apparition possibility?

canonloader wrote in post #10645987
The fact is, the truth is, we are here, alone. Make the best of it. When you die, you blink out and nothing else, ever, happens. No offense, but I have released myself from the mumbo jumbo and it's a whole other world on this side of the lies.

Prove it

Isn't it a little inconvenient that your the only one that can see it? Anyway, enough fun, talking religion is against the rules. The blue spot above is a physical interaction between light, glass and probably a water drop, and unlike invisible friends, it can be trotted out and shown to anyone, at any time the conditions are right.

for canonloader ... I would like to state that in my early years I was very skeptical and still am given the very nature of the material and information but what I have been personally shown and experienced is so mind bending that I can no longer ignore it. I haven't been able to ignore it for years now. The psychologists use the term Schizophrenia. That is why I am writing about it. The voices told me to do it LOL You can find some humor that one I hope!!! The UFO business is very real. I and many others have witnessed the same phenomenon on more than one occasion and I have some very real poltergeist experiences to share with the world at some point. All I did was show up and do the research. When I joined a local trancemedium program that's when the s**t hit the fan for real. Ever have your head filled with nothing but voices and far more than you can count let alone identify? How about voices from people you used to study with before they died? All that from joining a spiritual program at a school here in the S.F. bay area. If I didn't have solid personal experience why on earth would I even bother? I will also firmly state that a vast majority of people will never have this level of contact ever. They do however notice some anomalies in their thought processes and things that go bump in the night (for the lack of a better phrase).

I've been engaged recently in researching psychology because while they await pure physical evidence they have a tremendous catalog of psychical data collected over a long period by a rather large consortium of observers and researchers. I also have some pet theories as to the many influences of the mind from a scientific standpoint or rather how energetic forces operating with the properties of wave theory can simultaneously influence the same space at the same time and how the brain manages these impulses and how we interact and respond to these impulses. It's truly a deep deep science and one that no machine yet can measure yet our internal wiring and "intuitive" ability can sense and experience.

canonloader wrote in post #10654821
Isn't it a little inconvenient that your the only one that can see it? Anyway, enough fun, talking religion is against the rules. The blue spot above is a physical interaction between light, glass and probably a water drop, and unlike invisible friends, it can be trotted out and shown to anyone, at any time the conditions are right.

IMO religion is a control game created to harness the masses.

Can you prove that this blue orb is in fact a product of light, glass, and a water drop? No more than I can prove it is a spiritual entity correct? The point being it is phenomenon and there are some who have dedicated their work to uncovering these mysteries. The book on Orbs features people who are scholars from Stanford. Orb sightings have been known to coincide with thoughts. Some people are truly engaged in the research and that fact can't be altered or denied.

Of course. It's nothing new or mystical. It can be reproduced if you want to take the time to set up the circumstances.

If you have done that much research on how the mind works, then you should know that human minds are wired to want to believe in a higher being, a super father figure, someone to either blame it on or absolve us of blame. Most minds, if they didn't have that release, would really go around the bend. Doesn't mean they aren't all mad as hatters anyway, just that lot's of them are mad in the same way. With any luck, and the science of logical thought behind it, I think eventually, humans will evolve past this phase.

canonloader wrote in post #10655083
I think eventually, humans will evolve past this phase.

Past what phase? The phase of having in faith in something? Be it god, or nothingness. You seem certain that there are no "invisible friends", but what evidence do you have to support that claim? Perhaps you have it all figured out based off of nothing but your gut instinct and logical thought? Well congratulations, you managed to stoop to the same exact level as the people you are so eager to patronize . Are you seriously that dense? Give me a break dude, you're just a tiny speck among billions of other specks landed on a tiny dot in the middle of a never ending vastness, the only two things you have figured out for an absolute fact are jack and $%^& ... so welcome to the club buddy.

canonloader wrote in post #10655083
Of course. It's nothing new or mystical. It can be reproduced if you want to take the time to set up the circumstances.

I have no interest in recreating this orb. By the way the book goes into significant detail concerning water drops, dust, internal reflections, sensor limitations, the use of flash and the fluorescing of atmospheric gases, etc. They also provide a significant library of images of various circumstances. It's worth a read.

IMO this blue orb is an excellent one of a kind capture. Perhaps you would like to recreate this phenomenon and provide evidence of how easy this is to reproduce.

canonloader wrote in post #10655083
If you have done that much research on how the mind works, then you should know that human minds are wired to want to believe in a higher being, a super father figure, someone to either blame it on or absolve us of blame. Most minds, if they didn't have that release, would really go around the bend. Doesn't mean they aren't all mad as hatters anyway, just that lot's of them are mad in the same way. With any luck, and the science of logical thought behind it, I think eventually, humans will evolve past this phase.

I don't believe in a higher being as in a single god. That is controversial propaganda in my world though at some point in time there very well may have been some reason to believe in a higher being or god. We as living beings undergo conditioning based on the history of the species and our interaction with everything we come into contact with.

I most certainly entertain the notion of phenomenon and higher intelligences in the universe. I also entertain the notion of off world influence in the founding and evolution of the species that exist here on earth. Because I entertain the notion does not imply that I can prove these theories. For me it is incredibly interesting to explore possibilities all the while using logic and a scientific approach to generating an absolute of fact which is the goal of science. I applaud science for placing value on fact but likewise hold an open door to what we call the imagination, a world all to its own free from physicality as we know it.

I am just starting my psychological studies so I have a ways to go before I can begin to correlate what spiritualists have known for thousands of years and what psychologists have observed over the last 200 years or so. For the most part people have experiences such as visions and lucid dreaming but little means to understand the source or find a reasonable language to express beyond the nature of the influence itself. There are some great researchers who have worked their entire life and they have made inroads to a deeper understanding. Unfortunately as each generation comes and goes we tend to forget what has already been established. There is a lot to learn!!!

We still talking about photography here? I just dropped in and thought I was at a rally or a debate forum.

Scottdog129 wrote in post #10657169
We still talking about photography here? I just dropped in and thought I was at a rally or a debate forum.

LoL I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet!

There is a world of controversy surrounding images like the one presented here. It gets into some interesting territory when it comes to identifying the nature of phenomenal sightings. Is there a mandate that says this kind of discussion is taboo? There are many threads in this forum concerning science, ethics, and freedoms. At this point for me many of the topics in this forum have been well traveled and I find this thread more interesting because of its controversial nature.

Moderators if you are going to freeze this thread please grant me the ability to delete my posts first.

If this post is a problem for moderators and the OP I will take it down. I think it is relevant to the OP's image and question.

Take a look at this video recorded with a 3rd gen night vision video camera. Anyone want to take a guess at what generates these moving round orbs of light?

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=-hWxKpcnLaU

These folks have some orb videos and photographs that are very interesting. This is the same place where I experienced the sighting in the first link this year.

Whatever it is in your video, is hardly the same thing shown in the first post of this thread. In the blue spot, you can clearly see the hexigonal shape, which is known to come from the number of leaves in the aperture iris. It's provable and reproducable.

Dang I come back two days later and everybody is debating over my blue dot lol

Busted.

if you need more scientific proof, look here.

Need more mumbo jumbo, go here.

canonloader wrote in post #10659579
Busted.

if you need more scientific proof, look here.

The only real Mumbo-Jumbo is throwing rocks into a fire and expecting them to burn. Let's see if we can prove this blue orb is a product of lens flare. Up for it? I have little faith that I can create a repeatable blue orb so I am wondering if you feel the same way or would like to demonstrate your theory.

We know that low DOF will produce OOF elements that render the shape of the iris but the question still remains. If this is lens flare then it should be easily reproducible but is it? What are the exact circumstances in which this "lens flare" could exist? If the OP had shot 10 frames in a row with the exact same settings, lighting, etc would all 10 images have the same lens flare in the same place?

Lens flare comes from internal reflections and most often from a competing light source in front of the lens at an angle incident to the iris opening. In this case the light source is from behind the lens and this blue orb is at the back of the frame. So what exactly is being reflected and from where? Is it from the structure to the immediate right side of the frame? Is there something at the point of the blue orb in the image that is generating the reflection? What is the source of reflection?

I am going to place a wager that if 10 frames were shot one after another in this exact location with this exact setup that in fact 10 identical images will not be seen. Can you supply a condition in which you can show me 10 identical images of "lens flare" in which a blue orb will be found? The light source is flash and from behind the lens. The orb doesn't have to be blue either any color or white will be fine but I am looking for proof of ease in creation and repeatability, 2 fundamental founding clauses in the scientific paradigm. My guess is this is going to be much harder to do than you think but I am open to seeing the results. In this book there are no two identical images ever and the study has been done.

BlakeG is this a location where you can go back and shoot easily? If so would you be up for taking 10 frames one after another from that exact location with that exact setup and providing the images? The exif data must be present indicating minimally all settings are identical and there is a frame advance. I'll put up a $25 gift certificate to your favorite store or put it into your Paypal account for the effort in helping is resolve this issue.

canonloader is this a sufficient test to demonstrate repeatability?