Rethinking the Orb
Wednesday May 21, 2008 8:20 AM
Those fuzzy round dots floating in digital photographs are not spirits — or are they? Most paranormal investigators are down on orbs, but new evidence calls for a reëxamination. Maybe cameras are capturing some unknown life force after all.
In their book The Orb Project, two European researchers, Miceal Ledwith and Klaus Heinemann, make a case for orbs as images of spirit manifestations, or emanations of spirits. The two have taken thousands of photographs for years in darkness and in daylight, with and without flash.
Their photos show orbs changing sizes, moving in intelligent ways, contracting and expanding, and responding to human intention by dramatically increasing in number, even forming swirling vortices. They also have captured colorful swirls of paranormal clouds they call "plasmoids."
Heinemann, an experimental physicist, stresses that orbs are not necessarily themselves "light beings" or even "spirits." Rather, the luminosities may be akin to the headlights on a car. The actual spirit presences may be something we do not yet understand.
Ledwith, a professor of systematic theology, points out that orbs do not absorb, reflect or scatter light, but seem to flouresce. This would indicate that they have physical properties.
Prior to digital photography, orbs were uncommon in photos. Usually not seen with the naked eye, they showed up mysteriously in prints. Digital cameras record them frequently, and many people interpret every fuzzy blotch on a photo as a ghost or spirit — much to the chagrin of photographic experts.
But according to paranormal investigators, the overwhelming majority of orbs can be explained, even debunked, as natural effects of digital equipment or atmospheric conditions.
Still, even the hardest skeptics acknowledge that a tiny percentage of orb photos cannot be explained. Perhaps it is true what orb enthusiasts say: that our improved photographic technology is enabling us to capture evidence of life forms that are, for the most part, below the register of human perception.
Physicist William A. Tiller says that the appearance of orbs at this time is not accidental, but is the first in an unfolding of "communications manifestations." Tiller agrees with Ledwith and Heinemann, that humans can condition an environment to attract orbs and increase their responsiveness to thought, emotion and intention. If so, more researchers would be well-advised to turn their attention to the mystery of the orb.
Comments (2)
Actually I think what their research has turned up is a great way to separate gullible people from their money. Swirling vortices of orbs? Give me a break - I live in a desert - it's called dust and wind.
Just when you think sanity has taken root.... along comes folks like this.
Posted by Buck | May 21, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted on May 21, 2008 11:10
After i got a digital camera, i would intentionally take pictures with/without flash (using different speeds, exposure settings, etc) just to learn more. Part of this process was to see how dust and moisture would show up in photographs - and most of the time, they looked exactly like a lot of "orb" shots i've seen on the internet.
You may be able to imagine my surprise when, several years later, i caught something on camera that i simply cannot explain. It looks like a hair until you look at it more closely. I've shown this picture (and the accompanying EXIF data) to several people who know a great deal more about photographs than i do, and they say that this sort of thing isn't possible with the automatic settings i was using.
As far as orbs go? The context of the picture is important. Was it around the time that dew might be falling? Very likely to be moisture. Was it in a dusty old barn? Then it's probably dust. But is it moving, and perhaps moving in an erratic fashion? That's a whole 'nother story, IMO/IME.
Posted by Lindsay | May 22, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted on May 22, 2008 11:26