Karyn

When Sceptics engage in Deceptive Cheating 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

We see what looks like a fast-moving bright orb I photographed indoors. Thanks to Mark. https://orbpro.blogspot.com/search/label/speeding air orb

A Test That Debunks the “Moving Orbs Are Bugs” Nonsense 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

Thank you Michael.

Th 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." Condition of air Particle size Outdoor air, dry 1 micron Indoors, normal 10 microns Indoor dust spikes (vacuuming, etc.) 50 microns Outdoor heavy smog 30 microns Heavy fog, mist 500 microns Heavy visible dust in air, reducing visibility 500 microns Rain 1000 microns or more 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. Air Condition Particle size (microns) Length of area right in front of lens (microns) Blockage fraction (maximum size of natural orb as fraction of original photo width) Would you notice a photo orb caused by a natural particle suspended in air? Outdoor air, dry 1 15000 0.00007 or 1/15000 No Indoors, normal 10 15000 0.00067 or 1/1500 No Indoor, dust spikes (vacuuming, etc.) 50 15000 0.0033 or 1/300 No Outdoor heavy smog 30 15000 0.002 or 1/500 No Thick fog or mist 500 15000 0.03 or 1/30 Maybe Heavy visible dust in air, reducing visibility 500 15000 0.03 or 1/30 Maybe Rain 1000 or more 15000 0.07 or more Maybe 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 1/150th 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). Pollen Forecast Pollen Particles Per Cubic Meter Low Less than 30 Medium 30 to 49 High 50 to 149 Very high 150 or more 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. Pollen forecast Pollen particles per cubic meter Number of 4 cubic centimeter volumes per cubic meter Chance of a pollen particle existing in a 4 cubic centimeter volume right next to camera lens Low Less than 30 250000 Less than 1 in 8333 Medium 30 to 49 250000 Between 1 in 8333 and 1 in 5102 High 50 to 149 250000 Between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 1678 Very high 150 or more 250000 Greater than 1 in 1678 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

An excellent article especially since it addresses one of the biggest issues of orb photography and one where people often are mistaken and that is in the area of shooting into a light source. If you want unmistakable orbs the light MUST be behind you, not even beside. 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: 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. 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. Try to photograph only in dry weather. Rain drops and snow flakes can be mistaken for orbs. 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. 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. Posted by Mark Mahin at 11:17 AM https://orbpro.blogspot.com/2015/04/how-to-get-started-in-orb-photography.html Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest Labels: air orb, air orb in Grand Central Station, photographic techniques for paranormal photography

A New Poll Tells Us 22% Report "Seeing Unexplained Orbs of Light" A new poll by YouGovAmerica surveyed 1000 Americans about any parnormal experiences they may have had. More than two-thirds reported having some type of paranormal experience. Some of the most common experiences were: "Feeling a presence or unknown energy": 37% "Hearing a voice of someone who wasn't there": 29% "Feeling an unexplained change in temperature": 28% "Seeing lights or other devices turn on or off without explanation": 25% "Seeing an object move without explanation": 22% "Seeing unexplained orbs of light": 22% "Seeing a door open or close without explanation": 20% "Seeing a ghost or spirit": 20% "Seeing an angel": 13% The page describing the poll gives one interesting bit of testimony from one of the people polled: "I was in a 100-year-old hotel in Brazil with abandoned floors that were accessible. As my friend and I explored, the temperature dropped and we saw orbs of light." I myself have had several of these experiences. I once saw a locked door open when no one was near it. I have more than once observed objects move inexplicably. I have repeatedly witnessed inexplicable activity regarding lights, including either a turning on by itself of a light or a light turning off inexplicably and then quickly turning back on. My post here mentions recent observations of this type. Posted by Mark Mahin at 8:06 AM https://orbpro.blogspot.com/

Life After Life Blog Digest November 2022 Every month we seek out the best research, stories, and other thought-provoking writing to enlighten, inspire, and entertain. We hope you LOVE this month's selections as much as we do! Pets and Shared Death Experiences Please enjoy this clip from A Glimpse Beyond the Threshold: Shared Death Experiences with Dr. Raymond Moody, William Peters, and Lisa Smartt. More about the course: A Glimpse Beyond the Threshold: Shared Death Experiences is a 6-Part online, self-study course available now. Shared death experiences (SDEs) are incredible events whereby one or more loved ones or caregivers report sharing in a dying person’s transition to the initial stages of the afterlife. This course will introduce you to shared death experiences. You will learn the importance of SDEs and what they mean for us all. Confessions of a Reluctant Animal Lover by Dr. Kenneth Ring Nature and I are two. – Woody Allen I’ve always loved that quip of Woody’s, probably because I identify with it. For much of my life, and even to some extent today, I have felt not only removed from nature but alien to it. Some years ago, I wrote a memoir about my father from whom I was separated at an early age and who died when he was scarcely forty years old. I called it My Father, Once Removed. If I were to write about my life in nature, I could give it a similar title. Didn’t Thomas Carlyle, who was not a fan of things mechanical, somewhere assert that “machines are inherently aggressive?” Well, I could say something akin to that sentiment about nature – that it is inherently frightening, at least to me. Hope From Heaven The following is an excerpt from Hope From Heaven: A True Story Of Divine Intervention And The Girl Who Came Back As God's Messenger. In the book Elissa Hope tells the story of her near death experience at 14 and how it's shaped her life. CHAPTER THREE-- At Heaven’s Door Three figures were floating toward me – beautiful beings in long white gowns, with blue eyes and porcelain skin and soft waves of long golden hair. Though I was standing on what felt like solid ground, they floated above it, and I saw that on their backs they had delicate white wings. I had no doubt that I was looking at my very own guardian angels! Each of them came to me and embraced me with great tenderness. Divinely Align Me by Alicia Young We're pleased to announce the publication of Alicia Young's new book Divinely Align Me: How Signs from the Universe Keep You on Your Path. You can read a brief excerpt below: We used to joke that my father needed so many angels, there would be mass unemployment in heaven when he passed. As I look back on the stories you're about to read, I'm a little embarrassed at the number of times I've been protected. It implies that I barrel through life recklessly. In fact, that's not the case, nor did it apply to Dad. But I have to consider that a free spirit, and a reasonably traveled one at that, would encounter a few situations that called for extra help. These days, I'm more grateful than embarrassed. Read More NEW BOOKS OF INTEREST This is Ken Ring's last book, and though he claims to spend most of his days whimpering, his farewell to writing, as his final essays will demonstrate, certainly goes out with a bang. As he veers unsteadily toward eighty-seven, Ring has lost none of his verve or literary panache. As always, his essays sparkle with his usual wit, but mainly reflect Ring's more serious concern to address some of the topics that have engaged him during this last phase of his life. Still, the book begins in a more lighthearted way with his reminiscing about his early life with his absent father ("my father, once removed," he calls him) and about some of the other things that shaped his character, such as the greatest movie ever made that few people have heard of. He also devotes several essays to largely unknown facets of Helen Keller's extraordinary career, including "The Sex Life of a Saint." But most of the rest of the book is devoted to Ring's careful study of the lives of animals and considerations of animal welfare and the movement for animal rights. And it concludes, fittingly enough, with a number of essays that distill what Ring believes are the most important lessons that people should take from his many years of researching near-death experiences—all of which was foreshadowed by that film he saw as a youth that changed his life and foretold his destiny. Blogging Toward Infinity: Last Notes from the Ringdom is available on Amazon. For more information, click HERE. Kenneth Ring, PhD is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Connecticut, the author of five books on near-death experiences (NDEs), including his bestselling Lessons from the Light, and cofounder and first president of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS). In his new book, Dr. Raymond Moody looks at God and how his personal understanding of the Creator has changed over the course of his life and research into near death experiences. Dr. Moody organizes his insights about God into 12 simple but profound ideas and walks us through them using stories and examples from his own life and from accounts of encounters with God in the hereafter. He looks at our society's beliefs about God, how religion can both help and hinder our relationships with the Divine, and how we can bring Source into our lives with a new understanding that transcends all limits. God Is Bigger Than the Bible is available on Amazon in Kindle and Paperback formats. For more information, click HERE.

"Meet the problems each day. But lay them down when you attempt to aid others."  ECRL 1204-3

Terra 07 — Ethics Shape Us, Morals Let Us Shine 2022 November 7 by Mark Macy Note: A small section after the article explains more about INIT and The Seven. Our INIT group received a message from The Seven ethereal beings in the autumn of 1996 through a telephone answering device in Luxembourg. Here’s an important excerpt: One of The Seven. We, The Seven of the Rainbow People, have decided to help and support the way chosen by you in INIT. It is the way of morals, which means to understand, to acknowledge, to devise, and to act…. Your meeting in Tarrytown is a decisive one… to make true the dream of a strong international association based on morals and on ethics, by giving it not only a fundamental constitution… but also by strengthening love and friendship true, the best qualities of mankind. — hear the complete message…. There seem to be two main things that keep a group strong and stable: Morals, which come from inside us (or in-beyond of us) in the form of finer spiritual values, and Ethics, which come from the social groups around us. Morals Let Us Shine From Within Morals are what every living thing (presumably) uses to chart a stable course in life. It means: To understand (to have a general sense of) the perfection of the source with its built-in motivations for love, kindness, gratitude, and desire to serve, To acknowledge that perfection, To devise ways to make our lives (and our world) as perfect as we can in the present circumstances, and To act accordingly. Morals come from within. The guy might be thinking, that tree is like society—each leaf a person, each leaf knowing innately what needs to be done in the best interests of both itself and the tree. In which case, morals start within us (or, more accurately, in-beyond of us), then get shaped by our conscious choices. (At the end we’ll explore ways to fine-tune ourselves so that we typically make the right moral choices.) Ethics Shape Us From the Outside Ethics, on the other hand, are created largely outside of ourselves, by our groups and by society. Their purpose here on Terra is to keep things peaceful in an agitated world. They spell out what’s appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong. https://macyafterlife.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/07c-bramble.jpeg?w=1024 Ethics touch everyone, like branches and stems that touch every leaf, berry, blossom, and thorn in a bramble bush. Like branches and stems that touch every leaf, flower, berry, and thorn in a thick, wild bramble, ethics in world society touch everyone and every group as they spell out rules, responsibilities, standards, and values at many levels: Global ethics (UN mandates, treaties, multinational policies…) deal with wars, basic human rights, use of the oceans, protection of the atmosphere and the environment, Internet stability, standards to promote compatibility, international business practices, and other concerns that affect the whole world. National ethics (highest government laws and policies) deal with transportation and communication networks, health and safety, education, welfare, military, firearms, addictive substances, epidemics, taxes, and other concerns that affect the whole country. Social ethics (state, provincial, and local laws and regulations) deal with roads and bridges, traffic, waste disposal, utilities, land use, taxes, and so on. Businesses, clubs, churches, neighborhoods, homeowners’ associations, and other groups all create their own ethical codes. Family ethics might include chores, bedtimes, dinnertimes, and other household rules. Together, all of these social groups weave a complex network of ethics (rights and wrongs) that urge social stability and touch us all. Personal ethics. Most of us have at least a basic sense of what society deems right and wrong—and within that we also follow our own unique ethics (shaped largely by our brains, hormones, and DNA) that evolve over time to fine-tune our habits for grooming, eating, getting dressed, exercising, staying healthy, sleeping, choosing friends, having sex, getting along with others, and so on. Basically, all of these ethics are just a vast, multilevel network of rules of right and wrong, and they’re vital in a world of drama and conflict—a world like Terra… a sometimes contentious world with predators, parasites, and competitors. Most of us have at least a vague sense of what’s ethically right and wrong, and we try to live our lives accordingly… but it’s often a struggle. Morals or Ethics: Which Is More Important There’s really no contest between moral living and ethical living here on Terra, because we need both during a lifetime, for different reasons. Ethical living protects us from Earth’s dangers (and from being dangerous to others) by urging us to make the right (ethical) choice, which might not always be the right moral choice. Moral living attunes us to the perfection of the source so that by nature we tend to make the right (moral) choice, which might not always be the right ethical choice. Competition is a good example of the moral/ethical dichotomy. Living on Earth often calls for a degree of competitiveness—trees compete for sunlight, animals compete for food and mating rights, and we humans compete for all sorts of reasons—which is ethically fine in most modern societies—even expected. However, competition is morally wrong (in the purest sense of the term “morals”). Competition generally has a win-lose outcome… and losing is at odds with the source, which flourishes on win-win, live-and-let-live relationships. At least, that’s what I believe, based on what I’m coming to understand about the source. Life-energy emitted by the source seems to be a bundle of motivations and values that nourish the entire cosmos and urge everything to flourish with vitality, love, truth, knowledge, and other catalysts that ensure win-win (mutualistic) and live-and-let-live (commensalistic) behavior. Any sort of win-lose behavior (i.e. predatory, parasitic, and competitive behavior) is at odds with the cosmos, since it doesn’t resonate with the source. It’s why life on Earth is such a moral-ethical struggle. Predators, parasites, and competitors go against the general rule throughout the cosmos, as explained below): No competitors. Imagine a civilization with no competitive sports, no crime, no drama… where everyone comes together in like-minded groups in which cooperation is a way of life. That would be a moral civilization, and most of us humans might find it a bit boring. Our bodies are built to handle the stress that comes from living among competitors. Our brains, DNA, and hormones can give us a little thrill in competitive situations… and we’ve come to accept that as normal. Hence the need for ethics, which decide which competitive activities are acceptable, and which are not. Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow-Ow!… No predators. Or, imagine a civilization without predators, in which living things never stalk*, hurt, or kill each other, not even for food, since everyone and everything is nourished by free life-energy. Again, that seems to be the rule of the cosmos, but Terra is an exception. Most living things on Earth eat other living things to supplement their nourishment, which makes us all “immoral.” Being a vegetarian (eating only plants) doesn’t necessarily solve that problem, as scientists today are finding that plants are conscious, ethical beings too, and simply mowing a field can be traumatic to millions of plants. (However, Terra does seem to have devised ways for moral eating, such as milk, honey, nectar, fruit, and other substances designed mainly to be eaten.) No parasites. Or, imagine a civilization without parasites, in which living things never take what doesn’t belong to them. At first glance, the cosmos seems like a parasitic place—everything sucking life-energy from the source. Actually, though, everything belongs to the source, the source belongs to everything, and everything, ideally, receives all it needs to flourish in the form of life-energy. So it’s not really “parasitic.” On Earth we think in terms of ownership and possessions. The organs, tissues, and body fluids in an organism belong to the organism. The people, products, and resources of a nation belong to the nation, and so on. If we take what “belongs” to someone else (parasitic behavior), the results might include arguments, crime, war, and other causes of suffering. *I use a broad definition of the word stalk: to devise ways to harm someone or something, and then to act on those impulses. Predators enjoy the element of surprise, the rascals. So Earth, with all of its predators, parasites, and competitors, isn’t a moral world. We might wonder, why even consider moral living during a lifetime? Is it even possible? That’s why humanity down through the ages has come to rely on ethics as a back-up to morals. There are earthy situations when moral choices can be problematic… like a sparring partner turning the other cheek, or an honest politician succumbing to the popular lying and cheating of his opponent, or a peaceful country that’s attacked by an aggressive neighbor, or parents who learn that they’ve hired a predatory babysitter…. Sometimes we humans have to set aside our morals in order to protect ourselves against hostile forces that threaten our well-being and survival. But even that’s debatable. Pros and Cons of Moral Living on Terra There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to living a moral life on Earth. Pros According to great spiritual teachers, the benefits of moral living are vast, even if they’re sometimes difficult… even painful. Let’s consider some practical examples of the advantages of moral living. Jesus and pacifism. When we’re subject to aggression (struck on the cheek, for example), Jesus of Nazareth said, simply, turn the other cheek. In other words, in the face of aggression, defuse the violence by not reacting. Become a pacifist. That’s a noticeable benefit of pacifism—deescalating conflict—but the invisible benefits are far greater, according to Jesus and other great masters. Moral living raises our spiritual vibration, which invites finer spiritual forces to support us in our daily lives. That fine vibration also acts as a homing signal to carry us to wonderful afterlife scenarios after we die… when we return to our spiritual roots. Buddha and non desire. But pacifism isn’t the only way to reap those spiritual rewards; non desire works too. When we crave money and other worldly things, it’s a sign that we’re neglecting the source with its life-energy—what many Buddhists call the universal life force. Gautama Buddha laid out steps to open the channels to the life force by overcoming our desires that keep us earthy and make us suffer. The benefits of following those steps? Inner peace amid Earth’s drama and, ultimately, enlightenment and oneness. Rumi and oneness. This 13th Century Persian mystic said, “Don’t feel lonely, the entire universe is inside you.” In other words, we can rise above Earth’s dramas by accessing the source of everything that rests at the center of our being. We’re never “lonely” when we feel a oneness with the all-that-is. These are just a few examples (pacifism, non desire, and oneness) of how moral living helps us enjoy mutualistic (win-win) and commensalistic (live-and-let-live) relationships with others, without being predatory, parasitic, or competitive. It lets us tread lightly on the planet during a lifetime, and then earns us a ticket to paradise after we die. Cons But there are drawbacks to moral living on Earth too, especially pure moral living, or being in harmony with the perfect source: Non desire and poverty. Renouncing our desires for things could lead to poverty. Pacifism and vulnerability. Pacifists are more susceptible to predators, parasites, and competitors. Abstinence and alienation. Avoiding drugs and alcohol (which often stir up competitive, parasitic, and predatory behavior) can exclude us from social groups where people partake. Celibacy and its problems. Repressing our sexuality can cause physical tension and emotional distress. Fasting and hunger. If we refused to eat anything that had to suffer to become our food, most of us would probably starve. (… see the “Cattle Madness” article on pages 9 and 10 of this linked journal… ) A good working definition of morality on Earth, then, is 1) to understand the perfection of the source, 2) to acknowledge it, 3) to devise ways to live as morally as possible without causing suffering for others or for ourselves, and 4) to behave accordingly. If we were to add another step tailored for us humans, it might be 5) Foster conscious contact with the source, if only for a few minutes, in order to experience peace. Meditation and contemplative prayer can help us to rise above the influences of our hormones and brains—to transcend our egos—in order to feel guided by oneness and a desire to serve. So… try to resonate with the source. Striving To Resonate with the Source Everything that’s right and good is embodied in the pure life-energy (or source light) that radiates from the center of everyone and everything, as suggested in this pulled-apart diagram of a person. That seems to be the simple truth at work throughout the cosmos: All is connected to the source. All is one. All is good. Bad things happen here on Terra because our connection to the source is compromised. That’s why life in this wild world gets painful. Or as Cat Stevens says, it’s why ‘a lot of nice things turn bad out there.’ Only good is embodied in the source that shines at the center of everything, including us, so we can simply contact our inner light to know what’s right. There are techniques that we humans can use (especially meditation and contemplative prayer) to slowly foster a resonance with those stabilizing forces that shine brightly at the center of us… at the center of everything in the cosmos. (read more… ) Personal use of those techniques can bring us peace—a peace that spreads into the groups we belong to and out into world. # # # Closing Note: More About INIT and The Seven I helped Maggy and Jules Harsch-Fischbach arrange (with guidance from Juliet Hollister) the first annual meeting of INIT in 1995 (in Dartington, England). The couple had been receiving unprecedented spirit communications via TV, radio, computer, telephone, and other devices in recent years, and we hoped to spread those breakthroughs to a wider community of researchers. The following year, shortly before our second meeting (here in the USA, in Tarrytown), we received the message (mentioned at the beginning) from The Seven ethereal beings who were facilitating our ITC bridge from behind the scenes. The Seven told us on other occasions that they’d been watching and supporting humanity across the eons, and I’ve come to believe that they’re the same ethereal beings who’ve made their presence known to many cultures in many eras. They’re probably the Seven Archangels known by Jews, Christians, and Muslims; the seven shaktis and seven rishis known by Hindus, the seven happy gods of Japanese lore, the seven Hathors of ancient Egypt, and much, much more. It makes sense that if those Seven have been with us across the eons, their presence would have been known and talked about by our ancestors. This is a pulled-apart diagram that’s broken down into seven arbitrary levels of our spiritual make-up: Life-energy leaves the source with boundless vitality, complete knowledge and perfect attitudes as it creates and nourishes everything everywhere with life, love, and purpose. The entire cosmos is apparently shaped by a moral principle: Every entity tries to understand the perfection of the source, to acknowledge it, to devise ways to put it to good use, and to act accordingly. That moral principle was delivered through the telephone answering device of founding INIT members Jules and Maggy Harsch-Fischbach of Luxembourg in 1996. It came from one of The Seven finer beings (inset). (disclosure: please note I have changed some minor errors from the original that in no way impedes the topic)

About Soul Retrievals and Beacons of Light This is part three of our discussions between Mike and myself regarding our Astral Journeys. This time in our chat we put emphasis on the much lower Astral levels, the twilight areas, where the energy is low and people are often desperate to move on, though not knowing how. This is where Astral helpers come in. Mike explains how he goes about his job as a soul retriever. We are discussing how minor shifts in consciousness and focus on metaphors or beacons of light in the lower regions can open worm holes into a higher dimension. It is not always straight forward rescuing people as they can sometime be a drain on the rescuer, if they are not prepared. The Astral World is incredibly thought responsive and immersing yourself into particular charged thought can change the whole world around you. Complete Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Playlist interviews: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Jurgen's books provide many graphic and vividly told first-hand accounts of his journeys into the Afterlife Worlds. They go into much greater depth and detail than it is possible in these short videos: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/jurgenz Please visit the website for more information: http://www.multidimensionalman.com Mike Marable is a California based writer and explorer who has been traveling in other realities and timelines since 1987 after having what he came to understand as a spontaneous kundalini opening that continued for about 12 years. He had to figure out how to navigate the changes in consciousness while starting and operating a healthcare technology company and two nonprofit organizations. His main focus is helping people who have extraordinary experiences live comfortably with a foot in both worlds. Part of this is recognizing that the human experience is an extension of life on either side of what we call physical existence. For more on Mike and his work/writing visit www.mikemarable.com

https://spiritist.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/catalog-of-spiritist-books2021.pdf

https://spiritist.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/catalog-of-spiritist-books2021.pdf

I checked Kevin because I think it is important to have as much accuracy as I can. I want to share information correctly at least I try to be on top of it. https://welcometoeternity.com/2022/10/31/messages-from-the-big-circle-thursday-sessions/

A first hand report of a spontaneous experience of Illumination. Each one of us is embedded within a divine presence we don’t suspect, but knowing about it may open the gates to our source. Complete Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Jurgen's books provide many graphic and vividly told first-hand accounts of his journeys into the Afterlife Worlds. They go into much greater depth and detail than it is possible in these short videos: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/jurgenz Please visit the website for more information: http://www.multidimensionalman.com

"There is a pattern to which each individual, each soul, has subscribed. That there are changes in the pattern is through the will, as well as the choices made by an individual from experience to experience."  ECRL 2940-1