Orb information resource

[MRT]

I am sure most readers here will be aware that orbs are photographic artefacts - specifically out of focus bits of dust, water droplets, insects etc caught in the flash of a (usually digital) camera. However, there are still many people out there (just look around the web!) who prefer a paranormal explanation. If you come across such people and wish to save them the trouble of pointless speculation, you could do worse than point them towards this web site http://www.theorbzone.com/ - the Orb Zone.

The Orb Zone theory (which is an expanded version of the explanation offered by the camera manufacturers), explains not only the basic orb phenomena but all the various details that some people use to cling on to a paranormal explanation eg. unusual shapes or colours, apparent movement, apparent association with haunted locations, etc.

I have examined hundreds of photos of orbs by dozens of photographers using almost as many different models of camera. I have yet to come across a single photo that wasn't explained by the Orb Zone theory. For instance, I was shown a photo with 'ordinary' orbs in front of a background that was too close to be in focus (an accident with the autofocus). This, on its own, demonstrates that orbs are not 'in focus and out there' but really 'out of focus and extremely close to the lens'!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Can I ask, how have you managed to see so many?

I've never had anyone show me an orb yet :-\

[MRT]

I analyse anomalous photos for ASSAP. Most photos show 'standard' orbs but sometimes you get something unusual, like a 'moving' orb (this is usually just several overlapping orbs produced by the same object, such as a small insect). Orbs are produced by highlights on an object, not the object as a whole. That's why they are circular because they are out of focus points of light. Once you understand that, it is quite easy to work out how almost any orb photo came about.

[Allo Allo]

I analyse anomalous photos for ASSAP. Most photos show 'standard' orbs but sometimes you get something unusual, like a 'moving' orb (this is usually just several overlapping orbs produced by the same object, such as a small insect).

Why is this selection (http://www.assap.org/newsite/htmlfiles/Orbs%20gallery.html) of orbs chosen in particular as examples of orbs (on your website)?

[Allo Allo]

What do you think about Unified Field Pasmoids (http://www.orbstudy.com/BIZyCart.ASP?STYLE=BASE&GROUP=Research&NEXTPAGE=Research-G.htm&THISPAGE=Catalog.htm&THISGROUP=CONTENTS&CLIENT=OrbStudy&ACCOUNT=16871)?

[MRT]

The selection of photos of orbs represents various aspects of orbs which are often taken as showing that they are paranormal whereas they can all be explained by the Orb Zone theory. Thus it includes oddly shaped orbs (eg. the 'truncated' orbs, frequently seen on the edges of photos - but never in the midlle - are from vignetting, indicating that the object causing them is very close to the camera), apparently moving orbs (the overlapping orbs are caused by a single object, like an insect, with multiple highlights while the tail orb is genuine movement - falling raindrops which can move significantly during a camera flash discharge), coloured orbs, daylight orbs and ones supposedly behind objects in the picture (an illusion that digital photography is particularly prone to because it has a tendency to burn out light areas). They are all explained if you click on the relevant picture. People like galleries so, hopefully, they will browse, click and learn (and I suspect, in some cases, be dissappointed!).

I couldn't get on to the orbstudy site as it's down at the moment but I've visited it many times in the past. The idea of some kind of variety of plasma as a cause of orbs is quite common among those who don't agree that they are photographic artefacts. It presumably comes from the appearance of the orb, though why such an energetic light source they should be invisible to the naked eye I'm not sure. It certainly isn't that they are only visible in infra-red as digital cameras are, contrary to received opinion, no more sensitive to it than film cameras were.

The trouble with many alternative theories is that they do not make any testable predictions (indeed, often no predictions at all!), unlike the orb zone theory. For instance, here's a preduction from OZT for you: you will never seen an orb greater than one-tenth the size of the photo frame. If orbs were real spherical objects floating around out there it's difficult to see why one or two shouldn't float closer once in a while. PS: Any larger 'orbs' that you see will be obvious lens flare!

[vbloke]

The idea of some kind of variety of plasma as a cause of orbs is quite common among those who don't agree that they are photographic artefacts. It presumably comes from the appearance of the orb, though why such an energetic light source they should be invisible to the naked eye I'm not sure. It certainly isn't that they are only visible in infra-red as digital cameras are, contrary to received opinion, no more sensitive to it than film cameras were.This should be fairly easy to test if you use an infra-red camera to film where you're taking pictures. Any orbs should show up on both cameras. If not, then it's a camera artefact.

[Dr B]

I know Maurice and ASSAP have studied technical aspects of 'orbs' for sometime now and have an extensive series of testing sessions planned or even carried out.

It is a welcome tonic in the current age of MH-influenced nonsense.:cheesy:

[Cuddles]

The idea of some kind of variety of plasma as a cause of orbs is quite common among those who don't agree that they are photographic artefacts.

There seems to be a trend with some paranormal "researchers" that they desperately want to think of something that isn't mainstream, even if it isn't actually paranormal. Crop circles seem to have the same problem. The idea that crop circles are caused by plasma or weird atmospheric vortices seems to be popular even though there is exactly as much evidence for aliens, and it fits in with accepted science about as well. Some of the ideas about orbs seem similar, they don't fit in with any accepted science and there is absolutely no evidence, but because there are no obviously paranormal claims people seem to think they are acceptable as theories.

[MRT]

Quote 'This should be fairly easy to test if you use an infra-red camera to film where you're taking pictures. Any orbs should show up on both cameras. If not, then it's a camera artefact.'

It's actually very difficult to test this idea in the way you suggest because ordinary digital cameras are very insensitive to infra-red! It would therefore be difficult to construct an illumination set up that gave a level playing field.

Also, I don't quite follow the logic of your test. The Orb Zone Theory (OZT) would predict that orbs would show up as easily in infra-red as in visible light. That's because dust can reflect infra-red just as easily as visible light. So 'If not, then it's a camera artefact' does not follow.

Some paranormal theories of orbs (though speculation might be a better term than theory) claim that orbs can only be seen in infra-red which is why people don't see them when they're taking the photo. The OZT says the reason you don't see orbs when you take the photo is because it's caused by dust which is generally too small to see. In fact, you CAN see orbs when you take photos but only by looking through the viewfinder of the camera as you take a flash photo. They appear as bright circular blobs that flash in and out of existence instantly. It's not easy but it's possible and I've done it (which is why doing infra-red tests are not top of my list of things to do).

The infra-red confusion in paranormal theories comes from the fact that the digital sensors in cameras are indeed more sensitive to infra-red than 35mm film. However, camera manufacturers deliberately install permanent infra-red filters in their cameras to stop the infra-red. (Some people remove them to get infra-red cameras but it can damage the camera - see http://www.photocritic.org/2006/removing-the-ir-filter-from-slr-camera/). That's because infra-red affects the colours recorded by the chip making them look different to the original colours. As a result, digital cameras are typically 1000x more sensitive to light than to infra-red. So paranormal orbs must be incredibly bright at infra-red wavelengths. What is more, the efficiency of the infra-red filters used varies hugely from camera to camera (see http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index.html?ir_comparisons.html) so orb brightness should vary hugely as well - but it doesn't! Finally, I think something bright enough in the near infra-red to show up on a digital camera would have been incredibly obvious to scientists decades ago and also extremely unlikely not to be visible at light wavelengths.

Getting back to the proposed test. The OZT predicts orbs at both infra-red and visible wavelengths. Paranormal theories predict orbs only at infra-red wavelengths. So the test should be between a camera restricted to infra-red and another which allowed in visible light but where infra-red was totally blocked out. OZT would predict orbs in both cameras whereas paranormal theories would predict orbs only in the infra-red camera. This test would be possible using an infra-red passing filter and an infra-red blocking filter. As I said at the start though, sorting out a light source would be tricky.

[MRT]

The Orbstudy website is back up! The plasmoids they are discussing there are spheres of mini ball lightning, as far as I can make out. Ball lightning is, of course, still controvertial though most scientists at least agree now that it exists! Most theories are based on some variation of stable confined plasma. If orbs were really plasma, I can't see why they wouldn't be visible. The photographic artefact theory is simpler, testable and it works. There are no orbs on their site that look any different to the hundreds I've looked at from other people which can all be explained by the Orb Zone theory.

Orbs, it seems to me, are consistently misrepresented. If they are photographed in a haunted house or graveyard they are called 'ghosts'. If they are photographed in a crop circle they are described as 'telluric energy'. If they appear in a photo of someone who subsequently died they are a 'sign' or even a 'spirit'. Orbs appear everywhere in all sorts of pictures but, because people don't have a straightforward explanation for them, they sometimes get hijacked by the beliefs of the photographer.

This brings me neatly back to the point of this thread. If we can show people how orbs are created, perhaps some of the more outlandish claims will vanish. OK, so that's wishful thinking :smiley: but I have had some success with some people. Just push people to the orb zone website and see if they get it.

[Allo Allo]

I read the paper on the Orb Site. The diagram very much interested me. For several years I have been taking digital pictures with a Powershot 40 Canon. I have NEVER had an orb. On another thread here I read on a link that you have to "ask" ! them to appear and they especially can be captured around people. So, being the intrepid scientist I am, I got the people, we "asked" and I have photos of orbs! These pictures were taken in a room with a coloured wall (because I read you need a darkish background). Not for one minute do I really think the orbs came because we asked. I set the camera up on the ironing board so that it was stable and the shots are taken from one place. Shot every ten seconds. I think that I accidently got the camera in exactly the right distance from the subjects so that orbs appeared. I have taken other photos of that room recently because we are selling the house and I preferred taking my own rather than letting the estate agent do it. There are no orbs in those photos. I think this is because I held the camera and aimed for the most "photogenic" shots.

Well, this is my current theory anyway....

So my next scientific test will be to measure the distance from the subjects that my camera produced the orbs - and then do a series of shots somewhere else (on my ironing board!) from the same distance. Any suggestions?

[Cuddles]

So my next scientific test will be to measure the distance from the subjects that my camera produced the orbs - and then do a series of shots somewhere else (on my ironing board!) from the same distance. Any suggestions?

The trouble with your test is that there was more than one variable. You asked and you got people. Presumably you also didn't act exactly the same so there could be other slight differences. This means it is impossible to seperate the effects from any of the possible influences. For example, try taking photos with and without people present with no asking, then try with and without asking but with no people present.

Also, how many photos did you take? If it involved getting a group of people together I would imagine it wasn't very many. While it seems likely to have been simply an effect of people stiring up dust or something similar, there is always the possibility of pure coincidence. If you only have a couple of photos you can't really establish anything, but if you took hundreds that all had orbs then there must be something going on.

Finally, you need controls. While you have been taking photos for years, the vast majority of them won't recreate the conditions of the test. In order to test properly you need to take photos not only while people are present or while asking, but also before you start doing anything and after the test is over. My prediction would be that the "before" photos won't show anything but that the test photos and the "after" photos will be very similar.

[MRT]

It sounds as though the orb zone for your camera is very small. Getting so few orbs would make any experiments difficult - the sample sizes would be too small to be useful.

The people in your experiment may have generated extra dust movement, both through moving around and their body temperatures (convection). They may have provided an additional source of dust. Most household dust consists of fibres from clothes, furniture, carpets, etc.

If you want to get more orbs, try putting your camera into Macro mode and taking flash photos. Macro mode brings the nearest point in focus much closer to the lens and flash. The brightness of orbs (or any object shining by reflected light) is related to (a) the brightness of the light source (the flash), (b) the reflectivity of the object (dust grain), (c) the distance of the object from the light source and (d) its distance from the observer (the camera). Going into Macro mode effectively reduces (d).

[Allo Allo]

The trouble with your test is that there was more than one variable. You asked and you got people. Presumably you also didn't act exactly the same so there could be other slight differences. This means it is impossible to seperate the effects from any of the possible influences. For example, try taking photos with and without people present with no asking, then try with and without asking but with no people present.

Also, how many photos did you take? If it involved getting a group of people together I would imagine it wasn't very many. While it seems likely to have been simply an effect of people stiring up dust or something similar, there is always the possibility of pure coincidence. If you only have a couple of photos you can't really establish anything, but if you took hundreds that all had orbs then there must be something going on.

Finally, you need controls. While you have been taking photos for years, the vast majority of them won't recreate the conditions of the test. In order to test properly you need to take photos not only while people are present or while asking, but also before you start doing anything and after the test is over. My prediction would be that the "before" photos won't show anything but that the test photos and the "after" photos will be very similar.

Yes - good points here - I did take before and after - I'll count how many I took - can't remember right now.Not hundreds! Not all the pictures had orbs. I wondered if more orbs appeared as the camera hotted up - but the second picture of the series had a good orb in it when the camera was still "cool". You are right that another possibility is that the people (only two good meditators) actually stirred up dust while settling in.

I thought I should take another series in a still room (closed up before the experiment) and another set (from my ironing board) after I'd pounded around stirring up the dust.

I think the dust might always be there - the distance from the wall/seating might be the thing that makes orbs appear as per the diagram I saw.

I have been disappointed because a Canon Powershot 40 usually produces orbs - but mine has never done so. I've been trying to "force" it to - I even spent an hour wasting my time in the Cemetary here!!!!

MRT - I get a good percentage of photos with orbs under the conditions I described - something is obviously "right"!

I just counted of that particular day I appear to have taken only 38 pics of the meditators of which there were orbs in 17 pictures... and 8 pics afterwards (not before) with no 2 with an orb...

[Allo Allo]

Just did a series of photos in a still room and then a disturbed room (my granddaughter disturbed it happily for me!) and I got orbs in the second (disturbed) series - must be perfect orb dust here!

I really must vacumn!

[MRT]

I've written a new web page about the Orb Zone Theory on the ASSAP web site (at http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Orb%20Zone%20Theory.html). This is a case study showing how the theory has evolved and been tested. It shows how many claims that orbs are paranormal are easily refuted.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

How do you EXPLAIN this then :-X

http://mythianlodge.co.uk/Main_Page.htm

(scroll down to Orbs page).

It was before a funeral so they must be dead people :cheesy:

Note they say there are many differing opinions as to what orbs are - and then just state what their stupid belief is.

[MRT]

I hate it when I go to a website and straight away have to mute the sound! Anyway, someone taking photos in a place so big that the flash cannot illuminate the subject (all those flashes you see from the audience in huge arenas!) is just asking for dust orbs.

[bindeweede]

I've written a new web page about the Orb Zone Theory on the ASSAP web site (at http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Orb%20Zone%20Theory.html). This is a case study showing how the theory has evolved and been tested. It shows how many claims that orbs are paranormal are easily refuted.

A friend of mine made his first Orb picture yesterday - first attempt.

He closed the curtains, put his camera to macro focus, shook a duster in front of the lens, pressed the button, and Hey Presto - 5 lovely orbs.

[Muttley]

Interesting thread, this. I have never seen orbs in any of my photographs, but then I hardly ever use flash. But I have now had a go, using a methodology very similar to what bindeweede described, and what do you know? Suddenly I have orbs.O0

What do you think about Unified Field Plasmoids (http://www.orbstudy.com/BIZyCart.ASP?STYLE=BASE&GROUP=Research&NEXTPAGE=Research-G.htm&THISPAGE=Catalog.htm&THISGROUP=CONTENTS&CLIENT=OrbStudy&ACCOUNT=16871)?

I have also been looking at this Orbstudy website, and cannot decide whether the authors are a) serious but deluded, b) trying to be ironically amusing in an intellectual sort of way, or c) just taking the mick. And why do they not seem to have tried the simple dust test at their "isolated test site"? I have always believed in trying the simple experiment first - the sighting shot. These folks don't seem to bother, but just sit back in their armchairs and get on with pontificating about fluorescence, quantum physics, and any other vaguely scientific-sounding stuff they can think up.

Some bits seem plausible enough, but others don't. For example:
If we apply Coulomb's Law, two charged objects which come into contact will divide the charge in proportion to their capacitances.

Well, I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean, but I thought Coulomb's Law was just about the forces between electrostatic charges following an inverse square law regarding their distances apart, but I suppose I could be wrong....

Then there's all the words or phrases in 'unnecessary' quotes, which make it look rather toungue-in-cheek.

Anyway, looking at the private members area, I note that
This area is temporarily closed to new "research level membership" applications at this time due to funding problems.

Drat! Though I don't quite see the logic of this statement. (My quotes, incidentally - they are obviously infectious.);)

However, it's still possible to make monetary contributions, in multiples of $15. I really don't know how I managed to stop myself.:cheesy:

M.

[bindeweede]

A friend of mine made his first Orb picture yesterday - first attempt.

He closed the curtains, put his camera to macro focus, shook a duster in front of the lens, pressed the button, and Hey Presto - 5 lovely orbs.

He also went on to talk about "bokeh", which sort of means fuzziness in Japanese. All to do with optical illusions depending on the correction factors of the camera lens, at which point, my eyes started to glaze over........

[Muttley]

He also went on to talk about "bokeh", which sort of means fuzziness in Japanese. All to do with optical illusions depending on the correction factors of the camera lens, at which point, my eyes started to glaze over........

Now there's a subject not to delve into unless you have several weeks to spare.

Bokeh is not really about optical illusions though, but the manner in which the out-of-focus parts of a photo are rendered by the camera lens. A bit esoteric, perhaps.

I must admit, when I try to read anything much about it, my eyelids soon become very heavy.

M.

[bindeweede]

Now there's a subject not to delve into unless you have several weeks to spare.

Bokeh is not really about optical illusions though, but the manner in which the out-of-focus parts of a photo are rendered by the camera lens. A bit esoteric, perhaps.

I must admit, when I try to read anything much about it, my eyelids soon become very heavy.

M.

Yes, "illusions" was the wrong word. But I think what you said about out-of-focus parts etc is how some orbs really appear to be 3-dimensional. Fascinating stuff. I might try reading up a bit about it. Do you have any useful links?

[Muttley]

You asked for it......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

Sorry if this is getting a bit OT, but it is sort of relevant to orbs.:smiley:

M.

[MRT]

Bokeh is very relevant to orbs. It defines their shape, for a start. Though most orbs are round, some are diamond shape due to the shape of the aperture in the lens (controlling the amount of light reaching the CCD - the 'f-stop' in other words). All orbs taken with such a camera are diamond-shaped which rather upsets the idea that orbs 'out there' and spherical! Orb 'believers' tend to ignore awkward facts like that.