Post your UFO photos! or ghost..

Porterboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly, photographs in general tend to be taken of people. Also, the specific conditions for "orbs" to appear on film (dust or water vapor, close conditions, and camera flash or other direct light source) are more likely to be met in photos that would be of people rather than, say, landscape photos, which would be taken from a greater distance and without a flash. This supposed tendency to "cluster around people" would be a byproduct of the camera flash being directed at said people, therefore primarily illuminating the dust and other airborne particles around them more than those on the outer edges of the photograph. Do you have any evidence to support your contention that a greater percentage of photos of people speaking animatedly show "orbs" than other photographs? May I be so bold as to suggest that you don't?

Secondly, what do you mean when you say that some "seem to be present as solid objects"? Can you present us with a photo that illustrates the difference between that and ones that look to be "an image imprinted on the film"? And how could one have cast a shadow on the wall if it could not be seen by the naked eye? Obviously, a shadow is formed by a physical object blocking light from a source. That being the case, if it was physical enough to cast a noticeable shadow, it should have been visible to the naked eye. And again, if you had a photo that demonstrates the light-blocking abilities of the "orbs", please post it so we don't have to just take your word for it.
 
The effect of an orb can be generated by a point source of light very close to the camera lens and therefore seriously out of focus. Dust in the air close to the camera will cause this effect when illuminated by a flash. We don't notice the dust as orbs because we don't have a bright light source illuminating objects directly in front of our face, we adjust our focus for nearby objects and use stereo vision to determine the correct distance to the dust.

There was an article years ago (probably in Skeptical Inquirer) that discussed the "solid object" orb evidence. The few images that showed this effect were found to just be an illusion because the object supposedly occulting the orb was brighter than the background and washed out the orb image. I believe the "shadow" was found to be a defect on the negative.

As for an "invisible to the naked eye" object casting a visible shadow in a photo, this is possible. Cameras are sensitive to a broader spectrum than the human eye so illumination in the near infra-red could cast a shadow that we would not see.
 
I have had pretty good success replicating any "paranormal" orb picture with just dust, moisture, light reflections and single hairs. All things common to most photography. So any "orb" claiming to be paranormal would need some kind of evidence distinguishing it from these sources. To date, I have seen no evidence that can do this.

And besides that ... my house is haunted ... and plagued by strange energy blobs ... oh dear!



Ghostindoorway.jpg




Ghost.jpg




Streakingorb.jpg




Strangelightblobs.jpg




.
 
polkablues said:
Secondly, what do you mean when you say that some "seem to be present as solid objects"? Can you present us with a photo that illustrates the difference between that and ones that look to be "an image imprinted on the film"? And how could one have cast a shadow on the wall if it could not be seen by the naked eye? Obviously, a shadow is formed by a physical object blocking light from a source. That being the case, if it was physical enough to cast a noticeable shadow, it should have been visible to the naked eye. And again, if you had a photo that demonstrates the light-blocking abilities of the "orbs", please post it so we don't have to just take your word for it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I didn't take it. It was someone else at the conference who showed it to me; a stranger as it happens. As for why they don't appear to the naked eye: I don't know.

I'm aware that strange effects sometimes appear on digital cameras, but the thing is that orbs also have been captured on cinefilm, Polaroid, videotape, dageurographs; they don't seem to mind which medium it is. Orb photos date back to when photography was first invented; I've seen some really old ones in a book. The orb-effects of digital photography only create more debunkable phenomena to shift through to find the genuine article. This doesn't mean that the genuine article ceases to exist.

One reason that orb photos are far more common these days could be that now that digital cameras are in common use, it means that people can process their photos at home. This means one can take an almost unlimited number of shots without having the time delay and costs from buying and developing film at the chemists. Could the "spirits" be exploiting this new communications medium? It would be a betrayal of my Woo principles not to table this question.

Do you have any evidence to support your contention that a greater percentage of photos of people speaking animatedly show "orbs" than other photographs? May I be so bold as to suggest that you don't?
Click to expand...

Naturally, but I choose not to follow your suggestion. This is something I've observed, although it's early days yet it deserves to be mentioned in my view. I've only been into photography for a short time and I have no quantitative data. Although I do have some photoes of "orbs" taken in the open air too. This was taken on St Annes Beach in Lancashire, UK. Look carefully and you can see it in the upper centre:

 
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
 
Chimera said:
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

View attachment 6649
Click to expand...

It looks more like James Randi himself! Are you sure he's not trying to pull another Carlos or Project Alpha on you! :D

Seriously though; that's creepy. Did you check again afterwards to see if there were any objects in the view that could explain it?
 
Porterboy said:
I'm aware that strange effects sometimes appear on digital cameras, but the thing is that orbs also have been captured on cinefilm, Polaroid, videotape, dageurographs; they don't seem to mind which medium it is.
Click to expand...

That's because they're not a function of the film stock or capture media itself, but of the way that the lens picks up light. Specifically tiny, bright spots closer to the lens than the field of focus. In the case of your beach photo, I suspect the culprit would be water vapor.
 
It doesn't matter where you take your picture. Inside, or in the open air, or anywhere else. Dust is everywhere. You can't avoid it, or clean well enough to get rid of it. You are actually a major source of dust yourself, as are all other human beings. Between skin flakes and clothing fibers ( and the occasional hair hanging in front of the lens ) coming off the photographer, there is enough dust to account for all orbs seen in pictures.

And as far as seeing orbs with your own eyes ... there are plenty of things that can cause the eye's retina to react with a visible ball of light. There is no reason to believe that any orb is paranormal. There are explanations for them all.

.
 
I posted this elsewhere in the forums a time ago. I'm re-posting it here, just in case someone missed this incredible UFO sighting I had in Las Vegas this past January, in plain daylight! :rolleyes:

ufoinlasvegasjm8.jpg


And the video ...

 
Thats a good video. Could be real, for all I know.



Here is a pic of a glowing, demonic face that appeared in my kitchen a while ago. I haven't felt like cooking or doing dishes since ...


DemonFace-1.jpg





Then a mysterious, smoky figure came out of my grandfather clock ...


GhostinClock.jpg




And made its way into my bathroom ... must have needed to drop some ectoplasm ...


ClockGhost.jpg



.
 
I used to have and orb problem...then I bought lens cleaners and a brush for my camera and glasses...
 
Patricio Elicer said:
I posted this elsewhere in the forums a time ago. I'm re-posting it here, just in case someone missed this incredible UFO sighting I had in Las Vegas this past January, in plain daylight! :rolleyes:

[qimg]http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8849/ufoinlasvegasjm8.jpg[/qimg]

And the video ...

Click to expand...

I wish you would be more specific when posting these sightings. You should say something like: "This was taken from the pedestrian bridge on the south east corner of the intersection of S Las Vagas Blvd and Sands Ave. looking West."

If you had said that we would know that you were looking into the approch path for runway 7 at McCarran International. And if you gave us the exact time we could then tell you which flight this was and therefore identify the type of aircraft. But since you left out this pertinent information, the flying object will remain unidentified.
 
Dan O. said:
I wish you would be more specific when posting these sightings. You should say something like: "This was taken from the pedestrian bridge on the south east corner of the intersection of S Las Vagas Blvd and Sands Ave. looking West."

If you had said that we would know that you were looking into the approch path for runway 7 at McCarran International. And if you gave us the exact time we could then tell you which flight this was and therefore identify the type of aircraft. But since you left out this pertinent information, the flying object will remain unidentified.
Click to expand...


Hehehe, needless to say, it is not unidentified, nor is flying, nor is an object ....
 
Kitty, you asked for it!

I got evidence that YOU are, in fact, a ghost!

Here are two photos of you taken at the Humanist conference, with Jonas sitting next to you. In the second, I caught you whisping away! You probably thought I was done photographing, but you were wrong!!

kittyghost1.jpg


kittyghost2.jpg


Yes, I know the photos are blurry. But, it still counts as evidence!!!!!!111!!!1
 
Dan O. said:
View from the bridge...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15144463833b52604b.jpg[/qimg]

I don't know what you think it is but you said originally that it was a UFO.
Click to expand...


Sorry. Your description of the sighting spot was so accurate that I thought you had seen the other thread where I discussed the "case", and that you were just playing the irony game (well, you can still be, but .....).

This picture (courtesy of wollery), taken on the said pedestrian bridge, will give you the definite clue about the "UFO" (I'm the one in the red jacket, and took the pic from that precise spot) :)

meinlasvegasdi4.jpg



EDIT:
Note that Athon's ghost is in that pic ...
 
Last edited:
Just looked up the earlier thread now to see if it would shed any more light on the scene. I also didn't hear the audio the first time I watched the video. The reverberation sounded like you were inside a room or corridor which is what prompted a closer investigation to see if you were further back.
 
wahrheit said:
Actually, if you really do look carefully, as you suggest, you would see that this picture is full of "orbs". You should adjust the brightness of your computer monitor. There are many orbs small dust particles hit by the harsh flashlight of the camera:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/45144635d73dd7fbe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom