Raevenskye
Seer of All Things Spooky
Does anyone buy into orb photos anymore? Just curious what y'all think about them. The more I see, the less I believe. Am I limiting my ghostie photos by discounting 99% of them?
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Rick Deckard said:Are 'orbs' the new 'rods'?
The rods phenomena looked like being proven to be images insects-in-flight distorted by the process of filming. Was a conclusion ever reached about 'rods'?
pixelsmith said:i have hundreds of pictures of orbs. they dont seem to appear unless a camera is present. why is that?
Ankhes said:I've also heard that "orbs" show up on film because the camera lense picks up the beginning of the spirit's manifestation and magnifies it. See, the person there can't pick up on the tiny pinprick of light but the camera can.
Raevenskye said:i see that kind of stuff all the time, but i rarely capture orb photos. I did get a few in Gettysburg and the area, but unless i really see a face, or something funky, i pretty much discount them as dust.
Ankhes said:Heh! Because "camera's don't lie?" I've been given that "reason" before. Just like EVP's. For some reason we can't hear the spirits when they talk to us in the same room, but golly gee, a tape recorder will pick up the voice! Never mind that the voice is often horribly distorted, almost impossible to understand, and often doesn't answer a direct question in a manner that makes sense.
I've also heard that "orbs" show up on film because the camera lense picks up the beginning of the spirit's manifestation and magnifies it. See, the person there can't pick up on the tiny pinprick of light but the camera can.
A.LeClair said:There's certain cases where the camera distorts objects to make them look like a ufo, rather than Venus, as an example. Or where the camera strap falls in front of the lens, but is out of focus and looks like a "dimensional vortex".
The human ear can only hear a small fraction of sound. Things can turn up on devices that we don't hear without them.
There are some cases of evp reported where A. You can hear it in the room. B. It is clear. C. It does answer questions. Are they hoaxes? Maybe. All of them? Not so sure about that one since I've experienced some rather ghostly things myself. And communicated with some it seems. I even ruled out all the contrary arguments. I discuss this elsewhere in one of the ghost threads under the username Mindsky. So the possibility of them not all being hoaxes is definitely on the table. I've never had success with evps though.
homepage WorldITC is an interesting site. Faxes, phone calls, video and evps are dealt with there. Legit? I have no way of knowing for sure, but worth considering I think.
Ankhes said:Really? Can you post one? As much as I think 99% of orbs are just dust or insects, I am open to the possibility that some may be worthy of consideration as something else, even perhaps paranormal.
A.LeClair said:The human ear can only hear a small fraction of sound. Things can turn up on devices that we don't hear without them.
Rick Deckard said:Of course it's true that the human ear can only hear a 'limited' range of frequencies so why manufacture an audio device that record and playback frequencies that we can't hear?
Do you see where I'm going with that? If a recording device recorded frequencies outside our range of human hearing, we *still wouldn't hear them* on the playback.
So, I guess, all I'm saying is that it's probably not as straightforward as it first may seem. Is the device really recording *audio* frequencies, which we should be able to hear 'live', or is it really picking up *radio* frequencies which we can't hear 'live' but we can hear once the recording head and electronics have converted them to an audio signal and recorded them to the tape.
Actually, having thought about it further, there is a question of 'amplitude' to throw into the 'mix' too - it is possible not to hear audio that is within the human range of frequencies if it is simply 'too quiet'. An audio device would help in this respect, as it certainly could pick up 'inaudible' sounds and amplify them on playback. If we're saying that these sounds are *audio* frequencies then it is likely a question of amplitude rather than frequencies.
So there's at least two avenues to consider there - did that make any sense?
Raevenskye said:I sure will! they're actually still on my camera, b/c i'm lazy/busy, but i'll be happy to post what i have. It won't be before tomorrow, tho.
A.LeClair said:As for why make a device. The same reason we use X-rays, infrared, telescopes, and microscopes. To get data from existence that we can't get by our biology alone.
Rick Deckard said:Erm, that wasn't quite the point I was making, but never mind...
I'm talking about 'ordinary' recording equipment - are we talking about unusual sounds picked up on 'ordinary' recording equipment or are we talking about 'specialist' recording equipment?
Ankhes said:Reavenskye, have you had time to post the pics yet? If you have and I am just overlooking where, sorry to bother. If not, no rush! Post when you can.
Raevenskye said:I'm sorry..I'm a goober...I meant to bring my camera today (boss is gone, and I visit during work) and dl the pix, and I forgot it. I'll put it all together when I get home tonight, so I'll be sure to do it tomorrow. I apologize for being lame!