Post your UFO photos! or ghost..

[Porterboy]

[URL=http://imageshack.us][/URL]

I took this at a conference last month. The man speaking and too much red-eye is Ross Hemsworth, the presenter of "Haunted Homes", an excellent TV series. It's a shame it's not more famous than "Most Haunted". It deserves to be.

In the top right of the picture you'll see a strange circular object. Almost everyone who took photoes that day captured these "orbs". Some were big and detailed and even had recognizable structures inside, like faces or crescent moons. these could be faults in the camera, which was a cheap digital, but if so then it's odd how they also appear on videotape, Polaroid, 35mm film. They don't seem to care about the medium.

 

[Hellbound]

[URL="http://imageshack.us"][/URL]

I took this at a conference last month. The man speaking and too much red-eye is Ross Hemsworth, the presenter of "Haunted Homes", an excellent TV series. It's a shame it's not more famous than "Most Haunted". It deserves to be.

In the top right of the picture you'll see a strange circular object. Almost everyone who took photoes that day captured these "orbs". Some were big and detailed and even had recognizable structures inside, like faces or crescent moons. these could be faults in the camera, which was a cheap digital, but if so then it's odd how they also appear on videotape, Polaroid, 35mm film. They don't seem to care about the medium.

And especially odd that they didn't appear to the human eye, which has a greater frequency response than pretty much any of the media recorders you mentioned.

Dust, typically, especially since you have a large light source (the projector) available to provide the lighting.

I can only hope you were joking with this, because "orbs" are the easiest para-nonsense to reproduce. Shake a dirty rug and you'll get the exact same thing, orbs that appear to have internal structure and show up on all sorts of cameras.

 

[Porterboy]

And especially odd that they didn't appear to the human eye, which has a greater frequency response than pretty much any of the media recorders you mentioned.

Dust, typically, especially since you have a large light source (the projector) available to provide the lighting.

I can only hope you were joking with this, because "orbs" are the easiest para-nonsense to reproduce. Shake a dirty rug and you'll get the exact same thing, orbs that appear to have internal structure and show up on all sorts of cameras.

That's why I put the word in quotes. It's the name most other delegates called them. I don't get them on all my photoes though. Only the ones I took at the time; although I keep trying a lot more now. I took another one a few hours later on a beach (I'll try to find it) with an "orb" in too. This was in near darkness while I was trying to take a picture of the sunset. The pic came out all wrong, but the object was perfectly clear, as if it was taken with different exposure settings.

I don't accept that this phenomenon is just "Para-nonsense" after learning what I have about them. If there's a mundane explanation then it will have to be a better one than just dust. Actually I make no conclusions about what these objects are; this is just an interim report. However there's a book I recomend on this subject. I met the authors at the same conference: http://www.o-books.com/product_info.php?cPath=58&products_id=370

 

[Porterboy]

Some people do actually claim to see "orbs", not just be able to photograph them. I never have, which is a disappointment because I have seen entitiies that it's convenient to call "ghosts" before. At the conference I also saw an unusual object in the sky (just after the beach photograph actually) which was unidentified and flying, so I make no apologies for using the term UFO.

Some animals are supposed to be able to see these objects better. In the book I mentioned there's a photograph of the authors' cat staring at one of the objects.

 

[Chimera]

There was a freaky ghost at this party I went to...you can see his reflection just left of the exit sign.

I think it's Gandalf from Lord of the Rings

 

[Juustin]

Here's one someone sent as a bulletin on myspace. It's "an angelic face". I think it's just smoke from the fire, the tree happens to be in the center, giving the visual of a nose, and the other smoke/facial parts fall into place once you know what you're looking for.

 

[polkablues]

If there's a mundane explanation then it will have to be a better one than just dust.

There isn't, though. Just dust.

Granted, your camera flash plays a co-leading role in the production, but... yeah. Just dust.

 

[Dan O.]

If these orbs are something special, I think I found one of their hives...



... and I thought this was just another bad picture.

 

[wahrheit]

[URL=http://imageshack.us][qimg]http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/3465/p6200016uk1.jpg[/qimg][/URL]

If dust is not a satisfactory explanation for you, I would personally bet that the strong sunlight, coming through the slits at each side of that window blind, caused those lens flares. That would also explain why the human eye could not see those "orbs", but almost all photographic equipment, due to their lenses, did record them. No matter if it is video, film, cheap or expensive equipment. In a darkened room with a tiny but strong lightsource behind the subject (speaker) it would be no surprise to see numerous "orbs" in almost all pictures taken. Even most expensive lenses can not deal with such a light situation and avoid lens flares entirely.

Edit: At least I think that's a window back there, can't tell for sure from that small picture you posted.

 

[Hellbound]

wahright:

Well, the "orb" appears to be right above the screen on the right of the pic (although it's likely much closer to the camera), but the projector that's aimed at the screen seems a likely light source to me. It would be behind and to the right of the photographer. I was thinking reflective rather than refractive...not sure which would be more likely.

Of course, I'm no longer wasting my time with this one. Anyone who seriously believes in orbs on photographs as evidence of something beyond this mortal world does nothing but broadcast how little research they are able and/or willing to do before jumping on the paranormal bandwagon.

 

[Dan O.]

Come on people, focus. You've probably heard the explanation for the "orbs" but still don't understand it. When the photo I posted was taken, I could see the "orbs" and even told my brother that the photos he was taking wouldn't work.

 

[richardm]

When the photo I posted was taken, I could see the "orbs"

He's a witch! Burn him!

If there's a mundane explanation then it will have to be a better one than just dust.

Why will it have to be? We know that dust (and snow, or moths, or other small objects) can definitely cause these "orbs" to appear. We know that lenses can definitely exhibit flare. Why are these excellent explanations insufficient?

 

[Dan O.]

He's a witch! Burn him!

I'm not a witch. I just happened to have my head configured more like a camera for this expedition. Most people see the source of the orbs in this situation but ignore it as insignificant.

 

[richardm]

I'm not a witch.

Yeah, yeah. That's what witches always say when they're exposed. Well, we'll see what the scales say about it, mister. Does anyone have a duck handy?

 

[wahrheit]

Yeah, yeah. That's what witches always say when they're exposed. Well, we'll see what the scales say about it, mister. Does anyone have a duck handy?

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science? Richard Arthur, King of the Britons?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Here's one someone sent as a bulletin on myspace. It's "an angelic face". I think it's just smoke from the fire, the tree happens to be in the center, giving the visual of a nose, and the other smoke/facial parts fall into place once you know what you're looking for.

Jesus is back .... look busy!!

 

[Porterboy]

Why will it have to be? We know that dust (and snow, or moths, or other small objects) can definitely cause these "orbs" to appear. We know that lenses can definitely exhibit flare. Why are these excellent explanations insufficient?

For several reasons depeanding on the type of object captured. Lens flare looks totally different to what I saw in my own and others' photographs. Small insects sometimes produce odd-looking smudges on the frame, but some effects don't fit that either. "Orbs" look different and they also don't appear in all photos. They tend to cluster around people, especially people who are speaking animatedly. In some cases, they actually seem to be present as solid objects rather than just an image imprinted on the film. I saw one at the conference which cast a visible shadow on the wall behind it.

 

[Dan O.]

If you really believe in these orbs, I suggest you get a stereoscopic camera and start taking lots of pictures. Or are you going to make up some BS about the orbs being quantum so they can't be seen when you look at them with 2 eyes or 2 cameras.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Somewhere on a UFO site I found a bizarre photo of a "space alien" and story to go with it. It was so nutty that I THINK it was meant as a spoof....but you never know with these sites.

Here's my attempt to recreate what was posted on that site:

"I took this photo of an alien being at my local bar. I'd had a few and fell off my bar stool. When I looked up I saw this strange alien creature hovering near the ceiling. So I managed to get a photo. It was really strange- there used to be the head of a buffalo on the wall and then there was this alien there instead."

 

[Porterboy]

If you really believe in these orbs, I suggest you get a stereoscopic camera and start taking lots of pictures. Or are you going to make up some BS about the orbs being quantum so they can't be seen when you look at them with 2 eyes or 2 cameras.

(I'll ignore the quantum BS remark.) I like the way you put it "believe in orbs". I actually wrote the word in quote marks in order ot make it clear that I was making an observation without conclusion as to what these objects actually are. If you'd written "Do you think somethinfg is there that is not lens flare of dust?" then the answer is yes.