Thread: Discuss your thoughts without arguing.

The youtube videos of the orbs traveling across the city sky and across the crop circles aren't dirty camera lenses because it's video footage in real time. I've never known a photograph to come out like that because of dirt. Why is the rest of the photograph perfectly clear except the round orbs in it. What are you looking for some impossible magical colorful radiant 3d thing? That's pretty obvious to me that it's not a regular anomaly. 3 quarters of the scientific community agree and the other quarter are hardened skeptics. It goes to show how much attention people pay when they see these photos for the first time on here and comment casually, knowing little about the subject and not having seen them before or even aware of this. But I can understand the attitude. Orbs just don't fit into the old scientific model that is rapidly in deterioration. Most agree geometrical waveforms as the basic foundation for matter is more sensible these days.

I like fascism.
Maths is based on circular definitions and cannot be bent to anyone's will.

Originally Posted by Korittke

"My dick plays on the double feature screen,
Your dick went straight to DVD."

I'm quite sad now, but that's obviously a true statement.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Most agree geometrical waveforms as the basic foundation for matter is more sensible these days.

Can you explain this model further, I'd like to know more about it.

Oh. Moving time? Now that's scary.

I actually did have a camera lense get damp once, and the moisture forms around tiny dust particles on the lense, seeming like blurry orbs when magnified to take a picture. That's all I meant.

I`m starting to think that doesn't apply to this situation anymore, though. Again, theres no way of really knowing what they are (for a long time, at least).

These orbs are obviously something way beyond are knowledge, who knows? Maybe they make up the universe. Maybe they are bits of another dimension floating around us. I'd really like to know more. Ghosts...hmm, maybe. Aliens, I definitely don't think so.

I`m going to go google it now. This has caught my attention for sure.

Maybe they're a technical artifact peculiar to digital photography

Oddly, however, my friend's mom works down the street and the basement there flooded a couple months ago. When they were taking pictures of the damage, she got one with orbs just like in those photos (actually, I'm not sure if she took the pic or the insurance guy).

EDIT: wikipedia says it's flash+dust, and yes it's prominent in modern cameras, though not because they're digital so much as the compact designs changing the angle of reflection on near particles when the flash goes off.

Maroon_Sweater yes it should definitely catch your attention. Thank you.

Taosaur so you're running to wikipedia to prove it's dust when clearly there is something larger going on but you're not really wanting to look at the situation properly. Instead your moms flooded basement experience satisfies you. And some unaccounted for theory about cameras having an inbuilt error in them.

the compact designs changing the angle of reflection on near particles when the flash goes off.

The compact design that does not tell us much about all the cameras in existence and the common strange malfunction you are describing that would have to happen in all conditions where the orbs happened. So changing angles of reflection from the compact design. Are you sure? You say near particles where the flash is, and that's suppose to create the orbs. But the orbs don't appear in any pattern of conditions from any particular angles of any circumstance. Otherwise it would turn out as a malfunction consistently instead of no seemingly logical sequence that can be demonstrated as any faults of the camera. So the changing angle reflection from the partials in the light of the flash (some didn't use a flash) from compact designs seems to act entirely randomly and still don't come out as dust partials but transparent luminescent clearly defined objects. Behind and in front of things. Ofcourse all this is ignoring the video footage. Where people witness seeing it while filming it. Which makes the entire photography fault theory obsolete.


It would be interesting to see your contaminated picture. Together with the other orb pictures. Then we can judge for ourself if it resembles it or not.

But remember this is not just about photography.

This thread isn't fair I believe the opposite of whatever you think I believe.

Sandform that's an interesting view of reality. You went against the guidelines when you said it was unfair that was off topic.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Maroon_Sweater yes it should definitely catch your attention. Thank you.

Taosaur so you're running to wikipedia to prove it's dust when clearly there is something larger going on but you're not really wanting to look at the situation properly. Instead your moms flooded basement experience satisfies you. And some unaccounted for theory about cameras having an inbuilt error in them.

Tao is providing a possible explanation, looking at the situation from a logical point of view. It adresses the statement that the artifacts have been increasingly common in newer cameras.
How is the theory unaccounted for?

Some of the outdoor 'orb' pics are clearly rain or snow--I've taken them myself and they're cool, but not terribly mysterious.

Also,

Thread Violators: Minervas P

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Sandform that's an interesting view of reality. You went against the guidelines when you said it was unfair that was off topic.

In what way does saying things aren't fair in regards to myself against your thread?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Thread Violators: Minervas P

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I am the owner of the rules and make the final decision what it means in this thread. I am the only one that can add or take away anything to these guidelines and I am the only one qualified to refer to them in regards to anyone.

Taosaur I'm not breaking my own rules. I made the guidelines already and own the rules it's not possible to be a violator of my own thread and I said that in the guidelines.

Some of the outdoor 'orb' pics are clearly rain or snow--I've taken them myself and they're cool, but not terribly mysterious.

Can we see some of your snow pics. I don't think they will look like the orbs. Once again you ignore physical manifestations of the orbs. Such as hundreds of massive geometrical above scholarship level crop circle designs. That the orbs are filmed creating. But no, it is dust and snow droplets on modern camera lenses. Which increases the errors from improved design, coupled with a faulty flash compact design that malfunctions neatly changing reflective angles of near by particles into the shape of the orb designs. But only in pictures where the orbs appear is the camera faulty.

In what way does saying things aren't fair in regards to myself against your thread?

I'm more interested in the current orb discussion than this nonsense.

Fine soon as im done watching this zombie movie I'll be back to talk to you about it, till then have fun browsing through this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/1015827...7602085834519/

My computer doesn't have to compacity to do anything right now I've been running it pretty ragged and it needs to be restarted before I can do anything more but I feel more like watching zombie movies than talking.

This is my thread and I make all of the rules and I can never be wrong
and I'll cry if I want to.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Fine soon as im done watching this zombie movie I'll be back to talk to you about it, till then have fun browsing through this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/1015827...7602085834519/

OMFG are those ORBS?
GEOMETRICAL ORBS?

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

This is my thread and I make all of the rules and I can never be wrong
and I'll cry if I want to.

You'de think she was an admin. Omg I don't know what is an orb?

Originally Posted by Sandform

You'de think she was an admin. Omg I don't know what is an orb?

Actually, I know she's an admin queen of this thread palace.
Apparently it's a geometrical form.
Queen Minerva says it has something to do with the geometrical model of matter but I'm much too lowly for her to explain this model. I guess I wouldn't understand her higher level of thinking and speaking.

If you want to make fun of people. There is other threads to tease them. This thread is not for rudeness I created it for polite civil people.

For the pictures...

Talcum Powder, this would give the kind of particle size that would stay afloat in the air and yet could not be seen with the naked eye.

Talcum Powder, this would give the kind of particle size that would stay afloat in the air and yet could not be seen with the naked eye.

That's very inventive. But what is talcum powder doing in the forest for instance. The pictures are taken in a variety of places and conditions.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

That's very inventive. But what is talcum powder doing in the forest for instance. The pictures are taken in a variety of places and conditions.

That is just one example of how you can produce that same result. Dust in the appropriate way could generate the same exact thing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1015827...7602085834519/

These were all faked too...admittedly and purposefully.

I'm actually intrigued by the videos though, some of them aren't easily explainable =D

here is one of the assumed fake pics.



Here is one of what is suppose to be an orb pic.