Home » CHIT-CHAT » Off Topic Discussions » A question about orbs and lights.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314326] Thu, 17 January 2013 19:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
"Wait. It's a still picture. How do you tell direction of movement (and if there is movement at all) from one single picture?"
Direction of movement can sometimes be determined by shape of the light or orb. These take on a sort of teardrop shape with the bulging part in front and what appears to be a vapour trail at the rear.

Don't forget that alle we (at least me) have to judge on is the pic. So what looks like a moving light on the pic does not necessary have to be moving light in reality.
E.g. If we agreed on the existence of the orbs as "there is something "supranatural" (as in its not waterdrops, no dust, no physical thingie) we can not (yet) explain - why should they be limited to being orbs? Couldn't a few of them have a drop like shape so that they do look like a moving ball on the pic but infact they haven't move at all but just look like this?
(It's even one argument on the webpage against sceptics that they do not always appear shaped as a ball/orb).
E.g. the pic shows moving light from right to left. Could in reality been that the lights do not move at all but the camera moved from left to right. As long as there is no reference on the pic we cannot tell just by judging the pic.

Quote:
"No. Rain may very well contain different sized drops and it very well moves along air flow. And most of the above mentioned forms of humidity easily move upwards (thats how evaporation, building clouds and falling rain work).'

Visit thw White Lights of Spectacular and Bright Lights galleries ..... have you ever seen raindrops like that ?

That's the wrong question. Question has to be "have you ever seen pics of raindrops like that?" Answer is: yes. Some pics on the page (haven't examined many, tho) infact resemble pics of rain or done with raindrops on camera's lense.

Quote:
"Certainly: If there was real light emitting it would be obvious that there had to be something that was not induced by taking the photo.
Going with the reflections induced by taking the picture it's a matter of belief what may have caused the reflections in this way, if it may be atmospheric physics and imaging physics or rather sort of para physics."

In their normal form most orbs and lights have insufficient power (like a capacitor stored charge) to emit sufficient light to be picked up by camera's or the naked eye .... that is most but not all.
If for instance you had a battery hooked up to a 40 watt blue colored globe and tried to photograph it at night from 50 feet what would be the result ? If however you had a 100 watt clear (white) globe in the same position what would you expect the results to be ?

In the 1st case i would prolly see nothing on a pic. Hence i'd think "there is nothing; nothing to investigate; nothing to belief or not to belief. Just nothing at all".
In the 2nd case i'd prolly see the bulb on the pic. Hence i'd think "There definetly is something. Let's investigate what this may be".

Quote:
"Sure they can, they have ever done that. I mean, quantity is not a indication to what might be the explanation of a phenomenon, is it? If i took billions of pics of a rainbow does this shift the reason for the rainbow from optical physics to a leprechaun with a barrel full of gold?"

That is obviously an armchair opinion. After being in the field using many different sorts of camera's in very different conditions .... actual experience, your perspective might change.

No, it's an oponion from life long experience (of myself and other people as well): Number of observances of a phenomenon doesn't tell me the reason nor cause of this phenomenon.
So after being in the field using many different sorts of cameras in very different conditions taking pictions of rainbows i'd still not know why the heck there even is a rainbow at all.

Don't be biased. I am not saying "ULOs are impossible". I am saying: the number of pics of a phenomenon doesn't tell me anything about the cause of this penomenon. The number of pics may tell me something about frequency of occurrence or probabilty of a phenomenon taking place and being observable.
But even if i watched the phenomenon myself i'd still not know the cause of the phenomenon just be seeing it; i'd had to investigate, research think, make conclusions etc.

Bottom line: Mass of pics taken is no argument at all about ULOs - neither for nor against existance of so called "orbs".

Quote:
"The flash is not the only setting that may change between 2 photo shots: Settings on the cam may have changed, the cam may have moved, even the breath of the photographer may have changed and everything.
So without knowing if everything else has been ceteris paribus on 2 pics, the fact that both pics used flash is not worth much."


You might be making assumptions based on ideas that the photographers are employing some sort of tricks or altering technical settings on camera's. In reality you have no idea what the photographer has or hasn't done because you weren't present.

You've been present? So you took all the pictures and we're talking about your website?

Anyway, i'm not making any assumptions at all - because i do not have enough info to even make educated guesses. And i am not saying somebody is employing tricks or something. All i am saying is: I do not know how those pics were taken.
Change of settings are not necessarily taken by photographer willingly. E.g. autofocus of a cam may change. E.g. When photographing without tripod camera might slightly move inadvertently (and then e.g. a possibly built-in stabiliser may or may not work on the pic).
I'm just offering possibilities of possible changes that i do not have info about so that i cannot take any assumptions. So i do not take any.

Quote:
Breath of the photographer .... in winter maybe but now it's the middle of summer in Australia ....
there's no cold air which mists up when breathing at night.

Again, i am not saying this has happened. But it's not impossible, so i say it could have happened. I do not know this. But i do know that human breath is quite humid so every breath you take does change humidity in the immediate surroundings. If this might have taken effect on a given photo i do not know. I wasn't saying it had, JFTR.
I've never been to Down Under in middle of summer (that's too sunny during day for my liking) so i do not know myself if breathing onto a cam's lense at night likely results in condensate on it. And i wasn't saying the photographer did this. I do not know if somebody did this (perhaps unwillingly) or not.

Quote:
Also it's virtualy impossible to remain statue still for the next subsequent shot .... there's always a tiny bit of movement unless camera's are placed on tripods but that's not much use with compacts because those dont have a sync connection where a remote cable could be attached.

Yes, that's what i tried to say. Smile

Quote:
Actually your question gave me an idea .... set up a camera on tripod and use the self timer set to say 10 seconds to obtain a series of pics. Just let it fire away till the battery expires to see what might be obtained.

I'm glad to help. Smile
Actually i was wondering anyway that somebody was taking pictures at night with obviously high exposure time without even some sort of make shift tripod (e.g. a sack of beans on a wall or so).
Have you ever tried working with a camera that offers low image noise on high ISO values without flash?

Quote:
Also as far as reflection off orbs .... i would say definitely yes because some appear very close to the camera however for those which dont and there is an extensive list of samples where an orb is very obviously behind fence wire often 10+ and often further away which pose some difficulties for skeptics. If it's that far away it cant be close to the camera.

Don't jump to conclusions quickly. Mind you, we have to judge by the pic. E.g. taken a pic focused on a thing behind a transparent object (like a e.g. water drop) may show you the focused object as well as some sort of lense flare from the flash by the transparent object resulting in the pic showing the focused object through the "flare". This seems as if there was a glowing object behind the focused object but in fact its a pic of a object that is transparent but able to bend and break light in front of the focused object.
Again i am not saying there is a waterdrop in the picture, just a possibility. I do not know.

Quote:
However as for the questions overall .... those were anticipated which is why the Skeptics And Debunkers post exists ..... to answer all those with many linked examples.

Don't want to be rude but i had to smile about the thingie "Light travels in straight lines" that is used trying to debunk faults of debunkers.
I mean, a photographer should know about Diffraction and Refraction. And when the object - reflecting the very light that is depicted - moves non linear, the light that makes the picture on the sensor still travelled linear from object to lens to make the picture of the non-linear movement.

Honestly, i thought "this is rather challenging author's physical understanding than challenging physics".
No offence intended.

And yes, i would also take a look at a lossless pic if you can manage to upload one. And perhaps you can also extract and write the EXIF data as plain text so that everybody interested could se what setting were used to take photo?
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314328] Thu, 17 January 2013 20:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Actually, the very first thing that comes to mind when talking about those 'non-linear light tubes' are the bazillion of pics like this:
http://www.colourbox.com/preview/1898079-123358-city-traffic-at-night-long-exposure.jpg


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314392] Sat, 19 January 2013 11:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi DepressivesBrot,

What you illustrate is the sort of effects i was experimenting with though they turned out somewhat different to that. The difference to those sort of pictures where a camera is waved about to record a stationery light as appearing to move or driving in a car, pointing the camera at roadside light sources then pressing the shutter ...... is that it's obvious in that nothing in the picture is in sharp focus ..... no real world objects.

If you go to the section Light Tubes for instance there are many examples of moving lights but as for background objects like shrubs, trees, fences etc .... take a look. Sharp, in focus and obviously stationery. That's the difference. When known background objects are in focus it's a sign no camera movement is involved.

Also you might be dissapointed but there's no plan or intention to circulate full sized original images in the public domain such as a file sharing uploader.

Hi Sam,

"Don't want to be rude but i had to smile about the thingie "Light travels in straight lines" that is used trying to debunk faults of debunkers.
I mean, a photographer should know about Diffraction and Refraction. And when the object - reflecting the very light that is depicted - moves non linear, the light that makes the picture on the sensor still travelled linear from object to lens to make the picture of the non-linear movement.

Honestly, i thought "this is rather challenging author's physical understanding than challenging physics".
No offence intended."

I dont think you examined pictures in Spectacular and Bright Lights gallery. There is no defraction or refraction, rather just plain out recording of light in motion for 1/1000th of a second and it doesn't appear to be traveling in straight lines with many examples there.
You might take a closer look at some of those pictures noting bulges and changes of color in the lights from one part to the next via gradual stages.

"You've been present? So you took all the pictures and we're talking about your website?

Anyway, i'm not making any assumptions at all - because i do not have enough info to even make educated guesses. And i am not saying somebody is employing tricks or something. All i am saying is: I do not know how those pics were taken."

That's correct.

How all those pictures were taken ??? That's easy. Have a camera with flash activated ready, point at something, press the shutter and see what happens when viewing the back screen a second later then keep doing that at different locations. At the end of the night there's a number of images worth keeping and some of those you see at the site. There are no tricks involved. Point camera, press shutter, move on taking more pictures.

"Don't forget that alle we (at least me) have to judge on is the pic. So what looks like a moving light on the pic does not necessary have to be moving light in reality.
E.g. If we agreed on the existence of the orbs as "there is something "supranatural" (as in its not waterdrops, no dust, no physical thingie) we can not (yet) explain - why should they be limited to being orbs? Couldn't a few of them have a drop like shape so that they do look like a moving ball on the pic but infact they haven't move at all but just look like this?
(It's even one argument on the webpage against sceptics that they do not always appear shaped as a ball/orb).
E.g. the pic shows moving light from right to left. Could in reality been that the lights do not move at all but the camera moved from left to right. As long as there is no reference on the pic we cannot tell just by judging the pic."

There is nothing supernatural about any of that phenomenon ..... it's all natural though it's nature is not widely understood or known about at present.

As for camera movement that was addressed above with the reply to DepresivesBrot.

Visit Light Tubes and take a look around. Dont those lights appear to be moving ?
Doesn't it look like the camera has recorded them in a state of motion across the field of view same for lights in Spectacular and Bright Lights ?

Now if the background objects such as bushes, trees, fences, posts etc remain in focus then it's obvious the camera wasn't moving or being panned quickly. That's just so obvious.


"And yes, i would also take a look at a lossless pic if you can manage to upload one. And perhaps you can also extract and write the EXIF data as plain text so that everybody interested could se what setting were used to take photo?"

That data is demolished by the software used to reduce files to 1024x768 but remains intact on originals. However as stated before i wont be releasing full size originals into the public domain but in isolated cases would send a few samples via email if requested.
Seeing DepressivesBrot has no interest in that he wont be getting any and BTW ..... i'm not interested in conducting personal email exchanges concerning this. The offer to send samples via email is simply security and convenience.

Shortly .... well hopefully, there will be a file storage facility become available at the site however with that i would still only upload files in password protected zips and inform interested persons of the password by email rather than announcing it on a forum or whatever. That's not the objective of security.

"I'm glad to help.
Actually i was wondering anyway that somebody was taking pictures at night with obviously high exposure time without even some sort of make shift tripod (e.g. a sack of beans on a wall or so).
Have you ever tried working with a camera that offers low image noise on high ISO values without flash?"

Do you know of any specific models ?

I've thought of that and found some models of Pentax SLR's might do the trick. There's a guy in USA who uses horrendously expensive Nikon SLR's with success but then those are ..... horrendously expensive. For outlays of $69 then $83 and $99 i can obtain anything you see at that site however only by using flash so why pay multiple thousands just to explose the possibility images maybe approaching those on display might be obtainable without flash .... maybe someone has the cash and curiosity to do that but not me.


However think about it and some of your questions about flash reflecting off something .... objects even tiny ones. So there's something ..... there are actual objects existing upon which the flash is reflecting. Once you see a couple full size pics where lights are obviously beyond question behind fence wire some distance away doubts tend to vanish. At the start i asked exactly the same questions .... is it tiny particles close to the camera or objects further away or both.

My conclusion is both.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314395] Sat, 19 January 2013 12:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Bearpit
Hi DepressivesBrot,

What you illustrate is the sort of effects i was experimenting with though they turned out somewhat different to that. The difference to those sort of pictures where a camera is waved about to record a stationery light as appearing to move or driving in a car, pointing the camera at roadside light sources then pressing the shutter ...... is that it's obvious in that nothing in the picture is in sharp focus ..... no real world objects.

If you go to the section Light Tubes for instance there are many examples of moving lights but as for background objects like shrubs, trees, fences etc .... take a look. Sharp, in focus and obviously stationery. That's the difference. When known background objects are in focus it's a sign no camera movement is involved.
There's one really small problem with that explanation: It doesn't apply. The type of pics, which I took this as a typical representative of, uses a static camera setup with looong exposure on moving traffic. It's moving lights, exactly like your tubes. Just look at the pic. The lane markings between the two major light bands, the curb stone and guardrail on the upper left and even the asphalt crack in the lower right definitely are in sharp focus. In other such pics, you'll have whole intersections in view, or city skylines - and they aren't blurred.
Quote:
Also you might be dissapointed but there's no plan or intention to circulate full sized original images in the public domain such as a file sharing uploader.
Too bad. Can't really follow the reasoning though when you later talk about encrypted zips and password protected downloads - forums have PM systems ... not gonna waste much time trying to convince you though.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314402] Sat, 19 January 2013 14:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi DepressivesBrot,

With light tube pictures those were taken using camera flash not any sort of long exposure.
In the bush where those are taken there are no external light sources unless something were set up so you only have the photographers assurance it was a camera flash nothing else and the duration of those is 1/1000th of a second. The other issue is how would a photographer know where to establish a long exposure setup on a tripod ? How can anyone be sure those lights would zoom past the camera ?

Yeah, never considered a tripod setup beside a road. I did it driving about pointing a camera out the window and was very surprised to find some pics had what appeared to be orbs in them. Everything was a blur, lines of light and colors except the orbs ???

Thought of PM (Private Messaging) as a solution a couple hours ago whilst .... taking more pictures though i'd prefer to store zips in an uploader facility which is part of the site ..... it should be up and running soon. I avoid any sort of file sharing places where it's necessary to register for membership plus you can never be sure of what's in the files. So that would then be easy. Upload a file and inform persons of the link and password by PM.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314411] Sat, 19 January 2013 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
I mean, a photographer should know about Diffraction and Refraction. And when the object - reflecting the very light that is depicted - moves non linear, the light that makes the picture on the sensor still travelled linear from object to lens to make the picture of the non-linear movement.

Honestly, i thought "this is rather challenging author's physical understanding than challenging physics".
No offence intended."

I dont think you examined pictures in Spectacular and Bright Lights gallery.

I was referring to http://www.orbs-ulo.com/board/topic/28-challenging-mainstream-science-physics/
E.g. this:
Quote:
Taken on 2 September 2012 showing what appears to be either a light either corkscrewing through the air or moving as a short wave. Below is a sectioned view showing a closeup of the phenomenon which is the first of these noticed so far.

http://www.orbs-ulo....e-reduced-size/

There is no corkscrewing light on this pic. What you see is an object corkscrewing (or an stationary object shaped like a corkscrew; hard to tell from the pic). This object is either emitting its own light or reflecting the flash. Either way, the light is travelling in straight line from object to camera, is bended by the lens hitting sensor triggering photoelectric effect of semiconductor resulting in changes in electrical resistances, fields etc. which are detected and processed by digital circuits.
Nothing of this is challenging physics as this is described by physics. That's how photographing works.

Quote:
There is no defraction or refraction, rather just plain out recording of light in motion for 1/1000th of a second and it doesn't appear to be traveling in straight lines with many examples there.

Your cam is utilizing defraction or refraction to take the pic. Razz
And light is always affected by defraction or refraction. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diffraction_pattern_in_spiderweb.JPG
Imagine how it would look like if the pic was not focused onto the net but the far background ...
Again: in your pics, it's the object moving non linear, not the light. Otherwise you would not have been able to take the pic at all.

Quote:
How all those pictures were taken ??? That's easy. Have a camera with flash activated ready, point at something, press the shutter and see what happens when viewing the back screen a second later then keep doing that at different locations.

That's a misunderstanding. I ment the viewer does not know about things like aperture, focal lens, focus, zoom, ISO settings etc. And viewer does not know about temperature, humidity etc. And viewer does not know if the pic was taken e.g. through the glass of a window etc.
Those things were meant by "how pic was taken".

Quote:
"Don't forget that alle we (at least me) have to judge on is the pic. So what looks like a moving light on the pic does not necessary have to be moving light in reality.
E.g. If we agreed on the existence of the orbs as "there is something "supranatural" (as in its not waterdrops, no dust, no physical thingie) we can not (yet) explain - why should they be limited to being orbs? Couldn't a few of them have a drop like shape so that they do look like a moving ball on the pic but infact they haven't move at all but just look like this?
(It's even one argument on the webpage against sceptics that they do not always appear shaped as a ball/orb).
E.g. the pic shows moving light from right to left. Could in reality been that the lights do not move at all but the camera moved from left to right. As long as there is no reference on the pic we cannot tell just by judging the pic."

There is nothing supernatural about any of that phenomenon ..... it's all natural though it's nature is not widely understood or known about at present.

That's what i meant by:
Quote:
"supranatural" (as in its not waterdrops, no dust, no physical thingie) we can not (yet) explain


Quote:
Visit Light Tubes and take a look around. Dont those lights appear to be moving ?

There appears to be moving objects on some pics, yes.

Quote:
"And yes, i would also take a look at a lossless pic if you can manage to upload one. And perhaps you can also extract and write the EXIF data as plain text so that everybody interested could se what setting were used to take photo?"

That data is demolished by the software used to reduce files to 1024x768 but remains intact on originals.

Therefore i proposed you extract said info before resizing/processing the pic and provide it along with the pic. Smile

Quote:
However think about it and some of your questions about flash reflecting off something .... objects even tiny ones. So there's something ..... there are actual objects existing upon which the flash is reflecting.

Everything depicted on the pic, that was not depicted if you took the same pic without flash, is for sure an object reflecting the flash. According to your descriptions so far this includes most to almost every so called "orb".
(this is not telling anything about what those objects might consist of except the fact that it is something reflecting light Smile )
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314412] Sat, 19 January 2013 18:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
That squiggle looks interesting, too bad the whole pic is blurred to the point that it might as well be an abstract painting.
Bearpit
Hi DepressivesBrot,

With light tube pictures those were taken using camera flash not any sort of long exposure.
In the bush where those are taken there are no external light sources unless something were set up so you only have the photographers assurance it was a camera flash nothing else and the duration of those is 1/1000th of a second. The other issue is how would a photographer know where to establish a long exposure setup on a tripod ? How can anyone be sure those lights would zoom past the camera ?
I won't go into detail on this since I have a rather cynical view, just one note: The only certain thing I have to go on is the pic, the rest are merely assurances as you already said yourself.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314413] Sat, 19 January 2013 19:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi Sam,

"There is no corkscrewing light on this pic. What you see is an object corkscrewing (or an stationary object shaped like a corkscrew; hard to tell from the pic). This object is either emitting its own light or reflecting the flash."

Yes off course you are correct. The light from that phenomenon whether it's an object or light shaped like an object is traveling in a straight line towards the camera lens .... i agree.

However what you see is a light phenomenon .... it's not a material thing in the sense of being a solid 3 dimensional object rather it's a light moving in such a way (apparently corkscrewing) as to leave a trail - record of it's passage across time/space for 1/1000th of a second duration which the camera lens recorded.

Theoretically objects can move that way however light beams ?? Maybe those strange corkscrew in the sky over Norway spiraling lights said to be runaway Russian rockets are an example unless it was a huge holographic projection or something concerned with a scalar/torsion beam weapon.

However in the Australian bush near here i'm fairly certain there are no mysterious Russian or US secret weapon beams being tested and it doesn't appear to be an insect or bird.

"Again: in your pics, it's the object moving non linear, not the light. Otherwise you would not have been able to take the pic at all."

Yes again i agree ..... it's an object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light.
If say you were to place a powerful torch or spotlight pointing somewhere then take a picture at a distance from the beam you would get something ..... a picture of a stream of photons which appears to be a coherent light beam. Same principle here.

Sorry .... i understood your remark as meaning some sort of light bending techniques were being employed to which the answer is no. There are no intervening objects except sometimes (very rare here) dense humidity by way of real fog but those pictures are so labeled.

"That's a misunderstanding. I ment the viewer does not know about things like aperture, focal lens, focus, zoom, ISO settings etc. And viewer does not know about temperature, humidity etc. And viewer does not know if the pic was taken e.g. through the glass of a window etc.
Those things were meant by "how pic was taken"."

Ah, that's what you meant. Off course all the camera's have optional variable settings however i tend to leave aperture, ISO, focus on auto, dont use zoom ever, dont apply any on board "corrections or compensations" for color balance, sharpness or anything else. That way it's much easier to remember because the camera makes all choices. As for atmospheric conditions .... those vary every day plus with the seasons and in rain. All pictures are taken without any intervening medium such as glass or a window etc or any object close by which would reflect the flash in such a way as to alter the picture. Standing or sitting in the open or drivers seat of a vehicle so it's a direct line to the background in every case no exceptions. So in every case the camera is being pointed directly towards the open terrain and part of sky at various angles.

"Therefore i proposed you extract said info before resizing/processing the pic and provide it along with the pic."

There are simply too many pictures for that and too much effort posting such information as text attached to each picture. You gotta be kidding .... 10,000 pictures.

Seeing you take an interest after the uploader storage utility is in place you can select some images from the site which i'll pack into a zip then provide the link & password via PM. Each original is around 3 - 3.6 megs on average though some from the Fujifilm & Sony can be up to 7 megs.
That way whatever particular ones your curious about can be yours to examine. There really is a huge difference between those on site and originals plus if there's questions about atmospherics etc i might be able to remember but by the date it's possible to determine summer/winter etc.

Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314422] Sat, 19 January 2013 22:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
"There is no corkscrewing light on this pic. What you see is an object corkscrewing (or an stationary object shaped like a corkscrew; hard to tell from the pic). This object is either emitting its own light or reflecting the flash."

Yes off course you are correct. The light from that phenomenon whether it's an object or light shaped like an object is traveling in a straight line towards the camera lens .... i agree.

However what you see is a light phenomenon .... it's not a material thing in the sense of being a solid 3 dimensional object rather it's a light moving in such a way (apparently corkscrewing) as to leave a trail - record of it's passage across time/space for 1/1000th of a second duration which the camera lens recorded.

No, it's probably not "a light moving in such a way". If it were, you were either able to photograph it without flash or you would still not see it on the pic with flash:

Let's assume there is something that consists of light but the light is to weak to be recorded by your camera. So if you press the shutter without artificial light, flash etc. you just see nothing at all.

Now we add flash to the very same situation while photographing.
If we now are able to record the 'something that consists of light' on the pic, the very 'something that consists of light' but is not "being a solid 3 dimensional object" must have a way of reflecting the flash back to cam because if it does not reflect the flash we would still not record something with the cam because the cam can only record light that enters the lens.
If we do not see anything without flash, but see something with flash the most valid conclusion is, that it's the light from flash that has entered the lense and hit the sensor, right?

How does light from the flash come back to lens and sensor? Because it is reflected somehow. Right?

Things reflecting light are usually "being a solid 3 dimensional object". Or differently put: We do KNOW for sure that "a solid 3 dimensional object" tends to reflect light.

So another valid conclusion we can take is that IF the 'something' we recorded on our pic was "being a solid 3 dimensional object" we would exactly get the picture we have.
But of course, the pic we have could still be showing 'something that consists of light' but is not "being a solid 3 dimensional object" if this 'something that consists of light' is also able to reflect the flashlight back to cam.
Is light supposed to reflect other light? AFAIK not.
So what makes you think the something you photographed with help of flash is rather made of light than "being a solid 3 dimensional object", now that we know that something "being a solid 3 dimensional object" would result in th exact same identical pic?

Sure, just by the pics we cannot prove that the something we recorded on pic was not 'something that consists of light' but we know it can very well be "being a solid 3 dimensional object".

Anyway what you can never ever prove with a flash enhanced pic is that the something was not "being a solid 3 dimensional object"; photographing something "being a solid 3 dimensional object" would give ceteris paribus the exact same picture.

Quote:
Theoretically objects can move that way however light beams ??

That's a good point: If light is unlikely to move like this, but objects "being a solid 3 dimensional object" can at least theoretically move like this - WTH do you think the something moving in that corkscrew pattern was made of light????

Your point of view seems contradictory and illogical to me, sorry.

Quote:
Maybe those strange corkscrew in the sky over Norway spiraling lights said to be runaway Russian rockets are an example unless it was a huge holographic projection or something concerned with a scalar/torsion beam weapon.

Don't know what you're talking about. But since you mention Norway, is it about "northern lights", "aurora borealis"?

Quote:
"Again: in your pics, it's the object moving non linear, not the light. Otherwise you would not have been able to take the pic at all."

Yes again i agree ..... it's an object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light.

Wait. If the object is consisting of EM energy it is likely emitting EM waves AKA light, right?
If so you should be able to take much more pics without flash because the "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light" of which so many are to be seen on most pics and all around the place should just by accident and probability often enough be so close to your cam that you can record the weak light emitted by "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light".

Quote:
"Therefore i proposed you extract said info before resizing/processing the pic and provide it along with the pic."

There are simply too many pictures for that and too much effort posting such information as text attached to each picture. You gotta be kidding .... 10,000 pictures.

I was referring to the one lossless pic Depri was asking for.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314436] Sun, 20 January 2013 12:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
"Let's assume there is something that consists of light but the light is to weak to be recorded by your camera. So if you press the shutter without artificial light, flash etc. you just see nothing at all.

Now we add flash to the very same situation while photographing.
If we now are able to record the 'something that consists of light' on the pic, the very 'something that consists of light' but is not "being a solid 3 dimensional object" must have a way of reflecting the flash back to cam because if it does not reflect the flash we would still not record something with the cam because the cam can only record light that enters the lens.
If we do not see anything without flash, but see something with flash the most valid conclusion is, that it's the light from flash that has entered the lense and hit the sensor, right?

How does light from the flash come back to lens and sensor? Because it is reflected somehow. Right?

Things reflecting light are usually "being a solid 3 dimensional object". Or differently put: We do KNOW for sure that "a solid 3 dimensional object" tends to reflect light.

So another valid conclusion we can take is that IF the 'something' we recorded on our pic was "being a solid 3 dimensional object" we would exactly get the picture we have.
But of course, the pic we have could still be showing 'something that consists of light' but is not "being a solid 3 dimensional object" if this 'something that consists of light' is also able to reflect the flashlight back to cam.
Is light supposed to reflect other light? AFAIK not.
So what makes you think the something you photographed with help of flash is rather made of light than "being a solid 3 dimensional object", now that we know that something "being a solid 3 dimensional object" would result in th exact same identical pic?

Sure, just by the pics we cannot prove that the something we recorded on pic was not 'something that consists of light' but we know it can very well be "being a solid 3 dimensional object".

Anyway what you can never ever prove with a flash enhanced pic is that the something was not "being a solid 3 dimensional object"; photographing something "being a solid 3 dimensional object" would give ceteris paribus the exact same picture."

I agree with your explanation and understanding which is fully logical. That is also how i view things of this world in general however here we are dealing with "things" not exactly of this world whose properties apparently vary with today's known laws of physics.

Also i am not a scientist, academic or physicist, rather an observer and photographer recording what i sometimes see and mostly what is unseen which however appears in pictures or is briefly visible as the flash discharges.

There is a book The Orb Project with an extensive foreward written by physicist William Tiller who proposes that just as living things absorb sunlight converting it into energy these lights are able to absorb or somehow utilize photons emitted by flash units similar to sunlight and convert that to the energy they use however it's something of a possibility for them to "induct" an overabundance of energy whereby their luminosity temporarily increases to such an extent the results are visible as we see in pictures. This principle is similar to that used to explain the way in which circuitry developed by Nikola Tesla operates inducting then using the limitless sea of energy all around.

You may have heard of Thomas Bearden who offers explanations in his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0K_LkO0Zuw


Just like temporarily adding a high charge to a light bulb which glows brightly though briefly as a result. To me that's at least plausible however it's impossible to validate at present but at least an eminent physicist has stepped forward to offer explanations. maybe the flash does act in that sort of way enabling these lights - objects to gain a temporary boost to their charge status.


"That's a good point: If light is unlikely to move like this, but objects "being a solid 3 dimensional object" can at least theoretically move like this - WTH do you think the something moving in that corkscrew pattern was made of light????

Your point of view seems contradictory and illogical to me, sorry."

At those locations what else could it be ? There is simply nothing except maybe a small piece of plastic drifting in the wind which is very unlikely where those are taken.
I think maybe it's more appropriate to say object which emits light.


"Don't know what you're talking about. But since you mention Norway, is it about "northern lights", "aurora borealis"?"

It's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_8MVctp30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxA0Asq2YDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBUW_MZkQ30


"Wait. If the object is consisting of EM energy it is likely emitting EM waves AKA light, right?
If so you should be able to take much more pics without flash because the "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light" of which so many are to be seen on most pics and all around the place should just by accident and probability often enough be so close to your cam that you can record the weak light emitted by "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light."

I think William Tiller might be correct in that in their normal charge state these objects have insufficient energy to appear as they do in pictures without the aid of light emitted and processed by them from a flash unit with exceptions ..... the large white light of many shapes in Spectacular and Bright Lights which is an exception as are some others which can occasionally be briefly seen with the naked eye. You must have come across that one of which some hundreds of examples are posted however there exist over 1,700 pics of that light from multiple dates at multiple locations. How is it possible to obtain so many ?


"I was referring to the one lossless pic Depri was asking for."

Just downloaded and installed an exif reader so if you ask for any specific file it's possible to post that info here but everything from your end would change after being able to examine originals yourself.


Also there is one other unique picture involving the large light.

Taken in the backyard it shows the end of the dull orange colored part in the sky with apparently the glowing white part invisible .... out of the picture, however there appears to be a shadow from tree foilage cast on the orange part by light apparently from the white part which is coiled somewhere above. After obtaining that picture came serious doubts this could be anything except some sort of as we understand solid object and i still have no answer.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314437] Sun, 20 January 2013 12:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
On a tangential note: Would you please consider using quotes like everyone else? Or maybe colors? I find it unnecessarily straining to figure out which parts are reply since Sam used tons of quotation marks in the original text already.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314440] Sun, 20 January 2013 15:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
I agree with your explanation and understanding which is fully logical. That is also how i view things of this world in general however here we are dealing with "things" not exactly of this world whose properties apparently vary with today's known laws of physics.

So you prefer ignoring the explanation and logics but rather resort to some belief.
Well, i'm perfectly fine with this - but beliefs can hardly be discussed.
So best leave it at that: You want to belief something which is improbable and mostly even impossible by reasoning you understood and agreed on.

BTW:
Quote:
however here we are dealing with "things" not exactly of this world whose properties apparently vary with today's known laws of physics

You've written before:
Quote:
There is nothing supernatural about any of that phenomenon ..... it's all natural though it's nature is not widely understood or known about at present

Pls decide if it's an ET thingie for you or not.

Quote:
There is a book The Orb Project with an extensive foreward written by physicist William Tiller who proposes that just as living things absorb sunlight converting it into energy these lights are able to absorb or somehow utilize photons emitted by flash units similar to sunlight and convert that to the energy they use however it's something of a possibility for them to "induct" an overabundance of energy whereby their luminosity temporarily increases to such an extent the results are visible as we see in pictures.

But of course those "orbs" do not work with sunlight or any other artificial light - they only respond to cam's flashlight for convenience of photographers. I see.

Quote:
"That's a good point: If light is unlikely to move like this, but objects "being a solid 3 dimensional object" can at least theoretically move like this - WTH do you think the something moving in that corkscrew pattern was made of light????

Your point of view seems contradictory and illogical to me, sorry."

At those locations what else could it be ? There is simply nothing except maybe a small piece of plastic drifting in the wind which is very unlikely where those are taken.

Could be a hair, dried piece of dead plant, piece of cobweb, everything. but you prefer ...
Quote:
I think maybe it's more appropriate to say object which emits light.

... wishing it was the one thing that yourself said that it would be even more improbable to move or being shaped like this.
That is weird.

Quote:
"Wait. If the object is consisting of EM energy it is likely emitting EM waves AKA light, right?
If so you should be able to take much more pics without flash because the "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light" of which so many are to be seen on most pics and all around the place should just by accident and probability often enough be so close to your cam that you can record the weak light emitted by "object though composed of electromagnetic energies - light."

I think William Tiller might be correct in that in their normal charge state these objects have insufficient energy to appear as they do in pictures without the aid of light emitted and processed by them from a flash unit with exceptions .....

So these things use flashlight at night to enhance their emission but they do not use other artificial light at night to enhance their emission and they do not use sunlight to do so nor do they do so at day. Sounds like a more or less sentient being to me, that wants to interact especially with photographers. Aha.

Quote:
the large white light of many shapes in Spectacular and Bright Lights which is an exception as are some others which can occasionally be briefly seen with the naked eye. You must have come across that one of which some hundreds of examples are posted however there exist over 1,700 pics of that light from multiple dates at multiple locations. How is it possible to obtain so many ?

Yeah, great back to going round in circles. We already were at the point "mass of pics as explanation for cause of phenomenon".
Do you know the saying "Go, people, feed on crap as gazillions of flies could not be wrong ..."? Wink
Anyway, we had this before, so pls. do not resort to "reasons" that have already been dealt with. So again: Number of pics taken is no explanation of cause of phenomenon.

Let's have an "agree to disagree", it's of no use discussing personal beliefs here.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314441] Sun, 20 January 2013 17:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi Sam,

"Pls decide if it's an ET thingie for you or not."

Interdimensional rather than extraterrestrial. Those things reside here though in another room of the house. They are able to visit our room though as yet persons are not able to visit theirs.


"But of course those "orbs" do not work with sunlight or any other artificial light - they only respond to cam's flashlight for convenience of photographers. I see."

With daylight and sunlight there's insufficient contrast though in overcast conditions in daylight it's easy enough to obtain pictures though only by using flash. There are some examples in the December 2012 update.


"Could be a hair, dried piece of dead plant, piece of cobweb, everything. but you prefer ..."

Seems a very odd shape for any of those.


"So these things use flashlight at night to enhance their emission but they do not use other artificial light at night to enhance their emission and they do not use sunlight to do so nor do they do so at day. Sounds like a more or less sentient being to me, that wants to interact especially with photographers. Aha."

Maybe they do use sunlight and other sources of energy as yet only theorized about. Using light from a flash to trigger "opening the circuit gate" for the induction of energy doesn't seem so far fetched. It's at least something towards an explanation.

Want's to interact with photographers .... sure, the evidence is clearly on display by way of hundreds of examples. Sentient being .... maybe for sure some of the large lights are actually that but however those might be perceived it's hard to deny that a substantial number of pictures exist which could only result if those whatever they are choose to be in front of the camera as the shutter button was pressed. That's not a theory.

"Yeah, great back to going round in circles. We already were at the point "mass of pics as explanation for cause of phenomenon".
Do you know the saying "Go, people, feed on crap as gazillions of flies could not be wrong ..."? wink
Anyway, we had this before, so pls. do not resort to "reasons" that have already been dealt with. So again: Number of pics taken is no explanation of cause of phenomenon."

1,700 pictures of one particular phenomenon forms part of my rationale and explanation. Evidence.
Substantial numbers of pictures indicates it's not some random fluke like when a single example of something is obtained. In all of the replies so far you have never indicated any appreciation for the variety or attractiveness of the phenomenon displayed, it's unusual appearance, sometimes sublime colors, highly varied shapes and all out there whizzing about just a camera shutter press away.

Yeah what Thomas Bearden says may sound a bit scary but then he knows enough about what he's talking about to engineer devices constructed from and comprising solely of electrical circuits which when switched on produce incredible amounts of energy from .... literally nowhere ... but it is something coming from somewhere and obvious because it's possible to plug a host of heavy duty electrical chewing household devices into his free standing apparatus which contains no moving parts and they run just as though they were plugged into a household mains supply.

"Let's have an "agree to disagree", it's of no use discussing personal beliefs here."

Personal beliefs .... hmm did Galileo have personal beliefs ? According to some from his time yes they were.

Let's examine beliefs and the distinction between personal beliefs and explanations for reality based on circulating information.

Man in the sky allegedly created a male called Adam then a female called Eve from a part of Adam then those being a male and female sired two children Cain and Abel .... OK, so how did the human race continue to propagate from that point ? How many believe that and what might be the basis for believing that ?

The Bearden material is offered as an alternative .... it's a choice.
I've never encountered a talking snake but have over 1,700 pictures of what appears to be apparently a light sometimes if not often looking like a snake in the sky which sure manages to light up the sky and the pictures it's featured in to verify it's not belief or imagination or words claiming something.


Hi DepressivesBrot,

"On a tangential note: Would you please consider using quotes like everyone else? Or maybe colors? I find it unnecessarily straining to figure out which parts are reply since Sam used tons of quotation marks in the original text already."

Will have to figure that out ..... how to get quoted text appearing as it does which stands out just great compared to " ... "
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314443] Sun, 20 January 2013 17:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Quote:
Will have to figure that out ..... how to get quoted text appearing as it does which stands out just great compared to " ... "

Replace the "text" with
[quote]text[/quote]


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314446] Sun, 20 January 2013 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
Interdimensional rather than extraterrestrial. Those things reside here though in another room of the house. They are able to visit our room though as yet persons are not able to visit theirs.

Why do they not shine up in the artificial light from a street light or from a lit window or a car passing by? They appear to not show up in videos with artificial lighting, they seem to have not shown up in analog photographing done with flashlight.
They always only do enhance their own emission by your flashlight, not the light of your car when you drove up to the scene.
How do you explain this to yourself? (just being curious).

Quote:
"So these things use flashlight at night to enhance their emission but they do not use other artificial light at night to enhance their emission and they do not use sunlight to do so nor do they do so at day. Sounds like a more or less sentient being to me, that wants to interact especially with photographers. Aha."

Maybe they do use sunlight and other sources of energy as yet only theorized about. Using light from a flash to trigger "opening the circuit gate" for the induction of energy doesn't seem so far fetched. It's at least something towards an explanation.


Let me ask again, what do you think why they respond to the flash but not the lights from your car. It's same ways of producing this light, so should be containing same wave length etc. so why is there IYHO different reaction between flash and car's light?

Quote:
Want's to interact with photographers .... sure, the evidence is clearly on display by way of hundreds of examples. Sentient being .... maybe for sure some of the large lights are actually that but however those might be perceived it's hard to deny that a substantial number of pictures exist which could only result if those whatever they are choose to be in front of the camera as the shutter button was pressed. That's not a theory.

Ah i see. That's back to good old 'proof by statement'. Great.

But why don't you trust your own theory (which is more than a theory by your claim above) - it's more than a "maybe" from your PoV: They choose which light to react on, they choose where to appear and which sort of photograph they want to be on; they choose to assemble in front of camera and know when the shutter is pressed. C'mon they "choose", they decide, they observe and willingly interact with surroundings on purpose - this is clear sign of intelligence and a will, at least it's proof of reflex and instinct. This is what we call "life", isn't it.


Quote:
"Yeah, great back to going round in circles. We already were at the point "mass of pics as explanation for cause of phenomenon".
Do you know the saying "Go, people, feed on crap as gazillions of flies could not be wrong ..."? wink
Anyway, we had this before, so pls. do not resort to "reasons" that have already been dealt with. So again: Number of pics taken is no explanation of cause of phenomenon."

1,700 pictures of one particular phenomenon forms part of my rationale and explanation. Evidence.


Great. We could go back a few posts and just quote ourselves again. Shall we? I begin:
You: When you have before you thousands of high quality images showing all manner of colors, shapes and sizes ...
Me: I mean, quantity is not a indication to what might be the explanation of a phenomenon, is it? If i took billions of pics of a rainbow does this shift the reason for the rainbow from optical physics to a leprechaun with a barrel full of gold?

You: That is obviously an armchair opinion. After being in the field using many different sorts of camera's in very different conditions .... actual experience

Me: Number of observances of a phenomenon doesn't tell me the reason nor cause of this phenomenon.
So after being in the field using many different sorts of cameras in very different conditions taking pictions of rainbows i'd still not know why the heck there even is a rainbow at all.
Don't be biased. I am not saying "ULOs are impossible". I am saying: the number of pics of a phenomenon doesn't tell me anything about the cause of this penomenon. The number of pics may tell me something about frequency of occurrence or probabilty of a phenomenon taking place and being observable.
But even if i watched the phenomenon myself i'd still not know the cause of the phenomenon just be seeing it; i'd had to investigate, research think, make conclusions etc.

Bottom line: Mass of pics taken is no argument at all about ULOs - neither for nor against existance of so called "orbs".

Now it's your turn, if you really want to repeat this.

Quote:
Substantial numbers of pictures indicates it's not some random fluke like when a single example of something is obtained. In all of the replies so far you have never indicated any appreciation for the variety or attractiveness of the phenomenon displayed, it's unusual appearance, sometimes sublime colors, highly varied shapes and all out there whizzing about just a camera shutter press away.

Pls have a look here:
gallery of certain phenomenon
There are billions of HQ pics of a beautiful phenomenon I claim that this phenomenon comes from a leprechaun openening his barrel full of gold and jewels.
The billions of pics there are evidence that my claim is right.

And don't you dare to not show appreciation for the variety or attractiveness of the phenomenon displayed, it's unusual appearance, sometimes bright colors, perfect shapes and all out there whizzing about just a camera shutter press away!
Smile

Quote:
Yeah what Thomas Bearden says may sound a bit scary but then he knows enough about what he's talking about

Does he? How do you know? Do you know him personally? Or are you just impressed by the academic titles he claims to own?

Quote:
Will have to figure that out ..... how to get quoted text appearing as it does which stands out just great compared to " ... "


I can tell you what i do quoting your posts:
I click on "quote" on the bottom of your post, which opens the "reply" window with the text of your post already copied into text field. There i mark passges of your text and klick the "quote some text button" which puts your text between the quotation tags.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314448] Sun, 20 January 2013 19:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Bearpit
Personal beliefs .... hmm did Galileo have personal beliefs ? According to some from his time yes they were.
Since you mention him, I'm sure that guy would extract 10,000 EXIF headers and analyze them to support his 'personal beliefs'. Very Happy
(I'm in no way insisting you should do that, I'm just saying that bringing the 'misunderstood scientist' comparison should be well considered.)


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314478] Mon, 21 January 2013 08:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi Sam,

Quote:
Why do they not shine up in the artificial light from a street light or from a lit window or a car passing by?


Ah see, you've already got me half house trained Smile

That's a good question with the answer being the wavelength frequency of flash is similar to natural light from the sun whilst other sources like incandescent or fluorescent tubes have more artificial wavelengths. However orbs do show up indoors though from my experience not as many as outdoors and those dense concentrations are only to be found at specific places.

Quote:
they seem to have not shown up in analog photographing done with flashlight.


That's not the case because i've personally seen photographs with orbs present as far back as the middle 90s when someone i knew discovered circles of light appearing in his home developed pictures taken by a Nikon. Actually the location where he obtained those is one where great success to obtain pictures of phenomenon is possible.

Quote:
They choose which light to react on, they choose where to appear and which sort of photograph they want to be on; they choose to assemble in front of camera and know when the shutter is pressed. C'mon they "choose", they decide, they observe and willingly interact with surroundings on purpose - this is clear sign of intelligence and a will, at least it's proof of reflex and instinct. This is what we call "life", isn't it.


Surely yes you have described it perfectly .... intelligent lifeforms though way different to us or anything generally known.

Consider this ..... to obtain 557 consecutive pictures of an individual light at many locations on the same night means:

1. The photographer is able to see the light so points the camera accordingly.
2. The light phenomenon observes the photographer and positions itself doing some sort of display in front of the camera just before the shutter is pressed irrespective of where the camera is pointed or the surroundings within certain limitations such as inside a car or against a wall etc.
3. It's a combination of 1 and 2.
4. It's something else theoretically way way out like something or someone has an apparatus capable of projecting the sort of ever changing moving light you see combined with number 2 .... however that seems unlikely but then maybe those small green or grey people from out there somewhere are spending their time doing more than mutilating livestock, abducting people or secretly infiltrating governments in a sinister plot to take over the world ......

Quote:
And don't you dare to not show appreciation for the variety or attractiveness of the phenomenon displayed, it's unusual appearance, sometimes bright colors, perfect shapes and all out there whizzing about just a camera shutter press away!


I agree there are many lovely pictures there but those aren't exactly to my artistic taste ..... maybe someday when you provide a mailing address i can send a DVD with around 1400 images which are very much what i find innovative and attractive ..... it's simply too many to post anywhere.

The one with a doggy on the verandah is great and so many rainbows .... but then anyone who isn't blind is likely to see rainbows sometime throughout their lives.

Speaking of seeing things .... has it occurred that to not see such phenomenon with the naked eye is a design feature ? For instance if an airline pilot, driver of a vehicle, heavy machinery operator, surgeon or someone sitting in a nuclear rocket silo were to start seeing such things the skies, roads and world overall might become a very dangerous place if persons were constantly distracted by .... seeing things.

There are persons confined in mental institutions who do see things like spiders, snakes, creatures and apparitions of all sorts however this can be partly explained by chemical inbalances in their system revolving around the production or more to the point lack of, of monoamineoxidase a substance which regulates, controls, inhibits, neutralizes another substance the body creates naturally ... DMT or diamethyltryptamine which is a crystal forming in the pineal gland and it's that organ which is an "antena" or bridging mechanism to "other realms".

However .... through some practices of meditation it's possible to reduce - control the natural production of monoamineoxidase which results in persons being able to temporarily "see" or experience through an enhanced perceptual state things not normally accessible like those cross legged gurus in India or shamans in the jungle etc are sometimes able to.

Quote:
Does he? How do you know? Do you know him personally? Or are you just impressed by the academic titles he claims to own?


Not that, simply, the things he describes in many videos work. If one has the right connections parts to make devices as he describes can be obtained in kit form. When you see it working in front of you doubts tend to vanish. These are demonstration models only putting out a limited amount of power but .... no moving parts, no battery, nothing except several circuit boards mounted inside a frame and some switches. Plug in a lamp, kettle, toaster, fan or something like that and it runs ..... it's not magic.

Besides ..... if you watch the video comes a realization the man has integrity and knowledge .... compare that against videos of politicians or the many miracle healers who proclaim their greatness etc and decide. Is he for real ?


Hi DepressivesBrot,

Quote:
Since you mention him, I'm sure that guy would extract 10,000 EXIF headers and analyze them to support his 'personal beliefs'. grin


Being such an astute evaluator of personality ..... are you involved with psychology at the professional level or at least consider yourself a shrewd judge of character ?

With originals containing an intact exif file .... more will be revealed. For instance you can work out for sure the interval between those before - after pictures in January 2013 update as one example. Soon as the tech working on installing an uploader has done his stuff you'll be the first to get a PM link.



Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314501] Mon, 21 January 2013 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
Speaking of seeing things .... has it occurred that to not see such phenomenon with the naked eye is a design feature ?

So now we have intelligent life forms that were designed. By whom?

Quote:
There are persons confined in mental institutions who do see things like spiders, snakes, creatures and apparitions of all sorts however this can be partly explained by chemical inbalances in their system revolving around the production or more to the point lack of, of monoamineoxidase a substance which regulates, controls, inhibits, neutralizes another substance the body creates naturally ... DMT or diamethyltryptamine which is a crystal forming in the pineal gland and it's that organ which is an "antena" or bridging mechanism to "other realms".

And you either need a biological "antenna" or a digital cam with certain sorts of flashlight to be able to see or make visible those life forms from "other realms". I see.

Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314503] Mon, 21 January 2013 15:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Quote:
Being such an astute evaluator of personality ..... are you involved with psychology at the professional level or at least consider yourself a shrewd judge of character ?
I'm not a shrink, and I'm not sure what you're driving at with that question. It's a simple conclusion that a scientist of Galilei's caliber wouldn't discard tons of available data that might help finding correlations and later derive causes.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314513] Mon, 21 January 2013 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi Sam,

[quote]So now we have intelligent life forms that were designed. By whom? [/quote}

Some would claim a man in the sky however it's a contentious issue sure to be hotly debated though common sense tells some people there is some sort of intelligence connected to everything and probably responsible for the way nature including the known and visible plus as yet not generally visible has evolved, developed and operates. It's a bit less chaotic to assume there is order of some sort though at present humans aren't fully aware of all the details.


Quote:
And you either need a biological "antenna" or a digital cam with certain sorts of flashlight to be able to see or make visible those life forms from "other realms". I see.


I dont think you do, rather you doubt, however even doubters can sometimes see. If you have a digital camera take it for a picture expedition at night. Even a park or backyard is sufficient. If just one orb or light appears will that satisfy you ?

Unless you find something of value and accept what Thomas Bearden and many others are on about is based on a more robust and accurate version of physics than is taught at schools the subject (orbs and lights) will remain mysterious and unapproachable. It's not meant for debunkers and skeptics except as a mental exercise in frustration. However going out at night then returning with many interesting pictures showing all manner of phenomenon ..... that isn't frustrating, it's satisfying and a learning experience not based on negativity.

DepressiveBrot,

Quote:
I'm not a shrink, and I'm not sure what you're driving at with that question. It's a simple conclusion that a scientist of Galilei's caliber wouldn't discard tons of available data that might help finding correlations and later derive causes.


All originals exist complete with exif file. The collection is about 25,000 pics though only 10,000 appear on the site and to obtain those over 100,000 pictures have been taken, probably many more so far wearing out 3 cameras which are usually good for around 25,000 flash shots each before expiring.

Galileo had to hide some of his data distributing it among trusted friends. In his last years he was confined to house arrest and forbidden to look through telescopes .... poor dear .... couldn't look the man in the sky any more. No wonder he was depressed at the end.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314517] Mon, 21 January 2013 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Bearpit
All originals exist complete with exif file. The collection is about 25,000 pics though only 10,000 appear on the site and to obtain those over 100,000 pictures have been taken, probably many more so far wearing out 3 cameras which are usually good for around 25,000 flash shots each before expiring.

Galileo had to hide some of his data distributing it among trusted friends. In his last years he was confined to house arrest and forbidden to look through telescopes .... poor dear .... couldn't look the man in the sky any more. No wonder he was depressed at the end.
Ah, English is just a second language for me, so excuse the occasional inaccuracies. I didn't mean that you had thrown away the stuff, just that you weren't considering it. You're looking at your pretty pictures and conjure a story about sentient lights only bouncing around when the 'right' people are nearby and flash a camera at them, ignoring all the related data which might or might not be sufficient for a 'sceptic' to model the phenomenon under the existing laws of optics without producing contradictions. For the simple reason that it's more work. I assume there are more 'orb believers' than just yourself. Did anyone of them ever collate the complete information - pictures, meta data, atmospheric conditions - and still come to the conclusion it's unexplainable unless one resorts to wild speculation?


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314521] Mon, 21 January 2013 22:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi DepresivesBrot,

Quote:
Ah, English is just a second language for me, so excuse the occasional inaccuracies. I didn't mean that you had thrown away the stuff, just that you weren't considering it.


Sure, there are always going to be misunderstandings particularly with humor.
No, never considered adding information from exif files or even comments however there are usually brief descriptions in the picture description in addition to date, camera used and picture serial number. It's simply too much work.

Quote:
I assume there are more 'orb believers' than just yourself. Did anyone of them ever collate the complete information - pictures, meta data, atmospheric conditions - and still come to the conclusion it's unexplainable unless one resorts to wild speculation?


Not to my knowledge. Information about this subject is in the early stages with serious efforts only being started around the year 2,000 or a bit earlier. There are several books of varying value circulating but nothing with detailed contents as you suggest except brief summaries about atmospherics, camera models, locations and theories.

Actually from all the vast amount of literature only one PHD has so far published any sort of credible collection of pictures taken by himself and his ideas/theories are sorta similar to mine except he goes even further in some areas but ignores others. That is Miceal Ledwith co-author of The Orb Project who to his credit has amassed a very impressive collection of material obtaining pictures of phenomenon which has so far eluded my efforts but then he's been at it for over 10 years.

Quote:
You're looking at your pretty pictures and conjure a story about sentient lights only bouncing around when the 'right' people are nearby and flash a camera at them, ignoring all the related data which might or might not be sufficient for a 'sceptic' to model the phenomenon under the existing laws of optics without producing contradictions.


Not so for many persons have obtained such pictures except not consistently, that is not by hundreds of consecutive shots .... at least not published or circulating on the web. There may be many persons with huge collections but till samples start circulating no-one knows who has what.

Under existing generally known laws of optics and physics it's not possible to explain this phenomenon because those laws - theoretical frameworks are flawed, incomplete and missing elements the so called "way out" types accept as possible and by way out it includes several quantum physicists and others on the "fringes" of research into the mind, consciousness and the nature of reality. It's not a subject materialists of the Newton school of thought are ever going to succeed in making breakthroughs with because it's not dealing with matter or classes of particles - waves as they understand them.

Maybe that stated above sounds odd but there's the pictures themselves and what they show.

Can all that content be dust, water droplets, insects, breath of the photographer ...... ?


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314522] Mon, 21 January 2013 22:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Bearpit
Under existing generally known laws of optics and physics it's not possible to explain this phenomenon because those laws - theoretical frameworks are flawed, incomplete and missing elements the so called "way out" types accept as possible and by way out it includes several quantum physicists and others on the "fringes" of research into the mind, consciousness and the nature of reality. It's not a subject materialists of the Newton school of thought are ever going to succeed in making breakthroughs with because it's not dealing with matter or classes of particles - waves as they understand them.
No, it's a simple lack of data. No data - No model. And cynic that I am, I still didn't rule out wholesale manufacture.Quote:
Can all that content be dust, water droplets, insects, breath of the photographer ...... ?
Sure. It may surprise you, but I've seen a bunch of orbs just last evening - with just the good old Mk.I Eyeball. A streetlight and a window that has gone some months without cleaning were also involved (it isn't even dirty, just the dried residue rain leaves on glass).


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314538] Tue, 22 January 2013 01:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
Quote:
So now we have intelligent life forms that were designed. By whom?

Some would claim a man in the sky however it's a contentious issue sure to be hotly debated though common sense tells some people there is some sort of intelligence connected to everything and probably responsible for the way nature including the known and visible plus as yet not generally visible has evolved, developed and operates. It's a bit less chaotic to assume there is order of some sort though at present humans aren't fully aware of all the details.

Sorry, my fault in asking inaccurate question, so i got the wrong answer.
I wanted to ask what YOU think who or what has been the designer (and perhaps to what purpose)?
We can easily agree on the last sentence that mankind indeed does not (yet) understand the order of nature, universe etc. in all details.

Quote:
Quote:
And you either need a biological "antenna" or a digital cam with certain sorts of flashlight to be able to see or make visible those life forms from "other realms". I see.

I dont think you do, rather you doubt, however even doubters can sometimes see. If you have a digital camera take it for a picture expedition at night. Even a park or backyard is sufficient. If just one orb or light appears will that satisfy you ?

Of course i doubt, as i doubt everytime someone is telling me "Hey, you've got to believe it just by me saying so".
You know, like Galileo doubting what the church and geocentric model wanted him to believe because it contradicted his observations, knowledge and logics.
Will it satisfy my in what regard?
Regarding the fact, that light phenomenons are recordable where naked eye does not notice them? Sure, i already do know this.

Quote:
Unless you find something of value and accept what Thomas Bearden and many others are on about is based on a more robust and accurate version of physics than is taught at schools the subject (orbs and lights) will remain mysterious and unapproachable.

See what i meant above by "Hey, you've got to believe it just by me saying so"?
That's a bit thick: They are more accurate on physics (than all the Stephen Hawkings and such). This i have to accept. Because you are saying so.
As a matter of fact, i could accept this if the one saying so is of high professional authority (in the sense of expert, luminary) in this matter; if i have reason to think that the one saying so is able to judge this better than i ever could. Didn't you say you are no scientist? And - I beg your pardon - you have not shown very high expertise neither in physics nor scientific methods nor in arguing with facts.
Sorry, this is a definite "no".

Anyway, trying to add to pleasure and interesting pictures:
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showpic&id=69

If you like, post a judgement about what those lights may be, if there is movement and so on.
Afterwards i'll show the lower part / total pic which is revealing what it is, surroundings etc.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318655] Sat, 04 May 2013 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Here we are again and just for you something special appears in the May 2013 update gallery ...... big light visits big town and poses with some of the city's landmarks.

You might also visit the April 2013 update gallery where around 280 pictures of the same light appear however these were taken at mainly bushland locations, small towns and industrial areas.

http://www.orbs-ulo.com

The light was having such a good time it wanted to visit the big city so in the May update some of the pictures obtained from that journey are on display.

There was only one problem .... when boarding the tram to go into town the conductor said your friend needs to pay two fares because it's taking up two seats .... but anyway that how life goes sometimes.

There's the usual assortment of orbs, lights, fogs, mists plus for April and May something out of the ordinary and more to come.

So no pictures of 6 inch rubber chupacabra autopsies or other stuff of that nature .... just images of what's zipping about the sky most nights for anyone making an effort to photograph it which is really not so difficult or expensive but the results show ...... we are obviously not alone in the dark.

Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318668] Sat, 04 May 2013 19:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Hey Sam, you gonna reveal that pic then if BP doesn't want to take a stab at it?


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318673] Sat, 04 May 2013 19:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Ha, i even forgot about it already ...

Does anybody want to try a guess? (i have to dive into my HDD anyway to find the whole pic, might take some time)

Edit:
Found the pic:
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/gallery/80/full/91.jpg
It's snowing ... Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 05 May 2013 01:06] by Moderator

Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318700] Sun, 05 May 2013 09:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Snow and rain have an identical effect with orbs and what you see in Sam's picture is very typical of a picture taken during rain but notice ..... the lights are seemingly moving upwards and sideways which is not how gravity works.

So for sure someone located in a high building could easily obtain such pictures from a balcony or open window during rain or snow if a suitable camera was used.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318701] Sun, 05 May 2013 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Bearpit
which is not how gravity works.
While essentially correct, it overlooks one thing: The real world is not an ideal frictionless vacuum. And you need to decompose the various forces acting on that snowflake, which of the top of my head are:
  • Gravity - pulling downward
  • Drag - resisting the downward pull
  • Crosswinds - pushing the flakes to the side (left in this case)
  • Upwinds - countering the Gravity! since snowflakes are low weight, high drag ... it doesn't take much


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318711] Sun, 05 May 2013 17:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Yeah, as Depri says a snowflake (as well as any other sort of water drops and as I already mentioned further up in the thread) move along air streams as well. In the pic it's a combination of small lightweight flakes and air being compressed and moved upwards in a street's "valley" between higher obstacles (buildings).

Bottom line: "orbs" from water (and again, this is including humidity without rain drops) moving seemingly against gravity is nothing special, it's normal, it's very common.

And you wouldn't need a special camera for such a pic to take: just have focus in the background, use flash to "illuminate" the drops of water that are always in the air (especially warm air that moves upwards from ground at night in summer Wink ) and you're done.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318719] Sun, 05 May 2013 18:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Aren't some of those snowflakes a bit large to be snowflakes compared to the size of background objects ? What about that light about three quarters of the way up against the east side of picture ?

Estimating distance of the snowflakes from camera is an awkward proposition for sure but some of them do appear to be quite large and why do some snowflakes possess what appears to be a longer and different shaped trails than others ? The mysterious mysteries of snowflakes is sure to have some physicists in a frenzy when examining that picture.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318720] Sun, 05 May 2013 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Variable size.
Variable distance to camera.
Variable speed.
The only thing that would have 'physicists in a frenzy' is the sheer amount of data required to accurately describe and predict the movement of inhomogeneous particles in an open system of steadily shifting air currents. Not the mere fact that 'yeah, those influences exist and the result looks about right'


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318721] Sun, 05 May 2013 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
Aren't some of those snowflakes a bit large to be snowflakes compared to the size of background objects ?

No. The flake is just cm or mm away from cam (and the flash), while the background is 10 and even 100m away. So snow's reflection and its halo is not only covering multiple pixels on the sensor by itself but the light is much more stronger resulting in multiple internal photo effects in Charge Coupled Devices. Just think how large lens flares appear on photos.

Quote:
What about that light about three quarters of the way up against the east side of picture ?

As we do not see what is outside picture to the right it's indeed hard to tell if a huge and very close flake flaring or reflection from something else, agree.

Quote:
Estimating distance of the snowflakes from camera is an awkward proposition for sure but some of them do appear to be quite large and why do some snowflakes possess what appears to be a longer and different shaped trails than others ?

Snow flakes are different in size and hence have different velocity. And different distance to cam as you said. And different luminosity (again due to size, distance, structure of crystal etc.).
The air flow is different in between just a few cm distance.
And most important: movement is 3 dimensional but picture just 2D. So while you see just flake's trail e.g. going up and left it was going also e.g. away from cam resulting in a shorter depicted trail as if movement had in fact only been 2 dimensional up and left.
(the 3D thingy also applies to size and intensity of flake's reflection, depending if you took the flake full frontal or maybe just from a smaller side)

That's why some trails are different (different velocity) and some just appear to be different (3D movement).
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318771] Mon, 06 May 2013 08:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
Hi Sam,

Quoting you .... "No. The flake is just cm or mm away from cam (and the flash), while the background is 10 and even 100m away."

Your concluding that based on observing a 137K which is a very low resolution picture .... someone else's picture. How can you be sure ?

If as you say the larger lights might be larger snowflakes or objects closer to the lens then wouldn't their presumably larger mass have them conform more closely with gravity ...... that is they would tend to fall or travel downwards in spite of prevailing conditions such as wind gusts flowing through street "canyons" where updrafts might become created.

In that picture which covers a widespread area from what i observe all lights of any appreciable size are pointing upwards though at different angles.

Then the large light at east edge your unable to explain away is explained away as maybe being a light source close to the edge of frame though perhaps external such as the reflection of a real life light such as a security light etc. However at the mentioned site http://www.orbs-ulo.com in the section White Lights there are many examples of lights with similar (irregular) shapes in evidence .... it's quite common during rain to encounter such things.

When taking the actual pictures it's possible to observe some phenomenon momentarily as the flash fires exactly as it appears on processed pictures so in that moment there is a "window" into another dimension where it's possible to observe with the naked eye exactly what is being photographed. After such experiences perspectives and perceptions tend to change .... compared to looking at 2 dimensional images on a screen. That's the difference. It's an actual unfolding in real time experience with mores senses involved than observation of a picture.

Take a peek at April and May update galleries then explain away what you see there Smile

Which page in the physics textbooks has answers for that ?
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318772] Mon, 06 May 2013 09:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
I don't know if you have much snow down there, but:
1) Flake mass and flake size increase proportionally to each other.
2) Even high-end flakes aren't massive balls that are impervious to wind.


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318784] Mon, 06 May 2013 15:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
Hi Sam,

Quoting you .... "No. The flake is just cm or mm away from cam (and the flash), while the background is 10 and even 100m away."

Your concluding that based on observing a 137K which is a very low resolution picture .... someone else's picture. How can you be sure ?

I'm concluding this based on my knowledge of the scenery. I've been there when the pic was taken and i know the place, location, scenery for many years.
Though the 100m was probably a bit exaggerated: between the photographer and the central building in pic is a normal street of a small town with sidewalks, entry to shops etc. So it's at least 10m to this building. Then there's this building, another one directly attached to its back, then a backyard with parking for cars and such, then the higher building in the far background.
To give you a rough idea of the "setting".
(BTW, sorry board's software seems to cut pics low in size; it was a larger pic on uploading ...)

Quote:
If as you say the larger lights might be larger snowflakes or objects closer to the lens then wouldn't their presumably larger mass have them conform more closely with gravity ......

No.
1. "closer to the lens" = they just appear larger (than the same thing further away) on pic due to perspective. That doesn't change mass.

2. Even a larger flake is 1 micro g or less more in weight but accordingly larger (it's micro again, of course) in diameter. Such it offers increased "sail area". I'd say no big difference.

Quote:
However at the mentioned site http://www.orbs-ulo.com in the section White Lights there are many examples of lights with similar (irregular) shapes in evidence .... it's quite common during rain to encounter such things.

Let's see what we have then:
1. You do know pics with similar/same phenomenon.
2. You do know this very phenomenom is quite common during rain.
3. Snow is quite similar to rain.

I'd say that common sense would jump to conclusion "Well, it's likely related with rain/snow; so it's not surprising to have this on a pic during snowing as it is very common with raining ..."
But, you'd rather say "it's quite common during rain, so it can never ever be related with rain; must be something else". Right?
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318852] Tue, 07 May 2013 08:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
All that talk about one 137K picture .... what about the recent images at the site ?

Are you interested in any of those ? There's over 12,000 pictures in total covering all manner of phenomenon to look at.

How are you going to explain away the light appearing in April and May 2013 update galleries ?

Someone said its a finger being waved in front of the lens but wait .... in many cases it's semi transparent allowing the background to be seen through it ..... dont you find something of that nature curious ? .... what it might be and how come it appears in so many pictures at different locations ? Archeology of lights in the sky .... not a dig of past mysteries, rather an examination of current ones.
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318858] Tue, 07 May 2013 11:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3764
Registered:July 2009
Re semi transparent finger:
http://www.helicoptersmagazine.com/images/stories/newsletter/May08/phoenix_heli_flight_np_08.jpg
Same effect, it's all about movement and exposure.

Now answer me one question though: Are you actually willing to honestly and openmindedly consider explanations? Or are we again going through the same circle of explain - disappear - come back next month with another 1000 pics showing the same stuff?


Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318892] Tue, 07 May 2013 15:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sam Hotte

 
Messages:2031
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany
Bearpit
All that talk about one 137K picture .... what about the recent images at the site ?

I take this as a "Gotcha!" Very Happy

Quote:
Are you interested in any of those ? There's over 12,000 pictures in total covering all manner of phenomenon to look at.

I particularly like some of the April updates, the mist between trees. Could be used for a horror movie or such. Smile

Quote:
How are you going to explain away the light appearing in April and May 2013 update galleries ?

Why should I explain it away, anyway? It's the light from flash. We've been through this already.

Quote:
Someone said its a finger being waved in front of the lens but wait

Yeah, some very look like this. I'd be willing to bet on some that it is one.

Quote:
.... in many cases it's semi transparent allowing the background to be seen through it

Depri explained this already. Assuming you haven't made this willingly to cheat upon your site's visitors, try recreating it on purpose with your finger: Have it move into (or out of) pic while the pic is still being exposed. There will be a combination of finger's motion and the background as they both are exposed one after another to the sensor.

Quote:
..... dont you find something of that nature curious ? .... what it might be and how come it appears in so many pictures at different locations ?

Actually that is the fact that makes me quite convinced this is something connected with either photographer or the cam.
You know, like in an old joke:
"An East Frisian (they are German stereotype for dumb people) visits the doc: "Doc, you see, if I poke my forefinger at my head, it hurts. If I poke it at my chest, it hurts. if I poke my leg, it hurts. If I poke ..."
Doc:" diagnosis' easy. You've got a broken forefinger ..."

Smile
Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #318915] Tue, 07 May 2013 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Bearpit

 
Messages:1076
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia.
There are no tricks or special effects. What you see is exactly that which appears in front of various camera's, the shutter is pressed and that's it. Nothing else is involved and it's so easy due to that .... point a camera, press the shutter, process the resulting pictures at home, select the most interesting ones to keep and post some of those for public viewing.

So for anyone interested in pictures of lights in the sky .... plenty to examine at http://www.orbs-ulo.com

Previous Topic: New movie: The Seiege of Jadotville Seige
Next Topic: Jagged Alliance 2, the book
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Sep 19 20:09:03 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01265 seconds