|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #304299]
|
Fri, 04 May 2012 16:08  
|
|
|
|
UFO = Unindentified Flying Object
To me a lot of the major sightings began in the 50s. I personally attribute this to the espionage of the cold war.
Also,
If the shape of the earth would change again, everyone would laugh.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314234]
|
Mon, 14 January 2013 16:19
|
|
 Bearpit |
 |
Messages:1073
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia. |
|
|
"Yes. Drugs, especially the hallucinogen kind, have been with mankind for a long time now and often played a big part in ceremonies."
I agree and probably the most sinister of these is opiate of the masses which also plays a big part in ceremonies but that's somewhat off topic for ..... another shameless plug for a website dedicated to publishing pictures of light phenomenon and i guarantee you none of the camera's have taken peyote, ayahuasca, magic mushrooms, LSD, DMT or smoked anything green so what you see is really out there unless someone imagines it's all an elaborate hoax. feverish work of an image manipulation software or the camera's are tripping out.
If you are fond of so called ghost pictures ..... smokey fog like apparitions over 70 of those are featured in the January 2013 update along with a huge collection of colored orbs - lights and so far January is only half way through.
For the more technically minded there's a short write up in the January 2013 update forum Section 16 with links to several sets of before and after shots featuring both lights and fogs where in one picture you see the phenomenon and in the next consecutive shot it's gone.
Are these fogs really ghosts ? ..... no but then sometimes beliefs are just way too powerful to be resisted no matter how compelling or overwhelming the evidence.
Take a look and ask yourself, how is it possible to obtain over 50 such pictures in two nights ?
http://www.orbs-ulo.com
Take the "Forum" link from the front page .... all galleries are accessible from there.
Lights in the sky, fogs, orbs ..... now over 9,500 pictures overall.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314245]
|
Tue, 15 January 2013 09:33
|
|
| Bearpit |
|
Messages:1073
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia. |
|
|
Hi Sam,
The answer is yes however this occurs in rare circumstances.
Camera flash units have a finite life and typically a Sanyo VPC-S1414 has an absolute life of around 30,000 flash shots however this is broken up into several phases.
1. Up to about 15,000 shots the camera performs faultlessly.
2. From around 15,000 to 20,000 shots the flash misfires (fails to fire) maybe one time out of 200 shots.
3. From around 20,000 shots to 25,000 shots the camera might misfire anything up to one time in 100 shots but varies.
4. After around 25,000 shots the camera progressively misfires more frequently sometimes one time in 40 shots or even less or several times in a row and at that stage they end up in the trash then a new one is brought into use. Nowdays as soon as a camera flash begins to play up to the point that it becomes aggravating which might be around 25,000 shots it is discarded.
What was noticed during these stages was that even though the flash failed to fire orbs were still occasionally to be found on those pictures though not often and those were rather dull and nowhere as distinct as when a flash was used. So yes, occasionally it has happened but the orbs are so faint it's not worth keeping such pictures or publishing them because without enhancement the picture shows hardly any sign of lights.
Also one some occasions using a Nikon L120 it was and i imagine still is possible to drive around brightly lit streets immediately after rain and take pictures without flash where orbs appeared and these were quite bright almost normal looking orbs. However those pictures are more in the realm of "light art" and not really orbs pictures though there are apparently real orbs in some of them.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314250]
|
Tue, 15 January 2013 13:37
|
|
| Sam Hotte |
|
Messages:1965
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany |
|
|
Thx, bearpit, for the explaination.
So, the ULO hunters basically use artificial light by default so that pics without artificial light are not taken on purpose but happen as result of failing flash or something.
Hence ULOs are basically pics of reflections (by whatever).
Judging by probability the most likely explanation of the vast majority of those pics then just is reflections of moisture, dust etc. "aided" by optical settings like aperture, exposure time, focus, zoom etc. as well as hardware issues like the way CCD works, (too) high resolution on too low space of modern camera chips, thermal, chromatic and luminance noise etc. as well as calculations done by camera's software.
Then there likely are some pics that were digitally retouched additionally.
Doesn't leave too much room for "supernatural" explanations in my book. IMVHO.
YMMV.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314258]
|
Tue, 15 January 2013 17:49
|
|
| Bearpit |
|
Messages:1073
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia. |
|
|
Hi Sam,
There is a section Challenging Science with a topic Skeptics And Debunkers Theories About Orbs which explains the point of view and perspective from photographers position.
That section has many linked examples which refute the very things you mention.
Dust, moisture ..... that does occur in some pictures for sure and is noticeable in the way it alters images particularly dust. As for moisture ..... many of the white light pictures where you see clouds of small white lights or larger ones ..... have you ever seen raindrops like that .... emitting colored light, moving upwards, sideways and sometimes multiple directions all in the same picture .... rain falls downwards and the drops are probably of similar size.
Without flash the backgrounds would hardly show anything so it's not worth taking those pictures.
Whether it's reflection or the lights themselves emitting light does it matter that much ?
When you have before you thousands of high quality images showing all manner of colors, shapes and sizes often with combinations of phenomenon appearing together in one image ask yourself .... can dust or raindrops or moisture in the air do that .... so many times at that clarity and quality ?
DepressiveBrot,
"So without introducing a powerful light source, you are lucky to maybe have a few faint glows from background scatter?"
That's absolutely correct. Without flash there is near zero to be seen but then ask yourself and if you wish look at examples in the January update post (Section 16).... there are several sets of before and after or phenomenon and no phenomenon pictures. Examine the difference. Flash is used in both shots but the content is way different. If it's all from the flash why aren't all pictures the same or like the after or without phenomenon shots ? Why do some shots show various lights, fogs, orbs etc whilst others show nothing when flash is used for all ?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314262]
|
Tue, 15 January 2013 19:46
|
|
| Sam Hotte |
|
Messages:1965
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany |
|
|
BearpitDust, moisture ..... that does occur in some pictures for sure and is noticeable in the way it alters images particularly dust. As for moisture ..... many of the white light pictures where you see clouds of small white lights or larger ones ..... have you ever seen raindrops like that
Sure i have. But moisture does not necessarily refer to rain drops but also means any sort of humidity, haze, mist, damp, vapor, even the exhale of the photographer ...
Quote: .... emitting colored light,
It's called rainbow. 
Even without water the air around you has different colours due to bending and scattering of light to its different wavelenghts. Why shouldn't that apply to artificial light at night?
Quote: moving upwards, sideways and sometimes multiple directions all in the same picture
Wait. It's a still picture. How do you tell direction of movement (and if there is movement at all) from one single picture?
Quote:.... rain falls downwards and the drops are probably of similar size.
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).
Quote:Whether it's reflection or the lights themselves emitting light does it matter that much ?
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.
Quote:When you have before you thousands of high quality images showing all manner of colors, shapes and sizes often with combinations of phenomenon appearing together in one image ask yourself .... can dust or raindrops or moisture in the air do that .... so many times at that clarity and quality ?
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?
Quote:there are several sets of before and after or phenomenon and no phenomenon pictures. Examine the difference. Flash is used in both shots but the content is way different. If it's all from the flash why aren't all pictures the same or like the after or without phenomenon shots ? Why do some shots show various lights, fogs, orbs etc whilst others show nothing when flash is used for all ?
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.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A question about orbs and lights.[message #314311]
|
Thu, 17 January 2013 09:03
|
|
| Bearpit |
|
Messages:1073
Registered:August 2001
Location: Sydney Australia. |
|
|
Hi Sam,
"Sure i have. But moisture does not necessarily refer to rain drops but also means any sort of humidity, haze, mist, damp, vapor, even the exhale of the photographer ..."
Well if you have a digital camera you might try creating those effects with say cigarette smoke, pouring dust from a vacumn cleaner bag in front of the camera or squirting a vapourizer mist from an aerosol can to see what happens.
"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.
"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 ?
"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 ?
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
