This is another contentious issue - those fuzzy blobs that crop up on photos and are claimed to be of paranormal origin. I'm rather sceptical myself - and would love to know who first claimed they had anything to do with ghosts, anyway - but I recognise lots of people do find orbs fascinating. So, what do you think? Am I wrong to be so dismissive?

I agree, Robert. In the forthcoming issue of Paranormal Magazine (to be on sale at the end of August), there is a fascinating article by research group Para.Science that explains how orbs occur in digital photography. Apparently, water droplets, which are more reflective, cause the most orbs. However, they pint out, too, that a very small percentage of light anomalies caught on cameras may have a less easy to explain origin. Personally, I have no interest in blobs of light that turn up on a digital image that wasn't seen at the same time by the observer. If a photographer succeeds in capturing a weird, ghostly light that he saw with his own eyes - well, that's a different story.

hold your mobile in a dark room and move it around - vapour trails !!

got to be scientific aint it ?

Lindopski said:

hold your mobile in a dark room and move it around - vapour trails !!

got to be scientific aint it ?

I think that far too much emphasis is being placed by paranormal investigators on ORBS. They are certainly not of paranormal origin.

Some people think that orbs or spirits, which is not true.

Also some people go to an alleged haunted site and anything that cannot be immediately explained is automatically put down as being paranormal.

From my experience, 90% of so called paranormal happenings can, when carefully investigated, be put down to natural causes. However, the odd 10% that seem to defy all explanations is what interests me. A good example is my article on Woodchester Mansion.

Most orb photo's that are seen on the web are approx pea size to a few feet across.

All are semi transparent and never seen with the naked eye.

Camera's photograph reflective surface's (houses, people etc) of objects have solid structure.

Reflected light from these sources are returned back into the lens. This is a basically how camera's are able to record images.

If an Orb is though in being a spirit then orbs must have a structure if its to be recorded.

Right lets say a orb was a 'spirit or soul', then orbs would be seen everywhere and without the aid of a flash or infrared night vision camera's (same thing just different light frequencies that the eye's are unable to see).

A food for thought: Are orbs recorded directly to film or digital media via psychokinessis (mind over matter) from a spirit? could this be a reason why people are unable to see anything with the naked eye.

I prefer to think of orbs as nothing more that natural dust, water dropplets, etc on a draft or air current.