Thread: Discuss your thoughts without arguing.

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

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 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 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?