36 replies to this topic

[THE KID]

Has anyone seen Orbs in any digital images? I got my first digital camera June 26, 2011 for my birthday. The first picture I took had an Orb in it. I thought it might be the lighting so I took another picture same spot and it was gone. I watch Ghosthunters and they showed video images of orbs. I've been taking more pictures at night and finding an orb in many of them. I've done a little google research and plan to get the books called Orbs and The Orb Project by Klaus Heinemann. Here is one reader's comments:

QUOTE "It's my belief that The Orb Project, for what ever it may first appear to the skeptical scientific mind, is actually part of the early, entirely scientific, penetration of a frontier on a par with that of Magellan witnessing for the first time (in European history) the vast reaches of the central Pacific. In fact, the implications of this research stretch beyond the horizon of mere global exploration, (obviously no small claim on my part) because, what the book opens, and invites more of, is the systematic investigation of the possibility/proof of coexistent dimensions in interaction with our own, by witnessing the astounding, yet completely simple physical evidence, we ourselves confirm our own existence with constantly, photographs.

Clearly, the authors bring their own leanings and beliefs to the study; point in case, being Heinemann's insistence on the term "Spirit emanations". Apparently however, that did not dilute the rigorous scientific slice and dice they've spent collective decades scrutinizing their own and others' data with. So, although their "spirituality" fuels their investigation, as it may your own, it also provides a universe of speculation in that most scientific of probing questions - hypotheses. To quote Ledwith, however out of context "... it simply means that our understanding of "spiritual" would stand in sore need of redefinition.

And that's exactly what these two, I must say, brave man, are contributing to, by making it very clear what the difference is between a photograph of water droplets, dust, reflections, camera malfunctions, or what have you, and - an Orb. I guarantee that no matter how you respond to the information in this book, you'll never look at your digital photos the same way again. I highly recommend it." UNQUOTE

Thank you. v/r Richard

Edited by Richard, 03 July 2011 - 02:46 PM.

[RobP]

I read in Fortean Times recently of some extensive research done in this area and the conclusion was - dust

[Mikey_C]

My partner is doing a photography course and she is a firm believer of the dust theory. She curses when she gets them.

[Dark Mark]

I thought they were the young of the flying tubes.

[Kortoso]

To my undertanding, orbs are a visual manifestation of a haunting.

I saw one once. It was there, yet it wasn't there. Later I was asked "Oh, you've met our ghost, then?"

I have some skepticism towards any photograph that alleges to have captured it, since that's child's play to fake. But there's a scene in Poltergeist that illustrates the effect very well.

[THE KID]

Hey - I appreciate and respect everyone's opinion. I couldn't believe it either but when I took another picture in the same spot and the orb was gone it blew me away or the orb moved to a different location. It only happened the first few days I got the digital camera.

I just got the book Klaus Heinemann On Orbs & Entities today. I talked to a few other folks who I can trust and was amazed that one of my friends saw the same thing but many orbs in one picture. The orbs were in the forest and in a sacred place. She thought it was the camera and the store sales clerk said it was the camera. The orbs only appeared in this one picture. She told me her camera had an infrared UV filter and some other high technology. I asked her to have a friend take some pictures of the same place and with a different camera and compare the two. Process of elimination and testing a hypthosesis. I swear I thought it was the lighting on the first picture and reshot it in the same spot and same angle but orb was gone.

It's out of the ordinary and got me thinking and why I'm doing research on it.

http://www.merlianne..._Entities.shtml

Like I said before I just got a digital camera and before was using a 35mm and never saw anything like this until last week. I've taking pictures all over the place and one hasn't been displayed again in any picture.

I'm using a red Nikon Cool Pics digital camera.

Edited by Richard, 11 July 2011 - 08:53 PM.

[RobP]

Yep they only started appearing on digital cameras - that's because the dust is only picked up on digital cameras

orb research

[THE KID]

http://www.merlianne..._Entities.shtml

The "Even IF" Rationale from the book Orbs by Klaus Heinmann PHD

Quote "Even if all orbs in our photos could be proven to be nothing other than normal physical reflections of the flash at airborne particles, it could still be argued that the mere circumstance that we see these orbs in photos and positions that are clearly not random indicates that thought from outside our physical realm may be involved.

The argument would then shift from explaining the origin of these orbs to how the placement of these airborne particles can be so strategic. How can it happen that these physical airborne particles are, in that very moment when the flash is triggered (and with respect to the very position the camera is held), arranged into the highly defined constellation that leads to meaningful postioning of the orb in the resulting photograph?
Airborne particles should always be in statistically random locations; the orbs would then have to be expected to show up in photos only at statistically random locations--almost never in "meaningful" positions.

So even if relection at airborne particles were the origin of these orbs, and I am not all saying that this may in fact be the mechanism, the mysticiam about evidence of nonhuman thought would be undiminised. It would shift from the "miracle" of producing (a tiny amount of) physical energy with mans from antoher realm to the undiminished micralce of affecting the positioning and timing of numerous tin airborn particles in a meaningful way that clearly defies the laws of statistics.

It is our position, then, that since orbs appear in meaningful places in photographs, and not haphazardly, it is because they are there by design.

Other arguments brought forth by some critics center around impurities or abnormalities related to the camera or the electronic recording device built into the camera. This class of arguments can be dismissed with several pertinent factors, including numerous orbs photos taken by the Dutch professional photographer Ed Vos, as well as many others, on conventional photo film.

Are Orbs genuine emanuations from Spirit beings, or should they be explained as coincidental photographic defects? We have devoted an entire chapter in The Orb PRoject to this topic. It is his conclusion, from extensive research in this area, than an overwhelming majority of orb images seen by photographers all over the world are authentic and not caused by camera defects, reflections at airborne particles or moisture droplets, or other diffraction phenomena. Here we touch only on the most important arguments, but we encourage you to peruse the more in-depth discussion in the appendix.

There are clearly unanswered questions about the physical aspects of orb photography. The essence of this book is to explore the orbs' mission and the messages they are trying to communicate. UNQUOTE

http://www.merliannews.com/Science_Quantum_Physics_32/Klaus_Heinemann_On_Orbs___Entities.shtml


Their conclusions, if correct, could have huge implications on the way we view the universe and our part in it. The experts say that just because something has not yet been scientifically proven, it doesn't mean that it is not real.

Professor William Tiller, a theoretical physicist who spent 35 years researching consciousness and matter at Stanford University in California, reminded the conference that what we see with our physical eyes comprises less then 10 per cent of the known universe.

This is because human vision operates only within a limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum. For instance, we cannot see radio waves, which carry huge amounts of information, yet we know they exist.

http://www.merliannews.com/Science_Quantum_Physics_32/Klaus_Heinemann_On_Orbs___Entities.shtml

Edited by Richard, 12 July 2011 - 05:11 PM.

[RobP]

So why would "spirit beings" choose to appear only at random places on cameras invented in the last few years? I'm not against paranormal claims or legit investigation by any means but I think some of these "orb" people are clutching at straws - or aiming at selling lots of books :-)

[THE KID]

http://www.merlianne..._Entities.shtml

On Page 108 in book: Quote "Unfortunately, even though the vast majority of orbs observed by people all over the world are real, this has no bearing on skeptics who continue with their argument--that because flash reflections at airborne particles resemble orbs, all such images must therefore be reflections at airborne particulates. It is of little avail to try to convince such critics otherwise, just as it was of little avail to convince the clerical echelons in the 16th century that the earth was revolving around the sun."Unquote

Here are quite a few unadulterated comments from people who have seen orbs:
http://ghosthuntings...s.com/blog/?p=9

claudia @ 9:33 pm
hi my name is claudia. i recently took some pictures where i was surrounded by spheres of light that weren't there when the picture was taken …in these pictures there seem to be faces in the spheres. what could this be?

Yes - Faces! Orb the book by Klaus and Gundi Heinemann Ph.D. explains this in detail with photos.

Edited by Richard, 12 July 2011 - 09:33 PM.

[sonny sixshooter]

Jeez! And in other forums they are probably UFOs. Or Cthulu, or my grandmothers underpants!

Quote "Even if all orbs in our photos could be proven to be nothing other than normal physical reflections of the flash at airborne particles, it could still be argued that...

And therein lies the problem. There exists a perfectly fine physical explanation, but we will try to imagine that it just may be something else. There is a word for that, and the word is Fiction. It works great in books, comics and movies, but it has no place in the real world. Your "source" says so himself.

[Kortoso]

Yea verily, mock the unknown at thine own peril.

Having seen one with my own eyes, I can't sneer; however I do know human nature as well as what mischief cameras can create.

[Morrigan]

Here's a link to a site that has photographs of orbs with faces in them, there are some strange photos on there, see what you make of it all.

I personally think that people see what they want to see, and that the human brain is programmed to make order out of chaos. i.e. Given a random pattern, the brain will pull an identifiable image out of it, hence the images of Jesus on bagels and pizzas etc.

http://www.psychicin.../html/orbs.html

There are also a couple of pictures of Orbs that were taken on non digital cameras.

Edited by Morrigan, 13 July 2011 - 08:58 AM.

[THE KID]

Page 62-63 - QUOTE"Photo 53 was sent to us by a British orb enthusiast. WE cropped the two orbs from impeccable original photos. Janice, a London police officer, describes the circumstances on the left photo:

I would first like to make it clear that I am a very grounded, sensible person. On August 30th I flew to Croatia, where my daugher was going to be married. .......I zoomed in to get a closer look at the patterns in the orbs, but one very small one stood out from the others as having a very clear face in it. I did not recall you mentioning orbs having faces. I was astonised. I zoomed in further to get a closer look, and there is, without any doubt, a very clear face of some sort of being--not human--peering out of the orb."

"The point is not that every reader clearly interprets the picture the same way as Janice does. There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to the interpretation of features in the orbs. There remains a degree of subjectivity on the part of the observer."

This is not an exact science. Nothing that has to do with consciousness is an exact science. There is no guarantee for repoducibility. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to another, and vice versa.

"Unfortunately, even though the vast majority of orbs, observed by people all over the world are real, this has no bearing on skeptics who continue with their argument--that because flash reflections at airborn particles resemble orbs, all such images must therefore be reflections at airborne particulates. It is of little avail to try to convince such critics otherwise, just as it was of little avail to convince the clerical echelons in the 16th century that the earth was revolving around the sun.

Nevertheless, we can attempt to advance the credibility of orb photography throught the power of statistics, which is a power most critics actually do believe in. We have demonstrated that in many orb photographs a meaning can be derived from either the positioning of the orbs in the photo or their interior appearance. We have given numerous examples where the positioning of interiority of orbs is unique and not just statistically random. This does imply that, on the basis of statistics, there is more relevance to orb photos than to pictures of relections at airborne particles, which would, without further argument, follow the laws of random statistical distribution."

"They can appear visually, but they cannot talk, and they cannot write. They cannot give us messages in the way we are used to getting them."

The orbs I saw in four of my pictures were strategically placed and I do decipher a message from them, but it took me a while to connect the dots and this book was a tremendous help in doing that.

I hope I've enlightend others by sharing this information from my newfound experience and the small excerpts I've typed from the book Orbs. For me, it makes for very interesting reading.

Edited by Richard, 13 July 2011 - 09:20 PM.

[Skullface]

Hey guys if you buy into this stuff I have some nice swamp land to sell you
Its full of orbs (for realzies).
I have seen alot of odd things been in some strange places but this is bunk.
Light reflection,you can look at sunlight near the sun and see this all the time.
Maybe I can write a book and get paid,Pt Barnum would be proud.

[Mikey_C]

It seems from the above that orbs are the visual equivalent of electronic voice phenomena. The Rorschach test also springs to mind. Personally, I'm a tad confused as to how messed-up photos can turn us into "more responsive, loving human beings", but I shall tread carefully as talk of "divine design" is in danger of making this conversation a religious one.

[THE KID]

So far Kortoso is the only one to reply that has seen an orb on a digital camera. Has anyone else? Please respond if you have.

I've already heard from some skeptics who I may not agree with but who's comments and opinions I value and respect and one comedian.

Edited by Richard, 13 July 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[THE KID]

Here's a link to a site that has photographs of orbs with faces in them, there are some strange photos on there, see what you make of it all.

I personally think that people see what they want to see, and that the human brain is programmed to make order out of chaos. i.e. Given a random pattern, the brain will pull an identifiable image out of it, hence the images of Jesus on bagels and pizzas etc.

http://www.psychicin.../html/orbs.html

There are also a couple of pictures of Orbs that were taken on non digital cameras.

Morrigan I agree with you. Thank you for your nice comments and observations. Much appreciated.

v/r Richard

Edited by Richard, 13 July 2011 - 09:22 PM.

[THE KID]

It seems from the above that orbs are the visual equivalent of electronic voice phenomena. The Rorschach test also springs to mind. Personally, I'm a tad confused as to how messed-up photos can turn us into "more responsive, loving human beings", but I shall tread carefully as talk of "divine design" is in danger of making this conversation a religious one.

Ok Mikey I tweeked it. I didn't mean for this to parallel religion and the "Doubting Thomas's".

Edited by Richard, 13 July 2011 - 09:20 PM.