It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by evo80
That doesnt look like the same thing. Sort of similar but not similar enough. I understand that it is difficult to believe in orbs, but do some investigating. Go to a place that is known to be haunted. Take some pictures and compare them. Maybe you will see something with your own eyes-I have. Thank you for your picture though, it is a good thought, but they are not the same thing.
Originally posted by tep200377
I am amazed how ridiculous people can be only to get some ats points. It is the same thing. Try taking the picture without blitz. If the orbs react on light ( blitz ) then there is MASS in the air that reflect that orb. How hard is it to grasp that? Its a WELL documented fact. But if you are that ignorant, then this post is a waste of time.
Originally posted by llpoolej
If it is something easily reproduceable, than why would one jump to the conclusion it is a spirit? I must have a ton in my house! All I have to do is pull out my little point and shoot and snap off a photo where a little dust has been stirred up by movement.
Originally posted by evo80
You think I am trying to get ATS points? You think I would go take pictures to purposely try and get "something" to just throw on here simply to gain some points? Your post is ridiculous. You are the ignorant one. Is it that hard to accept that things like orbs do exist? Look, I have SEEN one with my own EYES. This was not a picture, this was a blue glowing orb floating around in a cemetery. AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE.
Here are some links of the exact same cemetery where I saw the orb:
www.legendsofamerica.com...
books.google.com... 72,M1
www.custercountyco.com...
scroll down on this one and you will see:
"Famous for its mysterious lights first seen around 1890. The floating lights of various colors are reportedly best seen on a dark overcast night. The phenomenon was investigated and published in National Geographic in 1963, but the mystery remains unexplained."
This is why we went to have a look at this cemetery. So first seen around 1890, before digital cameras or anything close to it, the orbs were being seen. I know that not every ball on a picture is a real orb, but some of them are orbs. I have seen an orb in person, at this same cemetery. So am I really the ignorant one? I dont think so...
So I suggest you stop trying to put others down, start opening your mind and most importantly go out and do your own investigating.
It is okay to have your own ideas you know. You dont have to accept what is supposedly "documented" as solid evidence of something.
Many paranormal things can not be explained, that does not mean that since some researchers document their ideas on why it "cant be real" or whatever, that they are not a real phenomenon. Go look for yourself. Put yourself out there and open your mind and your senses. See what happens. It might surprise you.
Originally posted by evo80
Here is a pic showing an orb. I have zoomed in to show that the tree branch is actually in front of the orb. I think that this would be evidence that it is not just a reflection of something, right?
Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.
Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That's ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?
What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.
Originally posted by evo80
Okay here is the link to the picture of the orb with a tree branch going through it.
www.sargel18.com...
I think it is pretty interesting.
Originally posted by tep200377
If the orb is transparent, and it is, ( because its dust or crystal particles out of focus) the white color would seem to be above because white color blends over black areas in pictures like this.
Originally posted by evo80
What? So because something is out of focus, it can then turn transparent?
Or am I not understanding your logic there?
And for the crosshairs, those are completely different. The crosshairs are not a 3D substance being photographed like the tree branch. The white fills in the black of the crosshairs, but that doesnt mean that the tree branch will fill in another light colored object. You have done nothing but prove yourself to be ignorent.
And that still does not explain why orbs are not appearing in every photograph taken, especially back to back photos taken within a second of eachother. Does dust settle at an incredible amount of speed? Does dust disappear and reappear magically?
You are stretching it here trying to compare pictures of the moon landing with cameras that include crosshairs to my pictures taken of actual 3D objects (the tree.) I think it is a nice attempt, but again it just is not a good argument.
Show me something that explains how these "particles" do not show up in most or all of our pictures. I have a bunch of photos i did not post that are of the same area and have NO orbs, dust particles or anything else. Just regular pictures.
So what was the difference that made those not show the particles but allowed these pics to have them? It just doesnt add up.
Now i do not think that every single ball of light in these pictures is an orb, but some of them can not be denied. Then some of them are very interesting, and whether orbs or particles, should make people think.
I just wanted to share some pictures I took that I personally find pretty interesting. I was not trying to get into a debate on whether they were orbs or not. I wish that people like you would just go out and see what you can find, instead of trying to find some reason how they are not real.
The FACT is that they are real. Its like the UFO thing, people who have seen a legite UFO know that they are real, then people who have not will do everything they can to prove that they are not real.
I say look around the internet, find out what areas are around you that have activity, and go check it out. The first time I went I came out of it amazed that I actually saw something. It is fun and gives you something to do for a night.