|View single post by Gizmo|
|Posted: Jan 8th, 2013 11:57 AM||
I think its important to note that the issue of "orbs" has not been put to rest and that some cannot be explained away. I think people interested in the paranormal should not put too much stock in the ideas of others when they make definitive or absolute statements concerning the validity of certain anomalous activity.
You make excellent points.
I will agree that there are anomalies out there that might be captured and look like dust orbs, but that are paranormal in origin.
Unfortunately, the term "orb" has been forever tainted by the plethora of shots of nothing more than dust or moisture. It's appropriate to point out the over-use and ignorance associated with this term. I think there needs to be a new one coined, myself, to cover the light anomalies that ARE apparently paranormal.
I think an absolute statement is not too extreme if there is absolute scientific explanation for something. However, just as it is not impossible for the apple sitting on my kitchen counter to be a little green alien, it is not impossible for one of the many orbs in a dust orb shot to be a light anomaly.
It's just not likely.
And shoddy techniques involving cheap little digital cameras using a flash in dark, dusty areas are helping to promote this massive myth. It gets embarrassing, frankly.
I must clarify that I am a person who has a very strong belief in the paranormal. I have witnessed things, experienced things, and known others who have. I am not a doubter in the possibility of energy flying around. I am, however, quite firm in my desire to stamp out the vast misunderstanding that is embedded in the paranormal community about what exactly causes backscatter (circles of confusion) in photos, and how to avoid it tainting evidence with techniques guaranteed to produce false positive readings.
I am not an expert in photography. I did teach it for 20 some years, however, and that experience of making pictures both by hand in the darkroom, and in the digital platform has taught me to understand what a camera can and cannot do. Can and cannot capture. It is a tool that measures and records light in the visible spectrum (or IR spectrum, depending on the camera's designed and pre-programmed capabilities.)
It is not magic.
(As an aside, my students all made cameras using crude methods. Cardboard and electricians tape. Pinhole for lens. Photo paper for 'film.' What was one of the first things a lot of them did? They faked ghost pictures. Yep. With a long exposure, it was cool to slip someobdy in the shot for part of it and get a transparent ghost image. So, if a 16 year old can do this with crappy hand held, hand made cameras, how hard is it?)
I also understand quite a lot about how evidence can be faked or mistaken.
I'd love to see a great ghost picture. I'm still looking. I've seen a couple that had me pretty excited, but not often. And they are not the ones you see all over the net that claim to be "real ghosts." Sadly, most are pretty easily debunked.
You are looking at why things might happen. I am doing the same from a debunking angle. I find myself accepting those things that cannot be explained. But if I see a major issue in either understanding or conclusions, I'm going to speak up to try to shine a light on the problems, so we don't just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and add to the reasons that the field is discounted as pseudo-science or new age hocus pocus.
Last edited on Jan 8th, 2013 12:06 PM by Gizmo