Orbs
are strange circular features that have been showing up in flash
photographs around the world since the invention of the digital
camera. Some people think that orbs are evidence of a paranormal
phenomena (which might or might not involve spiritual entities, since
there are simpler paranormal possibilities such as undiscovered
energy effects and “mind over energy” effects). Other people have
attempted to debunk such thinking by offering mundane natural
explanations for orbs.
An unexplained orb from a photo
I
do not claim to know the reasons for the more unusual orbs that
appear in photographs. But I am all but certain of this much: the main
theories that have been presented in an attempt to debunk orbs are
themselves 99% pure bunk – a form of “junk explanation” hogwash
that does not stand up to scrutiny. The two main theories to
naturally explain orbs are a reflection theory and an “orb zone”
theory maintaining that orbs are caused by tiny specks of dust very
near the camera. In this post and the next two posts in this series I
will debunk these two theories, showing that they cannot plausibly
explain the more interesting orb photos that have been taken. I will
argue that the most interesting orb photographs remain an unexplained
mystery.
First,
let's look at the reflection theory. This is basically the theory
that orbs are caused by reflections of a camera flash, when the light from the camera strikes surfaces being photographed. The theory
works (or actually, half-works) in one very obvious case: if you take
a flash photo of a room or scene that includes a mirror-like surface,
you may see something that looks like an orb, which is simply the
reflection of the flash. For example, if you take a picture of a
living room that includes a glass display case or a photo in a glass
frame, and you are directly facing either one, you may see an orb in
your photo, appearing in front of the display case or glass picture
frame. But such cases are obvious and trivial. Only the most
careless rube would take such a picture, and mistake the flashlight
reflection for some paranormal orb.
Note
that I use the phrase “half-works” because even in this obvious
case of shooting a flash photo directly into glass or a mirror, what
you will get is a bright, opaque orb-like reflection that does not
have the transparency seen in most of the more inexplicable orb
photos. So even in this case reflection doesn't give us something
like what is seen in the more inexplicable orb photos.
Still
another reason why Schwartz's conclusion is bunk is that most orb
images seem to appear in front of non-reflective surfaces. Such
surfaces include plaster, cloth, brick, bark, skin, and hair. It is
simply bunk to imagine that the light from a flashbulb would often
bounce off of some reflective surface and then cause a circular orb
to appear as a reflection on a non-reflective surface such as plaster
or cloth. That isn't how light behaves.
Translucent orb against a plaster background
To
back up the claim that such images can form, Schwartz cites Rudolf
Kingslake and his mention of “ghost images” in his book Optics
in Photography. He even includes a diagram from Kingslake's book.
But anyone who does a Google search for “Kingslake ghost image”
can find the part of Kingslake's book in which he discussed what he
calls “ghost images.” None of his pictures of “ghost images”
actually look like the more interesting unexplained orbs that show up
in flash photographs.
In
fact, in his book Kingslake describes “ghost images” as something
that are produced when you are photographing a bright light ahead
of you (a fact Schwartz neglects to mention), and Kingslake's
photographic examples match that description. Such an explanation is
worthless for explaining any orbs that come up in a photograph that
is not taken when the photographer was facing a bright light.
Schwartz's paper includes a photo showing many orbs, and he tries to
suggest these were caused by Kingslake's “ghost images.” But this
is bunk, because there is no bright light (and not even a weak light)
facing the photographer who took the picture.
I
did some tests myself to test whether orbs might be produced in a
setup designed to maximize reflections. I took about 70 flash photographs
in a bathroom with a 3-part mirror, one that could be adjusted to
maximize reflections. I also held a large mirror myself while taking
most of the photos. So there were 4 different mirror surfaces for
light to bounce around off of. I used a wide variety of different
angles and arrangements of the mirror. But no orb was produced
anywhere outside of the mirror surfaces.
I
then took 50 flash photographs inside a closet, facing a mirror, while I
was holding a large mirror. This was also an environment very good to
maximize light reflections. I used many different combinations of
positions and angles. But none of the photographs showed any orbs
outside of the mirror surfaces.
In
short, the reflection theory to explain orbs is bunk. Contrary to
Schwartz's suggestion, there is no reason to think that more than the
tiniest fraction of the more impressive orbs in photographs are being
produced by reflection off of surfaces. But there is still another theory that
skeptics can cling to in order to explain orbs in photographs: the
theory that most orbs in photograph are caused by dust. In my next post in this three-part series, I will explain why this theory is just as much
groundless bunk as the reflection explanation.
Postscript: See the link here for an article by a PhD researcher rebutting the reflection hypothesis and the dust hypothesis as explanations for the more remarkable orb photos.
No comments:
Post a Comment