Silkroad Online Forums

cin wrote:ummm

idk

but i think they're


photoshopped -.-


either that, or there was some raindrops in front of the lens

Crumpets wrote:Either Bad Camera / Lighting or processing.

Seen these MANY times before. Not spiritual 'orbs'.

BrokenSaint wrote:lol? orbs? Anyways this happens a lot when there are dust particles around the light reflects off those particles. Nothing supernatural o.O

iGod wrote:Someone fetch the straitjacket

What IS an Orb?


Obviously, no one really knows for sure, but Trent Brandon, in his excellent book, "The Ghost Hunter's Bible" says

"Many paranormal investigators believe that orbs are the essence of the soul or "life force" left behind after death. Orbs are perfect circles of pure energy that can be photographed and videotaped but almost never seen with the naked eye. Floating orbs retain a conscience with the same emotions, intelligence and personality traits of the living individual it represents".



I've been getting many emails saying "that's nothing but DUST!" to "that's a REAL orb!", and, sometimes, the former get kind of "snippy" about it! At this point, i don't know how to "prove" it either way....... (but, then, THEY can't, either!). I'm currently experimenting with "perspective" tests, as well as investigating 3-D photography. I'll keep you posted as to my results.


Lately, i've been hearing idiotic statements (from sites like "Ghost Study") that any picture with more than 3 orbs in it is probably dust. I'd like to know who the idiot is who came up with THAT number! Why "3"? It's a generally-accepted theory that an "orb is the first stage of a manifestion (apparition)". If this is true, then many, many orbs would have to "come together" (like living tissue cells) to generate the energy & substance needed to form an apparition.


IMHO, photos that show MANY orbs are the "2nd stage" of this. (The first stage being orbs -- "psychic energy" -- just "floating around". If conditions are right, they will merge and the 3rd stage (apparition) will be created.


Also, i myself have taken pix showing dozens of orbs, and IMMEDIATELY took another photo (as fast as my digital camera could charge -- 1 to 3 seconds). If it WAS dust, where did EVERY SINGLE dust particle go? How come they're ALL gone? You'd think that 1 or 2 would remain in the picture. People who parrot this sort of nonsense are FOOLS! (And, i don't give a damn WHAT their "credentials" are! Unlike them, I'M using Common Sense!).


I've also been told that "digital cameras" can cause "color correction of the pixels in dim light", and that they should NOT be used for ghost hunting. BS! As a test, i took over THREE HUNDRED pictures in different kinds of lighting conditions, and did not record ONE orb!


(I personally think you have a much better chance of capturing a REAL orb than that "color correction" nonsense! (Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that it doesn't happen; i just don't think that it happens as much as these "experts" seem to think it does).


IMHO, i feel that 35mm photography is MUCH MORE suseptible to creating "images", due to faults with the film itself, chemical developing, & printing processes. But, that's just MY opinion!


My opinion is backed up by a friend of mine, who actually worked in a film developing lab and really knows his stuff about 35mm photography. He writes:


"The idea of color correction causing the orbs isn't right. Film has just as many, if not more problems than digital. I've been involved EXTENSIVELY with color darkroom materials and convention photography shooting back from 1982-6. I worked with a company called Instrumentation Associates out of Merritt Island, and designed, built and tested darkroom color processors. I've even made my own custom color formulas for developing films and had my own color darkroom. In the 90's I attended AFI taking digital courses, and can tell you, the correction simply shits the gamma (the slope of the 3 color curves). It is my opinion that digital ccd sensor would probably provide a degree of repeatability that is desirable, actually"....


I think it depends on what you've come to believe (and, *I* believe that they ARE orbs!), so pls don't write me any "snippy" letters unless you can backup (with PROOF) what you're saying!
Happy Hunting!

NuclearSilo wrote:

Rakion wrote:i'm pretty much convinced to this dude =/