Post your UFO photos! or ghost..

[Porterboy]

This footage is worth a look, although it's very poor quality I'm afraid. It was taken by a friend in the museum "Bygone Times" in Lancashire, UK. It is a converted Victorian cotton mill. At one point, the camera follows the object away from the aisle (NB: the camera follows it, not the other way round). This indicates that the photogrpaher can see the object through the viewfinder as he's filming it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8CRyLhwELY

Apologies for the poor quality. The producers are a mother and daughter team who are hoping to release this film onto DVD. I should see them in the autumn and I'll buy a copy. With their permission I'll post a clip here.

 

[Dan O.]

Out of focus bright spots, lens flair, sun glare. Is this all the woo has to offer?

The difference between a woo believer and a scientist is that the scientist is the first one to try and disprove their own theories.

If we had an identical camera to experiment with, I believe we could show that the sun entering the lens at that angle would produce that exact aberration. This is what a scientist would do. A woo would just rush out to publish a DVD.

I've made a counter claim. Now you can try to prove me wrong.

 

[B.S]

Its normal for dust, or moisture, "orbs" to be of many different sizes in the same picture. Dust specks will be different sizes and will also be at different distances in front of the lens. The dust can also be of a variety of different materials, and can be of different colors, and all these factors can result in "orbs" with different looks and different "internal structure" all being in the same picture. You would have to have some extremely specific evidence, that clearly shows an "orb" couldn't be dust, for anyone ( anyone thinking "critically") to accept that something paranormal was happening.

 

[Tamazon]

They're everywhere!! I'm sure the dusty foam pit had nothing to do with this!

 

[Schmitt.]

here is the ghost in the apple orchard. You know, thank goodness for the photoshop anti ghost UFO button.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2180/dsc0164uw4.th.jpg

I'll bet I could pass this off as the ancient Druid burial ground.

Ooh, calls to mind Kipling's They, personally. Very haunting stuff, if you can stand reading short fiction on a screen it's here.

I got a page not found message for the Skeptic Report's link, judging by descriptions is it [URL="http://www.skepticreport.com/psychicpowers/ghostsolution.htm"]this chap[/url]?

 

[Porterboy]

Out of focus bright spots, lens flair, sun glare. Is this all the woo has to offer?

The difference between a woo believer and a scientist is that the scientist is the first one to try and disprove their own theories.

If we had an identical camera to experiment with, I believe we could show that the sun entering the lens at that angle would produce that exact aberration. This is what a scientist would do. A woo would just rush out to publish a DVD.

I've made a counter claim. Now you can try to prove me wrong.

I can't. But I still want to watch that DVD. I promise I'll buy it with my own money, not yours.

I've seen things that could be described as ghosts myself so I'm curious.

And you're correct about the difference between a Woo and a scientist, but I don't see one approach as better than the other. I guess I'm an agnostic Woo!

 

[Porterboy]

You would have to have some extremely specific evidence, that clearly shows an "orb" couldn't be dust, for anyone ( anyone thinking "critically") to accept that something paranormal was happening.

I'll see what I can come up with.

 

[wahrheit]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/45144635d73dd7fbe.jpg

Thanks for the enhanced images. My photographer friend, Barry, has done something similar. I admit it does lok a lot less paranormal now. But are all the objects the same phenomenon? There seems to be a big difference in size between the large object and the other smaller ones.

Sure there's a significant difference in size, as it would be a big surprise to have all dust particles at the exact same distance from the camera.

And I see no reason to think that any of those specks is another "phenomenon" than the others in that picture.

 

[Corsair 115]

Here's something I don't understand: if these orbs are supposedly supernatural in origin, then why do they only show up on film? Why aren't they being seen with the naked eye? This is all the more curious since stardard film is less sensitive than the human eye in terms of colour, contrast, and exposure.

 

[wahrheit]

Here's something I don't understand: if these orbs are supposedly supernatural in origin, then why do they only show up on film? Why aren't they being seen with the naked eye? This is all the more curious since stardard film is less sensitive than the human eye in terms of colour, contrast, and exposure.

There are several reasons, why those "orbs" appear on a camera, but not the naked eye. Here are two of them:

• Many of those orbs are due to the use of a flash while taking the picture. The flash casts an enormous amount of light on that little dust/sand/hair flying through the air, previously unnoticed under regular light conditions. The harsh light of the flash produces a bright spot in the picture, especially for objects close to the lens and flash. Of course, your eye does not use a flash, nor can it send a picture to your brain quick enough when someone else fires a flash to make out those "orbs".
  
• Cameras use a complex array of lenses, which is prune to produce light artefacts. Your eye does not have that many optical elements. You can experience this if you get the chance to take pictures with a high-end lens. A $4000 lens on your camera will produce significantly less "orbs" than the average digital or film camera. That's because a pro photographer taking pictures of a model against the sunset does not want disturbing lens flares in his picture, and smart opticians and expensive lens manifacturing result in better lenses with less light artefacts in the exposed picture.

 

[B.S]

... why do they only show up on film? Why aren't they being seen with the naked eye? ...

I have talked to many believers who claim they "do" see orbs with the naked eye. I'm sure the majority of them are not being honest, but there are some conditions of the eye, and specifically the retina, that can cause you to see lights, even nice, round, moving balls of light. Maybe some of them are suffering from a condition like this and don't know it. I myself have a condition that lets me see very nice, very round, and very bright balls of light swooping around my field of vision several times a day. If I wasn't aware of the condition causing this, and was a believer, I would be claiming to see spirit orbs with my eyes daily.
.

 

[polkablues]

The eyes are capable of all sorts of interesting malfunctions. When my eyes get tired, as when I'm working on the computer for too long without taking a break, I start seeing little black swooshes right on the edge of my field of vision. I've never once considered that they might be spirits on another astral plane dancing around my head, but that's probably just my closed-mindedness at play.

 

[Corsair 115]

I have talked to many believers who claim they "do" see orbs with the naked eye. I'm sure the majority of them are not being honest, but there are some conditions of the eye, and specifically the retina, that can cause you to see lights, even nice, round, moving balls of light. Maybe some of them are suffering from a condition like this and don't know it. I myself have a condition that lets me see very nice, very round, and very bright balls of light swooping around my field of vision several times a day. If I wasn't aware of the condition causing this, and was a believer, I would be claiming to see spirit orbs with my eyes daily.

That's a reasonable answer, except that it wouldn't explain photos where "orbs" are present and there are other people also in the photo. Surely everyone present would have seen the "orbs" if the camera recorded them.

But if no one else saw them, and the "orbs" only appear on the photo, then it seems to me the "orbs" have entirely natural explanations, e.g. dust, etc.

 

[polkablues]

For that matter, someone with very bad astigmatism could probably see, at the moment of the camera flash, the dust particles illuminated in a similar way as the camera lens sees them. Especially if the room was otherwise fairly dark.

 

[B.S]

... But if no one else saw them, and the "orbs" only appear on the photo, then it seems to me the "orbs" have entirely natural explanations, e.g. dust, etc...

Oh yes, definitely. My statement would not be applicable where photos were involved. It was only meant to explain why some people might actually be seeing something real that they might attribute to the paranormal. I don't know of any believers that claim to have seen the same orb that appears on a specific photo, especially in the presence of other people. And if they did, those are the ones I would be most inclined to believe are being dishonest.

polkablues ... thats an interesting thought. I will give it a try and see if it works. Although it might be difficult to get a flash to illuminate dust as close to your eye as it does to the camera lens just below it.
.

 

[Corsair 115]

For that matter, someone with very bad astigmatism could probably see, at the moment of the camera flash, the dust particles illuminated in a similar way as the camera lens sees them. Especially if the room was otherwise fairly dark.

Well, when I get a speck of dust or dirt on my glasses that's the right size, I can certainly see it as an out-of-focus blob, dot, or "orb." Quite irritating too.