If you put all paranormal claims on a chart with the most likely at the top, orbs would be several pages down, perhaps only a few slots above stories of Neil Armstrong having traces of Cheddar on his boots when he returned to Earth.

Orbs can be created easily by the home enthusiast or naïve ghost hunter. First, you need a digital camera, preferably a basic one, but with a flash. Next find a suitable location – somewhere old, dark and dusty – orbs can still be seen in daylight, but they don’t show up so well. Then start snapping away. As long as there are some small particles caught in the flash, directly in front of the lens, but too close to be in focus, you’ll get good results. If by good results you mean blurry translucent circles across your image.

They are quite obviously natural rather than supernatural. Unfocussed light from a point source can appear as a circle when photographed and even with the naked eye if you’re too lazy to focus properly. However, it has been claimed that some orbs move or act intelligently, responding to commands. Unsurprisingly this claim has been investigated and found lacking.

The videos sometimes showed faster moving Orbs that performed aerobatic manoeuvres. They were as claimed under intelligent control, but, in these cases they were explainable by the fact that many buildings are inhabited by almost microscopic flying insects that survive all year round due to factors such as central heating and the milder winters. An evening spent in a haunted building with some flypaper and a UV Insect acuter soon proved they existed.
– http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/orbs.htm

Orbs (or insects) responding to commands could certainly be explained by wishful thinking and confirmation bias – until some reliable evidence can show otherwise. In fact there good answers to all the “mysteries” surrounding orbs.

All of which makes orbs as a paranormal phenomenon seem pretty far-fetched, but doesn’t seem to stop people believing in them.

Leonore Sweet is one such person. Although she insists that she’s neither an expert on the paranormal nor on photography, she has written a book entitled How to Photograph the Paranormal. She also has a PhD, although in what, she doesn’t say.  She refers to orbs as “Light forms”, perhaps sounding deliberately similar to “Life forms”. Naturally she is forced to acknowledge that orbs can be created by dust, water droplets, etc, or it would be pretty easy to prove her wrong. But, like so many similar claims she insists that at least some of them are indeed real – just not the ones which have been properly investigated. Have a look at the photos on her What They [orbs] Are page and see what you make of the “types” she claims are legitimate.

If nothing else, these light forms have taught me I know next to nothing in the total scheme of things. This is an uncomfortable feeling for most. Loss of their comfort zone must be why people can look at ten inexplicable photographs and totally dismiss all of them as fraudulent when just one is shown to be from a natural cause.
– http://www.photographingtheparanormal.com/are.htm

That’s because it is the simpler explanation. The onus is on the claimant to provide evidence that these are something paranormal. If you can’t explain something it’s not enough to say, “It must be paranormal” – that’s not the default answer. If the police come questioning you about a murder and you don’t have an alibi, they don’t say, “Then you must be the murderer” and march you off to prison. They’d need some positive evidence too.

For example you could take simultaneous photos of the same person from different angles and see if the orb appears in exactly the same place. Get consistent results from two or more angles and you will actually have some idea if that orb is hovering right behind someone or is a speck only centimetres from the lens.

Leonore Sweet is smart enough not to make any solid claims about the “light forms” she photographs, in fact she rarely even speculates about what they are. Instead she points out that one appeared above a woman who had breathed her last breath or another seems to be hovering protectively near a child. This makes it harder to directly criticise her claims and leaves the speculation up to the reader’s imagination.

Other orb enthusiasts are not so guarded, however. The Sunday Times recently features a piece on Klaus Heinemann, an experimental physicist researching orbs. After waffling about science and how “orthodox research methods often go out the window” he makes some interesting claims:

Hundreds of sequential pictures of the same orb, taken under scientifically sound conditions in rapid succession, have demonstrated that they’re capable of moving very fast — up to 500mph or more. They can also change size and orientation almost instantaneously.
– Klaus Heinemann

Now if he says they can move at a particular speed he needs to know how far away they are – which must be difficult when they can also change size spontaneously. Sadly there’s not the room in this piece to examine his methods, nor any link that might allow us to do so. He goes on to say,

My working theory is that orbs are emanations from spirit beings. There has always been a huge body of anecdotal evidence that the spirit world exists, that consciousness survives physical death, and now, thanks to digital technology, we believe we are seeing it. Orbs are a non-physical, albeit real, phenomenon that can now be detected by physical means.
– Klaus Heinemann

I’d be interested to know how he intends to test that theory or indeed what made him believe it in the first place. Without these details his claims are little more than vague and imaginative claims that I suspect are intended to promote his book rather than help discover anything about reality.

Readers won’t be surprised to hear that the woo-spectrum doesn’t stop here on orbs. The furthest I’ve dared to tread is the delightfully-named Orbs by Beans. Put on your sunglasses and prepare to be dazzled by a smorgasbord of flim-flam!

6 thoughts on “Orbs

  1. I looked at “orbs by bean”.

    When I looked at the pictures, I noticed that a cheesy javascript is used to prevent you from right-clicking the picture. Probably to discourage anyone from saving a copy of the photo on their hard drives. It’s silly because if you look at any picture on the net, you’ve downloaded a copy to your machine (which can be retrieved). Also there’s nothing to prevent me from viewing the page source and downloading a copy from the url in the code. If they don’t want anyone saving a copy of their photos for closer scrutiny, then they shouldn’t be posting them on the net at all.

  2. A lot of people do that for copy-protection reasons, so it might not be fear of scrutiny. If they really believe it they shouldn’t fear scrutiny… so when people do fear it, perhaps on some level they know they might be wrong?

  3. An ex-girlfriend of mine was a big fan of the execrable “Most Haunted” TV show, with Derek Acorah and Yvette “AAAARGHIFELTSOMETHINGBRUSHPASTMYLEG!” Fielding. They were big on orbs, and I remember alienating myself from her family by openly scoffing at the orbs on screen one evening. A piece of fluff does not a ghostie make, but you try telling that to a True Believer.

    By the way, Orbs By Beans proved fascinating. Who knew bad photography could be so compelling?

  4. I’ve never really understood the deal with orbs. Why would one expect a camera to pick up an image of a soul, anyway? If one accepts the whole spirit world concept, and, presumably, that people have souls, wouldn’t it make more sense for it to be the other way around? That is, the camera, being an unconscious machine, composed of matter, without a soul, should not be able to see floating souls, while a person, being partly a spiritual entity, should more likely be able to see other souls floating around. It really doesn’t make sense to believe that the semi-spiritual entity should have no ability to see the orbs, while a digital camera should see them.

  5. Pingback: Know your atheists - Eshu « Right To Think