This seems to be well researched on this more scientifically oriented site. Explains what they are made of .... and all but I still think they are spirit related OrbStudy.com[/URL]

I've visited this site a cpl times, read through all they have there. The plasma orb is interesting and perhaps they explain some of the orbs out there, just like dust, rain, flare do. However I agree with you Alan I don't think they explain all the orbs and I too remain open to the notion that some are indeed spirit energy. Actually the folks at this site even state that certain orbs they have captured have characteristics they cannot explain and they remain baffled by some of the movement they have seen. They too do not have an answer for that explain what all the different types are. I thought some of their plasma orbs resembled dust orbs actually, but they do note they have captured dust/moisture and these are not it?

Being scientists it does explain why they are researching them from the plasma angle, which is good to see. At least they are not instantly labeling all dust (as some ppl do) and they are honest enough to say they can't explain all of them. It's cool that they have a cpl of pics that show an orb partly behind an object (one was very clearly behind the leaves). Something those that call all orbs airborne particles say would prove they are all not just dust. =)

I've also wondered given the sheer amount of airborne particles in the air why do we not have a batch of orbs in every pic we take? I was fooling around in the kitchen the other day and I noticed lots of floating dust in the stream of sunlight coming in the window. Out came the camera and I took a ton of shots before I got one with orbs in it. Even then the dust only showed when I had a bit of motion blur. Not that I haven't gotten dust in pics before, including when I've tried (though it took several shots and pillow bashing to get them) but I truly want to know why we don't have orbs in every pic if it's just dust etc? Also why are orbs prevelant at haunted locales or when other activity and/or evidence is noted/captured? There is a photographer with a physics degree who is part of an investigative group who commented he finds orbs most interesting. Most of the pics at their site have orbs in them (it's a TAPS affliated grp that was first formed 50yrs ago (non-profit), and I think they did a program for history channel - not sure). I'll see if I can find the site again and share it with you, if you like?

Ok off the soap box.

i hate orbstudy.com they come across like they know what they are talking about but in reality they dont they have a picture on there of cigarette smoke and they are calling it an orb.
as seen in the last pic on this page[/URL]

and here[/URL] (last picture)

they also have pictures of hair in front of the lens and are calling them orbs
as seen here[/URL] (first picture)

and the tropical storm bill orbs section of that page insinuates that because of the electron electron activity in the lower atmopshere the ghosts are really out to play. but in reality they need to buy some pledge because thats a lot of dust.

I hear ya. As noted earlier some of their plasmoid orbs looked like dust to me. I also noted the ones that looked like smoke which they were saying, though it looks like smoke/breath and hair fibres it's not?? They note a good number of the orbs they've captured they cannot explain, as their characteristics are different than those they can explain, including ones they believe to be 'plasmoids'. I don't know if those examples are what they mean or if they have a variety of other examples as well, just they haven't shown them. Wouldn't mind seeing a collection of these if there are some different ones, as I'm curious what orb type (or not lol) they resemble.

Damien did you take a closer look at the pics where the orbs appear to be behind an object? I only have pic mgr to take a closer look at pics right now. I'm curious if you were able to tell if they are indeed behind something? The leaf one (for example) appears to be, but a better program may show otherwise.

At least they are not claiming all orbs are plasmoids nor claiming all are explainable. I realize you hate seeing dust orbs and smoke exampled as something other than what they are, to me what is worse though, is those who discount orbs entirely (all types) simply because 'some' can be explained. Wouldn't one have to know all there is to know about what spirit, ghost and entity energy is, how it manifests and moves and what it is made of to make such a claim? (just a comment in form of a question ) Natural energy does not explain all either, as some claim. Even parapsychologists, of which some are also physicists, have yet to determine what this energy is, nor can they explain consciousness as it relates to the paranormal (yet). =)

Have to keep in mind the ppl at orbstudy simply have a theory (or hypothesis rather) that they are trying to prove. Given by what they have exampled so far, having their peers accept this theory/assumption is a long way off yet, should it happen at all.

I'm always interested in reading different theories, views, opinions and I do like the fact that ppl are willing to at least experiment and/or do studies. The plasmoid assumption is interesting as a theory, despite it being the least probable of the theories out there. Not saying these "scientists" know what they are doing, just a plasmoid to explain a natural energy ball (that is not ball lightning), is curious. IMO

Sometimes with a gamma, contrast etc adjustment you can tell. It does look in front I agree, the pic is a crop, but odds are the camera was close to the leaves, given the orbs characteristics. I was also curious to know if this group did a through examination of the pics before presenting them as noted.

As mentioned before, I read/research a lot, so have noted the partially obstructed orb discussed at a number of sites and on various forums (including the taps forum). It's interesting how many ppl say, show me an orb that is partially obstructed, or illuminates something near it, or has a reflection in a mirror, then I'll agree they are not all dust.

We know many orbs are the result of dust/pollen/moisture being close to the lens. Photographers are always explaining that dust within inches of the lens will appear as an orb when the flash reflects off of it. So if an orb is captured which is clearly partially obstructed by an object (not of the same color), and the object is clearly several feet away from the camera not within inches of it, how can that orb still be called dust/pollen? That would have to be one huge piece of dust, and one that should have been easily visible with the naked eye. Does it mean this orb is definitely pn in nature? - No, as with any anomaly there are other factors that still need to be considered, and all remain 'possibly paranormal' until we can prove conclusively said anomaly is in fact paranormal in origin. Does it increase the chances of it being paranormal? - like any anomaly or reported/witnessed activity, the more common causes that can be ruled out, the closer you move towards being able to call it 'possibly' paranormal. =) JMHO