On their last episode at the end Nick and Zac were sitting at a table in a somewhat informal setting and were explaining their position on orbs. I will paraphrase what was said. Nick stated they know that 95% of orbs are either dust, bugs, or moisture. They even showed a clip of dust, which Zac said appears as snow like most of the time.

I know there have been episodes where orbs were noted and figured prominent in their evidence capture. Most of the posters on paranormal forums seem to shoot down all orbs as such. I bet most of these people have never even been on a paranormal outing much less captured any orbs on any image capturing media and just don't want to sound like they are not astute.

I need some opinions as to the validity of orbs as far as being actually some type of electromagnetic energy that is a representation of an entity not in the living realm. I believe The GA crew has been in enough paranormal settings that they have developed the ability to discern what is really an orb in the paranormal sense. Some of the footage does display properties that are not usually associated with dust or bugs, like abnormal motions and pulsing apperance. Ryan? Sith? GB?

Andy? Anyone? /unsure.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

I was unsure, also. I picked up my daughter's college potography text books and read about optical orbs. A different look at orbs from the paranormal view, and what the camera is seeing. Interesting read, and I never realized in photography texts the different types of optical orbs were defined.

I'm still not sure what they capture, and I was even interested in the history of orbs. Seemed more prevelent with the invention of digital cameras.

There are different kinds of orbs. The ones most are interested in are photographic orbs. The kind seen in photos and video.

As far as my opinion, it comes down to this. One person says one thing and one person says another. Regardless of what anyone says, how do they know?

Do they have the dust particle that made the orb?

Do they have the spirit that caused the orb?

Do they have the orb?

Seems to me that orbs are just a matter of interpretation and faith that what the individual sees is a paranormal phenomenon or not.

I think that these TV shows are just taking advantage of the naiveté of some people.

…and if Zak gets possessed one more time, I may just scratch my eyes out rather than watch another second! lol

We've decided it's Aaron's turn. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

GB, I couldn't help noticing you're an orb. /tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />

Caught. /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Now we have to investigate you. /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Well, I believe that THEY believe what they are seeing is paranormal. As for me though – I discard all orbs such as the floating little balls you find in still pictures and the type that is usually seen on film on GA because there is more than enough known about what causes them (in the NON paranormal sense), there are too many examples to count, and they are easy to recreate over and over again.

I've yet to see anything that makes me believe that orbs are paranormal in nature.

Every time I see someone claim a pic or video with an "orb" is a ghost or paranormal I /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

heck, I dont even know if "orbs" exist at all, but if there truly are

orbs of light out there that are not bugs, dust, rain, etc

i believe it's probably something natural that is occurring,

rare but natural none the less.

In Joplin missouri while visiting friends they took me to a well known place that had electrical orbs tennis – softball sized that fly around in the air they are just a nature thing not having anything to do with ghosts neat to see though /cool.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

My personal opinion only, but none of the orb evidence on GA captured suggests anything to me other than dust or particulate matter in the light cone of the IR illuminators. When the orbs disappear toward the edge of the screen, the particles are not going anywhere, they are simply losing the illumination from the Sony illuminators. Sony illuminators are very narrow-beamed, and that gives floating and fast-moving particles a flicker, or flashing effect. I guarantee that if they moved their IR illumination off of the camera plane, and remoted it at least 4 feet on either side of the camera, their orb evidence would be non existent. If the cameras that they are using have built in illuminators below the lens, then they should cover them with black electrical tape. That combined with moving the external illuminators at least 4 feet to either side of the camera would eliminate all doubt. Unfortunately, that does not make for a very portable setup. It would be easy to do with the static "X" cams though…

thanks

Andy

I guess I should also qualify my stance on orbs. As far as photographic orbs, I give merit to any anomaly caught without using a flash. If it looks like it is self-illuminating, then I believe it is anomalous. Same with video, if the object is self illuminating throughout the picture (all the way from one end of the screen to the other, not just when it encounters an IR beam) then it merits a second glance.

I have on occasion taken pics will self-illuminated anomalies, but I can only think of two off the top of my head, and I really cannot tell you how many thousands of photos I have taken. To me, it is these self-illuminating phenomena that are the rare holy grail of photographic evidence.

thanks

Andy

but Andy, my question about those two pictures, isnt it possible it's

some kind of rare, but natural occurring phenomena and not something

paranormal?

I guess I should also qualify my stance on orbs. As far as photographic orbs, I give merit to any anomaly caught without using a flash. If it looks like it is self-illuminating, then I believe it is anomalous. Same with video, if the object is self illuminating throughout the picture (all the way from one end of the screen to the other, not just when it encounters an IR beam) then it merits a second glance.

I have on occasion taken pics will self-illuminated anomalies, but I can only think of two off the top of my head, and I really cannot tell you how many thousands of photos I have taken. To me, it is these self-illuminating phenomena that are the rare holy grail of photographic evidence.

thanks

Andy

Orbs always seem to be in the foreground. The flash or night photos with orbs, the orb never seems to be behind any object. Orbs look larger to the relationship of other objects in a photo, being the orb is out of focus, from the optic view. I've seen very few daylight photos without flash used with orbs, and seeing the orbs in the background is very rare. My daughter captured a day picture of flowers, no flash used. The supposed orbs were actually seeds from the flowers, behind the flowers lit by the sun. She did this intentionally, for her portfolio a few years ago. She was photography major. You can only do this with sunlight or artificial light, but a flash won't work for this effect. She also has another very interesting photo, she did during a rain storm. Daylight, and no flash was used.

It was raining, but not where she was standing when she did the photo. There was a wall of rain, behind the rain was the sun and no rain, she was in cloudy daylight when she shot the photo. The sun behind the rain lite the rain drops to look like orbs. Very interesting effect.

Edit, I forgot to mention she's used an artificial light scource during the day, no flash and has created the same effect, lit orbs.

Totally plausible. Not sure really what they were. They appeared as a golden, variable-intensity light source.

Andy

Was the sun reflecting? The day orb photos are the most interesting to look at for me. When the orbs are in the backgound, the effect is amazing to look at.