Karyn

"Then be gracious, be thankful."  Edgar Cayce reading 3459-1

Spirit Communication issues as explained by Sir Oliver Lodge Michael Tymn On October 18, 1929, Sir Oliver Lodge, (below) a distinguished British physicist and pioneering psychical researcher, delivered the first Frederic W. H. Myers Memorial Lecture to the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in London. Myers, one of the founders of the SPR, had died in January 1901. He and Lodge had become good friends. The following is significantly abridged from that talk, as set forth in the November 1929 issue of “Psychic Research,” published by The American Society for Psychical Research. Some of the comments by Mary Lodge seem to lend themselves to the Group Soul concept. Sir Oliver Lodge …In the December of the same year – 1889 – I persuaded my wife rather against her will, to invite Mrs. [Leonora] Piper to stay a week at our house, in Liverpool. There I conducted a series of test sittings, introducing strangers, and made a report to the Society, which was published in its proceedings….The dawning certainty of survival, and the power of survivors to communicate under certain conditions began in my mind, and has never seriously receded since…. …The possibilities of the Universe are still largely a sealed book. We must be unaware of a multitude of things going on all around us, just as we are unaware of the wireless waves passing through the hall at the present moment – waves which would bring us speech or music if we had suitable instruments…If only our eyes were open to see the whole of existence we should be dazzled, blinded – we could not stand it. They are mercifully screened from complete revelation, but we have inklings and suggestions and indications that we are thus screened, that the body isolates us, so as to enable us to act as individuals and to do our work here in the field of matter which we are occupied with for a few years… I am sometimes asked whether I have had any communication with Myers since his death, or whether he has gone on to some higher grade of existence out of touch with earth. My answer is that as far as I can judge, a man devoted as he was to the enlightenment of his generation in spiritual matter, is not likely to shirk his task merely because he has an opportunity of progressing. He may progress, but it is possible for people from high to return on missionary enterprise. The lower may have to bide their time before they can ascend to the higher, but I judge that the higher can always descend to help the lower. I should have thought that that was the essence of the Christian faith, that the Higher did come to the help of the lower. However that may be, I know for a fact that Myers’ influence and help are still with me, and that when I have questions to ask he is willing and ready to answer. He does this often through his lieutenant, my son Raymond, sometimes coming himself, to give information of a more difficult character than Raymond could manage. Most of this has to be done unfortunately through a more or less uneducated medium, and therefore is apt to be sophisticated and is never infallible. I propose to limit myself to a few extracts [from my writing in the SPR Journal] bearing on the nature of [the spirit] control and the kind of dislocation or confusion that personality sometimes manifests when one and the same ostensible control tries to manifest through more than one medium. Feda, for example, talks mostly from Mrs. [Gladys Osborne] Leonard, but I have had a talk with Feda through another medium. It seems to be possible for a control habitually accustomed to work through one channel to attempt an occasional excursion through another. Feda is said to have spoken through other mediums. As for Raymond, he has no special habitual channel; he used to prefer members of his own family. [On one occasion, involving an amateur medium, Feda] spoke about Mrs. Leonard and someone who was giving her trouble, and seeing that, she (Feda) was rather worried about it. She was worried about someone who wanted to take possession of the medium…Well, in May, a month later, we had a sitting with Mrs. Leonard. After Myers and Raymond had finished speaking, Feda, now the normal control, said, “May I talk about something to do with myself? You know I have been down to your house, don’t you?” (Lodge replied in the affirmative and was then addressed as Solomon, the name Feda used for him.) “Solomon, I do not think I have told you about this before, but there are times when Feda is not really communicating, but her shadow is. (Feda often referred to herself in the third person.) Mr. Fred (that is Myers) can explain. Did you know what a thought form is, something that you might send a long way off and the thoughtform might even speak? When you go that way you get things you want to say mixed up with other things.” She then explained more clearly about Mrs. Leonard’s worry which she referred to through that other medium. It had to do with Mrs. Maconnell and her express desire that David Maconnell (her son) should take control (rather than having Feda relay messages from David.) Mrs. Leonard did not wish that, and Feda resented the attempt to displace herself. Lodge: “Feda, I gather that when you came down to us in the country it was your etheric form that came and that it is not quite dependable in what it says.” [Feda replied]: ‘No, it is like going in a dream. You get mixed up not with the mind, but with the subconscious mind of the medium. When you dream, you dream about things that have been worrying you.” She reported then that Mr. Fred (Myers) wanted to speak, and then Myers took up the thread – note the change of style – “You talk about secondary personalities when you are in the body. On our plane, in our condition, we have no secondary personality, or even a third. It is something that can be called to life by expectation. Supposing I make a strong mental impression on the mind of a psychically sensitive person while yet I am talking with someone else many miles away, that impression of myself which is Number Two, as I heard Feda remark just now, would not be in full consciousness with Number One. The normal image of myself would be left with Number One. The record once produced can be fixed on the medium’s mind again. It requires only a touch to get it going. I myself have often come into touch with a sensitive whom it has not been my intention to influence, but my proximity seemed to touch a spring in the medium.” Then Feda takes up the thread again: “Mr. Fred is very interested in this?” I said. “Yes, what has been said is quite useful.” Then Myers broke in again, “Lodge, you know in dreams we are not at our best. I remember dreams in which I seemed to be all the time dodging responsibility, running away from responsibility. The elements of doubt and fear very often enter into the dream. That is apt to be the same in what Feda terms the shadow self.” …My wife has gone over lately and joined the group. She had overcome her initial repugnance to the subject which she felt last century; she had become quite interested, and although she did not claim or admit that she knew very much about it, she was very sympathetic with bereaved people, often helping them, and was anxious to do something to help me when she got over to the other side. Recently I asked her one or two questions about the personality of the control. I instanced the well-known controls of one or two famous mediums with whom she had been acquainted by sittings held while she was here. One of them, John King (control for Eusapia Palladino and others), was more especially attracted by my wife. It has always been a puzzle to us in the SPR to know what personalities of this sort are. They are sometimes thought to be secondary personalities of the medium; by others they are thought to have an independent existence. I therefore wanted to ask what her experience of those was now on the other side. Her answers in May of this year, at a sitting with Mrs. Leonard, were given through Feda, who expressed amused interest as to what was thought about herself, among other controls. At this sitting, Raymond broke in and said, “Mother is awfully enthusiastic about all this, Father, I have had to hold her back.” I asked whether she could talk to Phinuit (Leonora Piper’s early control), whether this was a person one could talk to. The reply was, “Not very much.” At this point Feda chips in and says, “What a funny answer.” My wife continued: “Phinuit is not altogether through with me, Oliver. There is a condition that makes it more difficult to talk to one kind of entity than another. I could talk to Raymond very fully. I could talk to so many people, certain people who exist, well, they exist, but I do not understand everything about it yet. I understand that later on I shall be able to talk to Phinuit more easily.” Then, I asked [if she had met John King]. “I have spoken to the person who calls himself John King. He presents different masks and calls them John King. Oliver, it is not always the soul that is the personality that communicates. I am beginning to understand it, and it does interest me” …My wife went on: “There is one thing I wanted to explain to you. When people belong to each other through long association through love, through freshly relationship, there is no difficulty in contact between those people, either from one plane to the other, or between them when they have both reached the same plane. The links exist. But in the case of controls it is different. If we trace it back we shall find there has been a person, say, John King, and that it was necessary for him to do some good work with and through a certain instrument. That brings him in touch with other kids of controls, for one control cannot work in an isolated way. Demands are made of him and he may not wish to accede to those demands, and there you get what I call, Oliver, a mask.” (Sir Oliver asked if a mask was the same as a “personation” and Mary Lodge replied “yes.”) ….My wife continued: “As a rule, Oliver, when a conscientious guide knows that there is a mask being made of him he does his best to follow the mask to see that as much good and as little harm comes it as possible. It is like ensuring a good understudy, or a good locum tenens. Any conscientious guide who had the work at heart would do his best to be present and supervise the proceedings in which his name is being used, but he may never be personally so deeply in them as he was with the medium he himself chose.” These masks occur mainly in physical phenomena. Raymond tells me how many people called to him and made a mask. He checked his first impression, but you cannot go on guaranteeing impressions and by the time it came to the sixth or seventh he said, “Oh, let them get on with it. I cannot keep up with it all.” …Our sacred books have been subject to [many glosses and different interpretations], and scholars have had to decipher them as best as they can. If the higher powers have not thought it worth while to take precautions against garbling in respect of matters of the utmost importance and if humanity has had to use its judgment as the authenticity and validity of the Scriptures, it is quite unlikely that any of our trivial affairs shall be safeguarded against similar possibilities of mistake. Therefore, all the communications I receive, I receive with caution, and with a consequent need for interpretation; but received in that spirit. I find them interesting and instructive. I only hope that when my time comes I shall be able to do as well. I am sure that communication is difficult, and I expect one will find oneself forgetting much that one had intended to say before entering the dim condition of faculties necessitated by even partial and occasional control. Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I. His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.

When Tables Attacked People: A Life After Death Situation Some of the mediumistic phenomena of yesteryear were “absurd,” as Professor Charles Richet, the 1912 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, put it. Nevertheless, he added, some were true, even if they were absurd. Perhaps even more absurd than the many languages that came through the direct-voice mediumship of George Valiantine, as discussed in the prior blog here, is the phenomenon of tables attacking people, or, in some cases, just floating around the room. One such phenomenon is reported by Sharon DeBartolo Carmack in her 2020 book, In Search of Maria B. Hayden, which is subtitled “The American Medium Who brought Spiritualism to the U.K.” It was in October 1852 that Mrs. (later Dr.) Hayden first visited the Knebworth Park estate and house of the renowned British writer Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, (below) the author who told the world that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Lytton accepted many of the dictates of Spiritualism and was very much interested in Hayden’s mediumship. Lytton’s son, Robert, apparently corresponded regularly with the famous American poet, Robert Browning, and in a letter of July 19, 1854, quoted in the book, Robert told Browning, “[My father] made some querulous & impatient observations derogatory to the character of the spirits (questioning, too, I believe, their existence as spirits) just as he was leaving the room, when suddenly the Table (near which no person was standing) of its own accord, as one says, sprang at him like a dog. The Medium was no less astonished than himself – & suggested that ‘the spirits’ were angry with his language about them. ‘Then’ said he laughing, ‘they’d better spring at me again, I think!’ And immediately the Table flew at him, knocked him against the wall, and pinned him there so close, that as it was a large table, he was in danger of being crusht [sic], after three or four minutes, the table moved slowly back (with a sort of revolving orbit-like movement) to the original position!” Robert Lytton added that in addition to himself, Mrs. Hayden, and a lawyer friend were present, all at some distance from the table. Lytton On another visit. Sir Edward was speaking reproachfully to Mrs. Hayden, commenting that he was wasting his time and money in attending her séances “when a large table in the room gave a sudden leap toward him. Presently it leaped back again, and ended by moving round and round, first slowly and solemnly and then swiftly.” It was further explained that Sir Edward and Mrs. Hayden were standing at the fireplace, some distance from the table when it went into action. On another occasion, Sir Edward begged the spirits to make a large lamp on the table rock to and fro, and the spirits apparently complied. Even more “absurd,” extending to the point of being “ridiculous,” a phenomenon took place with the mediumship of Mina Crandon, aka “Margery,” during June 1923 at the Crandon home in Boston, Mass. It was reported that the discarnate mother of Dr. Frederick Caldwell, one of the sitters, took possession of the table and caused it to lurch toward Caldwell, then pushed him out of the den, through the dark corridor, and into the Crandons’s bedroom, and then chased him down the stairs, all the while smashing walls and causing other damage. According to Dr. Mark Richardson, a Harvard University professor of medicine who was also present, he and others stopped the table from doing further damage. Margery and Dr. Mark Richardson In his 1917 book, On the Threshold of the Unseen, physicist Sir William Barrett recalled the sitting with Irish medium Kathleen Goligher, who was being studied then by Dr. William Crawford of Queen’s University. The sitting involved a small family circle gathered in a room illuminated with a bright gas flame burning in a lantern. “They sat round a small table with hands joined together, but no one touching the table,” Barrett explained. “Very soon knocks came and messages were spelt out as one of us repeated the alphabet aloud. Suddenly the knocks increased in violence, and being encouraged, a tremendous bang came which shook the room and resembled the blow of a sledge hammer on an anvil. A tin trumpet which had been placed below the table now poked out its smaller end close under the top of the table near where I was sitting. I was allowed to try and catch it, but it dodged all my attempts in the most amusing way, the medium on the opposite side sat perfectly still, while at my request all held up their joined hands so that I could see no one was touching the trumpet, as it played peep-boo with me. Sounds like the sawing of wood, the bouncing of a ball, and other noises occurred, which were inexplicable.” The table then began to rise from the floor some 18 inches and remained suspended in the air. “I was allowed to go up to the table and saw clearly no one was touching it, a clear space separating the sitters from the table,” Barrett continued the explanation. “I tried to press the table down, and though I exerted all my strength could not do so; then I climbed up on the table and sat on it, my feet off the floor, when I was swayed to and fro and finally tipped off. The table of its own accord now turned upside down, no one touching it, and I tried to lift it off the ground, but it could not be stirred, it appeared screwed down to the floor. At my request all the sitters’ clasped hands had been kept raised above their heads, and I could see that no one was touching the table. When I desisted from trying to lift the inverted table from the floor, it righted itself again on its own accord, no one helping it. Numerous sounds displaying an amused intelligence then came, and after each individual present had been greeted with some farewell raps the sitting ended.” Barrett said that he could not imagine how the cleverest conjurer could have performed what he experienced, especially since it was clear to him that there was no elaborate apparatus in the room. Moreover, Dr. Crawford had been observing the Goligher circle for six months or more before his observations. “That there is an unseen intelligence behind these manifestations is all we can say, but that is a tremendous assertion, and if admitted destroys the whole basis of materialism,” Barrett added. Back to 1852, Adin Ballou, a Unitarian minister who began investigating the strange phenomena a year or so earlier, wrote: “I have seen tables and lightstands of various sizes moved about in the most astonishing manner, by what purported to be the same invisible agency, with only the gentle and passive resting of the hands or fingerends of the Medium on one of their edges. Also, many distinct movings of such objects, by request without the touch of the medium at all. I have sat and conversed by the hour together with the authors of these sounds and motions, by means of signals first agreed on; asking questions and obtaining answers – receiving communications spelled out by the alphabet – discussing propositions sometimes made by them to me, and vice versa – all by a slow process, indeed, but with every possible demonstration of intelligence, though not without incidental misapprehension and mistakes.” Judge John Edmonds, then chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, began his investigation of mediums about the same time as Ballou, He wrote: “I have seen a chair run across the room, backward and forward, with no mortal hand touching it. I have seen tables rise from the floor and suspended in the air. I have seen them move when not touched. I have known a small bell fly around the room over hour heads. I have known a table, at which I was sitting, turned upside down, then carried over my head, and put against the back of the sofa, and then replaced. I have seen a table lifted from the floor, when four able-bodied men were exerting their strength to hold it down….This is a very meager account of what only I have witnessed, aside from the countless incidents witnessed by others in different parts of the world. But here is enough to show that these manifestations were not made by mortals, but by a power which had all the attributes of the human mind and heart.” Also during the early 1850s, Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, a lawyer who served as governor of the Territory of Wisconsin and as a U.S. senator for New York, upon hearing of Judge Edmonds’s experiences, undertook his own investigation. He reported a number of communication from his old friend John C. Calhoun, former vice-president of the United States who had died in 1850. When Tallmadge asked Calhoun the purpose of the communication, “My friend,” Calhoun replied, “the question is often put to you, ‘What good can result from these manifestations?’ I will answer it: It is to draw mankind together in harmony, and convince skeptics of the immortality of the soul.” Tallmadge explained “that these communications from Calhoun came through a large, heavy, round table, one at which 10-12 people could sit, by the tilting method (the alphabet recited by the sitters and the table would tilt at the correct letter). He observed the table move as much as three to four feet with nobody near it. During all these movements no person touched it, nor was any one near it,” Tallmadge explained. After one sitting, he decided to see if he could move the table from a sitting position. Applying as much force as possible, he was unable to budge it. He then asked three women to assist him in moving the table. “We lifted upon it until the leaf and top began to crack, and did not raise it a particle,” he continued. “We then desisted, fearing we should break it. I then said, ‘Will the spirits permit me to raise the table?’ I took hold alone, and raised it without difficulty!” Tallmadge then asked the spirits if they could lift the table if he and the three ladies were sitting on it. The spirits assented, but directed them to a square table in another room. The four people climbed on to the table with Tallmadge in the middle. “Two legs of it were then raised about six inches from the floor,” Tallmadge went on, “and then the other two legs were raised to a level of the first, so that the whole table was suspended in the air about six inches above the floor. While thus seated on it, I could feel a gentle, vibratory motion, as if floating in the atmosphere. After being thus suspended in the air for a few moments, the table was gently let down again to the floor.” On May 9, 1874, Cambridge scholars Frederic W. H. Myers and Edmund Gurney visited Anglican clergyman William Stainton Moses to observe his mediumship. Myers reported that a table, untouched by human hands, rose from the floor and touched his throat and chest three times. Then, he was raised to the table three times and twice levitated in the corner of the room. Initially, Moses thought that his newfound “gift” was the work of the devil and wanted nothing to do with it, but communicating spirits informed him that the levitations and other physical phenomena were simply a way of making themselves known so that they could impart some higher teachings through him. Moses developed into an automatic writing medium and over the next 20 years penned several books of profound wisdom from his spirit guides, much of it in conflict with his beliefs. Charlton Templeman Speer, Moses’s biographer and friend, wrote that at least 10 different kinds of manifestations took place through Moses, including movements of heavy bodies, such as tables and chairs. “Sometimes the table would be tilted up at a considerable angle; at other times the chairs of one or more of the sitters would be pushed more or less forcibly away from the table, until they touched the wall behind,” Speer wrote. “Or the table would move away from the sitters on one side, and be propelled irresistibly against those on the other, compelling them to shift their chairs in order to avoid the advance of so heavy a piece of furniture. The table in question, at which we usually sat, was an extremely weighty dining-table made of solid Honduras mahogany, but at times it was moved with much greater ease than the combined efforts of all the sitters could accomplish; and these combined efforts were powerless to prevent it moving in a certain direction, if the unseen force willed it to do so. We frequently tested the strength of this force by trying to check the onward movement of the table, but without success.” Were a famous British author, a respected Harvard professor of medicine, a renowned British physicist, a Unitarian minister, a chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, a notable statesman, two illustrious Cambridge scholars, and an eminent Anglican priest all victims of hoaxes or were they hallucinating it all? If we can’t believe them, who can we believe? Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I. His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.

What Happens After you Die? by Maurice Barbanell and Silver Birch One day after “death” you will be the same individual as you were one day before it, except that you will have discarded your physical body. You will express yourself through your etheric body, which is a replica of the physical one. It does not, however, reproduce any of its imperfections. All disease and infirmities will be left behind. The deaf will hear. The dumb will speak. The blind will see. The cripple will be a cripple no longer. You must try and understand that life in the spirit world is not dreamy or nebulous. It is full of activity. It is just as real as the life that each one of us lives here. We are accustomed to think of the material world as being real and solid, although actually this is not so, as the science of physics proves. The things of the mind, or the spirit, seem to us shadowy and vague, but to those who live on the Other Side, the mental is the real and the physical is the shadow. This doubtless will be hard for you to grasp, but you will find a perfect analogy if you think of your dreams. When you dream, all the things that you encounter are real at the time of their happening. They only become dreams when you wake up. If you never woke up, and dreaming was the perpetual state of your existence, then that state would become your reality. The spirit world is round and about us. Some people see it and hear it, because they can tune in to its vibrations. It is not situated in some far-off continent. It is a part of the universe, blending and intermingling with the physical world. You must dismiss from your mind the old-fashioned theological idea that, after “death,” there is an undisturbed eternal sleep. There may be, at first, a short time of rest to enable the newly-arrived spirit to adjust himself to his new life. This usually takes a little time. Then he meets those who have preceded him. Families are re-united. Old associations are re-established. Friendships are renewed. I know the question you will ask is, “How will I be able to recognise those who have gone before?” This is not a real difficulty. They will know you , having watched over you and kept in constant touch with you. Then, because the spirit world is a place where thought is the reality, they will be able to show themselves to you as you knew them. There is, however, one great factor always operating in the spirit world - the unalterable law of attraction. Only those of like spiritual qualities can meet on the same plane in the new life. The husband and wife, who were only held together on earth by a legal tie, and between whom no real love existed, will not be together in spirit life. Sometimes, people are puzzled because they learn that there are houses on the Other Side. You must remember, though, these are not houses made of bricks and mortar, but constructed out of thought. This applies also to the clothing that is worn. The instinct to clothe oneself is deeply rooted and has become habitual. No one would dream of walking through the streets unclothed. This habit is part of our mental make-up. That is why it persists on the Other Side where mental states are the reality. “What about food?” you may ask. “Do they eat?” As long as there is a desire for food, this mental desire is mentally satisfied. As long as the individual craves for food and drink, he can obtain the illusion of what he requires - and it satisfies him. You may call this material if you like, but it is far more sane and logical than pearly gates and golden harps! In the spirit world, there are no language difficulties. All people of all nations speak the same language - thought. There are no words to be mouthed, for ideas are conveyed telepathically, from one person to another. Words, after all, are but clumsy substitutions for thoughts. They are artificial means by which we communicate our ideas to one another. But words can never adequately express the thoughts one is trying to convey. One day, when the human race has evolved, language will be abolished. We will have learnt how to send our ideas to each other telepathically. Then, many of our international difficulties will disappear. In the spirit world, each person’s thoughts are known and cannot be hidden. There can be no deception of pretence. Every individual is known for what he is. He cannot deceive anybody, for lying is impossible. “What about age?” you may ask. “What happens to old people who pass on?” Physical age and mental growth do not proceed at the same rate. We rashly judge a man’s mentality by the age of his physical body here. On the Other Side of life, it is the mind which survives, and mental growth consists of progress towards maturity. Little children will grow older. The old people grow younger in spirit. What work do they do? Each person seeks to express his natural bent. In this earthly life of ours, there are thousands of singers who have never sung; actors who have never acted; painters who have never painted; poets who have never written a line of poetry; musicians who have never composed a note of music. All these talents have never had an opportunity of being expressed, because through economic circumstances usually, the owners had to follow some other occupation to secure their bread and butter. On the Other Side, they can express their talents. There are no square pegs in round holes in that world. For them, life is one continuous road of progress, each person striving to eliminate the dross from his nature and perfecting his own being. In that striving for perfection, there is no limit. It goes on for eternity. The spirit world will not be so unfamiliar as we think because ... most of us visit it in our sleep state. Unfortunately, few of us remember what transpires. When, however, we pass on, the law of association of ideas will recall our nocturnal experiences. Of course, it takes some time for the newly arrived spirit to acclimatise himself to the conditions of life on the Other Side. This process of awakening differs according to the knowledge of spirit life that the “dead” man had before his passing. The more ignorant he was, the longer it will take him to familiarise himself with his new conditions. Then, too, those who were trained in very orthodox ideas, with rigid conceptions of after-“death” states, experience a great difficulty, because the next stage of life being a mental one, they live in the mental world they have created, until they have evolved sufficiently to dispel this illusion. When we pass on, we do not enter Heaven through “pearly gates”, neither do we descend to Hell through lakes of “fire and brimstone”. Nor do we sleep for ever. Each one of us naturally gravitates to the spiritual sphere for which we are fitted, according to the life we have lived and the character we have evolved here. We cannot occupy a higher sphere than the spiritual status we have reached, nor will we desire to occupy a lower one. Automatically, we shall go just to that plane of spirit life for which we are fitted. We shall not be able to pretend that we are better or worse, for stripped of our physical body we shall be revealed and known for what we are. People who have lived normal lives will not find anything to disappoint them when they arrive in the spirit world. It is the selfish man who has to face great difficulties, due to this earthly habits which act as a barrier to be overcome by progress before he is fitted to associate with those he loves. If, by virtue of life he has lived upon earth, he has cut himself off from those who love him, that will be his hell. What is heaven? It is the reward of a life wisely spent on earth, for it will mean that automatically we reach those we love ... heaven and hell are mental states. Of course, those who dwell on a higher plane can, if they so desire, visit spirits on relatively lower spheres. This they often do. But it is impossible for those on lower planes to visit those on higher. In many cases, those who “die” go through a difficult period of stress, due to the fact they cannot reach the ones they love on earth. When they have awakened to an understanding of their new life, they naturally return to their loved ones to try to tell them of their survival. They find it hard to understand that while they can see the earthly members of their families, the bereaved are unable to sense the presence of those for whom they are mourning. This is a very poignant sorrow that thousands of spirits experience. They do all they can to attract the attention of earthly friends, but too often they fail, and have to leave them disconsolate. By some law which we do not understand, those on the Other Side know a little beforehand when somebody is going to pass from this world. They make the necessary preparations to greet them and to help them with their passing. This explains the fact that on hundreds of occasions people before they “die” have named “dead” relatives they said they could see in the room. Sometimes these spirit relatives have been seen by those in attendance on the “dying” person. Clairvoyants who have witnessed the “death” of an individual tell us that they see a replica of the physical body gradually rise, connected for a while by a thread (it is what the Bible describes as the “silver cord”) which is attached to a vicinity near the brain. When the thread is snapped, “death” takes place. This etheric body is then seen to rise upwards until it disappears from view. The one thing that brings the greatest sorrow to those who have passed on is our excessive grief. This, curiously enough, acts as a deterrent to their getting close to us. They do not like the constant visits to the graveyard as they know they are not there. Most Spiritualists make a habit of placing flowers near the photograph of the one who has passed on, particularly remembering anniversaries. This serves to perpetuate the idea that the spirit is constantly in the home. Spiritualist also indulge in the habit of mentally communicating with those who have passed on by sending them messages, treating them as if they were actually present in the room. I know that these messages are received, for again and again I have heard spirit return thanks for this communion and give evidence that he has received it by repeating to the medium some of the ideas expressed. Spirit life is not a state of vagueness or eternal sleep, but one of activity and labour. Idleness and unemployment do not exist there. There is plenty for all to do, although I know it is difficult for us who are immersed in material affairs to appreciate the activities of the spiritual world. Apart from labour, there is opportunity for recreation and enjoyment. There are means of education and instruction in all branches of life - in just that particular form of knowledge which the spirit desires. Of course, many of them are engaged on tasks which mean co-operation with people in this world. Some of them are hard at work helping to make communication between the two worlds easier. Others, attracted by people in our world who are following similar lines of research, industry, art or reform, naturally return to inspire those efforts, although often people in this world are unconscious of spirit interest. Source: They Shall Be Comforted by Maurice Barbanell and Silver Birch

"The whole purpose of your life down here is that spirit, your spirit, shall shine within earth’s darkness. Your spirit is identical with the light which shone in the beginning. You, the real you, are here for a purpose, to shine through both body and mind and transmute them". White Eagle Morning Light. This week's Friday Afterlife Report is now online at https://www.victorzammit.com/November18th2022

"More and more, then, turn to those experiments that are not only helpful but that give hope to others, that make for the activity of the fruits of the Spirit."  Edgar Cayce reading 792-2

Consistency is the name of the game when it comes to this area. Most people do not have the passion for it. Would you believe that the average person stops listening to radio sound after 20 mins. So long winded people are not necessarily boring but in the space of an hours talk you have to come out with a minimum number points.

Glad to be of assistance to a fellow orb lover. The book that appears first is the best book on the subject. I cannot get to my bookshelf at the moment as I am downsizing and have boxes everywhere. One of the authors was a NASA scientist so he is no dummy and I think his work will become the classic in the field. Heinemann Klaus & Ledwith Miceal The orb Project Heinemann Klaus & Gundi Heinemann Orbs, Their Messages of Hope Heinemann Klaus, Gundi Expanding Perception The highlighted one is by far the best. All of the people who claim more than these scientists and one was a nasa scientist is without evidential foundation. Many ascribe colour theory which is just incorrect. There are people in the USA who call themselves orb whispers and experts. No-one is. There is still so much we do not know. It is all about money. Doreen Virtue made an absolute fortune beguiling people and then in a so called religious ephiny in a church and denounced her total life's work as wrong. Imagine all those who devotedly followed her and their reaction to being duped. It is public knowledge so I am not presenting hearsay. I can only counsel those who wish to seek evidence and to tell people to please use their due diligence and separate fact from fiction. I could go on and name some of the people but I think that I have given enough leads to be understood. Blessings and happy orb photography. Unfortunately I cannot post an awesome video on orbs as we were getting ready for a seance.

"Keep an attitude of helpfulness, cheerfulness, hopefulness. Be optimistic!"  ECRL 798-1

What we do know is that they have intelligence or are manipulated by intelligence. You may ask for them in your photo or not to be in your photo. I have found 100% compliance with my request. We do know they are capable of extreme speeds. Despite a plethora of so called experts on the subject we do not know what they are, we do not know what the colours mean, we do know how to check if our equipment will pick them up. We can tell orbs while it is raining, the structure is different. A lot of mediums claim to know what they are however I have come across any that "pass the pub test" as we say in Australia. I am particularly outspoken on people who claim to be experts and if someone says they do know run a mile. People such as you P.A.T who will add to our knowledge. I too have some magnificent orbs and on going back over the old film photos they were evident then it is just my mind was not open. Please keep sharing.

It is a fall back argument sceptics make. It goes along with moisture, dust, bugs. The gent who wrote the posts I highlighted as he seems to have seriously entered an argument that is scientific. In case you did not know there are a couple of scholarly books upon the subject especially ones written by scientists. I would be happy to recommend them. I have done a lot of research myself in this area P.A.T I had to stop going to the spirit photography facebook group because of all the games and one upmanship and people unable to take on the truth. I find Mark Machin very credible. He has three blogs in the common domain. Here is his letter to me: " The content of my three blogs below are under a Creative Commons license, allowing you to republish anywhere, under the condition that you include a link back to the source where you got the content www.futureandcosmos.blogspot.com www.orbpro.blogspot.com www.headtruth.blogspot.com You can see that license on the front page of each of these blogs: "Content on this blog may be shared on other web sites or in publications under this Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivatives license, requiring attribution (including a link to this web site) and prohibiting derivatives: Link." "Derivatives" means alterations, such as changing a photo or changing words I wrote. Using a particular photo or photos (unchanged) is not a derivative. For more information, see the link below: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ So sure, you can use my photos or posts under the conditions stated above." He is a researcher so I would respect his need for privacy.

"Tell everyone that we are alive". “Listen, many believe but don't know that there is no death. There is only one connected life forever". "Please help all people to convey this, that there is an afterlife! Believe me, it's important".  Voices through radio ITC speaking with Hans Otto König. Learn more about the voices and other extraordinary experiences with the afterlife in this week's Friday Afterlife Report at https://www.victorzammit.com/November11th2022

Frequently Asked Questions Q. Where can I find a summary of strange phenomena shown on this site? A. See this post for such a summary, with many links to posts. Q. Who took the photos shown on this site? A. The photos were all taken by me, Mark Mahin. This site only shows photos that I took myself. If I ever wish to show a photo that someone else took, I will always use a hyperlink that goes to some other site. So if you see a photo and see www.orbpro.blogspot.com as the URL at the top of your page, it is a photo I took. Q. Were any of the photos on this site faked? Were any of them produced through any type of special artistic technique or digital manipulation designed to add details that were not in the original photographs? A. The answer to all of these questions is: absolutely not. The photos are all authentic, and none of them involve any type of trickery, deception, selective pixel modification, special artistry, or editing of particular portions of the photo. The photos are cropped. Cropping is just the technique where you “cut out” a smaller part from a larger photo. The only type of other processing done on any of the photos on this site was the use (through the IrfanView program) of an "Auto adjust colors" menu command (which affects all pixels in the photo in the same way), and a "Gamma correction" reduction (which also affects all pixels in the photo in the same way). Both of these are merely minor color/tone adjustments. I have never used sharpening on any of the photos, nor any other technique that might add details you could not see in the original. Q. Were any type of mechanical techniques or reflection techniques or stencil techniques or superimposition techniques or morphing techniques or image combination techniques used to produce any of the photos shown on this site? Was any technique at all like airbrushing or drawing or double exposure (whether digital or not) used to make any of these photos? Was any type of unusual digital processing or unusual photographic settings used to make any of these photos? Were any parts of these photos selectively changed? Did you use any technique whatsoever to add pixels or picture elements to any of these photos? Was there any unusual lighting for any of the photos? A. The answer to all of these questions is: absolutely nothing like any such techniques were used for any of these photos. What you see on all of these photos is what I saw on the photos when I looked at them just after they were taken. Q. Were any of these photos "Photoshopped"? A. Used as a verb, "photoshopped" means to apply special processing to a photo, selectively modifying particular parts of the photo. Nothing like that has been done to any of these photos, so the answer is: no, none of these photos have been "photoshopped," and I have never owned or used any version of Photoshop. Q. Did you ever load or save any of these photos into any software such as Photoshop or GIMP that has any type of tools for advanced editing of particular non-rectangular parts of a photo? A. No. Except when labeled as a photo loaded directly from the camera, each and every one of these photos was loaded and saved using only the IrfanView shareware program. That program is a great-little "bare bones" image editor, but only has basic graphic abilities (compared to Photoshop), and only has the most minimal tools for drawing or painting on an image. With my version of IrfanView, you can't even use the mouse to select a circular or irregular-shaped portion of a photo to edit (although it lets you do some basic things on rectangular portions of photos). I save the photos using IrfanView mainly because that allows me to crop the photos (reduce their size). But some of the posts have the "Photo uploaded directly from camera" label, and those posts include a photo directly loaded from the camera without being saved in any other program. I may note that in cases when the listed photo date differs from the file date of a photo, it is because the image was cropped and saved in the simple IrfanView photo editor one or more days after the photo was taken. Q. Did you ever use for any of these photos any technique involving deliberately raising dust, mist or water vapor or spraying water? A. Absolutely not, with the exception of about 3 posts that are exclusively on the topic of whether such techniques can actually produce orbs in photos. Q. In the titles or text of some of the blog posts, you sometimes refer to orb faces. By using such a term do you mean to claim that you have photographed something with a real face? A. Not necessarily. Whenever I refer to an orb face, I merely mean to say something that looks like a face. To me it's an open question whether any “real” faces exist in my photos – perhaps they do, or perhaps they don't. I think there are basically three possibilities : (1) the possibility that some type of real face is being captured in these photos; (2) the possibility that what we are seeing is merely some fleeting energetic representation of a face; (3) the possibility that what looks like orb faces are neither of these things. By saying that this or that orb has a face, I do not mean to imply a conclusion about which of these three ideas is correct. Similarly, when I say in a blog post that this or that orb is happy or gleeful or something like that, I am merely referring to the way the orb looks, rather than dogmatically asserting that a particular orb has some particular emotion. Also, when I give a post a particular label, I am not firmly asserting that the post has a photo that shows such a thing; I am merely saying that the photo looks like it includes that particular thing. Q. Are all of the photos on this site flash photos taken indoors? A. Unless specifically noted otherwise (or unless an outdoor location is clearly shown), any photo you may see on this site is a flash photo taken indoors. Q. What is your explanation for what could be the cause of the astonishing photos on this site, particularly the photos that seem to show orb faces? A. I have no explanation, so to the question "What causes these faces?" my answer is simply: I don't know. All I can do is speculate about different possibilities. I can think of three possible explanations. The first possibility is that there are some kind of real paranormal entities that are helping to produce what is shown in these photographs. There are all kinds of strange possibilities. They could be unknown spiritual entities, spirits of the dead, beings from some other dimension, angels, extraterrestrials who have evolved into a pure energy state, or various other possibilities. The photographs might in some sense show such entities, or they may show some manifestation of such entities. Rather than being the actual faces of such entities, the faces shown in these photographs may be kind of like sketches produced by such entities. If I am walking on the beach, and see a face in the sand, it does not mean that I am seeing a real face; but it may be a fleeting representation made by some intelligent being. A second possibility (one that is perhaps leaner and more parsimonious) is that the amazing photos shown on this site are due to some “mind over energy” effect produced by myself, the photographer. The Global Consciousness Project may have provided evidence that humans can influence random number generators without actually trying to do so. It could be that I am unconsciously influencing the flash of energy that takes place during a flash photo, causing it to arrange itself in particular ways, such as something that resembles a face. I may note, however, that I am not aware of any power that I have to do such a thing. A third possibility is what we might call the “mega-coincidence” hypothesis. This is the idea that perhaps I am merely someone who has had an extraordinary streak of luck in taking these photographs, which has resulted in an unusually high number of repeating patterns and orb photos resembling faces. We would not expect such a streak of luck to occur even once in any city, but perhaps you are looking at this web page merely because I've been the luckiest person in the world at taking astonishing orb photos. But my guess is that the person who studies this post (showing very many examples of very distinctive repeating orb patterns) will not think this possibility is credible, for there are too many repeating patterns for coincidence to be an explanation. Q. Are you the only one producing these photos of orbs? A. Not at all. Orbs have been noticed in flash photographs taken all over the world since the invention of the digital camera. Google for "orb gallery" or "orb photos" to find many other web sites showing photos of orbs. See also this blog post on this site listing other sites showing orb photos. The first site listed on that post (this site) has a large collection of photos showing orb faces, so I'm not the only one putting up such photos. Q. Why are you showing these photos in a blog rather than the more common approach of just showing a gallery of photos? A. A blog is ideal for someone wishing to present orb photographs in a systematic way that documents everything so that you have all the information you need to evaluate an orb photo. If I were to simply put a photo of an air orb in a gallery, you would not know anything about whether such a photo was taken indoors, or whether it was taken in dusty conditions, or whether the orb appeared inside water, or whether there were reflective objects nearby, or how large the orb was compared to the full photo size (which are all factors someone might need to consider when evaluating whether the orb is paranormal). By putting each photo in a blog post that lists such factors, people will have all the information they need to evaluate whether the photos are showing something paranormal. Q. Aren't orbs just dust, as I've heard? A. Most of the more remarkable orbs that have been photographed cannot be explained as dust, because they are either too big to be dust, too bright to be dust, too fast-moving to be dust, too colorful to be dust, too regularly observed to be dust, too surrounded by clean air to be dust, or too closely resembling faces to be dust. In the case of numerous photos on this site, several of these "can't be dust" conditions apply at the same time; so, for example, some orbs that are shown on this site were too fast-moving to be dust, too big to be dust, too bright to be dust, too colorful to be dust, and too surrounded by clean air to be dust -- all at the same time. See this blog post for a refutation of the theory that dust can be used as a general explanation for orbs. In the case of the air orb photos shown on this site, I have in many cases included dust level readings (taken with an electronic air quality monitor) that show the air was too clean at the time for dust to have been a plausible explanation. The photos in Grand Central Station were taken at a very clean balcony area, directly facing a huge mass of clear air, about 10 meters above pedestrians. Grand Central Station has a very efficient air filtration system that keeps its air very clean. We cannot plausibly imagine that at such a location you would have enough dust for dust to produce frequent orbs, like the many orbs I have photographed at such a place. The clean spot where most of my Grand Central photos were taken Below are additional decisive reasons for rejecting the idea that dust can explain the photos on this site: (1) This site has 36 photos of orbs that are behind distant obstructions more than 10 meters from the camera (see the posts labeled "air orb too distant to be dust"). Such photos rule out the idea that orbs are all specks of dust a few inches from the camera. (2) This site has more than 24 posts labeled "inexplicable orb motion." Such posts show moving orbs making sharp right-angle turns or wavy undulating motions or u-turns, spectacular motions that are never made by dust, insects, or birds. (3) This post presents a statistical analysis showing that a set of more than 100 orb photographs shows a strong "vertical bias" that is completely incompatible with the idea that dust may be the cause of orbs in such photos. This post presents a series of 14 photos in which we also see an extremely strong "vertical bias" that is completely incompatible with the idea that dust may be the cause of orbs in such photos. (4) The particle size of ordinary atmospheric dust is many times too small to produce orbs in photos. Ordinary atmospheric dust has a particle size of about 1 micron (1 micrometer) or less. The area right in front of a camera lens has a width of about 15,000 microns (the same as 15 millimeters). This means that a dust particle in ordinary outdoor air can only block about 1/15,000 (one fifteen thousandth) of the width of a photo -- way, way too small a "blockage fraction" to produce an orb in a photo. For typical indoor air, this "blockage fraction" is about 1/1500 (one fifteen hundredth) -- still way too small to produce an orb in a photo. See this post for a more detailed discussion of why these "blockage fraction" and particle size considerations exclude the theory that most orbs are dust. (5) If the dust in ordinary air were sufficient to produce orbs, then people all the time would complain about orbs appearing in their photos. Instead, 99% of all people do not notice any orbs in their photos. But people with an interest in paranormal photography tend to see orbs appear very often in their photos (and they tend to see orbs appearing in increasing numbers the more they try to photograph orbs). (6) Moving orbs are often photographed by security cameras, as you can see by going to www.youtube.com, and searching for "orb+security camera." Such videos cannot be explained through any dust theory. (7) My dozens of tests photographing a piece of cardboard at arm's length (usually in the middle of photographing many orbs) have never shown one single orb in front of the cardboard, which shows that the orbs I am photographing are not specks of dust near the camera. Q. But aren't there other things that can explain orbs, such as water vapor, pollen, lens flare, blooming, or reflection? A.See this post for why neither water vapor nor pollen can explain orbs. The water vapor in ordinary air is only about 1 micron in size, many times too small to produce an orb in a photo. All pollen particles are 100 microns or smaller, meaning that they are too small to produce a decent-sized orb in a photo. There are also mathematical reasons (discussed here) why there is less than 1 chance in 1000 of a pollen particle existing close enough to your camera to produce even a speck-like orb in your photo. 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. In the very rare case of heavy fog or heavy mist, you can get natural, colorless orbs in photos. But I am careful to avoid photographing under such conditions (and always state whether or not there was fog or mist when I publish an outdoor photo). See this post for my experiments showing that reflection cannot explain orbs (I took 120 flash photos in "multiple mirror" conditions trying to maximize reflections, but produced no orbs). Blooming and lens flare both have one thing in common: they only occur when you are pointing the camera towards a bright light source or some surface that is brightly reflecting light. None or virtually none of my pictures of orbs in the air were taken under such conditions, so neither explanation can explain such photos. Q. Aren't orbs just "circles of confusion," as some skeptics claim? When skeptics try to use the term "circle of confusion" to try to explain orbs, it is just an example of an ignorant misuse of a technical term. The term "circle of confusion" is a photographic term having to do with the depth of field or focal length of a camera. It is a single parameter for some particular photo. The "circle of confusion" may affect whether particular tangible objects in a photo (such as lights) will appear in focus or out-of-focus. But it is not at all true that some "circle of confusion" (or depth of field setting or focal length setting relating to a "circle of confusion") can cause circles to appear in a photo that do not correspond to tangible objects (or illumination sources) in the photo area. The term "circle of confusion" is well-explained in this video, where we see how the "circle of confusion" affects the appearance of distant lights. Q. What precautions do you take to make sure you are not photographing natural orbs? Since starting this blog I have followed these precautions: (1) I never photograph in rainy, snowy, foggy or misty conditions, unless I specifically state that I am doing so in the description of a photo. (2) I am careful not to photograph while pointing towards a bright light, to avoid lens flare. (3) I never photograph near any nearby unusual thing that is causing visible dust or smoke to appear. For example, if I see one of those New York City street vendors with a cart that is churning out smoke, I will be careful not to photograph near that. (4) I never make use any of unusual lighting techniques, and never use anything than an ordinary camera flash (one that isn't particularly bright). I never shine a flashlight when taking pictures, which can create misleading effects. Q. Could lens smudges be the cause of any of the orbs shown on this blog? A. When a camera smudge causes a photo anomaly, it is always very easy to tell what is going on, because you will see the anomaly occurring again and again in your photos, until the lens is cleaned. I never publish photos of anomalies that occur identically in a series of consecutive photos up until the time that I cleaned my lens. In 99% of all orb photos published on this site, the next photo showed no identical-looking orb in about the same position. Q. Can I myself take photos like the photos you show on this site? You sure can. No special psychic abilities are required, and I don't claim to have any. See this post "How to Get Started in Orb Photography." See also this post entitled "How to Photograph Paranormal Patterns." Q. What cameras have you used for making these photographs? A. All of the photos with a date before December 4, 2014 were photographed with an Olympus FE-100 camera, an inexpensive "point and click" camera I bought about 2008. I do not use the "macro mode" when photographing water drops with such a camera. After December 4, 2014, many of the "air orb" photos have been made using a Sony DSC-W830 camera. I find that the Sony DSC-W830 camera works very well for photographing orbs in the air, and does a better job of capturing the colors of orbs in the air. Since March 2015 I have taken outdoor night pictures with a Nikon Coolpix L28 camera which was modified (by the "Gotcha Ghost" site/service) to be a "full spectrum" type of camera that lets in more infrared radiation. I have found this camera to be successful at capturing some spectacular very large orbs at night, which are shown here. All of these cameras have a small built-in flash that isn't particularly bright. much less bright than those cameras that have flash attachments. Update: In May 2017 I started using a Sony Alpha a5000 camera with a CMOS sensor different from the CCD sensor used by my previous cameras, and a small built-in flash. Photos from May 2017 will be from any one of these cameras, with the camera varying from day to day. See posts labeled a5000 photo for some of the Sony Alpha a5000 photos. I get mysterious orbs in all of these cameras. The fact that I have got orbs in such a variety of cameras with a variety of technologies helps to show that the model of camera has very little to do with whether orbs appear. Update 2: After 9 months of use, the flash on the Sony Alpha a5000 has failed. So I do not recommend that you buy this camera. Update 3: In February 2018 I replaced the Sony Alpha a5000 with a Sony Alpha a6000. This has a "flash shoe" that I can use to replace the flash if the built-in flash ever fails. So far the Sony Alpha a6000 is working very well, and is capturing many orbs. See my posts labeled a6000 photo for photos taken with this camera. Update 4: After nearly two years of admirable service, with some very heavy use on many days, my Sony A6000 camera has undergone an unrecoverable failure, giving me a "Camera Error, turn power off then on" message (doing that doesn't fix things). So now in January 2020 I've upgraded to a Sony A6100 camera. Update 5: After about five months of very heavy-duty use (often 5000 photos a day), my Sony a6100 stopped working around June 1, 2020. I've replaced it with another Sony a6100 I began to use in early June 2020. Update 6: After two months of very heavy-duty use (often 5000 photos a day), my Sony a6100 has again stopped working in early August 2020, and I bought a replacement model. Update 7: After sixth months of very heavy-duty use (often 5000 photos a day), my Sony a6100 has again stopped working in early February 2021, and I bought a replacement model. Update 8: After 8 months of very heavy-duty use (usually 1000+ photos a day), my Sony a6100 has again stopped working in November 2021, forcing me to borrow a Sony a6400 from my daughter. I may note that the photos I have taken of mysterious striped orbs were taken with 3 different cameras: (1) Hundreds of my photos of mysterious striped orbs were taken with my first Sony DSC-W830 camera, which I replaced with a new DSC-W830 camera in 2018. (2) Hundred of other photos I took of mysterious striped orbs were taken with my second Sony DSC-W830 which I started using in 2018. (3) Hundred of other photos I took of mysterious striped orbs were taken with my Nikon Coolpix L28. So a "broken camera" hypothesis doesn't work to explain such photos. As for photographs of repeating patterns arising during photography of falling water drops, this has occurred with six different cameras: (1) Many hundreds of my photos of orbs with face-like details and striped orbs (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with an Olympus FE-100. All of the photos in the video here and here were taken with such a camera. (2) Thousands of my photos of orbs with dramatic repeating patterns (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with a Sony A6000 camera which I used between February 2018 and January 2000. (3) Many hundreds of my photos of orbs with dramatic repeating patterns (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with a Sony A6100 camera which I used between January 2020 and May 2020. (4) Many hundreds of my photos of orbs with dramatic repeating patterns (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with a second Sony A6100 camera which I used in June and July 2020, after my first Sony A6100 camera stopped working about June 1, 2020. (5) Many hundreds of my photos of orbs with dramatic repeating patterns (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with a third Sony A6100 camera which I used beginning in early August 2020, after my second Sony A6100 camera stopped working about August 1, 2020. (6) Many other of my photos of orbs with dramatic repeating patterns (arising during photography of falling water drops) were taken with a fourth Sony A6100 camera which I used beginning in early February 2021, after my third Sony A6100 camera stopped working in February 2021. Of course, we cannot explain such photos through any "camera defect" hypothesis, as the photos have occurred abundantly with six different cameras. Moreover, my viewfinder videos show mysterious repeating patterns appearing realtime as I photograph, and you could never get such an effect because of a camera defect. Below is one example of such a viewfinder video. We can abundantly see orbs with distinctive patterns moving across my camera viewfinder, an effect which could never occur from some camera defect. Something like a lens defect would appear as a fixed spot on the viewfinder, not as a moving circle moving from the top of the viewfinder to the bottom. Q. What is the "water face effect"? A. The water face effect is a highly anomalous effect I first noticed back in October of 2014, in which photos of water drops appear to show faces within the water drops. The effect is described in detail in this post. See the posts on this blog labeled "water face effect" for many examples. Q. What technique can I use to try to reproduce this "water face effect"? A. A method you can use to try to produce this effect yourself is described in detail in this post and in this post. Q. Are the water drop photos that are shown on this site very typical photos given the overall set of water drop photos that you have taken? A. Yes. It is true that the water drop photos on this site are the most dramatic photos within the overall set of water drop photos I have taken, so a certain degree of selection is involved. But I must also note that for each photo I take and put up on this site, there are about ten others that I have taken that look almost the same as the ones that I have put on this site, but which have the details a little less clearly shown. So overall, the water drop photos shown on this site are not rare outliers, but instead very typical examples of the type of water drop photos I have taken. Q. Can't we explain orbs in water drops just by imagining that they are due to reflections of the camera's flash? A. One can explain a small amount of the "water face effect" described above by just assuming a reflection of light from a camera's flash. But most of the more remarkable parts of the "water face effect" cannot be explained simply by imagining a reflection of light -- things such as the fact that the orbs are almost all circular, the fact that they are mostly the same size, the fact that the orbs have different solid colors (some orange, some yellow, some blue, some purple, etc.), the fact that the orbs so often appear to be moving very rapidly around the edges of the water drops (what I call the orb centrifuge effect), and most of all the fact that such a large fraction of the orbs appear to have faces. The smiling faces that appear are not a reflection of my face, because they look nothing like my face (and I'm not smiling when I take the pictures). They are also not a reflection of a nearby photo, because I never have used any photos nearby when I have taken any of these water drop pictures. Q. Did any of the photos of water drops or water drips on this site involve water that had any added items or impurities? A. No. Every single one of the photos of water drops or water drips on this site is either a photo of pure, clean tap water with nothing added or a photo of ordinary rain drops. Moreover, nothing was ever placed nearby to cause a reflection to appear within a water drop or water drip. Q. Why shouldn't we just conclude that the pictures on this site were faked? A. Because this site has so many photos involving multiple paranormal details in incredibly detailed scenes (such as the many photos at Grand Central Station), and because so many of this site's photos involve faces in water drops (involving very complex "hard-to-fake" combinations of light, shadow, reflection, water, movement, and faces), it would have been incredibly difficult for even a well-funded large team of highly talented artists to have faked all the paranormal-looking photos on this site. Long past my prime years, I am a man of slight artistic skills who has never even used Photoshop, not the kind of young graphics whiz who might be able to fake some of these photos. I have never faked anything, ever. While it is true that there exists quite sophisticated technology for faking photos, there is also quite sophisticated technology for detecting photo fakes. For example, there is a free site called fotoforensics.com that will help you find fraud or photoshopping in any photo you submit (and you can get the results instantly online). If you try to submit this site's photos to such analysis, the photos will stand up very well. It would make no sense for anyone to put up so many photos on a site like this if the photos were fake, because people would be able to detect the fraud using advanced tools such as the site I just mentioned. I may also add that I have not profited from photos on this site, so why would I go to all the trouble of faking things? I do have two books of paranormal photos for sale on www.amazon.com, but so far my meager proceeds from those $2 books are more than two thousand dollars less than my related photography expenses. My books sales would have to increase by 5000% for me to recoup all the money I've spent on expensive ($500+) Sony cameras for orb photography, cameras which have five times failed, requiring additional camera purchases. I have so little interest in profit from my photos that this blog is now under a "Creative Commons" license allowing anyone to use my photos for free (see below). The only links to my books on my home page www.markmahin.com are links to books that are now free for anyone to read, because the links are to books of mine I have uploaded to www.archive.org (you can access such books by using this link). A major reason for believing in the authenticity of my photos is that I have published on www.youtube.com hours of video footage showing the back of my camera while I photographed inexplicable massively repeating orb patterns arising during my photography of falling water drops. You can find links to such videos at www.markmahin.com. There is no person capable of faking such videos by himself, and faking such videos would be a project on the same level of difficulty as doing the special effects for a science fiction motion picture, requiring a massive financial investment in video special effects, and the involvement of some team of special effects experts. I have no experience at all in the production of cinematic or video special effects, and have never communicated with any person who had such expertise. Q. Do you know anything about the meaning of orb colors (or explanations for these colors)? Some people speak as if they know that particular orb colors mean particular things. I claim no such knowledge, but I do repeatedly photograph orbs in a variety of vivid colors. There is no good natural explanation for why orbs should so frequently be photographed with such strong colors, as I argue in in this post. Q. When you report unusual non-photographic anomalous experiences, as you sometimes do, could such things be reports of something experienced during alcohol or drug use? In the past 40 years, I have never consumed any alcohol, and have never used any illegal or recreational drugs. So every time I report an experience, I am always referring to something I experienced when I was as sober as a judge. Q. Can I use pictures from this site on my web site or in the publication I am writing/editing? A. Content from this blog and my two other blogs (www.futureandcosmos.blogspot.com and www.headtruth.blogspot.com) can now be shared under this Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivatives license, requiring attribution (including a link to this web site) and prohibiting derivatives: link. This license allows you to republish any photo from this site without paying me anything, as long as you include a URL for this site next to the photo. But please note that making any alteration whatsoever of any photo from this site is a violation of the "no derivatives" part of the license, and is strictly forbidden. There is no limit to the number of photos that you can use under this license, but every photo displayed from this site must be next to a URL for this site. So if you had a video of 30 photos from this site, each such photo would have to be next to a URL for this site. And if you had a book with 30 photos from this site, each page displaying such a photo would have to have the URL for this site.https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2015/01/frequently-asked-questions.html

Yet Another Experiment Debunking the "Orbs Are Just Dust" Idea With thanks to Mark Mahin. The site www.youtube.com has some videos attempting to debunk orbs. One incredibly silly video features a skeptic pouring huge amounts of dust directly in front of the camera, with the suggestion that this technique can be used to show that orbs are just dust. The approach suggested is, of course, utterly ridiculous. The people who photograph orbs and post them to the Internet as unexplained mysteries are photographing orbs in ordinary air, and are not at all photographing orbs in any condition bearing the least resemblance to a condition in which dust is poured in front of the camera. One cannot explain a phenomenon by using testing conditions totally different from the conditions under which the phenomenon was observed. A somewhat less ridiculous video shows an experiment in which someone crinkles a wad of dry toilet paper in front of a camera. This method is also objectionable, because virtually never does any one photograph orbs under such a condition, with little specks of dust falling directly in front of the camera. But I decided to give this test a try, just to see whether anything would show up bearing significant resemblance to the orbs that I have produced in my photographs. No such thing happened. I took 82 flash photos while crinkling some dry toilet paper in front of a dark background, as shown below (the little white specks at the top are falling pieces of dust). The test does produce a few dust orbs, but none of the 82 photos showed any type of orb that an intelligent person would ever post to the Internet as an example of a possibly paranormal orb or an unexplained mystery. The only orbs that were produced were small, dull, and colorless. All were pale-looking looking little things without any brightness, and without any color other than white or gray. None had interesting outer rings, and none appeared to have faces. None of these dust orbs was any larger than about 5 percent of the photo height. These dust orbs typically had blurred edges quite different from the sharp outer edges shown in very many orb photos on this site. There was no sign of any motion other than the ordinary motion of a falling particle. A typical example is shown below (and most of the photos showed nothing): This experiment shows that even when one is causing dust to fall directly in front of the camera lens, this still does not produce orbs anything like the dramatic orbs shown on this site, which are so often bright or large or colorful or having outer rings or facial characteristics or seeming to move in inexplicable ways. See this post, this post, and this post for similar tests with similar results. The "orb zone theory" is one that does not stand up to scrutiny, and is also an idea that is incompatible with a little thing called the law of gravity. The law of gravity tells us that dust very rapidly settles to the ground, the same thing that one actually observes when one raises dust and uses an electronic dust detector to measure how quickly dust settles. The idea that ordinary air is filled with particles of dust sufficient to create dramatic photo anomalies is a fantasy. Typical, ordinary air at camera level has very little dust, and that invisible dust is not sufficient to show up in flash photos, partially because dust is not a very reflective material. Posted by Mark Mahin at https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/experiments

Statistical Evidence Suggesting Paranormal Orbs Orbs are unusual circular anomalies that appear in photos like the photo below. In previous posts I have done experiments debunking the "orb zone theory" -- the claim that orbs can be explained as flash reflections of dust particles near the camera lens. My tests showed that even when you raise heavy dust, you merely get small, dull, faint orbs unlike any of the more dramatic orbs shown on this site (which are so often big, bright, colorful, fast-moving or having what looks likes faces). In this post I will discuss an entirely different type of experiment: a statistical experiment. The experiment will be done purely by analyzing a series of photographs taken on a particular day. In the experiment I will be looking for a certain type of “location bias” that we would not at all expect to see if orbs are just dust. To explain this idea, let me first show a photo of the main terminal of Grand Central Station in New York as observed from one side of the East Balcony (the side opposite the US flag). The view looks like the one shown below. The strange blue items at the top are orbs. You will notice that there is a row of lights that stretches roughly through the middle of the photo We can consider this row of lights as a divider. We can consider the area above the row of lights as the “upper area” of a photograph of the terminal made from this angle, and the area below the row of lights as the “lower area” of such a photograph of the terminal. Now under the hypothesis that orbs are just dust, should we expect to see orbs more often in the upper area of photos like the one above, or in the lower area of such photos? Under such a hypothesis, there should be little or no difference between the frequency of orbs seen in the upper area and in the lower area. The theory that orbs are dust holds that the photographer is photographing little particles of dust floating around very close to the camera. If that theory is true, we should not at all expect to see orbs appearing much more frequently in the upper area of photographs like the photo shown above. Consequently I had a nice opportunity for a statistical test. My procedure was as follows: Using the photographs that I had taken on March 26, 2015, I selected all that were taken from the same angle as the angle in the photograph shown at the beginning of this post. I threw out a few of these photographs which did not show a roughly equal amount of “lower area” and “upper area.” The row of lights in the terminal was used as the dividing line between the upper area and the lower area. I was then left with a set of 158 photos. I examined each such photograph, and judged whether the total surface area of orbs shown in the photo was greater in the upper area or the lower area. If it seemed hard to tell whether the surface area of the orbs in the lower area was more or less than the surface area of the orbs in the upper area, or if no orbs were shown in the photo, I made no judgment regarding that photo. The results were as follows: 106 of the photographs were judged to have a greater amount of “orb surface area” in either the upper area or the lower area (as defined above). Of these 106 photos, 101 had a greater amount of “orb surface area” in the upper area, the area above the row of lights. Only five of the photos had a greater amount of "orb surface area" in the lower area, the area below the row of lights. The table below summarizes these results. Photos showing no orbs or no clear difference between the total surface area of orbs in the upper part of the photo and the total surface area of orbs in the lower part of the photo 52 Photos showing orbs in the upper part of the photo having a higher total surface area than the total surface area of orbs in the lower part of the photo 101 Photos showing orbs in the lower part of the photo having a higher total surface area than the total surface area of orbs in the upper part of the photo. 5 To put it succinctly, on this day (March 26, 2015) the abundant orbs in my photos seemed to appear much, much more commonly in the upper area of my photos. Now how unlikely is it to have got a result such as I have just described, purely by chance? It's about the same as the chance of you flipping a coin 106 times, and getting 101 heads. If only chance was involved, and if orbs are just dust, then each of the photograph examinations I made (listed in the last two rows of the table above) should have been like a coin flip, with about a 50% chance of observing more orbs above the “row of lights” dividing line, and a 50% chance of observing more orbs below this dividing line. But is there any way to calculate the chance of such a thing happening? Yes, there is a convenient online calculator we can use. The calculator is on this page at the stattrek.com website. The calculator uses a binomial probability calculation to estimate the odds. The screen shot below shows the result I got when I typed the relevant numbers into the calculator. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R_mVDX_L3jU/VRa9SxK_X4I/AAAAAAAAGyE/HMftR-MU8kU/s1600/st2.jpg The answer given by the calculator is that there is a 0% likelihood of getting these results by chance. The binomial probability (stated above in exponential notation) is calculated as about 1 chance in a trillion trillion (1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). So we have our answer to the question about odds. There is essentially zero chance that you might flip a coin 106 times and get 101 heads. There is also essentially zero chance that I would have got the results I got, under the theory that orbs are produced by flash reflections of dust floating in front of the camera. The statistical evidence I have presented here is extremely strong evidence against such a theory. The orbs in my photos at this location on this day were showing a very strong tendency to “preferentially” appear in the upper half of the photo area. Such a fact is powerful evidence against the theory that these orbs are produced by random particles of dust floating in the air. Postscript: The 106 photos I mentioned (all from the same angle and location) showed orbs appearing in a great variety of photo positions, with each photo showing a unique set of positions for the orbs, and with the orbs appearing much more frequently in the top area of the photos. Quite a few of these photos will be shown in future posts on this blog. Posted by Mark Mahin https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/experiments