Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

PSICAN's Facebook Page has really picked up some interesting conversations of late... thanks mostly to Elvis Podvorac and Ian Topham really...

I'm going to do two posts on these... but I'm going to start with the post from Mr. Podvorac who posited...

I'm curious to see how people would answer this question: "I believe that orb photos are ghosts because..."

Now, the thread/post is VERY lengthy, but mostly it was the "pro/con" debate... and I tried to pitch a wee spanner into the works. I responded with...

Looking at the big reason most people assume their orb photo is a ghost, (which is usually the fact the image was taken at a presumed haunted location or when a "spirit" might have been nearby or even felt,) and then apply my question of "If a cat lept into the frame as the picture was snapped, would the cat be a ghost too?", one could make another argument...

If you feel 100% certain that there's no way airborne particles illuminated just in front of the lens could possibly be a factor (which is an absolute impossibility,) then why isn't the orb a a faerie or, considering the tremendous cross-over and when realising that the pinnacle idea of using a stereo camera to see if the orbs are indeed "away" from the lens of a camera was done initially by someone better known in Ufological circles (Dr. Charles Lietzau's stereo camera/orb work from late 2003 through mid 2004,) why can't the orb be an alien? (I am NOT being sarcastic about this... I am being very honest.)

I find it interesting that the default is that an orb in a photo, for those who believe despite the evidence, is a ghost and precious few believe they are anything else.

In fairness, there are Ufological "fans" who do subscribe to "orbs in photos are alien" (this is because round shaped UFOs are often referred to as orbs and this is what got Dr. Lietzau and Dr. Bruce Maccabee to do their work on the subject in the early 2Ks,) but overall, it's all about ghosts...

Aside from the amount of evidence to suggest orbs are "natural" rather than "supernatural" in origin, why is the default set to ghosts? Was that episode of Unexplained Mysteries in the 1990's with the orbs writing on Polaroid film so pervasive as to set a tone?

For the record, while trying to remember the name of the show, "Unexplained Mysteries", I ran into an old Ufological blog where people SEEING orbs (quite different from photographing them,) was debunked by a sceptic as "floaters" (dust and other microscopic particles in their eyes)... I've always pointed out that SEEING an orb is different then photographing them... but the knee-jerk auto-debunking of, "You saw NOTHING! It was dust in your eye!" was rather... amusing in a sad way.

Realistically, I do believe that the sheer amount of evidence to suggest orb photos are "normal" as opposed to "paranormal" makes the greater likelihood that they are not all that ghostly (or alien or faerie-like) in their construct and as such, is how I base my opinion. With the stereo camera work already done by and the lack of a photo showing a clear (not semi-translucent) orb obscured by a physical item really "damns" the notion too much for me.

However, I do keep a slightly open mind... but I need good evidence to be completely converted... and to date, none has been presented... and if you knew the slings, arrows, and genuine threats (including physical ones) I took from 1998 through 2003 on this subject, you'd know that I have "paid" for my opinion... and many people have tried... but so far, nothing has come up to sway me... and often one has to note, when looking at SOME of the evidence presented, many people who strongly believe in orbs do come off as "flat-earthers" in terms of ignoring things like how cameras work or why cheaper cameras had more orbs than expensive ones... Physics and engineering can help, but only if you pay attention.

Now, although I’m “hard-to-one-side-of-centre” towards the Orbs Aren’t Good Evidence of the Paranormal argument, it is fascinating to watch the sides of the arguments gently go at it on the subject...

I watch and I wonder to myself... is there any fantastic evidence to show orb photos are NOT caused by natural elements and are paranormal in nature? Not an ounce, really...

Is there a tonne of evidence from many different angles to support the idea that they ARE caused by natural elements and are not paranormal in nature? Yes... a lot...

...and not only (as stated,) from ghostly circles to show possible “skewing”... as I said, the first and original stellar work on orb photos and stereo cameras was done by Dr. Charles Lietzau (his paper was submitted to MUFON members on May 31st, 2004) who is better known in Ufological circles... and the first good study on airborne particles was done by another person known better in Ufology, Dr. Bruce Maccabee which is from 2001... so it's not just some of us within the "ghostly" community (or even the "sceptical" community) that have sincere and serious doubts about orbs...

...and as the keenly aware might have noted, Dr. Maccabee's paper refers to a gent named Bryan Williams, who, long before any ghostly website claimed anything, and not very long after the airing of the oft mentioned "Unexplained Mysteries" episode with orb photos and vortex photos being presented as evidence of "ghosts", felt his orb photos were indeed, aliens.

Now, the problem is that despite the sheer amount of evidence, people still claim that their orb (or ones they like) must be paranormal because...

#1: There is no light source to illuminate the "airborne particle" to produce the orb.

#2: Technology has vastly improved and this is why previously unseen orbs are now seen... Digital cameras are so quick, they capture the spirits on the fly! Literally!

#3: It was a dust-free environment. My flash couldn't have caught anything.

#4: They know a ghost was in the vicinity when the image was taken.

Okay, let's dissect these rationally...

#1: A digital or chemical film camera shares something very much in common with a photocopier, a computer scanner, and indeed, (and I have SOME experience in optimetrics, but that experience wasn't really needed for this bit,) your eyesight. In the absence of any light, you have nothing... it's black... dark. To see something, you need light to either be absorbed or reflected back into your eye, a lens, or whatever... if that's not happening, you see nothing... at all... including whatever was in your picture... so in order to say the image had NO light source, you'd need to take a picture in zero light... nothing... so the image should be a sea of nothing but black.

#2: No, there is no discernible difference (really) in terms of digital and chemical cameras in terms of photographic basics... BUT... later model cameras came with built in flashes... and to make them cheaper, the flashes were close to the lens... sometimes even tilted towards the lens for red-eye reduction... THIS is why orb photos are more common now than before... and if you do a little web-snooping, you'll see late model "point-and-click" 35mm cameras were (in the 1990's) prone to orbs and were, indeed, the most common source of orb photos prior to the popularization of digital. It's not about camera or film technology, it's about construction and placement of the lens/flash.

#3: In America, you could call NASA or the CDA to verify this... but your local hospital or any high-tech or bio-med company can confirm what I'm about to say... you will almost never had a perfectly dust-free room... and that's talking about "clean rooms" where they work on viruses and other scientific experiments. (Hence clean suits to hazmat suits and even shoe covers with sticky floors in entrance halls into these rooms... and even emergency showers, just in case!) Now, if they can't perfect a "clean room" to work on ebola, what do you think the average living room is like for normal household dust? Google it and be amazed... and possibly a touch grossed out!

#4: This is the one reason I personally don't completely write off orb photos... because this may be... however... I've often asked, if I was snapping a photo of a "haunted location", and a cat jumped into the frame and took off and I was unable to find it, would it be assumed the cat was a ghost? The reason to ask this is one has to assume that if there's a ghost or a ghostly experience happening anywhere, other things might be happening too that aren't "ghostly" in nature... like temperature controls being implemented or the like... as such, is the orb in the photo an airborne particle illuminated somehow into a large orb that just happened to be "captured" in the photo at a "ghostly" event... which is logically extremely likely... or was it proof OF a "ghostly" event... which is somewhat unlikely?

I could then cite the lack of the "partially obscured orb" or the aforementioned "stereo camera" evidence to support orbs being away from the lens... but I think you get the idea.

Now, to my believing friends read the thing just below this... and answer this question... "Am I comfortable with this statement..."

Whenever something weird is experienced anywhere in the world, several people have noticed the air grows colder... and as I've had odd experiences when it's chilly, it seems to be a thing... As such, without question, cold air temperatures are absolute proof of paranormal events.

Would this be accurate?

Do you see flaws with this statement?

If you do, why ignore the evidence that does show that orb photos might be problematic?

In my honest estimation, the BEST paranormal investigators, researchers... hang on, let me change this, the BEST investigators and researchers on ANY topic always ask "why" and "how"... and answer them "neutrally" to find the truth regardless of what they may want to be true.

...but that will lead to my next post...