Welcome, Tandi

[Azrael 5]

Take a look here - no they're not forgeries !!!

No theyre not.A forgery implies that there exsists legitimate orbs.Which there isnt.That website is a prime example of dust,hairs and other earthly things!

 

[Starrman]

Take a look here - no they're not forgeries !!!

Of course they are not - why would someone forge a picture of a camera strap?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Jason 1978:

No they're not forgeries

And we are obliged to take you at your word?

No matter. I'm happy to accept that they aren't forgeries. Explanations for these phenomena do not rely on that.

Try here

and here

In addition, there is a not too-long past Swift newsletter on JREF about this. It would help explain the orb-with-streak-of-light-behind-it photos very well, but a quick search failed to find it for me.

I'll try again later or perhaps another member can find it or another site with similar info.

 

[voidx]

The photo in this thread is a perfectly acceptable starting place for a discussion of orbs. Many people forget that while a camera does a good job of reproducing images as the human eye would see it, it is not as complex as the human eye. In daylight the human eye has a range of approx. 12 to 14 f-stops of focus. Slide camera's only have 5. Go to this page for a more thorough description and a visual example:

http://photoinf.com/Image_Balance/Bob_Radcliff/Five_Stops_From_The_Edge.htm

Also from the page:

Photographs you make without considering and accommodating for this limited range of film will often disappoint. Instead of distinguishing flakes of snow, grains of sand, strands of hair, or what lurks in the shadows of your images, you may find only blobs of black or featureless areas of white.

And...

In order to capture on film all the detail in the shadows visible to the human eye, one is simply required to sacrifice all the gradations in the highlights. Therefore, the multitude of gradations visible to the human eye at - 1.0 f-stop and above would appear on film as featureless white.

So as you can see, there are many many mundane explanations to be explored. You both have the attitude that we see all the time here. "Well science doesn't know everything." No it doesn't, but if anything will eventually offer an in depth explanation, it will be science. There is nothing wrong with admitting science doesn't know everything. Its the leap of logic that by definition it is paranormal, and beyond the scope of science that is illogical. You also cannot know that science will not eventually know how to explain it, and given the track record of what we know about the world around us because of science, it makes more logical sense to give science the benefit of the doubt than say the paranormal.

While you are correct that one can never say with 100% certainty some things might not exist, we can say them with a very high degree or probability. Or rather, we can say that many things are overwhelmingly unlikely due to what we currently know of the world around us. Personally I cannot think of a logical reason to go forward and believe in life after death, for example, simply because all we have our peoples ancedotal experiences about it. Many paranormal phenomena hinge on the fact of what someone remembers, or experienced and so its not privvy to the rest of us. Its not observable. This by default makes it hard to quantify. And so many of us take it with a large grain of salt and skepticism as we all should.

However, as often as we are accused of being close-minded to unexplained phenomena, many people are also just as guilty, or can be accused of wanting to believe in a particular explanation as a result of being illogically open-minded. They cannot think of a mundane explanation, so they lean towards or posit paranormal ones. Regardless of the fact that every single one of us has large area's of ignorance in how we as a society knows how the world around us operates. If I cannot think of a reason why that orb might show up on film, the reasonable explanation is to look to mundane explanations that you might be ignorant of and exhaust those. While you can keep a paranormal theory in your mind, I'd argue it shouldn't be given a high degree of consideration until all other explanations have been explored. And even then, it should not gain instant legitimacy because no apparent mundane explanation could be found at this time. Or, Ed forbid, you could just go forth and define the paranormal phenomena in detail and show conclusively and repeatedly that it existed...that'd be a nice change as well.

 

[Peter@Beoworld]

I must confess that having read the Digital Spy thread, it makes the Skeptics look rather boorish. I have seen only snippets of these programmes and of course they are a load of old cobblers but they are made as entertainment and one can take out of them what you want.
I agree that if this discussion had been on a skeptic site, it would deserve all it would get, but surely it was a thread designed for a group of people who merely wanted to chat about what they liked. If they really believe in it then I believe they are seriously strange but if that is what they want to believe I don't see why they can't be allowed to chat away. No more incredible than most religious beliefs in my view.
I happen to agree with almost everything that Paj has said on the thread but I am not sure he has done anything except annoy.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I have annoyed the true believers, undoubtedly. In my defence, you don't have to do much to annoy true believers. Simply having the nerve to put the opposing view is enough to have them baying for blood.

But my aim is to counter the lazy acceptance of these beliefs which seems to be becoming the norm in British society. These ideas are nonsense, and it does us no good to simply hear one side of the story all the time. There comes a time where someone has to just step in and say "are you sure about that? How do you know?"

It will wind the believers up tremendously, but I'm thinking more about the lurker.

 

[Ashles]

Take a look here - no they're not forgeries !!!

Sorry, are you actually telling us that you believe these photos are of something paranormal?
What, really?

But they look identical to any photo I have ever taken of something too close hit by the flash. (I assume you have noticed that what these photos have in common is the flash).

They even provide an example at the top to show you how easily you can get fooled.

They explain: "What we did was walk around both areas and stir up dust and pollen from the grass. When we took the photos, these particles in the air caught the reflection of the camera flash and appeared to be "orbs". "

And yet:

They claim this one is "An orb photo taken during a poltergeist case, which is considered to be genuine".


They ask on that page
"So, how do you tell a real "orb" photo from a false one?"
then appear not to answer the question.

Why would anyone think the first photo is fake but the second one is real.

And whatever this is:

It's obviously the same thing in each photo.
I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.
Do people think it is an orb that just happens to take the exact same flight path in each photo?

It's a close, thin object, out of focus, lit up by the flash (maybe a hair or a wire).

Sorry to sound dimissive, but is that really the very best examples of 'orb' photographs?

The more I look at them the more I am genuinely surprised that people take these seriously as anything other than dust, insects and camera straps.

And why would they only show up in photos? Why wouldn't you se them flying around?

Seriously is that page a hoax or something?

 

[delphi_ote]

I dont know everything. You dont know everything. It would be a boring world if everyone did know everything. Dont you agree?

That poor straw man. She really lit into him, didn't she? He time on this Earth was so short lived. As soon as she created him, she pounced! He never stood a chance. I feel so sorry for him. R.I.P. Straw Man!

Nobody here claimed "Science knows everything."

 

[TheBoyPaj]

But you DO see them flying around. On video cameras on Most Haunted. Every bloody week. It's the only thing that passes for evidence on that show, if you can call it that.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I must confess that having read the Digital Spy thread, it makes the Skeptics look rather boorish.

Oh, welcome to the forum, by the way. I don't mind that your first post called me boorish, really I don't!

 

[Ashles]

But you DO see them flying around. On video cameras on Most Haunted. Every bloody week. It's the only thing that passes for evidence on that show, if you can call it that.

I mean you don't see them flying around with your eyes - they look clearly like dust.

But turn on a camera and a bright light/infra red and suddenly they're everywhere.

Rule of thumb - best conditions to see an orb: curiously it's at about the same time people have 'red eye'.

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh, welcome to the forum, by the way. I don't mind that your first post called me boorish, really I don't!

After reading what I read in that thread, I see you really held your own in there, Paj. The amount of "your criticism of my beliefs is an attack" posts was just daunting. Good skeptic. *tips hat*

My only comment: we should all have "Burden of Proof" and the like on "speed link" for such forums. You might not be able to make the horse drink, but if we do a better job of leading them to the water, we might increase the chances they'll learn to th- I mean d rink for themselves.

Almost mixed my metaphor!

 

[wiggywoo25]

Good evening paj just thought ide join the debate.

 

[Peter@Beoworld]

Oh, welcome to the forum, by the way. I don't mind that your first post called me boorish, really I don't!

Yes, sorry about that! I do agree with your ideas though!
I didn't feel orbs or cones really justify a response ! These are the pictures that I throw away rather than keep. I have now gone digital so that I can see if they have artefacts on and so don't waste money having them processed. However maybe I should keep them in future.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

After reading what I read in that thread, I see you really held your own in there, Paj. The amount of "your criticism of my beliefs is an attack" posts was just daunting. Good skeptic. *tips hat*

My only comment: we should all have "Burden of Proof" and the like on "speed link" for such forums. You might not be able to make the horse drink, but if we do a better job of leading them to the water, we might increase the chances they'll learn to th- I mean d rink for themselves.

Almost mixed my metaphor!

Actually, in the "Derek Acorah: Fake or Genuine" thread (which was closed down after the Digitalspy team got an attack of legal-fright) I used to link to a handy list of logical fallacies. (The list was actually part of an Critical Thinking course for A level students. YES! Such a thing exists.) Burden of Proof, Ad Hominem, that sort of thing.

Guess what? They tried to claim it was a weakness to post links to supporting source material. Blueblade said something like "my opinions stand up on their own merit".

So it's a bad thing if people agree with you. That's a new one.

 

[wahrheit]

Take a look here - no they're not forgeries !!!

Jason,

I don't think these photographs are forged. Forgery would be using Photoshop, double exposure, a set-up or whatever. This, obviously, is not the case with these pictures.

But there's something else I would like you to consider, from my experience. I use professional photo gear for my photography and I think I also know pretty well how to use it. Now, I never happened to have one of these orbs or anything else which looks strange in my pictures. Why?

One reason might be that the ghosts (or whatever it is) don't show up when I happen to take a picture. Okay, that's possible.

Another reason, however, might be that the equipment I use, and how I use it, does not produce these effects in the first place.

Did you notice that these pictures with orbs, ghosts and such are all amateur, quickly made snapshots? My point is, professional photographers know these light effects, especially when you use a flash-light it is very easy to produce the strangest visual effects you would never think of because the human eye works so much different than the camera. The lens I like most weighs 1.7 kg, costs around 3.200 Euros and is a piece of high-end optics. It's not even a zoom lens, no, nothing fancy. But this lens is finely crafted, and thus it produces much sharper, clearer, and less distorted images. And less reflections.

Also, I would never use a camera-mounted flash-light. It not only makes people look pretty ugly, it also produces a very unnatural light in the scenery. Objects that are close to the flash get an enourmous amount of light, which makes them appear pure white on film (or digital, doesn't matter). We all know those pictures where a finger was in front of the lens and it is nothing but a big white blob. Fingers are not white, it is the great amount of flash light that makes them look white and extremely over-exposed.

Don't you think it is more likely that those visual effects on those pictures are small, out of focus, close to camera objects which got way more light from the flash than the scenery behind?

 

[Nex]

Yes, the skeptics are always the closed-minded ones, aren't we?

If you are a scientist and you see flaws in their methods then let them know, not me.. Im only watching a show!!

And here we have it in Tandi's own words -- she's not only ignorant, she actively tries to remain so.


Good job shooting yourself in the foot there, sparky.




**edited for typo**

 

[roger]

Welcome to the forum!

What does this look like to you?

A guitar builder's workshop.

 

[wiggywoo25]

Yes, the skeptics are always the closed-minded ones, aren't we?



And here we have it in Tandi's own words -- she's not only ignorant, she actively tries to remain so.


Good job shooting yourself in the foot there, sparky.




**edited for typo**

ide rather be ignorant than arrogant

 

[Jason 1978]

And we are obliged to take you at your word?

No, of course not. But by the same token, Garrette, neither are believers obliged to constantly supply "hard evidence" that orbs are anything other than the much vaunted "dust and insects".