JaKiri Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Have you seen some of the fake images that people can make with computers nowadays?
BobbyJoeCool Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 lol. that's funny. her arm is a little off color, but I still like it.
insane_alien Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 it could be flecks of dirt on the lens (although the ones i seen were brown) or maybe it could just be that the brightspot(orb) actually appears larger than the droplet that caused it. this one looks like a candidate for droplets in the air though and not on the lense. I'm going to do a few experiments to try and create "orbs" in my garage. I have took loads of photos in there and never once seen an orb except for the numerous footballs (soccer for the american people here) and some old and extremely huge light bulbs.
swansont Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Wow! I completely forgot about this picture! It was taken at "Devil's Den". Crazy' date=' huh? It looks like many of the orbs are behind other orbs. If these were drops of water, wouldn't they combine to form one big drop of water? They also appear to be in motion. They look like comets, and the "tails" are pointing down. Doesn't that mean the orbs are moving up? Try explaining that!!! The picture is at: http://gettysburg.homestead.com/files/devilsden.jpg[/quote'] The drops are distinct but you aren't imaging them, since you are focusing on things much further away. That makes them blurry, and the images overlap. The fuzzy images are much larger than the spots that formed them. Pretty straightforward optics, if you ever care to actually learn about some science. You can get streaking like that if the camera or water drop is moving, too, and the amount of streaking will depend on where the focus is.
insane_alien Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 looking back at that picture if you notice the wall there are none that are partially behind it. they always go infront.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 the easiest point to pick up on clearly is that those Closest to the cam flash (largest) are also the brightest, which would suggest a reflective object of Substance, and NOT something ethereal.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 Also' date=' there are many things else that can contribute to this... The fact the the camera has a lens. Maybe the lens was dirty and there was some light shining on it (like the light from the flash got back to the lens and illuminated the dust on the lens as the picture was being taken). Maybe there were contaminants on the film that caused this effect. And for all we know, you've somehow generated these orbs with a computer. Have you seen some of the fake images that people can make with computers nowadays? Someone could actually take one person's legs, another person's hips, another person's belly, another person's chest, another person's arms, another person's head and put them all together and make it look, except under VERY close examination, like that person actually has all the features when they actually belong to 5-7 different people. Now, before you say that I said that you're doing this, I'm mearly mentioning it as a possibility. Since you seem to have jumped to the conclution that they're ghosts, I can see you jump to the conclution that I'm trying to discredit you by accusing you of doctoring the pictures...[/quote'] I already mentioned that I cleaned the lens before taking the picture. Digital cameras don't have film. Also, if I did create these images on a computer, I would already know what they are. Therefore, I would not be using my time trying to figure it out. I did not jump to the conclusion that these are ghosts. I saw similar pictures in ghosts books, and many web sites. The majority of people with orb pictures believe they are ghosts. There are only a few people in this world that can't get the concept that there is more to this world than what we know. I can't prove that these are ghosts, but I'm not going to accept that this is something ordinary. If I take a picture around my home, I'm not going to see orbs all over the place even if it is dark. You can get streaking like that if the camera or water drop is moving, too, and the amount of streaking will depend on where the focus is. The water would be moving down, because it is being pulled by gravity. In the picture, the "tails" of the orbs are pointed down. That means the orb is moving up. I wasn't holding the camera upside down, so how could water move up? the easiest point to pick up on clearly is that those Closest to the cam flash (largest) are also the brightest, which would suggest a reflective object of Substance, and NOT something ethereal. Ghosts are believed to be made out of ectoplasm. According to dictionary.com: Ectoplasm-The outer portion of the continuous phase of cytoplasm of a cell, sometimes distinguishable as a somewhat rigid, gelled layer beneath the cell membrane. It also says: The visible substance believed to emanate from the body of a spiritualistic medium during communication with the dead.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Ghosts are believed to be made out of ectoplasm. According to dictionary.com: Ectoplasm-The outer portion of the continuous phase of cytoplasm of a cell' date=' sometimes distinguishable as a somewhat rigid, gelled layer beneath the cell membrane. It also says: The visible [b']substance[/b] believed to emanate from the body of a spiritualistic medium during communication with the dead. oh well, that`s ME convinced then! the KEY part is "believed to be", even such a "Technical resource" such as Dictionary.com has to state that. it`s certainly not or never "KNOWN TO BE". anyway, if it were a Gel the prismatic effect in the pic would be more pronounced, and it isn`t.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 oh well' date=' that`s ME convinced then! the KEY part is "believed to be", even such a "Technical resource" such as Dictionary.com has to state that. it`s certainly not or never "KNOWN TO BE".[/quote'] It is a theory. It is just as believable as the big band, or evolution. Some evidence can make some people believe it is true, but there is no way to prove it without a doubt.
swansont Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The water would be moving down' date=' because it is being pulled by gravity. In the picture, the "tails" of the orbs are pointed down. That means the orb is moving up. I wasn't holding the camera upside down, so how could water move up?[/quote'] The camera could also have been moving. Did you use a tripod? (Water actually moves up all the time, in various situations. Ever taken a shower?)
swansont Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 It is a theory. It is just as believable as the big band, or evolution. Some evidence can make some people believe it is true, but there is no way to prove it without a doubt. No, it's not a theory, in scientific terms, and its not believable to anyone who has reasonable critical thought skills. You can fool some of the people all of the time, so the fact that some believe it is, by itself, meaningless.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 lets even look at it from the "OTHER side" why would a non corporeal being, wish to take on matter and then do nothing with it other than make little dots on a camera? it`s equaly ilogical.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 No, it's not a theory, in scientific terms, and its not believable to anyone who has reasonable critical thought skills. You can fool some of the people all of the time, so the fact that some believe it is, by itself, meaningless. How is the thought that we were created by a giant explosion make any more sense than ghosts? Where does everyone believe our souls go? We have to have some type of a soul or we wouldn't be conscious. Our brains are like computers. They are not capable of giving us our sense of reality. Our brains simply process the data of our world, and create our thoughts. Without a soul, our thoughts would not be recognized by ourselves. Look at a computer. It processes data, but it really has no idea what it is processing. We are aware of the data our brains process. Therefore, there has to be another component that makes us who we are. I believe that this is a soul. Due to the fact that a soul is not part of our human body, it has to be more like energy. It has to escape somewhere when we die. why would a non corporeal being' date=' wish to take on matter and then do nothing with it other than make little dots on a camera?it`s equaly ilogical.[/quote'] My ghost books say that ghosts need energy to become visible in our world. They can obtain this using the flash of a camera. It is also believed that they can also drain body heat from a person. Most people that see ghosts say that they feel very cold before they see the ghost.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 and most people lose body heat during a Fear reaction, as the blood rushes to the internals and away from extremeties as a means of protection. "I felt the ghost and my blood ran cold" is common. don`t confuse the causality with symptoms
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 and most people lose body heat during a Fear reaction' date=' as the blood rushes to the internals and away from extremeties as a means of protection. "I felt the ghost and my blood ran cold" is common. don`t confuse the causality with symptoms [/quote'] Yes, but most people feel cold before they see the ghost. Most people say they will feel cold all around them. Then they will look around and see a ghost. The coldness usually comes first.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 but look at the situations when that happens, they`re normaly pre-disposed to this kind of abberation, or in a group talking about it or even trying to "Conjur" this. how many instances do you ever hear when it`s happened on a bright sunny day in the middle of the afternoon in a garden whilst busy for instance?
atinymonkey Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Ghosts are believed to be made out of ectoplasm. At least' date=' that's what Dr. Raymond Stantz thought. However, him being a fictional character from Ghostbusters [i']does[/i] affect the credibility of his theory a little.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 but look at the situations when that happens' date=' they`re normaly pre-disposed to this kind of abberation, or in a group talking about it or even trying to "Conjur" this. how many instances do you ever hear when it`s happened on a bright sunny day in the middle of the afternoon in a garden whilst busy for instance?[/quote'] Many stories I've heard involves someone sitting in a chair and reading a book. Or, they walk into an empty room when it happens. They were not expecting to see a ghost. They also didn't have any reason to have fear. At least, that's what Dr. Raymond Stantz thought. However, him being a fictional character from Ghostbusters does affect the credibility of his theory a little. The word "ectoplasm" was created before Ghostbusters. Let's say you are watching a Sci-Fi movie about snakes. A scientist says, "Snakes eat mice". Now, does that make it impossible for real snakes to eat mice just because a fictional character said it? I don't think so...
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Many stories I've heard involves someone sitting in a chair and reading a book. Or, they walk into an empty room when it happens. They were not expecting to see a ghost. They also didn't have any reason to have fear. Always the "Indoors" thing though, or at night? why IS that? I`m glad that you said "stories" that you`de heard though, as that`s all I`ve ever heard too. maybe you can explain something else to me too? why is it that there are more souls lost on OTHER battle grounds than the one you mention, and these are as equaly well documented and filmed/photographed (if not more so) and yet it doesn`t occur there? Could there be something else at play other than Spirit perhaps? maybe something perculiar to that area, and nothing to do with Spirit?
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 maybe you can explain something else to me too?why is it that there are more souls lost on OTHER battle grounds than the one you mention' date=' and these are as equaly well documented and filmed/photographed (if not more so) and yet it doesn`t occur there? Could there be something else at play other than Spirit perhaps? maybe something perculiar to that area, and nothing to do with Spirit?[/quote'] I live right next to a battlefield. They have ghost tours there too, and people report seeing ghosts. For some reason, I've never been there. However, I've traveled for hours to Gettysburg just to get ghosts pictures... I'll be going to the New Orleans soon. There are lots of ghost stories there. If I take any ghost pictures, I'll post them on my web site.
YT2095 Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 that really doesn`t answer any of my questions though does it
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 that really doesn`t answer any of my questions though does it No, I guess not... You did have a good point when you said it could be something specific to the area. What could it be? It wasn't really dusty, and I didn't notice a lot of bugs outside. I hate bugs, so if there were a lot of bugs I would have remembered them. There also wasn't any rain or fog. One of my ghosts books suggests an energy field near Gettysburg. This would be a good scientific explanation I could agree with, but I can't think of a way to prove that either.
insane_alien Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 a fine spray of water makes some good "orbs". so does flour and icing sugar. i think this could also be done with dust in the air. all it requires is a bright light source slightly offset from directly behind the lense. hang on thats where a flash is! Could this be it? i think so!
atinymonkey Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The word "ectoplasm" was created before Ghostbusters. It was used to describe the viscus material that supposedly emanated from spiritualistic mediums during a trance. It was not used to describe the body of the Ghost until after Ghostbusters' date=' who's scriptwriters just chucked in spooky sounding words. Let's say you are watching a Sci-Fi movie about snakes. A scientist says, "Snakes eat mice". Now, does that make it impossible for real snakes to eat mice just because a fictional character said it? I don't think so... I never purported that it did. You are just being silly. I do, however, have a better recollections of colloquials usage than you, and a more impressive collection of dictionary's that detail the origin of word use.
Hellbender Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 It was used to describe the viscus material that supposedly emanated from spiritualistic mediums during a trance. Yeah, they use cheesecloth for this. Fools lots of people with herme3-level critical thining skills.
Recommended Posts