The “Orbs” Controversy
For many years, especially since the advent of digital cameras, there has been a lot of excitement over strange balls of light that appear with disturbing frequency in photos. Almost anyone can look at a picture they have taken (especially with a flash) and see these ubiquitous anomalies. Some call them “spirit orbs,” others see UFOs.
Apparently, no one had taken the obvious step of examining this phenomenon in a scientific manner, until the fall, 2005 issue of the Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration, where researchers Gary Schwartz and Katherine Creath (of the Optical Sciences Center at the University of Arizona, Tucson) put the theory to the test.
Approximately one thousand photographs were taken with five different digital cameras over multiple sessions under conditions that would purportedly increase the chance of observing AOIs. [Anomalous Orbic Images] This included two “spiritual energy healers” performing various diagnostic and treatment procedures in a semi-dark room. More than two hundred photographs contained AOIs. Careful examination of the photographs revealed a plausible conventional optical mechanism that could explain most of the AOIs observed.
The online version is only an abstract, (I have the full text) but what the researchers found was that the “orbs” were present when a light source or reflection of one was present in the picture. The lens elements in the camera reflected the light source to another area of the image, producing a “ghost” or double of the original. The researchers also found that stray objects in the picture (dust particles mostly) also produced some “orbic anomalies.” Also, the more inexpensive the camera, the more “orb” images it produced, due to the low quality of the elements, lens coatings, etc.
The conclusion of the researchers was that the majority of “orbs” could be explained by normal means. They were careful to add that this did not account for all reported instances of “Anomalous Orbic Images,” but Schwartz and Creath have given us a valuable tool to examine future claims of this type. In their own words:
Spiritual or other-worldly interpretations of “orbs” in photographs should only be considered under conditions in which all sources of stray reflection and diffraction have been eliminated from the environment.
A sober examination of the issue (with criteria for possible “real” orbs) from the perspective of paranormal researchers can also be found here.
This entry was posted
on Monday, June 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm and is filed under Evidence, UFOlogy, UFOs On Film, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- The Bigfoot Lights »
- UFOs Over The Woods »
- Mass UFO Sighting in England »
- UFO Photography »
- Kimball Back On The Beat? »
- The Marfa UFOs »
- Weird Alien-Like Thing Photographed »
- Alien Abductions Incorporated »
- Spirit Images & UFOs »
- Dallas MUFON Info »
|
Jun 18 2007 
June 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Sorry to say that the “orbs” just look like good old fashioned lens flare to me. That or a bit of dust on or near the lens. I’ve had to photoshop out such things before.
In one case I could clearly see the source as the reflection of the camera flash of a microphone stand.
The human shaped stuff… that’s another matter
June 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Ummm… so I guess I agree with the scientists
June 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
First time someone showed me an orb photo, I pulled out a photo of my own taken while it was snowing at night- snowflakes near the flash & lens looked just like those orbs.
Of course this person was a ‘true beleiver’ who tried to tell me I had taken pictures of ghostly orbs too.
But, she did have one picture of a full bodied apparition too. It was one of those that could not be a mistaken identity- It was either the real deal or a hoax. So if she hoaxed such things, then why bother with orbs at all? Hmmm…
Anyway, pictures of orbs, wispy things, and zigzaggy lights don’t impress me since they are easy to replicate with digital cameras
June 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
uv777bk,
I should have known that the caliber of visitor to this site would agree with the post. Perhaps I just wanted to go on record with my opinion and point people to the SSE, which is an organizaiton well worth the attention of anyone who is interested in true skepticism and open-minded inquiry.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
uth,
“Real” pictures of supposed spiritual apparitions are quite rare, I understand. One of the most well-regarded and famous is the “Brown Lady” photo from England, 1936.
One interesting thing I found out while searching for this image was that the ghostly woman is/was supposedly Dorothy Townshend, direct descendent of Thomas Townsend Brown, American inventor of various anti-gravity devices and the first director of NICAP.