Debunk this orb!

[Wade]

Ah I guess you could make a case for fireflies by pointing out the amount of reflection you get from a predators eyes when exposed to a relative low light source then?

 

[Burnt State]

My favorite Panasonic VHS portable camera with full manual settings from the 90's let you shoot overlay shots through a built in filtered effects options. You could shoot a high contrast object like someone waving a coal or stick on fire could with an open or slow shutter and be combined over a previosly shot static nighttime shot. You could create great ghost videos with this camera. The low res VHS helps to accentuate the effect. Try holding your manual digital camera lens open and swing it around over flames at night and you will get the same liquid streaking as seen in the final sequence of the large object.

The twinned light swimming in tandem leads me to believe this is a manufactured image along wth the opening frames of the video posted by Goggs that shows not an organic start to the light but erupts out of a hard edge line like a video wipe might start. If there is even more of this type of footage I would lean even more towards video experimentation with fire, glow in the dark material with video overlays etc.

 

[Randall]

... I would lean even more towards video experimentation with fire, glow in the dark material with video overlays etc.

You make it sound plausible that's for sure. Perhaps I was giving Biedny more credit for his knowledge of video than I should ( since he apparently is said to have ruled out FX )? Too bad he's not around to respond. But wouldn't you still see a short segment of the stick or wire used to make the glowing part seem to float? Might you have some links to videos made the way you suggest this might have been done? The camera photo is cool, and some examples of the FX in action would make an interesting addition ... perhaps even clinch the case! Or wouldn't we need the original security camera for that?

 

[Polterwurst]

I see it! It's a paintbrush-wielding firefly!
The little bugger probably wanted to increase his mating chances by dunking the brush into some luminous paint first...

Seriously though, that part, taken out of context, looks a little suspicious. But how he should have faked the whole film, without not a sign of someone holding the brush etc. ... Of course, the youtube "quality" makes it even harder to look for wires and stuff, but all in all I'm not convinced either way.

I had found the video right after I heard "the former co-host" speak of it in that paracast way back when. I always found the whole story dubious (it wasn't only orbs but also apparitions etc.), although I think that light anomalies (or orbs) are a real phenomenon (foo fighters, Hessdalen etc.).

 

[Randall]

I always found the whole story dubious (it wasn't only orbs but also apparitions etc.), although I think that light anomalies (or orbs) are a real phenomenon (foo fighters, Hessdalen etc.).

You're absolutely right. The NL ( Nocturnal Light ) series of sighting types is a well established phenomenon, and there are reports of size that vary from insect size to spheres that are meters across. Mundane explanations range from fireflies to birds to balloons to aircraft. However having seen one of them that cannot be reasonably explained by any natural or manmade object or phenomenon, there is no doubt in my mind that some NL series reports are alien in nature ( UFOs ).

 

[Polterwurst]

However having seen one of them that cannot be reasonably explained by any natural or manmade object or phenomenon, there is no doubt in my mind that some NL series reports are alien in nature ( UFOs ).

Coming from you, that means it must have been really anomalous. The surprises never end. Did you describe the sighting anywhere on here or elsewhere on the web? Was it anything like the "orbs" in the vid? And, if I may ask, don't you think you might be some kind of psychic or "anomaly magnet"?

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

I've been trying to find this for a while now and I have eventually. This is the piece that Biedny said was totally legit and I thought that too. It's also staggering evidence IMO for something weird happening.

What do you think?

Orbs footage from the early 90s - YouTube

Very interesting footage; no doubt. It's defiantly evidence of something. However, that's where the evidence trail stops. Any speculation about what it might be, is just that - speculation. We can capture evidence of happenings, but what those happenings actually are remains hidden. Very frustrating.

I tend to apply Occam's Razor to these kinds of things. Without easily, readily repeatable observations/results, it's proof of nothing. Interesting, but not proof.

 

[Randall]

Coming from you, that means it must have been really anomalous. The surprises never end. Have you described the sighting anywhere on here or elsewhere on the web? Was it anything like the "orbs" in the vid? And, if I may ask, don't you think you might be some kind of psychic or "anomaly magnet"?

I've touched on my sighting here in the forum and described in briefly on the USI website along with the other weird stuff I've experienced. These are the reasons I know strange things happen, even if come across as being skeptical most of the time. The object I saw was much larger and farther away than the one in the video, but the sort of glowing trail it left in its wake is similar. However I think the effect on the video might be more due to the camera than the object itself. As for being a psychic or anomaly magnet, one of the things that seems to happen to people who take an active interest in strange things is that strange things tend to happen to them. Our resident expert Chris O'Brien is no exception. For some odd reason however Gene does seem to be an exception. Personally I wish I'd been more of a chick magnet, but I guess you get the hand you've been dealt .

 

[Burnt State]

You make it sound plausible that's for sure. Perhaps I was giving Biedny more credit for his knowledge of video than I should ( since he apparently is said to have ruled out FX )? Too bad he's not around to respond. But wouldn't you still see a short segment of the stick or wire used to make the glowing part seem to float? Might you have some links to videos made the way you suggest this might have been done? The camera photo is cool, and some examples of the FX in action would make an interesting addition ... perhaps even clinch the case! Or wouldn't we need the original security camera for that?

What's important to remember when you are shooting high contrast images in the dark is that the only image elment registering will be a luminous one. So if I keep my lens open while a person walks past me in the dark carrying a lantern, luminous coal etc. I will only record the light source and whatever the light source is attached to will remain in the dark. All you will see on the image is the squiggly path of the light source. If I overlay this video on top of another image through the pre-set filter it is very possible to just have the light trail combined with the static video shot and suddenly you have swimming streaks of light combined with the background.

If I can get one of the batteries for these old cameras to charge I will attempt a demonstration. But anyone can make light and, fire especially, do very strange, streaky and liquefying motions by just holding open the lens and moving the camera across the flames. Try it - you'll be blown away. If you have video editing capactity it would be easy to replicate these images. I will seek out some of my old fire shots and post them. The video overaly filter effect was a really neat function on these old cameras. Maybe Biedny was not into early video stuff but I was using those cameras in my Comm Tech classes in the 90's and could create some strange effects by just pushing the camera's optics and on board effects.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

When I was in my 20's (a long time ago) I took a job as an undercover retail security officer. I'd never seen a shoplifter before and after 3 weeks of training I finally saw a guy stuff a carbrator cap and some spark plugs down his pants and walk out the door. I couldn't believe what I was seeing..thought he was joking as I watched him do it from behind a fake cabinet. For the several years afterwards I could peg a shoplifter as soon as they walked in a store. It got to the point where we couldn't even go to the mall without me spying a thief based on behavior and mannerisms. It became instinctive and second nature. When I moved on from that job I stopped looking, stopped analyzing fellow shoppers and pretty soon I 'lost it' when it came to picking out shoplifters. I became lost in my own thoughts while shopping just like all the other normal shoppers.

What's the point? The point is when you're looking for the paranormal it's sort of like redirecting your focus. Your attention becomes pinned on the weird and strange. Just like how I redirected my focus toward potential shoplifters even in common situations, redirecting focus onto the paranormal in 'normal' situations may produce a keener awareness of such things where the focus and awareness of commoners doesn't pick up on such things.

So the questions become...

• Do these things happen all the time (paranormal events, synchronicity, etc...) and people are just not aware of them until they start researching them?
• Do these things happen more to the researchers because we're "open" to such things, and thus they become targets for paranormal events?
• ...or do the researchers read more into mundane experiences and associating paranormal causes to those experiences once they start looking into paranormal cases? In other words, psychologically do we have a placebo effect and start seeing more things which we equate to synchronicity and other events happening to us?

My skeptical side says it's the last one. I woke up the other night at exactly 3:45, for instance, and later that day glanced at the clock and it was 1:23. Am I drawing the paranormal to me? Is something trying to communicate with me? And if so, why in this fashion? What's the message? What should I read into these events....if anything?
I think we should be careful when we start believing that researchers become targets for paranormal activity when researching such activity. At the least we, as researchers, should start to document potential events of synchronicity as we research paranormal claims. In a sense we start to become part of the investigation ourselves and, hopefully, can start to objectively review the events that happen to us as well as what happens to the witnesses and clients we interview. Best-practice dictates we should have a second, or third, party investigator review our own events as well, just so we don't fall into the placebo effect and start thinking we're targeted by paranormal entities when, psychologically, we're associating too much interest into otherwise mundane occurrences.
My 2 cents.
J.

 

[Randall]

What's important to remember when you are shooting high contrast images in the dark is that the only image elment registering will be a luminous one.

So just so I get this perfectly clearly, you're saying that even things that the light source is shining on right next to it wont get picked up at all? I could see that if perhaps the nearby objects were painted flat black and the light source wasn't very bright, and the camera were farther away, but I would imagine that getting light colored objects that are right next to a light source when the camera is fairly close to not show up at all would take some careful setup. Or no?

 

[Burnt State]

So just so I get this perfectly clearly, you're saying that even things that the light source is shining on right next to it wont get picked up at all? I could see that if perhaps the nearby objects were painted flat black and the light source wasn't very bright, and the camera were farther away, but I would imagine that getting light colored objects that are right next to a light source when the camera is fairly close to not show up at all would take some careful setup. Or no?

No, because you are shooting in the dark, objects attached will stay black, especially if you are using a small aperture. If the light source is incredibly bright you will get some attached illumination on objects holding the light source but you can work to close the aperture and adjust shutter speed to allow attached, non-luminous elements to literally recede into black and play no role at all when combining the two different image sources. Only the light will remain. That specific camera gives you full manual aperture, gain and shutter speed control. The gain function will give you the extra contrast you need and make anything attached, that is slightly luminous, to just become invisible. If you ever played wth these early video cameras you will know that these camera tricks are fairly simple to achieve.

 

[Randall]

So the questions become...

• Do these things happen all the time (paranormal events, synchronicity, etc...) and people are just not aware of them until they start researching them?
• Do these things happen more to the researchers because we're "open" to such things, and thus they become targets for paranormal events?
• ...or do the researchers read more into mundane experiences and associating paranormal causes to those experiences once they start looking into paranormal cases? In other words, psychologically do we have a placebo effect and start seeing more things which we equate to synchronicity and other events happening to us?

That is one of the best posts I've seen here in a while. Way to go Sand. I'd like to respond to the questions as well. On the first one, I think that generically speaking, paranormal events do happen more often than people are aware of and that looking for them simply increases ones awareness. It's like when we buy a new car, suddenly it seems like you see them all over the place, but in reality it's more likely that you've just become more sensitized to it by association.

On the second question, I would say that sometimes researchers do become targets, but the question is of what exactly? MIB encounters, strange noises on the phone lines, things that are obviously out of place without any normal explanation. Is it too much to think that if the government monitors researchers ( as formerly Top Secret documents confirm ), that some of us aren't being checked-up on from time to time, and if the government is doing it, how much of a stretch is it to think other clandestine agents aren't also doing it ... whatever those agents may be?

On the placebo effect: Well, actually, sometimes the placebo effect does produce measurable results. That's why they call it the placebo "effect". But at the same time, if I understand you correctly, you're alluding to more of a fabrication of circumstances based on tenuous details that are exaggerated in order to fit a preconceived theory ... a sort of "Beautiful Mind" scenario. Certainly we need to be careful that we don't cement our belief and take action based on nothing more than loose associations. Sure, we have "gut feelings" or an intuitive sense about things, but it needs to be tempered with critical thinking and evidence.

 

[Randall]

No, because you are shooting in the dark, objects attached will stay black, especially if you are using a small aperture. If the light source is incredibly bright you will get some attached illumination on objects holding the light source but you can work to close the aperture and adjust shutter speed to allow attached, non-luminous elements to literally recede into black and play no role at all when combining the two different image sources. Only the light will remain. That specific camera gives you full manual aperture, gain and shutter speed control. The gain function will give you the extra contrast you need and make anything attached, that is slightly luminous, to just become invisible. If you ever played wth these early video cameras you will know that these camera tricks are fairly simple to achieve.

That is really interesting to know. Thanks for the lesson! It makes your theory on the orb seem that much more plausible. The double exposure method you describe would also eliminate any blocking of the background that was shot in the second take. If this is the case with the orb video, then we're looking at a deliberate hoax. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Sigh.

 

[Burnt State]

Sigh.

There's always the Hessdalen lights.

 

[Wade]

In response to your questions Jeff I can point this out. I am nowhere near to calling myself a researcher but I experience synchronicities and coincidences by the bucketload. I have since I was a kid and I thought I could predict the future because these little things popped up in my reality moments after I thought of them. I certainly didn't know what to call it or how else to explain it but it was tbere just the same and i never could explain myself cohetently enough to determine what it was. after a time i pretty much regarded it as normal but i wonder why nobody else told me of their experiences at "telling tbe future" This "prognastication" hasn't diminished one bit and I now faithfully note all the little coincidences I come into contact with. It was because of this phenomenon that I became interested in the things we discuss hete and found my way to this forum. I had the mother of synchronistic experiences a few years back that I posted in the personal experience forum.

 

[Jimi H.]

I see it! It's a paintbrush-wielding firefly!
The little bugger probably wanted to increase his mating chances by dunking the brush into some luminous paint first...

Uuuuhhhh? That's not how it's layed out though is it?

Seriously though, that part, taken out of context, looks a little suspicious. But how he should have faked the whole film, without not a sign of someone holding the brush etc. ... Of course, the youtube "quality" makes it even harder to look for wires and stuff, but all in all I'm not convinced either way.

That's your assessment?!?? A LITTLE suspicious!? Do you see a brush, or not?

How is Hessdalen or whatever relevant when we see in this video a guys painting a UFO-blob?

 

[Jimi H.]

Very interesting footage; no doubt. It's defiantly evidence of something. However, that's where the evidence trail stops. Any speculation about what it might be, is just that - speculation. We can capture evidence of happenings, but what those happenings actually are remains hidden. Very frustrating.

I tend to apply Occam's Razor to these kinds of things. Without easily, readily repeatable observations/results, it's proof of nothing. Interesting, but not proof.

Yea, well, it is debunked on page2.

 

[Polterwurst]

I see it! It's a paintbrush-wielding firefly!
The little bugger probably wanted to increase his mating chances by dunking the brush into some luminous paint first...

Uuuuhhhh? That's not how it's laid out though is it?

That was a joke, in case you didn't notice.

That's your assessment?!?? A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS!? Wtf!? Do you see a brush, or not?

No, I don't. I see a streak of light that seems to stick up from the blob of light. And in the context of the whole film, the paintbrush theory becomes questionable.

How is Hessdalen or whatever relevant when we see in this video a guys painting a UFO-blob?

Because the Hessdalen lights can be very small, too. And I don't see any guy in the vid.

I guess, from the scepticist view we have now debunked the vid. At least we have given some quite convincing mundane explanations, implying that Mr Lee is nothing bt a hoaxer. But of course, the scepticist view is that this kind of phenomenon cannot occur in the first place, which is not what I have come to believe.

So sorry, I can't conclude it's debunked. It's what in many other cases, where I'm quite convinced that the witnesses are telling the truth, makes me quite upset, because I feel that they are being done wrong by calling them liars and hoaxers. And even if other alleged haunting type occurences (faces in mirrors and stuff like that) makes me very suspicious of this case, I can't say that the video is a fake. It's either a very elaborate, well thought out and executed hoax or it's really something anomalous.

 

[Jimi H.]

...

So the questions become...

• ...or do the researchers read more into mundane experiences and associating paranormal causes to those experiences once they start looking into paranormal cases? In other words, psychologically do we have a placebo effect and start seeing more things which we equate to synchronicity and other events happening to us?

...

Oh yea, you bet, good point.

Shortly into this thread, a poster determined that: "Largely based on my own personal experiences I would say this is a discarnate entity/consciousness/soul/whatever ..."

It wasn't. But it sure sounded like this poster was sure, and had it all laid out. I saw another post on youtube following the video-clip, which was extremely similar, a guy had seen this exactly and he knew it was a spirit.

I'll say it again: You may hold all sorts of personal beliefs, that's fine, but ffs., be responsible with the truth, that's your obligation towards other human beings. At least, that's how I was raised, and that's how it works in my world.

Thus, if I see UFO I see a UFO, no matter who I'm talking to. If I see a paintbrush, I see a paintbrush. If others don't see a paintbrush when it's right before their eyes, I'll be losing 'faith' here really fast.