs" are photographs of dust motes. They commonly appear when photographers use small cameras that have the flash unit close to the lens. Most small digital cameras fall into that category.

[Ed]

Looks like an internal reflection. Where is the rest of the picture. The aspect ration is wrong (unless they were using a panoramic camera).

[Lucianarchy]

OK. I've had a look at that orb, and it is quite different. Yours is 'blurred' and when enhaced (same principle of adjusting light / contrast) does not form a proper, distinct orb circle and is probably a moving or falling object, like dust. Yours does not have any interesting formation within the orb body either. On mine, there are other orbs in the same frame, and plenty more in the same series. Thanks though.

[DickK]

Forget the incandescent ball of interdimensional ghost spit, the guy on the left has his legs walking through the doorway on the right!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Of all things people think are paranormal, orbs are perhaps the most ridiculous. Dust never had it so good.

"Orbs" are photographs of dust motes. They commonly appear when photographers use small cameras that have the flash unit close to the lens. Most small digital cameras fall into that category.



The anomaly in Claus' picture is almost certainly dust, due to the irregular formation when blown up and enhanced. Mine are quite different. They are perfectly round / orbs. (See my avatar.)

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK. I've had a look at that orb, and it is quite different. Yours is 'blurred' and when enhaced (same principle of adjusting light / contrast) does not form a proper, distinct orb circle and is probably a moving or falling object, like dust. Yours does not have any interesting formation within the orb body either. On mine, there are other orbs in the same frame, and plenty more in the same series. Thanks though.
I have some unenhanced examples which I'll post later when I can get to my other machine, where they are stored.

Enhancement of digital photos is a destructive process. Although enhancement may make some details easier for the eye to see, the details have to be altered in order for that to take place. The "interesting formations" result from the surface of the lens (lens coating, dirt film, etc.) and not from any original structure on the dust mote.

[Ed]

Yeah, that's it. About 60% of the picture is missing from the top (probably) or bottom if it has a normal aspect ration.

What this is is an "interesting" selection of an image. Bet $1 that there is a light source in the edited part.

How about the rest of the photo, Luci?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK. I've had a look at that orb, and it is quite different. Yours is 'blurred' and when enhaced (same principle of adjusting light / contrast) does not form a proper, distinct orb circle and is probably a moving or falling object, like dust. Yours does not have any interesting formation within the orb body either. On mine, there are other orbs in the same frame, and plenty more in the same series. Thanks though.

But your own orb only "form a proper, distinct orb circle" after serious filtering.

Like this, on your own example:

Here's the original "orb". Not edited in any way.
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/luci001.jpg




Here it is with the edges enhanced! Oh, my! Looks like a bubble!!
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/luci002.jpg




Here it is embossed! Oh, my! See the face? See the face??? CALL LYNDALE!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/luci003.jpg


Does the orb show a face, Lucianarchy? Is there really a face, Lucianarchy?

You cannot play with the filters and think you find reality.

[DickK]

A children's party? A perfect orb with visible structure? Hmm, a gloopy soap bubble at a guess, an artifact of the camera and Occam's razor otherwise. How you can assert anything more from a [processed] blow-up of a photograph is not clear.

[Pyrrho]

Here's one example: perfectly circular "orbs" at a construction site.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Ed
Yeah, that's it. About 60% of the picture is missing from the top (probably) or bottom if it has a normal aspect ration.

What this is is an "interesting" selection of an image. Bet $1 that there is a light source in the edited part.

How about the rest of the photo, Luci?
No light source required, Ed. Just a flash and some dust.

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing how believers see what they want to see. Luci sees a "perfectly round" orb, but even without using CFL's enhancements, I can see that it's not "perfect". Chalk these orbs up as another "Ladybrook" event, where the only person that sees something inexplicable and extraordinary is Luci.

[Ed]

Guess Luci took a powder. Not surprising. How do these people cope with real life, I wonder.

[Pyrrho]

Online references:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=77db0a0ce7d7ce59,17&seekm=99099j%249bn%241%40slb7.atl.mindspring.net#p

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=4a3d2c088263dc79,17&seekm=39222bd5.4776848%40news.slip.net#p

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=5d420d7468896c44,5&seekm=943793369.422762%40rochesterEDGE#p

Even believers in orbs admit to dust as an explanation, although I certainly don't agree that "we cannot totally deny the existence of the orb phenomena". Of course we can, and I for one totally deny that orbs are at all paranormal.

http://members.aol.com/GhstHntrs/OrbApproach.html


Dust, and other small particles floating in the air, are too small for you to see through your viewfinder and for your camera's auto focus to detect. Of course, those objects close to the camera are out of focus. The closer to the lens they are, the more out of focus they become. While in this state, large objects can still be relatively easy to identify. However, smaller objects such as dust become distorted. So much so that they appear spherical as opposed to their true shape. Also, due to their close proximity to the camera lens, they appear larger in size than you would expect dust to appear. (Most often, until you use the flash, you won't see them with the naked eye.) Now, if you take this spherical shape that is in close relationship to your camera, and illuminate it with the flash, an orb is oftentimes what you can expect to capture in your photo. The worst part about this scenario is that it is, in nearly every case, impossible to differentiate such orbs as being dust versus a true anomaly. Something else to consider is that the likelihood of it being dust is much greater than the possibility of genuine phenomena.

Another thing to consider is this:

http://www.permaflate.com/ledlyt2c.htm


The Problem

The problem is not any evil giant corporation, but a common substance commonly found in bulk beneath my bed - dust. An imaging chip is small, to save silicon, so any dust specks on it appear large in the finished picture. If you can remove a camera lens, in flies the dust. The camera lens is thus non-removable, so has to be power-zoomed to fill the frame with the subject. No-one can see fine detail on the little screen on the back, so auto-focus completes the package. Bingo - the half-decent digital photo. The professional digital cameras have a removable lens and manual focus, at the cost of staggering complexity. Every so often, at 100 US dollars a time, the owners return them to the makers to have the dust cleaned out of the inside. Slowly a really sensible and fully professional answer to the problem is emerging. The imaging chips are being made with a frame size of 24 x 36 mm, or the normal 35 film standard. On this giant chip, dust specks are tiny, and the problem goes away. Even if a professional camera were affordable, since the maximum chip area a microscope objective will illuminate is only about 6mm x 8mm, most of the big chip area is wasted.

We won't go into the various violations of the laws of physics required to make a paranormal explanation of orbs possible.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Ed
Guess Luci took a powder. Not surprising. How do these people cope with real life, I wonder.

They evade and avoid it by living in their fantasy world where people have superpowers, the dead talk and aliens constanly spy on humans.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

What filters did you use?

Can you explain this one, too?

(image removed)

Claus,

That's gotta be a real orb. Can't you see that the child is dragging around a Swiffer sweeper? Everyone knows that dust particles are "magnetically" attracted to the Swiffer cloth, so it just can't be a dust particle.:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Claus,

That's gotta be a real orb. Can't you see that the child is dragging around a Swiffer sweeper? Everyone knows that dust particles are "magnetically" attracted to the Swiffer cloth, so it just can't be a dust particle.:D

Of course! Good point.

Read the accompanying article here:

Ghost Photography (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/ghostphotography.htm)

[davidhorman]

Wow, I wish I'd realised it at the time, but I recently took 8 photos and they all had a similar orb, and what's more it was in the same place every time!

But then, I wiped the lens and the static electricity must have banished the orb to a nether dimension...

Someone save this thread so we can drag it out every time someone starts taking Luci seriously.

David

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
... Yours is 'blurred' and when enhaced (same principle of adjusting light / contrast) does not form a proper, distinct orb circle ...

I had a look at your picture and I found as many as six orbs. I also found a change in texture in the floor (lower right) at which appears to be - catch this - a great deal of dust in which maybe a footstep can be discerned.

There are other techniques to enhance photos for analysis, and brightnes and contrast is NOT the very first thing one should use, BTW.

In any case, I found these things to be far from "perfectly round". I got the impression that somebody had cleaned a chalk eraser, or something like that.

If you would like, I may ask Andrew Davidhazy, professor of Technology of Photography at RIT. Maybe he would accept to have a look at them and recommend something for us to do.

My 2 cents.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We're doing a house tour here in my town as a fundraiser for the school. Cynthia has been running around taking photos of the insides of houses to use for publicity and the tour brochure. At least four of the seven houses she photographed have ghosts.

Hey, why don't we advertise that to spice up the fundraiser? Too bad one of them isn't an English pub.

~~ Paul

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Here it is embossed! Oh, my! See the face? See the face??? CALL LYNDALE!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/luci003.jpg

:D :D :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

You're all blind if you're missing it.

There clearly is a face there.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
You're all blind if you're missing it.

There clearly is a face there.

I KNEW IT! :randi:

[plindboe]

Here's an orb party. :)

[LTC8K6]

Ahhhhhhh! Run away! The orbs are attacking! Help!

http://home.att.net/~ltc8k6/snow.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Not a peep from Lucianarchy....

[RonSceptic]

Perhaps it's picture of a brain cell. Luci could sure do with some.

Time up update the list of things Luci believes in.....

Dowsing
Crop Circles
Super powers of Uri Geller
Super powers of Natalia
ESP
Clairvoyance
Mediumship
Psychic detectives
Telekenisis
Remote Viewing
Orbs
Wiccan magic


Did I miss anything?

[jimlintott]

I have another explanation for orbs. We have clearly seen that dust and even snow flakes can leave orbs behind. Another source for orbs would be lense flare. When light strikes the lense at the right angle you get lense flare. This causes some internal reflections in the lense. If you look at the image I attached at the end you can see many orbs (some really good ones at the left edge). All of these orbs are hexagonal in shape. That is because this 35mm SLR has a mechanically adjustable aperature. The hex shaped orbs are a reflection off the aperauture in the lense. (More about lense flare here (http://www.clavius.org/lensflare.html) .)

An inexpensive digital or film camera often has a fixed aperature. Due to a lack of a mechanical aperature adjustment the aperature will be round. So it makes sense that internal refelctions caused by lense flare would be perfectly round. As opposed to hex or octagonal which is what we see through lenses with adjustable aperatures.

[jimlintott]

Here is a blow up of the left edge clearly showing a nice hex shaped orb.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not a peep from Lucianarchy....

Therse days I'm of the opinion that there's no way he's genuine. He's a 15 or 16 year old boy, trolling, making all of this up to watch us get pissed, and laughing his head off.

[Darat]

Originally posted by jimlintott
...snip.... If you look at the image I attached at the end you can see many orbs (some really good ones at the left edge). All of these orbs are hexagonal in shape. ...snip....

Sorry can't see any orbs, not with all those fairies in way!

[Colloden]

Many other pictures in the series also have orbs and are currently undergoing further analysis. Analysis by who and by what methods?

Given that Luci wont answer and his or her next appearance will be in a new ‘informative’ thread expounding some ‘theory’ or other why doesn’t some one keep a big list of unanswered questions?
Oh, sorry, been done already.....;)

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm trying to figure out, what's even interesting about these photographic anomalies...:slp:

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TLN
Therse days I'm of the opinion that there's no way he's genuine. He's a 15 or 16 year old boy, trolling, making all of this up to watch us get pissed, and laughing his head off.

Havent you figured out, everyone here on JREF is a 16 year old boy, playing their little games, pulling chains...

(At least 90% of the members are either me or friends/family of mine... if you ever see Uncle Manfred, tell him Yahweh says "Hi"...)

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!:D:D:D:D!!!!!!!

[espritch]

Havent you figured out, everyone here on JREF is a 16 year old boy, playing their little games, pulling chains...

Well, everyone except Yahweh, who's actually an 11 year old girl named Yancie. :)

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by espritch


Well, everyone except Yahweh, who's actually an 11 year old girl named Yancie. :)

Good job Ghengis has left then.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


I had a look at your picture and I found as many as six orbs. I also found a change in texture in the floor (lower right) at which appears to be - catch this - a great deal of dust in which maybe a footstep can be discerned.

There are other techniques to enhance photos for analysis, and brightnes and contrast is NOT the very first thing one should use, BTW.

In any case, I found these things to be far from "perfectly round". I got the impression that somebody had cleaned a chalk eraser, or something like that.

If you would like, I may ask Andrew Davidhazy, professor of Technology of Photography at RIT. Maybe he would accept to have a look at them and recommend something for us to do.

My 2 cents.

Thanks, Chups. You are very kind. I have no idea what the orb formations are, but they are clearly not dust particles. There are others in the series. On some the orbs are there on others they aren't. Once again, thanks.

[Ed]

Clearly not

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
... On some the orbs are there on others they aren't.

Hmmmm.... Could it be that whenever the flash is used there are orbs and no flash = no orbs? I still find Pyrrho's diagram the most plausible explanation.

I have to look around, but I have photos made at the seaport when handling bulk gypsum and, at other time, bulk cement (powder). Invarialby, whenever there's flash, there are orbs, and no flash = no orbs. I'll try to see if they are round, or other particularities they may show.

[Starrman]

but they are clearly not dust particles

Why not?

[LTC8K6]

Yep, it can be the flash that does it, the video camera's light, or the low light level / IR camera's illuminator. They all will make a reflective speck of dust into an "orb".

The dust particles are tiny, so they are not usually visible to the eye.

They will be "moving orbs" on the videos, of course.

"Ghostly moving orbs" on the LLL/IR videos.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Chupacabras


Hmmmm.... Could it be that whenever the flash is used there are orbs and no flash = no orbs? I still find Pyrrho's diagram the most plausible explanation.

I have to look around, but I have photos made at the seaport when handling bulk gypsum and, at other time, bulk cement (powder). Invarialby, whenever there's flash, there are orbs, and no flash = no orbs. I'll try to see if they are round, or other particularities they may show.

OK thanks. I've tried to 'replicate' the orbs with dust, talc, flash on/off, bubbles, mist, lens marking etc,. but nothing replicates spontaneous orbs in the series here. I've taken thousands of 35mm and digital shots over the years, but I've never seen anything like this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK thanks. I've tried to 'replicate' the orbs with dust, talc, flash on/off, bubbles, mist, lens marking etc,. but nothing replicates spontaneous orbs in the series here. I've taken thousands of 35mm and digital shots over the years, but I've never seen anything like this.

But other people have. How do you explain (away) that?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


But other people have. How do you explain (away) that?

I can, it's because Luci lives in his own little fantasy world. That, and he's really stupid.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK thanks. I've tried to 'replicate' the orbs with dust, talc, flash on/off, bubbles, mist, lens marking etc,. but nothing replicates spontaneous orbs in the series here. I've taken thousands of 35mm and digital shots over the years, but I've never seen anything like this. Loopy

This was fully explained by Alistair Cook in the secrets of the psychics programme which you slagged off, saying, I recall "merely back of a match box tricks"

You must be really thick to take 1000s of pictures over the years and not be able to do a trick that appears on the back of a match box when it has also been explained clearly on TV and here in this thread.

Have you tried doing it with the lens cap off?

P.S. Have you published your probability theory yet, it really was rather unique. It could win a prize.

[Ed]

Goodness, a prize is the least of it. I am certain it is rich from the lottery by now.

[Correa Neto]

OK, whats the silliest belief:
Orbs or Rods?

I am always amazed how people can belive in them- and even spend money with them.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK thanks. I've tried to 'replicate' the orbs with dust, talc, flash on/off, bubbles, mist, lens marking etc,. but nothing replicates spontaneous orbs in the series here. I've taken thousands of 35mm and digital shots over the years, but I've never seen anything like this.
Example coming shortly. Need to switch to my other computer.

[DickK]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
OK, whats the silliest belief:
Orbs or Rods?

I am always amazed how people can belive in them- and even spend money with them. Jeez, we have rods now? What next, "oh man, look at my latest bunch of snaps. Hey, it's the devil incarnate, he's grinning and playing with those balls and rods, yeah, yeah, look, there's no Quality Failure sticker on it, it's real! Huh? Why is there a sticker on this picture of me at the Goth convention?"

[Pyrrho]

Finally wrested control of this machine from my son...

Photo 1: Room Before

[Pyrrho]

Photo 2: Shake a dishtowel in front of the camera.

[Pyrrho]

Photo 3: Room After

[Pyrrho]

Dust "orb" showing structure:

[Martin]

Clearly, your dishtowel is haunted.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Martin
Clearly, your dishtowel is haunted.
Well, someone who lived in this house did commit suicide. That was many years before we bought that dishtowel, but I suppose they could haunt it if they cared to.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Well, someone who lived in this house did commit suicide. That was many years before we bought that dishtowel, but I suppose they could haunt it if they cared to.

Did they hang themselves with a dish towel? Maybe they get pissed off when one is waved around. Why appeal to the dust theory when we have this perfectly plausible alternative theory?

Might I just say


It's Psironic:D

[iankaplan]

Pyrrho,

That was one of the coolest demonstrations I've ever seen. Congratulations.


On the other hand, you could be lying about what really caused the orbs. How do we know you didn't recite passages from the Necronomicon to make all those spirits appear? ;)

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by iankaplan
Pyrrho,

That was one of the coolest demonstrations I've ever seen. Congratulations.


On the other hand, you could be lying about what really caused the orbs. How do we know you didn't recite passages from the Necronomicon to make all those spirits appear? ;) ]
Cuz I only recite from the Bardo Thodol.

[Pyrrho]

Of course, there is always the Dr. Seuss hypothesis.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0394800788.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Clearly, the images are shown in the opposite order.

First, you took the picture with the orbs - your house is not only in dire need of a major interior design overhaul, it is also riddled with ghosts.

Then, you shook the "Magic Orb Remover (TM)" (available in the foyer).

Last, you took the picture without the orbs.

Debunked. :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by DickK
Jeez, we have rods now? What next, "oh man, look at my latest bunch of snaps. Hey, it's the devil incarnate, he's grinning and playing with those balls and rods, yeah, yeah, look, there's no Quality Failure sticker on it, it's real! Huh? Why is there a sticker on this picture of me at the Goth convention?"

The rod issue has been already discussed here somewhere else...
Rods may be:
(i) insects out of focus;
(ii) interdimensional squids or fishses that fly at amazing speeds and usually can only be seen on film...

I'm sure it has to be alternative (ii), since (i), besides being boring, is typicall of short-sighted close-minded spiritually-underdeveloped people with bad and low vibration patterns...

You know, the sort of people who do not belive in pentawater, homeopathy, atomic weapons from 10000 years ago, conspiracy theories, hollow earth, etc...