|« Writing An Essay||Something Different »|
This has the potential of being the most heralded ghost hunting tool ever! To some, the image shows what can only be a magic wand attracting ghosts!
What you see is a Photoshop'd image of the Du.Static air purifier from Yanko Design which is pretty darned nifty. It's effectively a duster that uses static to attract airborne particles and even loose surface dust. It's a cleaning tool with rather neat generic air-filtration properties... and despite what some might see in the image above, Yanko recognises that most "orbs" in "orb photos" are indeed what its device takes care of... dust.
This 2011 Spring Spark Concept Design winner by Won Suk Lee will possibly spur interest from ghostly quarters as a possible cure-all for whether or not their photos are ghostly orbs or airborne dust particles...
I can see it now...
After purchasing a re-named version through a "ghost hunting store" at a considerable mark-up, they will wave the device around a bit, snap a photo, and voila! If there's an orb, it MUST be genuine!
Well... it sounds good as a hypothesis... but the ugly face of reality must rear its head...
Although I have zero doubt of the Du.Static's competence as a cleaner and duster, and indeed, a quick air purifier, if you look at it and how it works... well, in simpler terms, if you had a static charge in the wand capable of removing 100% of the airborne particles of any standard sized room, possible questionable ghost photos would be the least of your worries. A very painful (and large) static shock would be a little more pressing.
To empty a room of all airborne particles is next to impossible (ask Intel, NASA, Motorla, and The CDC as a small set of suggested contacts for this question,) and although the Du.Static stands a chance of clearing some of the particle in a space fairly thoroughly, it cannot make the air in a room completely uncontaminated of micro and macroscopic flying stuff...
Even taking an orb photo with the wand in the picture from or very close to the camera... How would we know if it wasn't a dust particle en route to the wand captured in the flash?
Now, I know that *if* this cleaning tool makes it to the public eye, it's not unfathomable that regardless of my missive here, some people will be breaking them out to add to their "scientific ghost hunting equipment"... and I wish they'd stop and have a look first... because will it really help them? Will it really prove that orb photos and videos are genuine anomalies and not airborne particles?*
Nope. Sorry, it won't. Save your money out of the gate if that's why you're purchasing this item.
On the other hand, if like me, you have a fairly dusty home and need a little help cleaning up, looks like an amazing gizmo! (Sue? Hint-hint... Christmas... Need!)
This all said, please forgive me for stealing a bit from the Engadget article on the Du.Static...
...but I have often vocalised, PURELY IN JEST of course, that many would-be ghost hunters who use terminology only found in these programs whilst running about with EM meters and the like without taking into consideration the how's and why's of what they're using, but simply "using" them to some effect anyway, are little more than emulating their favourite shows with effective cos-play... one has to wonder, if they do start using the Du.Static... or anything like it in shape and form... are they now adding cos-play Harry Potter into the mix with the wave of a static-charged wand?
Okay, after that last bit... allow me to quote Craig Ferguson...
* - Currently, the best way to change most people's minds about orb photos being genuinely anomalous would be to capture the same orb at the same size, brightness, and opaqueness on a stereo camera OR capture an orb easily visibly obscured in the photo by an identifiable solid object in the foreground. Either of these would at least open the debate up a little more, but to date, no one has really produced an image like this... therefore, at the moment, the greater probability is that orbs in orb photos are airborne particles caught near the lens and illuminated by the flash of the camera.
Even an orb apparently obscured behind an identifiable solid object would not be very convincing. See http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Paranormal%20orbs.html#Behind where there are orbs apparently ‘behind’ a page of text! In reality they are blending in with the light background.
Thanks for sharing the link JG. I have yet to see even one single convincing orb photo where dust could be ruled out, and I highly doubt I ever will.
This is why I included the word “opaqueness". I have a demo image I Photoshop’d for an old article…
Overall view of “obscured” requirement:
…and more examples at…
I agree though, to date, nada… and my hopes are not high! :)
The entries found on this blog are based on the thoughts and discussions of Sue Demeter-St Clair and Matthew James Didier....two paranormal investigators/researchers based out of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The blog is now archived, but will remain online for those interested in reading it. Please have a look for us via these websites:
The Ghosts and Hauntings Research Societies, Paranormal Studies & Investigations Canada - PSICAN, and Pararesearchers of Ontario We are also members and supporters of The Society of Psychical Research, and the Institute of Noetic SciencesPages We Contribute To On Facebook
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --