Me and a colleague at work are interested in orbs and would like to meet other like-minded people who organise, or are members of, groups for people interested in this phenomena in the local area.

Please contact me with any information, or if you just fancy a chat about your experiences or theories.

Cheers

my theory is that they are reflection or lens artefacts. and are often the result of compact digicams with the flash very close to the lens.

I've never seen one not on a photograph/digital image.

So you would need a mechanism by which the orbs could appear on film and CCD without being visible to the naked eye.

CCDs have heavy IR filters, but are still sensitive to some IR light (try photographing a remote control with a digicam), but then most photographic film is not IR sensitive.

In any case, I'd opt for the simplest theory, and test that. Somewhere on here I skeched out an experiment that might at least 'shed some light' on the matter, if not resolve it.

That might explain it for cameras that only take photos, but have you ever seen any footage of them moving about? I'm not 100% sure of what they are myself and I don't feel I can theorise without actually having first hand experience of them.

All I can say is, from the videos I've seen, it's not light reflection.

Ive had footage of moving 'orbs', and out of the 20 or so hours of footage I have on video, 3 seconds cannot be explained by dust/insect/moisture..

...bit of a bugger, really...;-)

I agree. But isn't that 3 seconds worth it?

If you fancy a chat about it sometime, you can add me to MSN.

:)

Can you provide links to moving orbs? If it was filmed on a video camera using a CCD I would still say that it's artefacts.

The judicious application of Occam's Razor is required.

You could easily design an experiment…

Just go on YouTube or the like, there's loads of video of the paranormal on there.

Just go on YouTube or the like, there's loads of video of the paranormal on there.

Hardly a suprise..there's video of anything you care to mention on there I guess!

I cant provide a link simply because I havent bothered uploading it, to be quite honest I'm still occasionally looking at it and trying to rule out possible natural cause... (lol! the curse of the sceptical paranormal investigator, eh?)
The only stuff I put on the website or upload is stuff we cant find a natural cause for, and even then we dont claim it as evidence - merely as unexplained... We have on occasion removed pics etc from the website because we have later found natural causes for it.
The main problem with this footage is that it was taken out of doors, so its hard to rule out insects etc. although i must admit, it doesnt move like an insect. The other problem is that its really faint...
Interesting point is that it moves with the gait of a person walking. Which is why its held my interest for so long.

I need to see that!!!!!!

I'll have a look for it later - Ive got piles and piles of tapes containing footage, and my office looks like a warzone at the moment... plus Im on an invo this weekend so it may be after Sunday. Seriously, if it was that good it would already be on the website!

I'm interested to know why any orb ever caught on camera is anything other than a naturally occuring optical effect. It is, as Phanerothyme said, a phenomenon captured only on compact digital cameras, never on film. It's pretty much established now, that orbs are caused by refraction/reflection of - usually - the illumination of the flash which highlights, due to the close proximity of the lens to the flash, minute particles of dust and water vapour directly in front of the camera lens. - It's a telling fact that zoom lenses produce proportionately fewer orbs when operating at full zoom.

I've never come across a paranormal group yet that's failed to respond to those facts by saying, Yeah, we agree with that. But there are the odd 1 or 2 percent of our orbs that we can't explain. Why, I don't know, I find it baffling - there's a strange reluctance to let go and flush the subject away.

One day we will look back at this period of paranormal idiocy and we'll snigger at the beliefs as we now do about ectoplasm and the Cottingley Fairies.

And let's face it, if you have the odd anomaly captured on video and you can't identify it as being an insect, dust or length of swirling hair, why on earth is it even tentatively labeled as "paranormal"? The orb supporters at this point always cry signs of intelligent interaction, but whenever I've seen the footage, it's always more likely to be the camera man creating a draft as he walks towards the dust blob than the "concentrated first signs of spirit manifestation" flying away from him.

Lol! you aint met us then, have you ;-)

And the moving ones in photos - the ones referred to as vortex or energy spirals ??

same thing, slower shutter speed :-)

Hello, Kirsty.

No, I've not met you, but I do know your site very well.

Firstly, let me show you this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/Antsphotos/forum/ORBS.jpg) photograph (ignore the blobs in centre frame - that's my blurred out friends). The photograph was taken in very heavy rain, which shows up as orbs of light. Not all of the orbs are round, some have tails, some look as if they are flying upwards and sideways. They weren't. It was just raining. Interestingly, it's not the torrent that's visible, but the tiny points of rain particles swirling in front of the lens.

Now, onto your site (link (http://www.freewebs.com/syparanormalresearch/)). I hope you don't mind me borrowing an image, it's just for the purposes of demonstration and allows me to make a comparison more easily. Here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/Antsphotos/forum/ORBS_SYPR.jpg) is a photograph from your webpage, taken - I think - by yourself. Same orbs, same apparent flight characteristics.

My point here being that neither of these images are of paranormal origin, or at least, the likelyhood is so small as to be utterly insignificant. I presume you'd agree? So if that's the case, displaying yours prominently in your photograph section with the text which contains the phrase "what appear to be moving orbs" is serving only to feed the myth of the nature of orbs. You also use the phrase "Although it was a calm, dry night...", which we can only infer means that because of the lack of breeze and low humidity, you are ruling out water particles as a source, which is obviously wrong.

You do have a section to discuss your photos, but the orb photograph is currently not available for discussion. This leaves the orb photos to present themselves at face value - paranormal orbs on a paranormal website. By displaying the orb photograph in the manner that you have, especially with the accompanying text, you are adding unwarranted significance to the photograph. Why not just take it down?

Your site is, whatever your skeptical opinion on the nature of orbs, treating them in exactly the same way as all the others.
The same can be said for your "strange mist" photograph, but I'll resist the urge to poke you with the pointy stick about that - it's an orb thread after all.

What's your thoughts?

Hey Ant, the photo as you quite rightly said is misleading, and will be removed shortly. It was originally put on the site before I had come across the explaination you have given, and was meant to be removed along with a couple of others - which I did remove at the time.

As you will appreciate, the study of phenomena is an ongoing thing, with new explainations for existing phenomena thought to be paranormal cropping up every day, and while I do try to keep up to date on research some aspects do get by me.

The website is, as you said, clearly in need of updating, and I thank you for pointing out the photo in question so that I can take it off...

Sad thing is... I know the moisture particle thing!! cant understand how that one got away :-(

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the strange mist photo, though...

and the one I currently have up for discussion?

Thanks for your input, Ant - its much appreciated!!

K

The offending photo has now been removed from the site - along with a further explaination to another photo, which i have left visible to illustrate a false positive.

I would like to apologise to anyone who feels that they have been mislead by information and or photos on our website, I am not infallible and I made a mistake.
The photo on the photo discussion page as yet has not been explained and so remains open to anyones suggestion as to its cause. I can assure you it has not been altered in any way, all the obvious avenues (trees, cobwebs etc.) have been ruled out, and it has been up for analysis for a long time now with no viable cause or explaination. To be quite frank - its bugging me, and i would love to know what caused it!!

Again, thanks to Ant for making me see the error of my ways :-)

I've got some crazy photo's of orbs.

I shall post some links on here very soon. There are hundreds at once in a church yard with a scary story behind it.

Apologies, but need to go off line now. I shall be back to tell the full story!!

Is there perhaps a brickwall nearby upon which I could bang my aching head? :hihi:

I've got some crazy photo's of orbs.

I shall post some links on here very soon. There are hundreds at once in a church yard with a scary story behind it.


It will have been a humid night, Zilily, whether or not you remember it as being particularly humid. And if the photos are of a church interior, it will have been a dusty church, not that you'd have known it as you walked around.

I went out today and got hundreds of orbs do you think my gardens haunted, couldn't stop out to long though because it was ******* it down.:huh: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

I went out today and got hundreds of orbs do you think my gardens haunted, couldn't stop out to long though because it was ******* it down.:huh: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

:wave: Yeah, I'd say it's an Indian burial ground. A very wet one.

...and then theres pollen, which causes lovely big solid looking 'orbs' in a variety of stunning colors...

If it was dry, i mean...

view the pictures yourself. It wasn't raining on the night. It wasn't particulary warm either. Think what you like, I'm really not bothered what people say but I saw what I saw.

And to the person earlier saying that orbs only seem to appear on digital cameras. I have some on normal disposable cameras.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Attackedbyorbs16.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Churchclockatnight17.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Attackedbyorbs16.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Churchclockatnight17.jpg

1st 1 to me anyway, looks like a streetlight through a wet window pane.

edit:
Not trying to rubbish your pics...just what my first reaction to pic was.

No worries, everyone is entitled to their view but I can assure you it was taken in a church yard between 10 and 11pm. And no it wasn't intentional ghost hunting...

view the pictures yourself. It wasn't raining on the night. It wasn't particulary warm either. Think what you like, I'm really not bothered what people say but I saw what I saw.

And to the person earlier saying that orbs only seem to appear on digital cameras. I have some on normal disposable cameras.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Attackedbyorbs16.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/Zimily/On%20Disc/Burgh%20Le%20Marsh/Churchclockatnight17.jpg

Notice a similarity to my photograph (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/Antsphotos/fog.jpg)?

It wasn't raining here either. My orbs aren't paranormal, so it's very doubtful that yours are. The fact that you captured orbs on a compact is explanation enough - it needn't be digital.

But as you're not bothered what people say, I suppose my post is pretty irrelevant.

Did you use the flash on the camera?

Yes it was used

What's needed is new terminology.

The word "orb" now has weighted meaning - sometimes I'm embarrassed to even type it. "Crabs" - there's a good one. I caught crabs last night. - Really? - Yeah, in the churchyard with Ethel the medium.

That may just break the mystique of orb hunting.

okay, so the chances are the first photo, with the flowerbed is in all probability a 'false positive' caused by light refracting off the pollen particles in the near focus area of the cameras lens. The Second one is a similar false positive, though this one does indeed appear to be taken through glass... not sure though.
You can however, recreate the second photo by photographing water spray. Not saying thats how you did it, just saying you can get a similar effect that way.
The reason I asked if the flash had been used ... this effect only appears when there is a strong alternative light source.
You mentioned also having an experience in the churchyard?

Ant... in agreement with the terminology thing... maybe not crabs though, eh?

Sorry - that sounds like I'm saying you set the pic up... didnt mean to..

If the photo wasnt taken through glass - which if it had i would expect to see more flash glare anyway - then it may have been caused by humidity. As I said, you can recreate a similar effect with water spray, and as different types of particle appear differently on photo, this is the explaination I'd go with.

Sorry!

Those photo's were taken in a chuch yard between 10 and 11 at night which is where the strange experience took place. I choose not to go into details about this as I really don't want to get into whether there is an explanation from what happened that night. Sorry.

I share my pictures for people to have a look and decide what they like but I can assure you these were not taken through glass or any effect added. They were taken on the off chance and that was the result.

Notice a similarity to my photograph (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/Antsphotos/fog.jpg)?

It wasn't raining here either. My orbs aren't paranormal, so it's very doubtful that yours are. The fact that you captured orbs on a compact is explanation enough - it needn't be digital.

But as you're not bothered what people say, I suppose my post is pretty irrelevant.

So what do you believe caused that effect on your picture?