Oil, Orbs, and Open Eyes

[Jeff Wagg]

This link came to me in e-mail recently.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_058160642.html

I invite your comment.

[Johnny Pixels]

They look like regular dust orbs in most of the pictures, and the one in the video too.

The oil, probably they need to check with the cleaners as to what they are using to clean the wood. It could be residue from polish or something similar.

[Jeff Wagg]

How about the "moving" orbs?

[Kochanski]

Everything I saw in that video could have a normal everyday explanation.

[Jon.]

Here's another orbs=ghosts story, which was on the front page of the local fishwrap (http://www.vancourier.com/issues06/031106/news/031106nn1.html) yesterday.

I've already written in slamming the story, but anyone else is welcome to add their voice.

[CFLarsen]

How about the "moving" orbs?

A lot of people, waving and fluttering their arms, stirring up a dust bunny.

We Are Not Impressed.

.....can we see something that is impressive?

[Soapy Sam]

First Texan I ever heard of being shocked at discovering oil.

The dust which causes orbs is not usually on the camera lens. It can be a tiny speck drifting by, which is illuminated by on camera flash, or by sunlight. The out of focus 2-d appearance is characteristic of something small and close to the lens. Orbs are extremely rare in macro shots, which is just what you would expect if they are close , o-o-f artifacts.

Dust can also be inside the lens (especially with telephoto zoom units. ) or on the moire filter or IR filter (if there is one) above the CCD.

What shocks me about orb believers is how quickly they reject all the obvious optical causes. I once saw a woman get excited about a ghost in a digital photo, which was quite clearly her own, out of focus finger.

The point of light in the video looks to me like an insect which takes off from near the floor, is lit by one of the many spotlights on the ceiling and flies towards the camera and away.
I can't see it passing through anyone, that's just a matter of contrast. Any data on the video frame rate?

[LeCynthia]

For orbs, check here, http://www.starthinker.com/starthinker/orbs.html . Was done up in a hurry, but explains it pretty well.

[Beleth]

How about the "moving" orbs?
Looked like a moth to me.

[SpaceFluffer]

Hack.

[Jeff Wagg]

Looked like a moth to me.

Yep, that was my thought too.

[Soapy Sam]

I recently saw a video of a supposedly haunted house. The camera was tripped by passive IR motion sensor. There was a putative moving orb in the video which showed the classic, erratic movement of an insect. The apparent high velocity was all angular velocity- it was inside the minimum focal range of the camera , so looked like a large, fast moving object with no detail. My conclusion was a small fly within inches of the camera.

I think the same here. The flat depth of field confuses the issue, making the light appear to start near the people in the distance. I suspect it actually is very close to the camera.

[Gr8wight]

More evidence that people will believe whatever the hell they want to. Shame on the TV station for even reporting it.

[Orb]

As a fellow Orb I am simply shocked at the behavior of my brethren! Streaking at church! Shame on you! And go on a diet, geesh!

[jimlintott]

For orbs, check here, http://www.starthinker.com/starthinker/orbs.html . Was done up in a hurry, but explains it pretty well.
This quick little site sums it up pretty well. Although I think there is one error, that is that the light from the flash hitting the dust speck isn't reflected back as an out of focus blob. The opposite is what usuually happens, the dust spec is reflected back in focus (or close to in focus). That is why we see them. The reason that we see so many is the common digital camera has a very short focal length lens. Short focal length lenses have lots of depth of field. One of the most common CCD sizes is 7.2 X 5.3 mm. A normal focal length lens is the diagonal of the frame. Pythagoras says that a normal length lens on this size CCD is about 9mm. A four time optical zoom might range from 7mm to 28mm. A disposable 35mm camera probably has a focal length anywhere from 28mm to 35mm (a normal 35mm camera lens is 50mm). This predicts that if you find a box of photos shot with 110 film or the infamous Kodak Disc film that their small negative size means short focal length lenses and therefore more orbs.

I've also seen many orbs that in my opinion are lens flare. If the general scene is dark and the orbs are randomly distributed then we know that dust or air born moisture is the most likely cause. If the scene is brighter or has a fairly bright light source and the orbs lay on a straight line, often intersecting the light source, then lens flare is the most likely cause. While lens flare usually has the telltale hexagonal or octagonal shape, lenses with a fixed aperature would have round flares. Airborn particles do seem to be the most common.

The most frustrating thing is that even when you know what is going on and provide rational explanations including math and measurements these people don't want to believe that they have merely taken a bad picture. I guess the paranormal is more fun. I have no idea why.

[Starthinker]

This quick little site sums it up pretty well. Although I think there is one error, that is that the light from the flash hitting the dust speck isn't reflected back as an out of focus blob. The opposite is what usuually happens, the dust spec is reflected back in focus (or close to in focus). That is why we see them. The reason that we see so many is the common digital camera has a very short focal length lens. Short focal length lenses have lots of depth of field. One of the most common CCD sizes is 7.2 X 5.3 mm. A normal focal length lens is the diagonal of the frame. Pythagoras says that a normal length lens on this size CCD is about 9mm. A four time optical zoom might range from 7mm to 28mm. A disposable 35mm camera probably has a focal length anywhere from 28mm to 35mm (a normal 35mm camera lens is 50mm). This predicts that if you find a box of photos shot with 110 film or the infamous Kodak Disc film that their small negative size means short focal length lenses and therefore more orbs.

I've also seen many orbs that in my opinion are lens flare. If the general scene is dark and the orbs are randomly distributed then we know that dust or air born moisture is the most likely cause. If the scene is brighter or has a fairly bright light source and the orbs lay on a straight line, often intersecting the light source, then lens flare is the most likely cause. While lens flare usually has the telltale hexagonal or octagonal shape, lenses with a fixed aperature would have round flares. Airborn particles do seem to be the most common.


Thanks, I hope you guys didn't gobble up my bandwidth as I lost my server and this is just being hosted at home (thanks alot, le). In anycase this was supposed to be followed up by two more pages one showing how if you focus on a point, I used the head of a push pin, in focus you can tell it's a dot but as you you focus on something in the background, and this demonstrates well with a video camera, the head of the pin becomes more and more out of focus and becomes more transparent in the center with a ring on the outside. If you look at the orbs I photographed that's what you mostly see. So while I partially agree that some may be in focus, it's the out of focus specks, and out of focus insects, that are usually mistaken for orbs as they look more like hollow balls than solid specks.

I didn't touch on lense flares because they are more obvious and that was going on the last page. I had many demonstrations to put up but alas, I haven't had the time. Like I said, the second page was going to be more in depth, with videos of moving orbs and orbs "hiding" behind things and showing how orbs magically appear when I wave a duster through a room. I was then going to follow up with some "ghost" pics and perhaps even fake a bigfoot or two. In any case, I kept it simplified for the casual person to see the basics behind what causes orbs and didn't want to get into focal lengths and things a non-expert wouldn't be able to follow. I also wanted to do it in a way to show these things don't have to be staged, how anyone pointing a camera can capture something that appears paranormal.

One more note, this little project started with a book called "How to Photograph the Paranormal" (can't remember the author) and I was going to scan in so-called paranormal pics from the book then recreate them and show how it was done, but I decided against attacking that specific book and made it more general.

Does anyone think it worthwhile to continue with these pages? With some prodding I could find the time.

[TheBoyPaj]

Rather than a moth, I think the moving light is just a dust mote being carried upwards on warm air. The camera seems to be looking downards on the congregation. On a balcony? One would expect rising air currents.

[jimlintott]

Thanks, I hope you guys didn't gobble up my bandwidth as I lost my server and this is just being hosted at home (thanks alot, le). In anycase this was supposed to be followed up by two more pages one showing how if you focus on a point, I used the head of a push pin, in focus you can tell it's a dot but as you you focus on something in the background, and this demonstrates well with a video camera, the head of the pin becomes more and more out of focus and becomes more transparent in the center with a ring on the outside. If you look at the orbs I photographed that's what you mostly see. So while I partially agree that some may be in focus, it's the out of focus specks, and out of focus insects, that are usually mistaken for orbs as they look more like hollow balls than solid specks.

I didn't touch on lense flares because they are more obvious and that was going on the last page. I had many demonstrations to put up but alas, I haven't had the time. Like I said, the second page was going to be more in depth, with videos of moving orbs and orbs "hiding" behind things and showing how orbs magically appear when I wave a duster through a room. I was then going to follow up with some "ghost" pics and perhaps even fake a bigfoot or two. In any case, I kept it simplified for the casual person to see the basics behind what causes orbs and didn't want to get into focal lengths and things a non-expert wouldn't be able to follow. I also wanted to do it in a way to show these things don't have to be staged, how anyone pointing a camera can capture something that appears paranormal.

One more note, this little project started with a book called "How to Photograph the Paranormal" (can't remember the author) and I was going to scan in so-called paranormal pics from the book then recreate them and show how it was done, but I decided against attacking that specific book and made it more general.

Does anyone think it worthwhile to continue with these pages? With some prodding I could find the time.

I was thinking about what I said about focus and realised that I was basically wrong but sort of right. The orbs become enlarged because they are out of focus but I think we still see them because the large depth of field keeps them enough in focus to see them. If they were out of the depth the field they would be obliterated, so far out of focus, that we wouldn't see them.

Yes. I think that the site should be continued. If you detail experiments on how to create these effects I would gladly participate in duplicating them. Repeatability being important to science after all. Hopefully if people could see that there are methods to deliberatley capture what they got by accident they won't think it is so fantastic.

[Smart_Cookie]

Sounds like the 'orbs' have pretty much been dealt with.

But what about the oil? The story said oil on wood AND brass. Probably harder to leave a residue on brass.

But.... I'm not suggesting anything "woo". Any other likely explanations?

And...I'd be wondering if someone may have "helped" the situation along? Seems like the story helped the church get some free publicity.

[Nucular]

I think the most supernatural thing in that whole video was the 'psychologist'...

"No no, of course it's not God and spirits, we have many different types of explanation for this type of phenomenon, and obviously these are MANIFESTATIONS OF PSYCHOKINETIC ENERGY!!!" [Eyes bulge, voice rises in pitch, colleagues glance at one another]

Re: the oil - hard to know, without a sample, but could be just about anything, from someone sneezing a lot, to a new cleaner, to a spillage, hoax, leak, whatever - or, yes, I suppose it could be Jesus sneaking in when no-one's looking and leaving very small amounts of grease around as a 'hilarious' jape.

[Pyrrho]

Orbs = dust and/or bugs.

By way of illustration:

http://pyrrho.s5.com/camera.jpg

Oil...did they confirm that it really was oil? What first occurs to me is sweaty parishioners...it is a charismatic church and people do leave an oily residue...omentum, I think it's called. Anyone who's steamed up a car at the drive-in knows about oily residues on the windows...so:

Oil = leftover omentum from sweaty palms of parishioners.

[T'ai Chi]

Here's one of me in the woodshop.

I was swarmed by orbs that day. ;)

[Gr8wight]

Here's one of me in the woodshop.

I was swarmed by orbs that day. ;)

Which one are you?

[Soapy Sam]

Orbs are attracted to power tools. It's the electromagnetic fields, you know.

[SpaceFluffer]

I've been in contact with the reporter over this story. She's apparently going to make a follow-up and would like to talk to a suitably qualified person about this effect.

I fit the bill, but am a long way from Texas. Anyone local (Dallas/Ft. Worth) that might be interested in commenting on the follow-up story, PM me.

She seems to want "scientists (quantum physicists)" although I explained that this is overkill, and that the effect is easily reproduceable using home video equipment. I also suggested she reproduce the effect in the follow up story.

[vbloke]

oh dear (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/)
honestly, I really can't imagine why this orb is red... (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/redguy.html)

[Dr Richard]

Is the mysterious, oily substance the coming of the lord?

[chipmunk stew]

oh dear (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/)
honestly, I really can't imagine why this orb is red... (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/redguy.html)this is funny:Red Guy is gone! Now, this is really strange because I
noticed when I put the camera on a lot of zoom the Orbs would get fainter,
then finally disappear. The same thing has happened to John with his cameras.
He does shoot with a small amount of zoom and doesn't have any problems,
but when he hikes that zoom up there go the Orbs! It's almost like they can
see what we see in the LCD screen and when they get bigger they might think
Oops! Too close! Or for all I know there may be some kind of change in the
camera frequency or something unknown that happens when objects are
zoomed in on.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

oh dear (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/)
honestly, I really can't imagine why this orb is red... (http://www.orbsbybeans.com/redguy.html)
I can't figure it out.. Is this a parody site?
Can they honestly not figure out what this is, and why the 'red guy' seems to like the truck so much?

I have to believe this is a parody. People can't be this foolish.

[vbloke]

I have to believe this is a parody. People can't be this foolish.

I thought it was at first, but the more I read, the more it seemed real...

[aggle-rithm]

Although there are no true experts on orb photography....


But there are experts in photography. Why didn't they check with one of those, instead of the so-called "professor" of parapsychology?

How do you get into that field, by the way? Do you have to pass a gullibility test?

[Starthinker]

I thought it was at first, but the more I read, the more it seemed real...

If they'd stop taking pictures in the rain or mist, half those orbs would go away!

[kleinjahr]

" photo I had just equalized ", From the orb guys.

Does this mean what I think it does? They were adjusting the image? Perhaps to show the "orbs" in a better light? Ahuh.

[Timothy]

I've been in contact with the reporter over this story. She's apparently going to make a follow-up and would like to talk to a suitably qualified person about this effect.

I fit the bill, but am a long way from Texas. Anyone local (Dallas/Ft. Worth) that might be interested in commenting on the follow-up story, PM me.

She seems to want "scientists (quantum physicists)" although I explained that this is overkill, and that the effect is easily reproduceable using home video equipment. I also suggested she reproduce the effect in the follow up story.

It would be helpful if the expert chosen could show various examples of Fresnel diffraction of dust to show why the "orbs" show a bright bubble-like outer rim and internal structure.

[SpaceFluffer]

Just an update...

The reporter is doing a follow-up and has found a "physicist at a local university" to help with the story. The physicist apparently teaches a class on "how to spot pseudoscience", so hopefully the follow-up story will be more balanced.

[Overman]

In my old Jr. High the floors used to "sweat" and become all kinds of slick in hot weather...Could the oil be something along those lines?

[UrsulaV]

In my old Jr. High the floors used to "sweat" and become all kinds of slick in hot weather...Could the oil be something along those lines?

I was thinking something similiar. Despite the parishioner's terribly convincing statement that "oil don't come from wood or brass!" in my experience, cheap varnish can do some weird tricks when subjected to temperature fluctuations (if they'd had a cold night and then she came in and turned the heat up, say) and constant handling. (Our wooden bleachers back in middle school used to get seriously nasty.) Since I have no way of knowing how much brass there was, if it was a wood pillar with some slender brass bands or trim, for example, I can easily see whatever was on the wood spilling over the brass as well.

[scotth]

Oh crap..... that is a local TV station for me.

When will they understand that idiots confounded by the commonplace is not news.

[Gravy]

Lube is an essential item in many ministers' kit bags.

[steve s]

Isn't it funny that professional photographers never have problems with these orbs? These spirits only seem to manifest themselves to people with cheap point&shoot cameras.

What's really annoying is that I've seen a few sites where they'll say, "Okay, most of these orbs are just dust, but they can't all be dust." Aaarrrggghh!!!

This topic came up over at the Mythbusters forum. Maybe they'll do a show on it and lay it to rest.

Steve S.

[Gr8wight]

Isn't it funny that professional photographers never have problems with these orbs? These spirits only seem to manifest themselves to people with cheap point&shoot cameras.

Not true. It's just that pros toss those shots into the garbage immediately. Pros take lots of bad photographs. They're just smart enough to not let anyone see them.

[scotth]

Gr8wight,

I would say the pros in fact get fewer of the orbs because of the focal length issues as explained already. Garbage floating in the air close to the lens is so far out of focus on the SLR type cameras that they don't register as all.

I can demonstrate the difference real easy by shooting through something like a chain link fence with the two different type of cameras. With a SLR and decent lens, I can nearly make a chain link fence totally dissappear as long as the fence is closer to the camera than to the subject. With a point and shoot, the fence is very obvious in the photo.

[Gr8wight]

Gr8wight,

I would say the pros in fact get fewer of the orbs because of the focal length issues as explained already. Garbage floating in the air close to the lens is so far out of focus on the SLR type cameras that they don't register as all.

I can demonstrate the difference real easy by shooting through something like a chain link fence with the two different type of cameras. With a SLR and decent lens, I can nearly make a chain link fence totally dissappear as long as the fence is closer to the camera than to the subject. With a point and shoot, the fence is very obvious in the photo.

I agree with you. I was just commenting on Steve's misconception that pro photographers never have anomalous things show up in their pictures. Just for fun, you know?

[AmyWilson]

Orbs are more proof of the reality of the spirits. :)

It's true.

[Gr8wight]

Orbs are more proof of the reality of the spirits. :)

It's true.

See, I was right. :)

It's true.