Copyright 2005, Loyd Auerbach
So
many people want information, education and even entertainment when it comes to
the Paranormal. Unfortunately, so
much is bad info, and it’s all text!
One
of the more common emails and letters I receive has to do with photographs of
anomalous shapes and lights on film and digital media. People want (sometimes demand) that I
and my colleagues review photos and explain what the images are –
naturally they want us to identify the images as “ghosts.” In almost all such cases, people present
did not see, hear or otherwise experience anything paranormal – which means
they did not know the photo had anything “unusual” on it until
later. In many of the cases, they
were not even in a location with any current (or even past) witnesses
saying the place was haunted.
Once
I get past any judgment that the anomaly is caused by some photographic error I
do know about (and there are many), my conclusion and response to the sender
becomes: “Sorry, but there’s nothing I can say about what caused
this. It was most likely caused by
some reflection or other photo-related issue, given that there’s no
connection to any experience, past or present, of a ghost or haunting.”
An
unusual photo (or a magnetometer reading) or video by itself is not an
indication of a ghost or haunting. One needs the very thing we use to define and study these
phenomena: the experience of a
human witness to even categorize a location as "haunted" or having an
"apparition."
If
you were to be able to eliminate all potential photographic flaws and flukes,
it's just as likely (or, to my mind, more likely) that the expectations of the
paranormal photographer have affected the film or digital media. In other words, psychokinesis (mind over
matter) by the photographer is as likely as an un-witnessed ghost. Keep in mind that for the ghost to have
appeared on film/digital media in the first place he or she had to directly affect
the film/media with his/her mind. If the ghost was simply reflecting light (as other things that are
photographed), someone would have seen
him or her! A ghost affecting
film/digital media uses psychokinetic ability. Living people have this ability. If a ghost is not witnessed to be
present, but living people are, the more likely culprits to be sources of the
images are living people.
An
apparition is some form of consciousness that does not reflect light; if it
did, everyone present would see it and all cameras would capture it. But if it does not reflect light, then
how could the ghost be photographed or videotaped? Perhaps the ghost, in some cases, is
able to psychokinetically affect the film or videotape. In effect, the apparition wills
something to appear on tape/film/digital media, just as in some ghost cases, apparitions
are sometimes able to move objects -- with their minds, of course, since they
have no physical body. Let me
explain further.
If
a photo or videotape of a "ghost" is taken in a location where no one
is seeing or sensing the ghost at the time, there's nothing to connect the
anomaly on the film or tape with an actual ghost. One must automatically give greater
weight to other possible explanations for the anomaly on the film/digital
media/tape.
If
the photo or videotape is taken in a place that has at least had past ghost
sightings, there's some greater weight that can be given to the possibility
that the film/digital media/tape relates to a ghost. If there's no history of apparitional
encounters, it’s hard to give any weight to the ghost hypothesis.
Secondly,
if we allow for ghosts to affect film and tape via psychokinesis, why can't we
allow for the possibility that the photographer/cameraperson is actually the
one affecting the film/digital media/tape? After all, we have direct observable evidence that living people can do
this, but little direct experience with ghosts doing so --- the ghosts don't
confirm or deny that they're doing it.
As
past work in Parapsychology has shown that living people can affect film, videotape
and computers, why is this so tough to consider as a possibility? In most recent photo and video cases,
there is that lack of human experience of a ghost or spirit at the time of the
photo/video being shot. Therefore,
it may be more likely that a living mind is responsible. At least we know the living person is
there.
My
feeling is that most of the footage and photos I have seen over the past
several years fall into a few categories.
There
are those photos/videotapes taken that show some anomalies that are the result
of photographic problems such as lens flares, reflections, unnoticed
lighted/reflective objects in the environment, and the like. Digital cameras seem prone to these
reflection-created orbs and other shapes. Reflective surfaces don’t have to be in range of the view, only in
range of the flash.
Digital
cameras also often come with an infrared function to help with focus and flash
settings. Even if the flash is off
or blocked, if the infrared pulses it is reflected back at the
camera. Many digital cameras can
and do translate this reflected infrared light into a blue or white colored
image.
There
are those photos/videos that might be of natural, though unusual, phenomena
such as earth lights and ball lightning.
There
are those that may be the result of psychic projection by the photographer or
other living person in the environment. Either the expectations of the photographer causes something odd to
appear on film/tape or the photographic anomaly is just another way for the subconscious
to blow off steam (of stress), as with poltergeist effects.
There
are those that might actually relate to the same environmental anomaly that
appears to allow us living folks to pick up on the history of a location. Place memory, or haunting phenomena, is
often linked mainly to human perceptions, but if a
magnetometer can pick up unusual physical readings why not a camera?
Then
there are those that might actually be a result of an unseen apparition
"playing" with the camera.
Finally,
there's always the chance of photographic and video manipulation. Unfortunately, the same growth in
technology that has led to widespread availability of digital still and video
cameras has also led to the availability of computer programs that allow for
enhancement, morphing, and other manipulation of photographic and video images.
Each
must be looked at carefully. While
one cannot ever rule out the possibility of a "spirit," unless
there's some connection to current (preferable) or past (acceptable) human
experience with said "spirit," the other explanations are more
likely.
On
the psi front, without that ghostly experience, we can't even downplay the
possibility that the photographer was responsible with his/her own PK.
So,
when I am often heard to say that "photographic evidence by itself is
worthless," what I mean is that without a human witness to define the
phenomenon as a "ghost" we have too many other possibilities,
including the psychic one, to ever say a piece of film or video shows a ghost.
That
is, until an apparition appears and volunteers to be part of a photo and video
test program.
ORBS AND MORE ORBS
Much
has been made about the so-called spirit orbs that have appeared in thousands
of photos taken by amateur ghost-hunters (and many folks not out to find ghosts
on camera).
In some
instances, they may be an indication that something unusual or anomalous (some
kind of energy, most likely) is in the environment -- in such a case the orbs
would be like an energy "reading" of some kind.
In addition as stated above, human experience of a
ghost or haunting is essential to indicate that there is something paranormal
happening. Otherwise, the orb is just a blob on the picture. No technology has
been found to detect ghosts for certain (or even close), since no technology
has been designed to do so (because we don't know what to even try to detect).
So,
while some orbs and other light effects on film and digital media might be related to some effect caused
by a discarnate entity or by some energetic interaction with the
“paranormal” aspect of the local environment, there are more likely
and logical causes that are extremely difficult – if not impossible in
most cases -- to rule out.
The overriding concern about orb photos is camera
error. Here are a few things I’ve learned over the last several years
regarding orbs and similar images appearing on camera
For digital
cameras there are two major culprits for Orb type images. For 35mm, the first
error-source is usually responsible.
1. Reflections: flashes being as bright as
they are these days, any reflective surface in the range of the flash (not just
in the frame of the photo) could be responsible for the flashbacks.
That
the surfaces are often outside the frame of the photo causes much confusion in
folks reviewing their pictures after they're taken, especially if they are no
longer in the same environment. Memory being what it is, unless there's a second photo of the same
location showing the reflective surface, most don't recall what was there.
Also
-- and very important -- my pro-photographer friend Dave Manganelli (actually a professional videographer working with a
pro photographer), has found that surfaces we don't think of as
"reflective" can definitely be so. It's not just the overtly shiny stuff
that can bounce flashes back.
For
example, leaves (especially slightly moist ones), stone surfaces, even
unfinished wood can cause an orb to appear when a photo is taken with a
flash. Not just with digital
cameras, by the way. I have a stack
of 35mm photos with orbs and other similar shapes caused by flash-reflections
often from what we would consider non-reflective surfaces.
Dave sent me a
great digital picture set taken in a "haunted" attic with lots of
rough wood. One picture, taken with a flash, shows an orb, the second taken
without the flash does not. Some experimentation showed that the unvarnished
wood beams in the attic still had enough reflective power – given the
intensity of the flash – to bounce back and cause an orb.
Dust particles or water in the air can be
responsible for flashback-orbs as well. However, contrary to so many sources on the internet, these are hardly
the only sources for flash-created orbs.
If the camera has an infra-red focus-finder (helps
the camera to focus in low light), usually found on digital cameras, one must
watch out for the flashback of the infrared. In some cameras, the hardware can
interpret and "color correct" the infrared reflection to a white or blue-white
and sometimes red-orange image that can appear on the image. Some auto-focus
35mm cameras have this capability as well (per both Dave Manganelli and another photog friend of mine). These don’t
end up as orbs, but as
sometimes formless blobs of light.
2. With digital cameras, there is the quirky
problem of CCD-chip drop-outs. Digital cameras record information digitally
(duh), composing images of pixels as a computer does. There can be drop-outs of
individual and small clusters of pixels (meaning a few tiny squares got no image-data
and remained blank).
When the image-data is converted from the digital information
back to a picture, these drop-outs are often rounded out and become
"orbs." Generally, these are relatively bright (fairly solid-looking,
opaque) orbs, rather than some of the transparent/translucent orbs we get from
reflections.
A few months ago, I had a conversation with a
freelance photographer who does work for Newsweek and other magazines. He uses
a very high-end (and extremely expensive) single reflex lens digital camera. He
knew nothing about spirit photos, but when I mentioned “orbs,” he
winced and went into the CCD chip problem, which occurs even with his
oh-so-costly camera from time to time. “I fix it with Photo-Shop,”
he added.
AND ANOTHER THING:
With film cameras, one must also consider
light-leakage and the age of the film.
Months ago, I had some film developed that
included several pictures from a vacation my wife and I had taken. At the front
of the roll were a couple of pictures of psychic medium Annette Martin during
an apparent communication with a discarnate entity at an
The third photo was the most interesting.
Seemingly floating above her head was a bright streak of light. The timing of
the photo was amazing, as the first two photos had no such streak and it was
when Annette was apparently communicating with the entity that the third photo
was taken.
I have seen similar photos before, mostly from
folks sending their pictures unsolicited for my opinion.
I reviewed the remainder of the pictures. Most of
them had some kind of light streak, about the same location in the frame.
This was due either to light leaking in to the
camera body, to the film being many months old (the film had been in the camera
for about a year before all the pictures were taken), or both.
The first thing I tell people when they get light
streaks on a picture is to review all the photos on the same roll, as it's
likely several will have the same problem.
BUT WHAT COULD IT BE….
I have a good friend married to a VP (and
ex-professional photographer) at a major photography company that takes portrait
photos of high school and college students for yearbooks. The company has a
small division in
There are just too many problems with film and
especially digital pictures, too many other causes (other than paranormal) for
the same orbs and such.
I absolutely agree that just because one can
simulate something it does not invalidate an actual phenomenon. If simulation
led to dismissal of the experience or phenomenon, we would all have to
seriously question our perceptions of all reality given what
right.
Magicians can create the same illusion or effect
using different methods. So can special effects artists (is it a model or
computer graphics?). That there can be many causes for a simulation does not
invalidate the thing being simulated.
But various normal explanations can exist to produce
the same orb, including, potentially, psychic means. Makes it tough to narrow
it down, doesn’t it?
If a discarnate entity is causing some image to
appear on film or a digital camera, it would have to be affecting the camera
directly. The increase in intensity of a flash does not make entities visible
to the naked eye, and cameras generally mimic the naked eye with the spectrum
of light they receive to produce images. That people are not seeing the orbs,
vortices, and other shapes would point to a different kind of impact on the
image-producing process.
That would be PK, psychokinesis -- mind over
matter. A discarnate is essentially consciousness, and by definition consciousness
impacting physical processes or objects is PK.
Of course, this means that the expectation of the photographer
might also produce the image.
As mentioned above, PK by the living
(especially by stressed out individuals in poltergeist cases) is more commonly
observed than PK by the dead (in apparition cases). In poltergeist cases (the living)
the phenomena can be all over the map, from flying objects to screwy
electronics to impact on cameras and video equipment. In apparition cases,
rarely are the physical events destructive, and rarely are they are frequent as
in poltergeist cases. I guess the dead just aren’t as stressed out as the
living.
ORBS AS SPIRITS
There’s a
leap in logic relating to orbs. The
word itself is quite old, and refers to a spherical shape (usually an
object). A crystal ball is an orb. The sun is referred to as an orb. And the comic book character Metamorpho (origin in the 1960s) is affected by the Orb of
Ra.
The word has been
applied to spherical shapes when it comes to photos and film of strange lights
for decades. I recall hearing folks
refer to earth-lights (ball lightning) as “orbs of light” in the
80s, and I’ve been told there was a film shot in a haunted place with a
small orb of light floating through the room (British film, as I recall). It’s only recently that the word “orb”
has somehow become synonymous with “spirit.”
Somehow, because
these round shapes were coming up frequently in the 90s as flashes on cameras became
more powerful (and especially with the advent of digital cameras), folks made
the assumption that the anomalous orb-shaped lights on the pictures must be spirits. Perhaps this was because it was amateur
ghost hunters who really noticed these anomalous shapes on their pictures taken
when out there looking for ghosts.
The logic would
be: 1) I am looking for ghosts, 2) I am in a cemetery or other spooky place
(and possibly a reportedly haunted place) looking for ghosts, 3) I don’t
see anything, 4) my pictures generally have nothing unusual, 5) ghosts hardly
appear to people, 6) some few photos have orb-shaped lights on them that were
invisible to the naked eye, 6) ghosts are invisible to the naked eye, SO 7) the
orbs must be ghosts.
Actually, that’s
not really a logical flow – it’s flawed
logic. It’s most likely the
orb-shapes are from camera/environment related causes. In locations where no human has had an
experience of a ghost (or was not having one during the photo session), there
is no meaningful connection between the orbs on film/digital media and the
concept of spirits. The orbs could
just as likely be some invisible-to-the-naked eye life form we don’t know
about.
AND
THE CAPPER...
Finally,
there’s one more point to be made about the leap-in-logic conclusion that
folks have made in declaring that orbs in photos somehow must be spirits: a
number of UFO enthusiasts claim that orbs are the result of the presence of
extraterrestrials, other dimensional beings or UFO-craft. Their orbs look amazingly like the “spirit orbs” ghost hunters have
pictures of.
As with spirit
orb pictures, on some occasions, the orbs show up in photos where phenomena has
been reported in the past and on much rarer occasions where it’s
happening as the photos are taken.
So, if we do come to the conclusion that orbs are
related to paranormal anomalies rather than photo/camera issues, how do we separate whether the orbs in a
particular situation might be related to UFOs or ghosts? The only answer to that is: what is/are
the human(s) experiencing at the time the
photo is taken?
UFOs and alien
encounters can be experienced in places that are reportedly haunted and vice
versa. We have only the
contemporaneous human experience to help us consider which might be involved.
But in reality,
look to the camera and the environment first, before screaming
“ORB!!”
FINALLY
Why,
if these are ostensibly ghosts, are they so flat? In other words, the orbs clearly look
two dimensional, not discernable from orbs created by reflections. Also, why don’t the orbs seem to
be at least partially blocked by people, furniture, etc. If the spirit were “peeking
out” from behind something, we should get a partial orb, the rest of it behind the object or person.
SUBMITTING PHOTOS TO LOYD AUERBACH / The Office of Paranormal Investigations:
In generally, please don’t send photos
expecting an explanation of something paranormal. I could only consider what it’s not, rather than declare what it is.
Please note that I will no longer provide any
commentary on unsolicited photos (or even solicited ones) without the following
details. I will simply refer you
back to the explanations above.
1) With
what kind of camera was the photo taken?
2) If
film, does the negative also show the same image?
3) If
film, do any of the other photos on the roll show the same or similar images?
4) If
film, how old was the film? How
long was it in the camera before being
developed?
5) Taken with or without a flash?
6) If
digital, are there any photos taken at the same time of the same
location without the anomalous image?
7) What sources of light were present?
8) What was the weather like?
9) What time of day was the photo taken?
10) Does the location have any reputation for being haunted? If so, what?
11) Have there been any recent witnesses to haunting-type events at the
location? If so, explain?
12) At the time the photo was taken, did anyone have
what they would consider
a psychic or paranormal (or even unusual) experience? If so, what was it? Did anyone experience anything before or
after the picture was taken?
13) Was there any indication at the time the
picture was taken that “something”
was going to happen? Was going to
show up on film/digital media?
14) Why do you think the image on the photo is
unusual? Why do you think it might
be a ghost?
Why all the questions?
Because there’s no way to simply glance at a
photo and say “yup, that’s a ghost.”