apparition possibility?

canonloader wrote in post #10659054
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.

A 3rd Gen night vision camera is not the same as a consumer color camera yet they both seem to capture round objects from time to time that appear in images. We also know that video cameras have rather low resolution sensors so that there are less pixels and a frame rate (motion blur) which essentially eliminate detail in viewing the effect of the iris blades in a single frame correct? I am assuming that BlakeG minimally used a 12MP digital camera to capture this orb.

Is there a correlation between the blue orb in BlakeG's image and the white (infrared) orbs seen in the video?

I'm not going to bother wasting my time to show you anything, cause people like you are just full of but what if's. You wouldn't believe anything anyone showed you, cause there is always some hare brained explanation that is more fun to believe in. If the images and explanations in those links aren't good enough for you, what more could I do?

jetcode wrote in post #10660053
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?

no need for the money haha. i did take some shots right before and after as well. here they are.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

canonloader ... please ... relax ... follow along with me here and see if we can uncover some new findings with all this. I told you I am a skeptic so I like to run the data and experiments so I can gain a deeper experience with the evidence in question. I am not ignoring you and have asked you politely as a co-conspirator here to recreate this phenomenon as an exercise to see what the results are. Likewise I am an engineer by trade and am not holding Wikipedia as an authority to this matter until there is more evidence and thought as to the causation of this event.

blakeG - thank you for providing excellent scientific documentation!!! A series like this really tells the story on one level but I think there is even more to explore here.

canonloader points to lens flare as the cause of this anomaly and I think we can all agree this in not a normal occurrence. I want to explore the notion of lens flare a little more. This afternoon I was thinking of every case of lens flare I have ever seen. There are some characteristics of lens flare that are highly repeatable. The first is that light enters the lens and generates a vector of light from the source to the sensor or film plane. Along this vector typically light will flare and generate anything from odd artifacts to perfect orbs of various colors and with a Contax 100mm f/2 Planar a diagonal line of light with 3 strips of color from the rainbow! The most obvious characteristic of lens flare is you can see the flare before you capture the image. It can be seen by the naked eye and in fact some use lens flare creatively.

My guess is BlakeG did not see the orb when the shutter was tripped. So then how is it that this single frame contains this orb? Is it a function of faulty imaging hardware and software in the camera? That's possible but highly improbable because as many cameras as there are I have yet to hear about the blue dot syndrome which surely would surface if in fact this was a real defect within the camera. Obviously we have images before and after the blue orb was sighted. So I don't suspect this is a lens problem either.

IMO this is where it gets really interesting. Notice the blue orb has no shadow. Notice that there are no flare like symptoms often seen in daylight lens flare situations which are obvious to the naked eye.

The researchers in the book "orbs" point to an interesting observation. The only thing left is the light source and in this case it is a flash. What we know about flash is that it is not a constant light source. It is in fact a high voltage discharge through a flash tube which emits a flash of blinding light. What is even more interesting is the rate of discharge at the initial flash point is so high that it is possible that other frequencies surrounding the visible light spectrum may experience the charge being released. This is to say that infrared through ultraviolet side frequencies may be generated by the strobe at the flash point. There is likewise a theory that orbs exist in these side bands and that the flash generates enough energy to fluoresce or cause an illumination of energetic forms that may exist in these side bands. It's a theory and judging by the amount of energy released by a flash one that is not entirely out of the question. A significant number of orb photographs feature flash as the light source.

If we go back to the video we note that the people can not see the orbs that are being filmed by the high end night vision camera. In fact the man filming this event mentions that he doesn't use an infrared light source either. These orbs are being imaged in the infrared spectrum. Note also how saturated the people are in the video. They are completely white and the field around them is slightly larger then they are. Aside from natural heat generated within the body at a frequency lower than infrared in the spectrum is it possible that the camera is filming spiritual essence? The real experiment there is to film a corpse next to a living human being. That aside I believe there is a correlation between the blue orb and the orbs found in the video. I believe they may be of the same type of energetic phenomenon. I am still in the process of putting these theories together based on my own spiritual experience with energetic phenomenon. Believe me I have stories that many will never be able to grasp as possible and yet I have experienced them first person and daily for years now. It helps to have an open skeptical mind. There is as much misinformation as there is information in our world and we must carefully examine the evidence before drawing conclusions.

Here is a video recorded by law enforcement agents for the Mexican government flying with planes equipped with FLIR infrared imaging cameras. The really high end stuff. They use these planes to track drug smuggling routes. This link offers striking video footage of orbs traveling in our atmosphere. You have to wait for the HP ad to end and it does. This footage was released to the public by the Mexican government as authentic.

http://www.metacafe.co​m …r_force_pilots_​film_11_u/

And there's more evidence of orbs in print and on the internet.

canonloader wrote in post #10641834
This happens quite often with wide angle lenses. Some of them really get weird and look like spaceships going hyperlight. Here's one I got with my Tokina 12-24 when I tried some night time shots.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

canonloader would you care to share what exactly we see here? I am wondering out loud how the light source of what appears to be the moon generates this odd bluish artifact in the lens you used. I am interested in the path of the light and what elements within the lens you believe are causing this anomaly to occur. The lens flare I am used to was seen in daylight or street light conditions not from a celestial body. The most obvious scenario is back lighting a subject however I find light entering at an angle of incidence to have more properties of what we call flare.

Thanks

blakeG one last question ... Did you sense anything during this shoot? Any thoughts or feelings come up for you while you were shooting this sequence?

Thanks

those shapes. flares. orbs. whatever are present in shot 2 of the last three examples.. turn levels up and yuo'll see them..

jetcode wrote in post #10664659
blakeG one last question ... Did you sense anything during this shoot? Any thoughts or feelings come up for you while you were shooting this sequence?

Thanks

The thing that I noticed while I was there was just the constant feeling of being followed or watched.T There is a morgue there and I would like to find it and go shoot it.

Fureinku wrote in post #10665311
those shapes. flares. orbs. whatever are present in shot 2 of the last three examples.. turn levels up and yuo'll see them..

Would you be so kind to help make your point by providing a sample of this notion based from these images? I am interested in what you are seeing here.

Thanks

blakeG! wrote in post #10665345
The thing that I noticed while I was there was just the constant feeling of being followed or watched.T There is a morgue there and I would like to find it and go shoot it.

Thanks for providing that information. There are a variety of reasons why you might feel this way. They range from preconditioned notions based on the idea of death and morgues to a spiritual being in your sphere of influence (your body) generating visual and / or sensual information that you and your body respond to, and a few shades in between typically based in fear ... "that horror movie really made my skin crawl", etc. You know what you experienced. I have had sensations of being watched and a whole lot more!

As far as I can tell you have provided 4 unique frames. Since I did not acquire these images a critical component of this evaluation is the authenticity and level of manipulation if any to these images. We all know how easy it is to extend and modify a digital image. I am assuming that these are unmodified images. Am I correct in assuming this?

May I ask why you took at least 4 shots from this particular location? Is this morgue current, old, or a ruin? Are we looking at a structure that was or is a part of the morgue? Are there any bodies buried here? Is there a name for this particular site?

Thanks for participating here blakeG. It has been fun to examine your image and blue orb sighting and gives me a chance to work my science muscles while exploring this phenomenon.

I believe this to be an authentic sighting! Congratulations.

It's interesting that the anomaly was not there in any of the newer images.

I think you might have something there too, Blake.

Fureinku wrote in post #10666793

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

image 2 of 3 from post 33, levels adjusted

Very cool. Note the orb is this image is in a different location yet the framing for the 4 images is roughly the same. There is a faint trace of blue in my eye as well.

BlakeG ... What is the order of the images you presented here? Thanks!

Fureinku thanks for taking the time to show us the additional information!

It's lens flare, nothing more, and it's reproducable. Many ultra wide angle lenses suffer from these abberations, and it's not considered a good thing. In fact, the higher quality lens manufacturers go to great expense and trouble to prevent this sort of thing happening under all conditions. This and the one below were shot with the Tokina 12-24 Ultra Wide. While I find these things interesting, they are only there in the lens, not really out there, cause I was watching.

The one above is from the moon, this one is from someones porch light. I had others, but deleted them.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

thanks canonloader

The scientist in me is would love to know what exactly takes place that creates this rather unique looking repeatable anomaly. The red and green elements are 90 degrees apart and feature the same dispersion patterns in both images. Even more interesting to me is this pattern looks inverted to the pattern in your first image. I notice that the light source has switched places in each frame. In the first image the light source is on the left and the anomaly on the right and vice versa for the second image! Clearly this is a pattern that is based on a mechanical means of some kind. The question for me is what are we seeing and why? Is there a consistent reflection from within the lens that generates frequencies in the red and green spectra or is this a function of the reflection being modified by the coatings of the lens? I am wondering too if the Tokina was used in both of these images. I suspect it was. Was the same focal length used or is this anomaly seen at all focal lengths?