Oh November 1, 2023, at approximately 11:25am, I got into my vehicle. When I pulled out of the garage, this image was in front of me on the windshield. I wasn't sure who it was initially, but took a photo of it. and went on with the day. I took a closer look at it the following day.

On the left side of the photo is a (living) man who I was friends with, and who I had a very intense emotional attachment to for several years. I had seen this expression many times. The right side of the photo shows a kind of astral entity attachment. In the past, there were many instances of narcissistic behaviors/tendencies. I showed the image to two intuitives and both agreed that it is indeed an attachment.

I have never encountered anything similar to this photo before, and was actually shocked to see him appear in this way. Since then, I have tried to figure it out. I think it's his astral body/counterpart and an astral projection of his energy. Although, I do not know for certain if I was involved in the projection of it or not.

This forum is a safe place for me to share it. I appreciate any comments on it. Thank you.

IMG_4552.HEIC

How did I come to the ITK. 

I started experimenting with tape voices 11 years ago, had several breaks in between for family reasons. Over the years, of course, through social media Facebook, etc., you get to know many people and new friendships that are in the same field of interest as, for example, Michael Brandel. Through Michael Brandel I came to visual ITK and made my first experiences with the water method, but at first it was not as successful as I had hoped. Later in August 2020 I had a serious motorcycle accident, the consequences were several broken bones etc..... From this point it really started, with the visual ITK, the water method. Since I had a lot of time after my traffic accident, I swung the cooking pot medially and refined and expanded the technique in many experiments e.g. that I used a mirror. The results became better and better also so that about the social media e.g. different Facebook groups about sharing my results / pictures that were also recognized by the relatives. About my pictures, since I posted them on Facebook as mentioned above. So in the beginning I always circled the otherworldly, later I provided the faces with red arrow always from bottom to top. So that outside people who are not familiar with the subject can also recognize it visually. 

The first experiments with the smoke method.

After about 1 year later I started to work with the smoke method. For this purpose I got myself a damper, a so-called e-cigarette with liquid and various LED lamps. The first experiments were in bathroom, with a big round mirror with blue light. I took pictures at the beginning, without a tripod so that I could be seen in the pictures. The results were positive, but I was not yet so satisfied, because the contrast in the background was not so good. What struck me but with a picture is that in front of the mirror in a picture my reflection has changed the face, but I have not paid so much attention, but what later plays an important role.

Experiments with black background and reader.
After the first experiments in front of the mirror, I moved to the basement and worked there with a black background, which brings out the contours of the smoke better with a properly adjusted light source. The eagerness to keep experimenting also led me to work with readers. This was also crowned with success.

Experiments in front of the smart TV.

Now, before I start this section, I would like to add something important, and that is the mirror. So, the mirror has in its components mainly glass, fused quartz, crystals, and so on. The crystal is a natural element and is also used as known in the ITK research in the audible and in the visual area e.g. crystal photography. What I want to get at the mirror or the TV or a smartphone has a glass pane which has the same effect as a mirror made of crystal elements, and in my experience has great influence on the results. For the experiments in front of the TV, I had gotten a tripod and a Bluetooth remote control where you can take pictures from a distance. I mostly used two light sources. A normal light which shines diagonally from the bottom right to the top left of the TV and a blue light which is about in the middle and shines from the bottom to the top. Mostly I sit in front of the TV left side so that the light illuminates me and my face I reflected in the TV. Then I take my e-cigarette and blow the smoke lightly into the cone of light and incidentally take so 30 photos. Of course, as with other methods, the image material must be evaluated. Also here is the same as in the audible range that you have to train your eyes visually. What you also have to pay attention to is that when photographing or recording a video, the lighting conditions fit, otherwise it could happen that the images / smoke contours become blurred and thus unusable. When evaluating the images, it is advisable to do it in a dark room. Since the usually darker images are visually easier to recognize. Furthermore, it should be noted that you must look at the images from all sides, because the otherworldly also like to show themselves overhead or from the side of the image. What also often happens is that the faces in the smoke can overlap so that, for example, several faces in a large face to be recognized. When evaluating the video material, the chances of capturing faces are higher, since 30 images are captured per 1 second, which can be evaluated gradually - this also works well with the water method. For Android smartphones, the app is called Frame by Frame.
The results that I have recorded with the smoke method and the smart TV are really amazing for me, about 80% of the otherworldly show up in pure smoke. 5% where objects manifest in the smoke e.g. wristwatch, shoe, castle or work equipment. What they want to say with it or what it has to do with it I can not say so.
The remaining 15% I have found that they are otherworldly in a position to change my reflection which is reflected in the TV / transform and also in another position to my head can change. What is physically not possible. After several tests without smoke, I have not succeeded in creating this phenomenon so that my reflection changes so. 

My conclusion for me, the key of the whole Spirit Photography lies in the natural elements: Crystal, water and the own spiritual mediumistic work.

Thanks for reading, translated from German to English with a translation program.

You can also visit my Youtube channel where I will upload my ITC pictures piece by piece of the water, smoke and Klaus Schreiber method.

https://www.youtube.com/@itkitcspiritsgermany9762

The claim that orbs are caused by dust in front of the camera is untenable for quite a few reasons. One reason is that thousands of orb photos show orbs that are too big to be dust, too bright to be dust, too colorful to be dust, too fast-moving to be dust, too often striped to be dust, and too frequently observed in very clean air to be dust.

Another reason (discussed more fully here) is that suspended dust particles are many times too small to produce orbs. The area right in front of a camera lens has an area of about 100 million microns, but

a suspended indoor dust particle is no more than about 10 microns (giving it an area of 100 microns). So an indoor suspended dust particle will only be able to block one millionth of the area in front of the camera. Such a particle is a thousand times too small to explain orbs that may appear as 10% of the original photo height or sometimes much larger (see here for 60+ examples of such large orbs).

If suspended dust particles were big enough to produce orbs, everyone would get orbs in almost every flash photo they took. But instead 99% of all photographers get no orbs, and those with a prolonged interest in orbs get them in great abundance (a fact utterly inexplicable under the theory that orbs are tiny dust particles). The fact that 99% of all photos on any randomly selected topic you search for (such as “my cat” or “my house”) do not show orbs is definitive disprove against the claim that the dust in ordinary air is sufficient to produce orbs in ordinary photos. And almost all orb photographs are taken in ordinary air.

Anyone trying to explain orbs through any orb-zone “orbs are dust” theory is like someone trying to explain the strange death of 10 children by suggesting that the nitrogen gas in our atmosphere is poisonous. That theory doesn't work, because if the atmosphere were poisonous, everyone would be dead. Similarly, it doesn't work to claim that dust particles in ordinary air cause orbs, because if that were true everyone would get orbs in most of their flash photos.

Skeptics have some videos out there trying to back up their claim that orbs are dust. One I watched was the most ridiculous thing imaginable. It showed a man pouring handfuls of dust in front of the camera, which caused some dust orbs to arise. Of course, such a procedure is absurd, because when you do that you are creating utterly unnatural conditions completely different from the ordinary conditions under which orb photos are taken.

A more recent page by a skeptic organization is more subtle. The page shows a video showing a closeup view of dust particles in front of a high-intensity flashlight. Such an experiment is laughable because it involves an utterly artificial setup completely different from the actual conditions under which photographers such as me (and countless other orb photographers) photograph orbs. I never use close-up macro mode, and never add any type of light other than an ordinary camera-flash. Plus when I photograph I am never shooting towards some high-intensity light near the camera, but am shooting out at the scene in front of me, such as a street or a room. The photographs I take of falling water drops (which I identify as such) do not involve any special illumination (just the camera flash).

So it is for other people's orb photographs, which show orbs in front of an external scene such as someone's living room or someone's house. No orb photographer is taking closeup photos zooming into the area just in front of some high-intensity light.

I was curious – if you try taking flash photos in front of a high-beam flashlight, using the setup in the skeptic's experiment, is that sufficient to cause dust particles to produce orbs in your photos? The photos below gives the answer: orbs do not appear in flash photos taken under such conditions.

Such a result is entirely different from the result shown in the skeptic experiment, where we see lots and lots of big dust particles in front of the flashlight. There is only one way to explain this. The experimenter must have raised the dust level much higher than normal, by doing something like throwing dust around or shaking a dusty cloth near the camera. Such a procedure is utterly deceptive. It creates the completely false impression that the air we are breathing is very dusty air full of big dust particles.

Imagine if someone were to publish a video entitled “The Scary Filthy Air of New York City,” by raising lots of dust and photographing it with a high-intensity flashlight. That would be utterly deceptive, because the air in New York City is hundreds of times cleaner than it would appear in such a video. Similarly, it would be utterly deceptive to drop some dirt from your house plant into a glass of water, and to then publish a photo or video of that, with a title “The Filthy Tap Water of New York City.”

The procedure followed by these orb skeptics is every bit as deceptive and misleading as the videos imagined above. After decades of environmental studies, the size of dust particles in ordinary air is a well-established fact. Not counting freak conditions, such particles get no bigger than about 10 microns. A particle 10 microns in size has an area of 100 microns, and will block no more than one millionth of the area in front of a camera lens (which is about 100 million microns, or 100 millimeters). Such a size is way, way too small to produce a decent-sized orb in a photo. To try to create an opposite idea – that the air we breathe is very dusty – by raising lots of dust and photographing that with high-intensity flashlights is just pure deception and cheating.

Posted by Mark Mahin at https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/experiments

Thanks to Mark. https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/speeding air orb

I was looking at a skeptic's web page the other day, one trying to explain the phenomenon of speeding orbs (you can see more than 600 examples of such speeding orbs here and in this set of videos). The skeptic's web page was full of nonsense and fallacies.

The skeptic started by giving a picture to supposedly show how a blue speeding orb could naturally appear. But the picture was produced through a most ridiculous procedure. A falling short fiber strand was photographed while a flashlight was held up to the camera lens – a flashlight that had a blue filter. Of course, such a procedure proves nothing. None of my 600+ photos of speeding orbs was taken while a flashlight was held up to the camera, and I never have used any kind of colored lens filter or colored light that might cause something that is not blue to look blue. And there are not fiber strands falling in front of my camera when I photograph.

Of course, since such a photo is irrelevant to explaining photos of speeding orbs, the skeptic offered another attempt at a natural explanation: that speeding orbs may be caused by insects. This explanation (and other proposed explanations for speeding orbs) is thoroughly debunked in this post.

The skeptic proposes that an insect can move at three meters per second. That's an overestimate. The speed of the house fly is five miles per hour, which is only two meters per second. Now, if you used a digital camera to take a flash photo of an object moving at two meters per second, would this produce some kind of trail of motion or double image or “string of pearls” effect that might look a little like a speeding orb? Certainly not.

The photo below proves the point. I took some little Cheerios about the size of a fly, and threw them toward a wall. The photo below captures the Cheerios in motion (with their shadows), moving at about three meters per second. The flash photo was taken with a cheap point-and-click camera, using no special settings. 

Notice that we see no trail of motion or double image or “string of pearls” effect  -- nothing resembling the dramatic "string of pearls" effect shown in these 72 photos. The Cheerios are simply caught frozen in motion. The same thing would happen if a moving fly were to be photographed. You might get a little motion blur if you photographed without a flash, but that's irrelevant, since all of my 600+ speeding orb photos were taken with a flash, which causes an effective shutter speed of about 1/1000 of a second.

There are three other reasons why “bugs in motion” is a completely absurd explanation for my photos of speeding orbs:

1.               Bugs are not round, and would not appear as round orbs in photos taken with a digital camera.

2.               The main type of flying insect someone might photograph in my city is a fly, which is black colored. None of my photos of speeding orbs show anything looking black or even dark gray. Instead they show orbs that are white, blue, orange, green, or pink. Mosquitoes are not as black as flies, but they travel at a much smaller speed of only 1.5 miles per hour, making them even more implausible as a source of speeding orbs in photos.

3.               None of my 600+ photos of speeding orbs was taken during any hour during which I saw any flying insects. I almost never observe flying insects where I live (New York City), seeing them than less 1 in 10 days, partly because I live on the seventh floor. I have observed a flying insect only one time in hundreds of hours of photographing in Grand Central Terminal.

Clearly the “moving orbs are insects” idea is nonsense. Our skeptic has forgot the elementary principle that to try to explain something in a photo, you propose some cause that bears at least some slight resemblance to what was photographed. If you do a Google image search for “fly in motion” or “insect in motion” you will find no image that resembles a speeding orb. The only way to get an image of an insect looking anything like a speeding orb is to use a cheap security video camera, and freeze frame an image from that, perhaps after dabbling some honey near the camera to attract insects. Such an image does nothing to explain flash photos taken with a digital camera.

Postscript: Another way to do such a test is to place your camera on a little base in front of a bowl, and then drop Cheerios from a distance of about a meter above the camera. This will cause the Cheerios to accelerate to a speed of about 4 meters per second, twice the speed of a house fly.  Below is a photo taken through such a method.  The fly-sized Cheerio particle was falling directly in front of the camera lens, at twice the speed of a house fly. We see nothing resembling a speeding orb.
 

A better procedure is to try the same thing using raisins rather than Cheerios, because a raisin will match the black color of a house fly. Below is a flash photo using such a technique. Dropped from a height of one meter, the raisin was falling directly in front of the camera lens, and was falling at twice the speed of a house fly. We see nothing resembling a speeding orb. In this case we can see that using a flash on a dark object will not at all cause it to become white-colored.  The photo shows the falling raisin and its shadow.

We can summarize the case against insects as an explanation for moving orbs by saying that flying insects are the wrong speed, the wrong shape, and the wrong color.

Posted by Mark Mahin at https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/experiments

The Math Showing That Orbs Are Not Dust, Pollen, or Water Vapor

Orbs are strange-looking circular objects that show up in photos, without any obvious explanation. There are skeptics out there who claim that most of the orbs in photos are just dust. These skeptics all have one thing in common: they forgot to do their math before making such a claim. Let's do the math, which will show that the “orbs are dust” claim is nonsense. Similar math will debunk the idea that pollen or water vapor can explain orbs.

The Math Relating to Dust and Orbs

To do this math, we must consider a simple ratio that I will call the blockage fraction. The blockage fraction is the ratio between the width of a natural particle floating in the air, and the width of the area right in front of a camera lens. Computing such a ratio will tell us whether it is reasonable to think that suspended dust particles in normal air might be big enough to appear as visible orbs in photographs.

For a point-and-click camera, a simple measurement is enough to show the width of the area right in front of the camera lens. This width is roughly 15 millimeters.

But what about the width of natural particles suspended in the air? Although a skeptic may try to “cloud the waters” here by suggesting this is a matter of great uncertainty, it is no such thing. The size of particles floating in the air is settled science widely used by air quality experts, pollution experts, and meteorologists. Scientists have electronic instruments that allow them to measure such particle widths very exactly. Do a Google search for “particle size chart” and you will get quite a few charts that all give pretty much the same numbers (such as those shown in this wikipedia.org article on particulates).

There is general agreement about the following particle size estimates, although estimates may vary by as much as 50%. A micron is a thousandth of a millimeter, or a millionth of a meter. You can find many charts like the one below by doing a Google image search for "particle size chart."

Now let's plug these numbers into a spreadsheet that computes the blockage fractions. The spreadsheet is below. The numbers in the fourth column are simply the numbers in the second column divided by the numbers in the third column.

This table tells us how absurd is the notion that dust particles in ordinary outdoor air are sufficient to produce orbs in photographs. Since such particles cannot block more than about 1/15000 (one fifteen thousandth) of the original photo width, they are many times too small to produce noticeable orbs in photos. This table also tells us that dust particles in ordinary indoor air are way too small to produce orbs in photos. Such particles cannot block more than about 1/1500 (one fifteen hundredth) of the original photo width.

You also need not suspect that some orb in an indoor photo was caused by some dust spike causing the average particle size to rise as high as 500 microns – not unless the visibility was sharply reduced, and the air was visibly thick with dust. Whenever the air becomes filled with particle sizes larger than 100 microns, they decrease visibility quite noticeably, because the human eye can detect particles as large as 50 microns. So unless you were blasting out a wall during construction or toppling a large book case or making a big mess in the kitchen with lots of baking powder flying around – or doing something else that caused a noticeable decrease in visibility – there is no chance that the natural particles in the air were sufficient to produce noticeable orbs in a photo. Particles as large as 100 microns or larger always settle to the ground fairly quickly, at a rate of about a meter per six minutes. So indoor dust spikes quickly die out.

Could it be that we might get a different “blockage fraction” when we consider not a point-and-shoot camera but an expensive DSLR camera with a much wider lens? Yes, but in this case the “blockage fraction” would not be larger, but 50% smaller. So things aren't helped if a skeptic assumes a big camera lens was used – in fact, it then becomes twice as hard to believe that natural particles may have caused an orb.

In this discussion I have been extremely generous to the skeptic, by assuming pretty much the smallest possible “length of area right in front of lens” (the second column in the spreadsheet above). In fact, any particle photographed right next to the camera lens will appear as very blurred. When considering an orb that appears with a sharp, non-blurred edge, you must consider a “length of area right in front of lens” to be 2 or 3 times larger than 15 millimeters. That results in a “blockage fraction” that is even smaller (by a factor of two or three times) than the fractions shown above, which just makes it two or three times more unlikely than orbs in ordinary air could be produced by natural particles.

These considerations clearly show that dust cannot be a major source of orbs in photos. Under 99% of the conditions under which orb photos are taken, the particles of dust in the air are way, way too small to produce orbs that you might notice in a photo.

The Math Relating to Pollen and Orbs

Now let's consider the math relating to pollen and orbs. We must again consider particle sizes. Almost all types of pollen have particle sizes less than 50 microns, although a few types of pollen have particle sizes as large as 100 microns. So you might think that if we use a chart like the one above, we would consider that a pollen particle might block as much as 1/150^th of a photo width.

But there is another important thing to consider in regard to pollen: the number of particles per cubic meter. A pollen forecast is normally given as low, medium, high, or very high (and it is very rare to get the “very high” forecast). Here are the number of pollen particles per cubic meter that correspond to these forecasts, according to a page from the University of Worcester (similar information is given here).

Now, from these figures we can calculate a likelihood of a pollen particle existing in the area right in front of the camera. Since pollen particles are so small ( less than 100 microns), we can conclude that if a pollen particle was not right in front of the camera, it could not possibly appear as an orb in a photo. The area right in front of a point-and-click camera has a width of about 15 millimeters (15,000 microns), which is equal to 1.5 centimeters. What fraction of a cubic meter is a cubic area with a width of 1.5 centimeters? It is only 1 divided by 666,666. Even if we assume that a pollen particle might be visible in a photo if it appeared in a slightly larger volume next to the camera lens (an area of 4 cubic centimeters), that 4 cubic centimeters is only 1/250,000 (one two hundred fifty thousandth) of a cubic meter.

Using that figure, we can expand the table above to show what the probability would be of a pollen particle being right next to your camera lens when you take a flash photo. The fourth column is obtained simply by dividing the second column by the third column.

Given that the “very high” pollen forecast is very rare, what these probabilities means is that your chance of taking an outdoor photo and having a pollen particle floating right next to your camera lens when you take a flash photo is negligible. Perhaps a few times in a lifetime, a photographer might take a flash photo in which a speck-like orb showed up because a pollen particle was floating right next to the camera lens. But given the probabilities above, we should not expect that to happen more than once in a year. So pollen can be ruled out as a source of orbs in photos, except for the most extremely rare “blue moon” type of event, which would only result in something like a speck on a photo. We can therefore be quite confident that 99% of the orbs shown in photos were not caused by pollen particles. I also have many photos (shown here) that show lots of orbs on days when the local pollen count listed on pollen.com was very low.

Mold Spores

Mold spores are more common than pollen particles, but mold spores are much smaller, being smaller than about 50 microns in width.  This means the math for a mold spore is similar to the "vacuuming" case discussed above. So mold spores can't block more than about 1/300 of the width of the photo, which is too small to produce anything more than a speck in a photo.
 

Water vapor particles

Another possibility sometimes mentioned as a natural source of orbs is water vapor particles in the air. But water vapor particles in ordinary air (called aerosols) are not any larger than dust. So the same blockage fraction consideration (discussed above) that rules out dust in ordinary air as a source of orbs also rules out water vapor or aerosols in ordinary air as a source of orbs. Since water vapor in ordinary air only has a particle size on the order of 1 micron or less, a typical particle of water vapor will  block no more than 1/15000 (one fifteen thousandth) of the area in front of a point-and-click camera (15 millimeters or 15,000 microns), which is way too little to produce an orb in a photo.

The only exception is the case of heavy fog or heavy mist, which is quite rare and very easy to notice. Heavy fog or mist can account naturally for no more than a tiny fraction of orbs photos (because of the rareness of heavy fog or mist in almost all locales). Heavy fog or mist cannot account for any of the paranormal-looking orb photos on this site, as I am careful not to photograph under conditions of fog or mist (which is very rare where I live during the hours that I photograph).

In the very rare cases in which heavy fog or mist occurs in the air, in sufficient amounts to produce orbs, it blankets most of the photo with little circles, making it very easy to notice, and making it unsuitable for an explanation of any photos showing one or a few orbs in a photo.

Conclusion

The bottom line is: virtually all orbs produced in photos taken in normal indoor conditions and dry outdoor conditions cannot be the result of any natural particles in the air, for the particles floating about in the air under such conditions are way too small to produce orbs in photos (or, in the case of pollen, both too small to produce orbs bigger than specks, and also exceedingly unlikely to appear right in front of the camera lens). So why is it, then, that the “orbs are dust” idea has been so widely spread about? The reason is that skeptics have an extremely effective propaganda machine which allows them to spread their ideas far and wide – even when they are in glaring conflict with well-established facts such as the average sizes of particles in the air.

These conclusions are confirmed by the simple observational fact that at least 99% of the total number of flash photos taken by the world's photographers do not show orbs. If dust or pollen or water vapor in ordinary air was sufficient to produce orbs, then a large fraction of the world's flash photographs would show orbs -- but much less than 1% of such photos show orbs.  The skeptic conveniently ignores this fact, which by itself is sufficient to rule out the hypothesis that most orbs in photos are caused by dust, water vapor, or pollen. 

Are there any known natural or artificial things that can cause orbs in photos? Yes, those things are heavy fog or heavy mist, rain, and lens flare. I am sure that the great majority of photos on this web site cannot be explained by assuming that any of these things was the cause. I know that rain, fog, or mist cannot explain orbs in any significant fraction of my outdoor photos because I am careful to avoid taking photos when any of these things are present (and when presenting an outdoor photo I always state that none of these things were present). I also know that lens flare (which almost always has a very distinctive “easy-to-spot” look) is not a cause for any large fraction of my orb photos, because lens flare is only produced when you point the camera at the sun or a very bright artificial light close to the camera (something I am very careful to avoid). All of my many Grand Central Station are photos taken from balcony spots in which there is never a bright light near the camera.

In short, the orb photos on this site are mysteries that cannot be currently explained. Maybe someday someone might think of some ingenuous natural explanation, but none of the things discussed here are suitable candidates.

Below is an example of a photo completely inexplicable through any hypothesis of natural particles in front of the camera. The photo was taken on a dry cloudless night (November 10, 2017) with no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation, a night on which the moon was only a half moon. We see a very bright moving orb that is 11 percent of the original photo height.  To produce such an orb, a dust particle would have to have a width of about 1500 microns -- some 1500 times greater than the actual width of particles on a day like this. In fact, dust particles suspended in the air never get larger than a width of about 1000 microns, even when the dust is so heavy that it blocks visibility. See here for 86 similar photos showing large orbs.

 See my posts labeled "air orb too large to be dust" for 86 similar photos, including some showing orbs larger than 60% of the photo height.

The overall reasons for rejecting the idea that orbs are particles of dust near the camera include the facts that many orbs are too big to be dust (for the reasons discussed in this post), too bright to be dust (as shown in my 500+ posts labeled "bright air orb"), too fast-moving to be dust (as shown in my 500+ posts labeled "speeding air orb"),  too colorful to be dust (as shown in my 1500+ posts labeled either "blue air orb," "yellow air orb," "purple air orb," "green air orb," "pink air orb," or "orange air orb"), or too far from the camera to be dust (as shown in my 66 posts labeled "air orb too distant to be dust" which often show orbs partially behind distant obstructions).

Further very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that when I start getting lots of orbs in my photos, I often pull out a piece of cardboard, and photograph it at arm's length; but not once have any of the resulting photos shown a single orb in front of the piece of cardboard. You can see these photos by looking at my 41 posts labeled "cardboard test." 

Further  very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that I very often have seen a very strong "vertical bias" in my orb photos -- a tendency for orbs to appear many times more frequently in the upper part of my photos. See my posts labeled "orb vertical bias" for examples.  Such photos are completely inconsistent with the idea that the orbs are being caused by natural particles near the camera, for such particles would appear randomly across the photo area, not many times more often in the upper part of the photo.  For example, in this series of photos I found there were about 845 orbs that were not in front of a building at the bottom of the photos, and only about 7 orbs that were in front of that building.  This extremely strong "vertical bias" is completely inconsistent with any explanation that the orbs were being caused by natural particles (such as dust) very near the camera. 

 Further  very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that when you attempt to photograph dust in front of the camera (using artificial techniques such as squeezing a dusty cloth right in front of the camera), such as shown here, the resulting dust orbs are dull, colorless, featureless, small, and with blurry edges. Contrast these with the orbs shown on this site, which are so often colorful, bright, and with sharp edges and face-like details or stripes or  outer rings. 

The diagram below may help to illustrate how absurd it is to try to explain photos like the one above as photos of dust.  The diagram shows one tenth of the area right in front of a point-and-click camera lens with a diameter of about 15 millimeters (15,000 microns).  The arrow points to a tiny particle that is the size of the largest dust particles floating about in ordinary indoor air (which are only about 10 microns).  The particle is so small you won't be able to see it clearly unless you bring up the image in an editor and zoom in.  Could a particle this size cause an orb as big as the one shown above? No, it's many times too small.  For me to have got a picture like the one above from a floating dust particle would have required a dust particle of some 1500 microns. Dust particles in ordinary outdoor air are only about 1 micron, and if they are ever bigger than 50 microns visibility is sharply reduced.  

 Postscript: For a discussion of the type of misleading videos and photos produced by skeptics trying to suggest that orbs are dust (which typically involve raising dust levels much higher than normal), see this post entitled, "When Skeptics Engage in Deceptive Cheating." 

An explanation sometimes given for mysterious orbs is that they are particles of dust on a camera lens. A small particle resting on a camera lens will absolutely not produce something that looks like an orb in a photo. You can prove that by doing this experiment:
(1) point your camera at the ceiling, with the lens open;
(2) place a tiny particle like a bread crumb on your lens;
(3) take a photo;
(4) blow the particle off of your camera lens.

You will see that the photo absolutely does not show anything that looks like an orb.  

Postscript: The images below show orbs I have photographed with the same strange squiggly pattern (as reported here). The probability of coincidentally getting this much pattern repetition from natural particles is zero. 

 Below is another example of a recurring orb pattern, as reported here.  We see six repetitions of an inverted Y pattern, a degree of repetition that would be impossible if natural particles were being observed. 

See here for more than 25 other other examples of recurring patterns in mysterious orbs, with such a huge number of pattern repetitions that there is no chance that natural particles could have produced  them. 

As you can see in this series of posts, I have photographed more than 700 cases of mysterious orbs with stripes (most of which can seen in this video).  Each of these is a case of a clear sharp detail appearing in an orb. No such photos can be explained as out-of-focus dust particles near the camera, for we would see no clear, sharp details in an out-of-focus particle near the camera.  It is futile to claim that such striped orbs are "striped dust." My photos of 700 mysterious orbs with stripes were published prior to September 5, 2019. But doing a Google search for the exact phrase "striped dust," I see that no has used that phrase before September 5, 2019 in connection with any claim that dust particles can have stripes. 

Posted by Mark Mahin 

Email ThisBlogThis!: https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/orb zone theory debunked
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

How to Get Started in Orb Photography

Orbs are mysterious circular or spherical anomalies that appear in photos. If you have been looking at the photos on this site, you may have wondered: could I get started myself taking this type of photo? The answer is: yes, you can. To get started in orb photography, you don't need any special camera or any special psychic ability. All you need is a positive attitude and some persistence. 

 

An orb in a photo on 4/10/15, one of 300 that appeared that day

 

 

First, let's look at the camera requirements. To get good orb photos, all you need is a simple “point and click” digital camera. I have got many great orb pictures with an inexpensive Olympus camera that is more than 5 years old, although in certain places I get a lot better results with a Sony DSC-W830 camera I bought last year for about $100. Any digital camera with a flash should work.

 

You can try the “TV remote” test by photographing the end of a a television remote while pressing on its buttons, such as the button to change a channel. Your photo will normally show at the top end of the remote a red flash that you can't see with your eyes. If it does show such a flash, it means your camera is picking up some infrared radiation. Such a camera will be good for photographing orbs. If you take several photos of a TV remote's end, and you do not see a red flash, it means your camera is not picking up infrared radiation. But such a camera may still allow you to photograph orbs.  The Sony A6000 mirrorless camera I use fails this "TV remote" test, but I still get many impressive orb photos with that camera.   I would say that whether your camera passes this "TV remote" test is not a make-or-break issue, but given two cameras, one that passes the test and the other that fails the test, it may be better to use the one that passes this test.

You may see a red light like this one

How do you get started in photographing orbs? It's really quite easy. You don't have to meditate or enter into some special mental state. All you need is patience and a receptive attitude.

 

Let me tell you exactly how I get started in orb photography, just to give an example of how easy it is to get started. One day in September 2014 I found myself in need of a blog post for my blog www.futureandcosmos.blogspot.com. I had read an online New Yorker article a day or two earlier written by a woman who claimed to have got a picture of an unrecognized figure in her home, which she thought was some kind of ghost. Lazily I thought to myself: let me try that; maybe it's an easy way of getting a topic for a blog post.

 

So I took out my cheap old digital camera, and said to myself: let me try to get something like this woman said she got. I audibly stated something along the lines of, “If there are any immaterial spirits who want to come forth and be photographed, please do so now.” I started taking some photos, thinking that there was maybe 1 chance in 100 that something interesting would show up.

 

Click. Nothing unusual.

Click. Nothing unusual.

Click. My first orb photo.

 

That's how easy it is to get started. But to get additional orb photos you need some persistence. After getting my first orb photo I took more than 50 photos that showed no orbs. But then the orbs started appearing more and more frequently in my photos, in larger sizes, and in more interesting colors.

 

Astonishingly, I found that before long, orbs were appearing 100 times more often in my photos than during the first day or two that I tried to photograph orbs. The same thing has been reported by other orb photographers. On page 100 of the book The Orb Project, Klaus Heinemann (a PhD) states, “Since that first orb experience, the frequency of orb features in my pictures has skyrocketed, from an average one in about fifty pictures taken in 2002 to several in each picture taken now at similar occasions – a hundred-fold increase.” (This tendency, incidentally, is one of several strong reasons for believing that orbs are not mainly caused by dust. If orbs were caused mainly by dust, we should not at all see photographers reporting that they now get orbs in their photos 100 times more frequently than when they first started to photograph orbs.)  

For the first several months, I did not get any striped orbs in my photos.  On July 16, 2015 I got first striped orb in a photo. They have been showing up very often since then, and by September 1, 2019 I had photographed more than 700 mysterious striped orbs. 

 

But it takes significant patience and persistence to start getting lots of orbs in your photos. So don't give up if you get your first orb in a photo, and then get no orbs the next 50 or 100 times you try to take an orb photo. Keep trying, and ideally keep thinking or speaking some statement along the lines of: “I would like to see additional orbs in my photos.”

 

The nature of orbs is a mystery, but we can speculate that orbs may be some intelligent entities willing to make themselves known to humanity – but perhaps only to those highly interested in seeing them. So you may increase your chance of getting orbs to appear in your photos if you express a desire to see them. No matter how tenuous such a speculation may be, expressing a little desire is very easy, so you might as well try it.

 

You can express such a desire even if you don't believe in life after death (since for all we know, orbs could be some energy entities from some other dimension, or perhaps pure energy beings whose distant descendants evolved on some other planet). If you can't get yourself to say anything implying a belief in orbs, try a more neutral statement like this: “I am a person with an open mind, willing to consider new phenomena; so it might be rather interesting to get an orb in a photograph.” Any degree of interest you may express may increase your chances of success.

 

Do not be surprised if orbs appear more and more frequently in your photos, and in larger sizes and more vivid colors. As a general rule, you should try to keep photographing orbs in any place you have previously seen them. I get many orbs in my photographs whenever I photograph in particular places, but when I try to get them in other places I don't get them.

 

I advise against trying to photograph orbs in graveyards. The nature of orbs is a mystery, but even if they are departed spirits, there is no reason to think that they would tend to hang around graveyards. If you had died and were a floating departed spirit, would you want to hang around your gravestone? I think not.

 

I can give the following general principles about orb photography:

1. Try not to photograph orbs in some very dusty place, although you need not be too fussy about photographing in some place that has zero dust. The idea that invisible dust particles in ordinary air can cause prominent orbs in photos is a groundless fantasy advanced by skeptics – the dust particles in ordinary air are between 100 and 1000 times too small to produce such an effect, as explained here.
2. Try not to photograph orbs while pointing towards some very bright light such as the sun. This can produce lens flare, which can produce natural photo anomalies that might be mistaken for orbs.
3. Try to photograph only in dry weather. Rain drops and snow flakes can be mistaken for orbs.
4. If you get a remarkable orb photograph, try to post it online, along with a description of the weather conditions when it was taken. But what if you took a great orb photo before, and forgot what the weather was? Try to get the photo date by right-clicking on the photo file, and looking at the Properties tab. If you have the photo date, you can find out the weather on a previous day by using this site to find out what the weather was on that photo date.
5. Make sure that your camera flashes when you try to take an orb photograph.

If you get some faint, very small orbs in your photos, I would advise against posting such a photo. Be patient and keep photographing. With luck and persistence, you will soon have something much more dramatic, which will make a much better social media post.

 

If you are worried about being subject to ridicule, just be restrained in your description of your orb photo. Rather than describing it as an “amazing spirit orb,” you can merely call it something like an “unusual photo anomaly,” or simply make no mention at all of anything unusual.

 

Eventually you can buy a full-spectrum camera, one modified to let in more infrared radiation. I found that such a camera dramatically increases the number of orbs I photograph while taking night photos. But I don't recommend that you buy such a camera unless you have already had success photographing orbs with a regular camera.

 

So why not try to get started in the exciting hobby of orb photography? You have nothing to lose but your reductionist preconceptions.

Postscript:  For a long discussion of how to photograph orb patterns either by photographing falling water drops or by regular photography that does not involve photographing falling water drops, see my post below.

 

 

I have always treasured these photos, as I believe Ican see faces, a choir, globes of light etc.  I'd be most grateful for any opinions, please - are the genuinely "paranormal" as I suspect, or just weird anomalies?

PS these were saved off that forum, as the phone died years ago & there's no longer any way to view the properties of the pictures, but I do assure you they are "real", not faked at all.

I could see a face in the picture she sent.  She didn't mention it so I didn't say anything about it because I felt it might scare her.  So, I immediately went over to my Diamond Painting in progress, a took a picture.  I saw two images, though not as clearly as in her picture. A few days later I asked her for another picture to "see her progress".  She sent two because she happened to be working on two different projects at the same time.  

If I don't max out on my allowed files space, I'll attach the 4 pics here.  Otherwise I'll add later.  Does anyone recognize anyone in these?  I think I recognize one of them as someone known to most people.  The purple color on the first pic looks like a hat but it isn't necessarily so.  The material is colorized to give an idea of how the project will turn out.  I believe there just wasn't any light reflecting in that area.

The blurred negatives of early photography provided ample opportunities for Spiritualism; the appearance of phantoms in the background of photographs, next to viewers or behind them, sparked the imagination, even if their credibility quickly faded.

The trend began with William H. Mumler (1832-1884), a New York photographer, whose accidental double exposure (the double use of a negative on two or more photographs) blended a photograph of himself with a deceased cousin. Mumler proceeded to produce multiple portraits where sitters were joined by a ghostly apparition. The enterprise foundered after the recognition of some ‘ghosts’ as in fact living, but not before Mumler had a successful run as a medium, tapping into the fascination with the esoteric, and the undiscovered properties of that eminently scientific portraiture, photography.

The Psychic Research Society Scrapbook is replete with Spirit photographs, but none which Society members obtained. The methods of Mumler in the 1860s were hardly credible by the 1930s, but did enjoy a media ‘afterlife’ in popular magazines.
The Scrapbook boasts a letter describing a particular experience. A New Zealand connection is found in the undated story of a ‘Man in Bristol’, a New Zealand expatriate, who has his photograph taken to send home. When he comes to collect the print, the assistant apologises, telling him it was a double exposure. Seeing himself next to ‘a stout woman in period dress’ in the queue to the shop, he assumes the assistant’s story, but several more ‘mistakes’ leads him to think otherwise, wondering if the woman in the queue was a ghost.

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/exhibition/southern-spirits/site_graphics/Spirit%20Photography%20I.JPGEdgar Lovell-Smith appeared in a Spirit Photograph himself: dated to Saturday, 11 September 1941. A worried-looking Lovell-Smith looks up to a blurred, inflated head, with the reassuring caption underneath that no one else was present. The photographer, Stanley Edlin, is named overtly, to maintain a trusted presence. Edlin’s sister appears in two subsequent images, unaware of the misty personages hovering beside her...

Extensive coverage is also given to overseas coverage of spirit photography. Mrs William Clavert of Bank St, Battyeford, Mirfield, Yorkshire, photographed daughter Margaret by the grave of older daughter Eleanor. In the exposure, Eleanor’s miniature face appears on the arm of Margaret. Mrs Clavert claims not to have been a spiritualist, or have even heard of them. The experts, the article says excitedly, are sure it is not a double negative, but an original. Spirit photography from a stately home in Yorkshire also appears, although the ‘spirit’ on the stairs appears to be little more than a ray of light, or a bleached patch on the paper.

Most striking is a photograph claiming to be of Christ, with the caption underneath that it was not taken on earth. Excluding all questions of exactly how such a production was assembled, this work would be, to the spiritualist, the ultimate in spirit photography, where not only the sitter but the photographer is disembodied. More are promised in the future, bringing people back to faith in God. It is the most extreme example of a longstanding urge to blend the spiritual with the scientific, and the attempt to create a religious experience by the credible standards of its day.

My Magic Lights (listed with yourselves under idigital medium).

I just feelI am not doing justice today Mum’s stunning spiritual images. 
 

Many thanks
Patricia