Post by CPTim on Mar 5, 2008 10:25:01 GMT -5
Okay
Let me just start by stating, this is my opinion and only my opinion. This posting could be critized for its content and I understand that. Its my conclusion and only mine, and I hope I dont crush anyones beliefs or bust bubbles, as that is not my intent. Those that know me, know that I am a skeptic that believes anything could be out there, but we have to find it and PROVE it.
After doing paranormal investigation now for over 10 years and always having my doubts on "ORBS", I have come to the conclusion in my mind that MOST if not ALL "ORB" pictures mean nothing in direct correlation in proving ghosts exist.
First, the term ORB is a popular name given by paranormal investigators, not anyone in the science community to describe circle anomalies or energy patterns appearing in photographs. When I first started surfing the web in 1995 when I got seriously interested in ghosts, I found that Dave and Sharon Oester from the IGHS was using this term back then, and I think they actually made this term up and for a specific reason. I will explain my thoughts about this further in this posting.
Even back then as today there are only two main trains of thought regarding the cause of orbs in photographs and as proof or dis-proof ghosts exist. The first sees it simply as a case of flash or light reflection off of dust, particles, insects, or moisture droplets in the air in front of the camera distorted by the digital cameras CCD senor being unable to focus, a clear natural cause of orbs.
Now, the opposite side of this theroy maintains that orbs are paranormal in nature and are spirits, non-naturalistic and ghost like. The believers tend to correlate this to psychoenergetic science (Ghost energy) and not traditional science.
The problem IS and I sincerely believe this whole hearted. "Orb" photos have become so common and I have taken so many in normal settings that did not have a reputation of being haunted that I am going to no longer accept them as any form of evidence. The issue being that there was no pre-recorded example prior to the availability of digital camera technology and its inferior focus.
Meaning that before digital photography there was NO mulitple pictures of orbs available and no proof. Ghost hunters started using digital cameras and suddenly the ORB phenomena was born and there are millions of pics now. I use this for example, Dr Hans Holzer, who has helped formed my beliefs and in my opinion is the leading foremost authority on modern day (1960's through present) paranormal phenomena never mentions "ORBS" in any of his books dating back to 1965 as a fact, myth or explanation to his findings and he has taken thousands of picture, mainly using 35mm cameras.
The next issue I have is that ORBS make up the largest presence of 'ghost photos' on the internet, which means that the bulk of the "Ghost" pictures date from the early 90's to now??? ...think about it. Some could say technology has caught up, but I think that is a false statement, there has always been photography in the main stream since the 1920-40's and EVP has been around as a reseasonable phenomena since the 1940's, so there has been paranormal capturing devices for 70 years. Whether all these mass pictures are due to the fact orbs and light ball pictures are easier to generate accidentally and provide a result for the photographer seeking to find controversy. I actually think ORBS were invented because of the lack of other scientifically credible 'evidence' of the paranormal and paranormal investigators needed something to explain all the "Light ball" pictures they were getting with digital photography when digital was first coming out.
Think about this, there are just a few hundred, maybe thousand good pictures of apparations and partial or full anomalies, but millions of "ORB" pictures.
Here is a few facts about digital cameras...
Orbs are most commonly gained using digital cameras and built-in flash. While photographers with archives of photos report having occasionally seen "orbs" in their photos gained with film cameras no evidence has been presented that this is not a modern light error arising in CCD sensors of film cameras, and the recent rise in reports of orb photos may be directly related to the common availability of digital cameras and associated rise in the number of pictures taken.
Another result of naturalistic orbs will result in "colored" orbs. colors will range from white and semi-transparent, to greens, reds, blues, and golds. These are results of reflections from moving or stationary objects in the viewspace in the camera. One example is water. Think of it as a rainbow. when light passes through the water droplet, it creates a small rainbow effect. Dust creates the "halo" effect where it's solid on the outside "ring", but transparent as you look towards the center. This refraction off dust particles can also result in the elleged "orb" smiling at you.
There are also orbs showing up without any "environmental" explanation i.e. no visible dust, no rain, no moisture, no snowing, no light reflections, etc. However, dust particles are present in our environments at all times undetectable to the naked eye.
The size of the camera is another consideration in the recent proliferation of orb photos. As film cameras, and then digital cameras, have steadily shrunk in size, reports of "orbs" increased accordingly. As cameras became smaller, the distance between the lens and the built-in flash also shrank, decreasing the angle of reflection back into the lens causing less focus on small light artifacts and thus an orblike appearance.
This is what I think is happening in digital photography technology to cause the "ORB" craze. I firmly believe that the "Ghost Hunters" that make a full time living in field do not want the controvesy to die, and will not completely debuke them because its less content for their websites, would draw less people submitting photgraphs, which means less selling of crap on their websites. (I.E. Ghost photography training courses, or the $19.95 per month to view the "incredible photography libraries" they have posted)
I however am still a believer that photos of all kinds should be taken as I have viewed and captured aparations using photography of all kinds. As for me I am no longer accepting ORBS personally as a form of paranormal evidence. I will view ORB pictures when only "exceptional" examples can be presented with no explanation and I see more on film cameras that have been documented.
Does this mean that everyone of us should throw out our digital cameras or stop taking pictures...NO, NO, NO...we should still take dig pics, but I am just going to discard all my ORB pictures unless they are incredible in nature and I will only look at apparational or other phenomena pictures as possible evidence.
(footnote.....Parts of my posting regarding digital photography facts were used from another photography article source, because it closely matched my views and knowledge on the subject)
Let me just start by stating, this is my opinion and only my opinion. This posting could be critized for its content and I understand that. Its my conclusion and only mine, and I hope I dont crush anyones beliefs or bust bubbles, as that is not my intent. Those that know me, know that I am a skeptic that believes anything could be out there, but we have to find it and PROVE it.
After doing paranormal investigation now for over 10 years and always having my doubts on "ORBS", I have come to the conclusion in my mind that MOST if not ALL "ORB" pictures mean nothing in direct correlation in proving ghosts exist.
First, the term ORB is a popular name given by paranormal investigators, not anyone in the science community to describe circle anomalies or energy patterns appearing in photographs. When I first started surfing the web in 1995 when I got seriously interested in ghosts, I found that Dave and Sharon Oester from the IGHS was using this term back then, and I think they actually made this term up and for a specific reason. I will explain my thoughts about this further in this posting.
Even back then as today there are only two main trains of thought regarding the cause of orbs in photographs and as proof or dis-proof ghosts exist. The first sees it simply as a case of flash or light reflection off of dust, particles, insects, or moisture droplets in the air in front of the camera distorted by the digital cameras CCD senor being unable to focus, a clear natural cause of orbs.
Now, the opposite side of this theroy maintains that orbs are paranormal in nature and are spirits, non-naturalistic and ghost like. The believers tend to correlate this to psychoenergetic science (Ghost energy) and not traditional science.
The problem IS and I sincerely believe this whole hearted. "Orb" photos have become so common and I have taken so many in normal settings that did not have a reputation of being haunted that I am going to no longer accept them as any form of evidence. The issue being that there was no pre-recorded example prior to the availability of digital camera technology and its inferior focus.
Meaning that before digital photography there was NO mulitple pictures of orbs available and no proof. Ghost hunters started using digital cameras and suddenly the ORB phenomena was born and there are millions of pics now. I use this for example, Dr Hans Holzer, who has helped formed my beliefs and in my opinion is the leading foremost authority on modern day (1960's through present) paranormal phenomena never mentions "ORBS" in any of his books dating back to 1965 as a fact, myth or explanation to his findings and he has taken thousands of picture, mainly using 35mm cameras.
The next issue I have is that ORBS make up the largest presence of 'ghost photos' on the internet, which means that the bulk of the "Ghost" pictures date from the early 90's to now??? ...think about it. Some could say technology has caught up, but I think that is a false statement, there has always been photography in the main stream since the 1920-40's and EVP has been around as a reseasonable phenomena since the 1940's, so there has been paranormal capturing devices for 70 years. Whether all these mass pictures are due to the fact orbs and light ball pictures are easier to generate accidentally and provide a result for the photographer seeking to find controversy. I actually think ORBS were invented because of the lack of other scientifically credible 'evidence' of the paranormal and paranormal investigators needed something to explain all the "Light ball" pictures they were getting with digital photography when digital was first coming out.
Think about this, there are just a few hundred, maybe thousand good pictures of apparations and partial or full anomalies, but millions of "ORB" pictures.
Here is a few facts about digital cameras...
Orbs are most commonly gained using digital cameras and built-in flash. While photographers with archives of photos report having occasionally seen "orbs" in their photos gained with film cameras no evidence has been presented that this is not a modern light error arising in CCD sensors of film cameras, and the recent rise in reports of orb photos may be directly related to the common availability of digital cameras and associated rise in the number of pictures taken.
Another result of naturalistic orbs will result in "colored" orbs. colors will range from white and semi-transparent, to greens, reds, blues, and golds. These are results of reflections from moving or stationary objects in the viewspace in the camera. One example is water. Think of it as a rainbow. when light passes through the water droplet, it creates a small rainbow effect. Dust creates the "halo" effect where it's solid on the outside "ring", but transparent as you look towards the center. This refraction off dust particles can also result in the elleged "orb" smiling at you.
There are also orbs showing up without any "environmental" explanation i.e. no visible dust, no rain, no moisture, no snowing, no light reflections, etc. However, dust particles are present in our environments at all times undetectable to the naked eye.
The size of the camera is another consideration in the recent proliferation of orb photos. As film cameras, and then digital cameras, have steadily shrunk in size, reports of "orbs" increased accordingly. As cameras became smaller, the distance between the lens and the built-in flash also shrank, decreasing the angle of reflection back into the lens causing less focus on small light artifacts and thus an orblike appearance.
This is what I think is happening in digital photography technology to cause the "ORB" craze. I firmly believe that the "Ghost Hunters" that make a full time living in field do not want the controvesy to die, and will not completely debuke them because its less content for their websites, would draw less people submitting photgraphs, which means less selling of crap on their websites. (I.E. Ghost photography training courses, or the $19.95 per month to view the "incredible photography libraries" they have posted)
I however am still a believer that photos of all kinds should be taken as I have viewed and captured aparations using photography of all kinds. As for me I am no longer accepting ORBS personally as a form of paranormal evidence. I will view ORB pictures when only "exceptional" examples can be presented with no explanation and I see more on film cameras that have been documented.
Does this mean that everyone of us should throw out our digital cameras or stop taking pictures...NO, NO, NO...we should still take dig pics, but I am just going to discard all my ORB pictures unless they are incredible in nature and I will only look at apparational or other phenomena pictures as possible evidence.
(footnote.....Parts of my posting regarding digital photography facts were used from another photography article source, because it closely matched my views and knowledge on the subject)