 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Dec 29th, 2012 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
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.
Granted, I think many instances of false positives exist but I have also seen many instances, both from still shots and video that cannot be explained away. I have recorded "orbs" that show intelligent control with IR video and was lucky enough to capture them in a still shot. On the same investigation, I recorded another orb at the exact time it passed in front of my ELF detector (giving an audible signal). I use these still shots as a standard for judging my other captures, which might be false positives.
With that said, there are no fool-proof ways of determining whether an orb is real or not without secondary evidence to support it. Other factors to take into consideration are the atmospheric conditions at the time of the capture. Ambient temperature, humidity, light levels, and the presence of dust, insects, etc. should all play into your consideration when collecting evidence. Atmospheric conditions have a huge affect on electrical activity.
Accepting that "orbs" are not valid because of a perceived consensus in the paranormal community, requires a look at the investigators who form this consensus. Weigh the evidence and their opinion based on their methods (discipline) of collection and consider their level of expertise in natural science. Though we cannot begin to know what mechanisms drive the manifestation of paranormal activity, we can determine the effects it has on our local environment by comparing it to known (similar) phenomena.
Ask yourself questions and then look for answers. How can a ball of light, which gives off a measurable electromagnetic field (EMF) form in our atmosphere? How are EMFs formed to begin with? Is it possible to have a single-point charge or could it be a the result of an electric charge with two poles (dipole)?
Just those few questions alone will result in a Google search with many pages of results. My point is, don't take any one's word or a single explanation for recorded activity. Investigate for yourself and please do not take another researcher's word as being gospel just because they claim years of experience. Compare many reputable sources to form your hypothesis.
Best Regards,
Frank
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