Another Orb Photo

[Connie]

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5114/orb13107vm9.jpg

There's a small "orb" along the corridor, toward the back. I took this photo yesterday. It's underneath Pike Place Market near the Seattle waterfront. Old place--ready to celebrate it's 100th anniversary, I believe--and definitely reputed to be haunted.

What do you think? Paranormal or not? I love this picture. Maybe it's the geometrical shapes, and the colors. PS: My psychic body tinglings were going off big time in that place.

[Poodle]

I'll hunt up some sites you can send it to for the "big" wheels to look at. Definitely something there.

[Connie]

This is just the latest (not the best). I have hundreds of odd pics over the years. A few of my pics are already published. :)

[Connie]

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1748/dogwithorbpalacehotel12ci5.jpg

Here's another one I like that is fairly recent. Orb upper right! This "ghost hunting trip" was to a Victorian era haunted hotel, formerly a bordello.

[Poodle]

find this one but I will say I recognize that carpeting and someone had better get their dog off of it. Not safe for pets. Have you tried another camera at these events just to make sure? Never mind. Asked and answered. :confused:

Oh, pic is much bigger than monitor. WOW!!!!

[Terry (existing)]

When the mystery object is seen only after the event, it is not possible to check for other causes so you "presume". On the other hand, if you see the phenomena first, you can easily check by walking close to the object, examining it from all angles, and looking for a shadow as you stand close, to see if you can find a source of light. I have no faith in orbs, because I found out what might cause then by accident. It is called hallation, and is caused by a fault in the lens of the camera.

[Connie]

I've never seen an orb with the naked eye, but I know people who have! :) I have had my hair stand on end and "creepy" feelings of heavy air pressure while standing in a particular space in one hotel's "haunted room." As far as orbs and cameras, I've captured them with several cameras, including digital and film, including flash and no flash, indoors and outdoors, daylight and nighttime. Hubby has captured them, too--with a different camera. I've also gotten film photos of "mist" at a former hospital/mental asylum where no mist was visible to the naked eye. Ectoplasm! Of course, we seek out the locations where things of a paranormal nature have already been said to happen. This has been my hobby for 7 years! We've been on ghost tours in New Orleans, Las Vegas, Seattle, stayed at haunted hotels in Washington and Nevada, visited numerous haunted locations from shoe stores to an Irish bar which was a former morgue to restaurants, to markets, etc. It's FUN!

I've shared a lot of my photos with people who are interested in this stuff, and they were not able to debunk them. Of course, they didn't embrace them, either. Just said they didn't know. One lady, who has written many books on the paranormal has published a few of my photos. She believes that my photos have captured authentic paranormal phenomena.

[Connie]

One more story! There's a hotel in Gold Hill, Nevada...called the Gold Hill Hotel, which is the oldest operational hotel in the state. They have a couple resident ghosts there, one named "Rosie." Supposedly, she manifests her presence with the scent of roses. I smelled her. Several times. Right outside "her" room.

You know I'm skeptical!!! I questionned the hotel staff up and down about secret hoses and piping in the scent or whatnot. They deny it. Hubby thought it might be some cleanser they used. They denied that as well. There are no rose scents used in the housekeeping services.

I took tons and tons of pics in that hotel, as did my hubby with his camera, and we did get some orbs. One pic he took is my favorite, the orb is PINK. I think it's Rosie.

[Poodle]

What is going to happen when you go to Europe? Those are really old ghosts. A friend of mine is finally getting over her trip after almost a year -- yep -- took her back to past lives and she was not happy.

I would guess that James von Praagh would be very interested in you and your pictures. Duke University in Durham, NC used to have a parapsychology dept. Wonder if they still do. They would probably be very interested too.

[Connie]

I like to share my pics and stories, but I'm not putting out the best ones on the 'net. Pics, that is. I'm saving them for my own book. :) Plus, if people think hypnotists are woo-woo, they think ghost hunters are more so...SUPER woo-wooo. I could tell some super bizarre stories, like the time my camera was vandalized with Flamingo poop by the ghost of Bugsy Siegel. :)

[Poodle]

it is super woo-woo but it seems as if super woo-woo gets a very high TV rating. People are always interested in what they don't understand.

[hypnomulley]

Hi Connie,

Take another look at your picture? As you do look below the orb and slightly down a little then slowly look to the right in a somewhat rainbow turn. As you start at your bottom right you will see a face in the wooden floor and more to the right of that face.

I see about 7 faces in the wooden floor. Take a look at them and let me know what you see?

Sincerely,
Frank

[Connie]

That's interesting, Frank! I took another look. I don't know what you're seeing precisely, but I can always faces in anything--if I look. In clouds. In the spackling of paint on the wall, in the marble design of a floor tile... I don't think it's anything paranormal. Just a healthy imagination at work!

What do you think of the orb itself? Street level below that corridor is a sculpture marking the location of an ancient Native American spiritual meeting ground. In this space, on more than one floor level of the place, I've gotten orbs. Some very very bright and dramatic ones, too. One pic I call "orb storm," there's one giant bright white orb and about 2 dozen smaller more translucent ones in the same pic. To me, it looks like a charismatic leader and his followers. Photos of the identical scene taken immediately before and after show nothing.

[Poodle]

first picture - in the wood floor area that is toward the bottom. In fact, I can see more than faces. I can see 3 whole bodies and it looks to be male, female and child.

[Connie]

One more for your viewing pleasure.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2842/sroomsmallervt6.jpg

This was taken at a so-called "haunted" bed and breakfast, The Palace Hotel in Port Townsend, WA. That's our room, a piece of it anyway, and that's my hubby, a piece of him anyway! :) Subsequent pics from same angle, no orb.

[solaris152000]

Well the most reasonable and rational responce would be that it's a fault with the camera/ trick of the light.

We know for certain that these things happen, and we have an unexplained phenomona, it is reasonable to suggest that as similar phenomna have Trick of the light as a cause, that this also has a similar cause.

There's no more evidence that this "orb" is a Ghost/spirit of some long dead being than there is that its a flying semi-invisible pretzel.

Perhaps it a fairy working for the Russians! It's a Spy! Quick, Nuke Russia! Defcon One!!!

See the slippery slope we slide down if we speculate irrationally

[Connie]

VERY slippery! :) I'm not claiming to know what they are with any certitude, I'm just speculating that they could be something other than a camera defect or trick of the light. I don't believe that an orb is necessarily a "being," but I do think it's energy of some sort.

[Connie]

Hey, Solaris! My post above was number 666. We could slipperyize that into something too, if we wanted to. :)

[solaris152000]

VERY slippery! :) I'm not claiming to know what they are with any certitude, I'm just speculating that they could be something other than a camera defect or trick of the light. I don't believe that an orb is necessarily a "being," but I do think it's energy of some sort.
It would be nice if it did turn out to be some sort of 'energy', I'd love for ghosts to be proven a 'real' phenomom.

Thing is I've got no reason to believe these orbs are anything other than a camera trick. I mean, why can't we see these things with our eyes? Then it would be less likely to be a camera trick or trick of the light, but a real 'energy'. Of course, it could only be visible in a certain wavelength that camers record that our eyes cannot, however that is only a possiblitily.

I can see no rational reason to see these things as anything other than trick of the light.

[Connie]

I mean, why can't we see these things with our eyes?

Ah, the naked eye test! As I said above, some people DO see these orbs with the naked eye.

Me, I believe in magnetism, and gravity. I haven't seen those with my eyes. Hubby says: what about molecules? Have you seen one of those with your eyes alone either? Maybe these new digital cameras are the method of "seeing" that allows us to see more of reality than we could before.

[Terry (existing)]

If by ghosts, you mean a spiritual form of energy indicating the presence of something unknown to us, then it would be prudent to believe based on what has been observed many times, by many people. Having accepted this however, what benifit is gained I wonder?
I could relate stories of personal experience that would make your hair curl, but would be of no value at all, since such evidence does not point only to one possibility, but to several. I know for example that our mind can cause physical conditions to change, that has been demonstrated, in scientific tests, but on the other hand, what if trickery was involved, since even scientists are open to being fooled, especially when they hope for a certain outcome. I know that some people have been tested and found to have certain brain conditions that were not normal, and presumed to be the cause of their natural ability to make objects move without contact. Big deal, I am not too lazy to use my hands to move anything I want to move, and knowing someone has a "funny" brain is no big deal, I meet them all the time:D On the other hand, this may negate "ghosts"...
To believe or not to believe, it's a choice we may choose to make, or we may decide that it matters not, and we are happy to sit on the fence, and let others do the research to prove it one way or another. Me, I like a mystery, and will make no attempt to prove this one, I want it to stay an unknown in my lifetime.
If you want to see ghosts, check out and build yourself a psychomantium, and put the mirror a little higher, and to right of centre before using. Then when you have done the work, explain how it happens please:)

[solaris152000]

Ah, the naked eye test! As I said above, some people DO see these orbs with the naked eye.
Claim to. It would be reasonable to dissmiss these people as liers.

Me, I believe in magnetism, and gravity. I haven't seen those with my eyes.
Of course you have, you've seen a magnet before, you've seen people not flying around becuase of gravity. You have seen the effects of gravity and Magnetism, you see them every day.

Hubby says: what about molecules? Have you seen one of those with your eyes alone either? Maybe these new digital cameras are the method of "seeing" that allows us to see more of reality than we could before.
No I haven't 'seen' a molecule, but we have pretty near irrefutable scientific testable and well reasoned evidence that such things do exist. A blurry camera picture of a peice of dust on the lense does not have equal credability as a Scientific theory.

[Connie]

build yourself a psychomantium

What an exciting word! :D I'll have to see what that means and what that entails.

Hubby had another example of the unseen becoming known later. Radioactivity. It was first discovered as an effect on photographic plates and at the time there was no scientific theory to explain the phenomenon. He says: one shouldn't necessarily be so inclined to explain all data within an already held framework. That's not the way for advancement! You, Solaris, indicated that we don't see magentism (a magnet does not equal magnetism) or gravity, we see it's effects. Perhaps with orbs we are seeing the effects of something yet unknown.

[solaris152000]

What an exciting word! :D I'll have to see what that means and what that entails.

Hubby had another example of the unseen becoming known later. Radioactivity. It was first discovered as an effect on photographic plates and at the time there was no scientific theory to explain the phenomenon. He says: one shouldn't necessarily be so inclined to explain all data within an already held framework. That's not the way for advancement! You, Solaris, indicated that we don't see magentism (a magnet does not equal magnetism) or gravity, we see it's effects. Perhaps with orbs we are seeing the effects of something yet unknown.
Perhaps, but until Scientific research is commited in investigating this, it is not rational to reach any paranormal conclusion.

[Soren K (existing)]

Perhaps, but until Scientific research is commited in investigating this, it is not rational to reach any paranormal conclusion.

Why's that then? What exactly is rationality? And what does science do so well that makes it a rational explanation as opposed to a 'paranormal conclusion' (as not rational)? Interested to hear what you think.

[Don]

Perhaps, but until Scientific research is commited in investigating this, it is not rational to reach any paranormal conclusion.

Some of the best scientific research of their day came to the conclusion that the sun moves around the earth, plague is spread through the air, if you go faster than the speed of sound nobody will be able to hear you, rockets won't work in space because there's nothing for the engines to push against, and the speed of light cannot be altered.

If we limited ourselves to believing only what "scientific research" has shown us, instead of stretching boundaries with our imaginations, the number one cause of death among young women might still be childbirth.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein
Physicist (1879 - 1955)

[Connie]

Don, that was beautifully said. :)

I keep thinking about the Hubble Space Telescope. How after it's introduction we can see more, and better, and farther, new things. Groundbreaking discoveries. Really, my true feeling about digital cameras (and they do capture more orbs than film) is that it's a similar technological improvement in vision. We're seeing more. 5 megapixels. 10 megapixels. Orbs may well be an artifact of digital cameras. But that's not a DEFECT. I think there's something there, being photographed.

[solaris152000]

Some of the best scientific research of their day came to the conclusion that the sun moves around the earth, plague is spread through the air, if you go faster than the speed of sound nobody will be able to hear you, rockets won't work in space because there's nothing for the engines to push against, and the speed of light cannot be altered.

If we limited ourselves to believing only what "scientific research" has shown us, instead of stretching boundaries with our imaginations, the number one cause of death among young women might still be childbirth.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein
Physicist (1879 - 1955)
Yes, everyone recognises that Science can be and quite often is wrong. In some of the above examples highligted by you, the Scientific Method wasn't fully developed, however it's thanks to Science that we now know what was wrong and can solve these problems, it's thanks to Science that women no longer die in childbirth so often. If we'd had listened to thoose who saw the plauge and reached the conclusion that it was 'God punishing us' or that the Sun was a God or other such nonsense Society would be very far behind what it is today.

It's very well to say, 'I don't think the current explanation for 'orbs' being a trick of the light/camera' however, that is neither sufficient or rational without presenting evidence for why you believe this. Why can't 'orbs' be a mere trick of the light? Could it be that you just don't want them to be, you want them to be ghosts?

Until there is sufficient evidence, it would be irrational to reach a conclusion towards the origin of orbs.

[Soren K (existing)]

Until there is sufficient evidence, it would be irrational to reach a conclusion towards the origin of orbs.

why would it be irrational?

[solaris152000]

why would it be irrational?
Reaching a conclusion without sufficient reasoning is always irrational.

'I can't find my keys!' - 'It must have been the CIA'

'Look at thoose flashing lights' - 'It's an alien ship!'

'Look at that black man!' - 'he must be selling drugs'

[Connie]

Solaris, it seems like what you're really saying is that it's "irrational" to reach a conclusion--other than yours.

[solaris152000]

Solaris, it seems like what you're really saying is that it's "irrational" to reach a conclusion--other than yours.
That's exactly what I'm saying.

My conclusion that it's probably some trick of the light or a camera fault is very rational. We see similar phenomonom in cameras all the time, all which can be explained through camera faults and light issues ect.

The conclusion that the orbs are some form of 'energy' from a sentinent being invisible to our eyes is wholly irrational as their is no reasoning to suggest that this is the case.

[Don]

Yes, everyone recognises that Science can be and quite often is wrong. In some of the above examples highligted by you, the Scientific Method wasn't fully developed, however it's thanks to Science that we now know what was wrong and can solve these problems...


Well, that's uh, interesting logic.

Science can be wrong and thanks to science we can solve that.

I know other expressions like that:

Government intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp
Microsoft Works


Oh, and the "Scientific Method" was created by the medieval alchemists, so anyone who follows it is simply doing the same thing.


Be that as it may, the real challenge here is not whether the orbs in the photos are some kind of unique phenomenon, but recognizing that each person's interpretation reveals more about their personal mind-set than anything else.

The truth is, what you're presenting is not skeptical or scientific, it is debunking: you have a mindset and not only don't want anything to upset that mindset but will denounce anybody who dares to disagree.

A truly scientific or skeptical mindset would have the attitude that here is something new and something that can be investigated. For example, I'd use multiple cameras including some that used film and use different batches of film.

But it's much easier just to make assumptions that fit one's own predetermined mindset. And it's safer to denounce others who dare to suggest anything different. After all, we each develop concepts over time and they are linked to other beliefs. if it were to turn out that evidence of something unusual were to disrupt previously-held concepts then, for many people, this would call into question other beliefs that they hold dear--and that's simply something they do not wish to do.

[Henrik]

Hi, Solaris.

I can't help but smile a bit about your constant referral to science... like it is a constant "something" where all absolute thruth and knowlegde is printed in golden. At least that's the way I understand many of your posts - but I'm often wrong ofc.

I'm all for critical thinking. Until it shuts down one's mind. That is not science. In my mind.

"There ain't no rules around here! We're trying to accomplish something!"

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."

These are quotes by Thomas Alva Edison and Albert Einstein by the way.

Regards,
Henrik

[Terry (existing)]

I think a correction is in order, though I didn't see the actual post were the statement was made, but I understand someone claimed we couldn't see magnetism? This is NOT so, magnetism is visible to us in the guise of the "Northern Lights". Since such is only seen under certain conditions, why should we not suppose that orbs also are the result of some such circimstance? Remember, the camera uses a prismatic lens made up of several lenses which deal with light in a different manner to our eyes which has only one thin lens per eye. Thus, certain light waves may be made visible as they pass through the complicated lens of the camera, while not being visible to our eyes. To me that makes perfect sense, and is indeed a scientific theory that could easily be help until such time as proved wrong like so many theories that have gone before:eek:
On the other hand, what harm is done if someone chooses to believe the cause is something else? Beliefs are benign unless they result in some action that harms others, so believe as you will. :)

[Connie]

I'd love to see that some day!! :) Looks very magical.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Polarlicht.jpg/250px-Polarlicht.jpg

[Stoic]

Woaaah!
Whats that?

[Don]

Terry, according to what I've learned, the northern lights are not a visible form of magnetism. Actual it is the sun that is the source. Electrons carried along with the solar wind strike atoms of nitrogen and oxygen in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Oxygen creates the green colors while nitrogen causes pink-red, blue, and purple. You may occasionally see bright red and orange-red. These are the result of oxygen at even higher altitudes.

The energy output of the solar wind traveling along the earth's magnetic field creates the patterns or the northern and southern lights. These include homogenous arcs, bands, active arcs, rays, pillars, draperies, or curtains and coronas. So it is not magnetism per se. Rather, it is something responding to magnetism, much as iron fillings on a piece of paper held above a magnet will reveal the patterns of magnetism.

So as an analogy, we could say that while the northern lights aren't magnetism, they are sort of the clothes that, under the right conditions, magnetism wears.
:)

[Poodle]

Go to Alaska. That is the Northern Lights as were just shining brightly maybe last week.

I don't like to say "never" because sooner or later someone is going to prove me wrong. I can't prove what Connie is photographing are energy beings but I do believe it is more than totally possible. I've seen many on TV that can't compare to what she has. Connie is also VERY ENERGY ATTUNED.

BTW, Connie -- obvious hubby has been at the gym with you even hiding under the covers. LOL!! Pood :eek:

[Connie]

BTW, Connie -- obvious hubby has been at the gym with you even hiding under the covers. LOL!! Pood :eek:

Well, you know, I'm hardly impartial...but I think he's gorgeous. :) He's lost 50 or so pounds himself. By "osmosis," Travis says.

[Terry (existing)]

There you go Don, you have read about this, and accepted what made sense to you at time of reading. My own understanding differs from your, in that magnetic force fields are involved, and therefore the Lights are only seen at the North Pole were the magnetic field is compacted and ionization of the clouds is most easily produced. I have no more certainty than you that I am right, but both of us have read this and accepted what we read. Now each of us bases our beliefs on what someone else writes, what we inderstand from it, and which we trust because we accept that somebody else has done some studying that we ourselves have not done. That is why I smile when someone demands proof by "scientific evidence". Who is to say that science KNOWS? Both our theories agree on inonization of clouds I believe, so who is to say that magnetism is not the main factor in our seeing those lights? Only what we both have accepted as sensible. We share what we honestly believe to be true, but factually we don't really know do we?

[solaris152000]

There you go Don, you have read about this, and accepted what made sense to you at time of reading. My own understanding differs from your, in that magnetic force fields are involved, and therefore the Lights are only seen at the North Pole were the magnetic field is compacted and ionization of the clouds is most easily produced. I have no more certainty than you that I am right, but both of us have read this and accepted what we read. Now each of us bases our beliefs on what someone else writes, what we inderstand from it, and which we trust because we accept that somebody else has done some studying that we ourselves have not done. That is why I smile when someone demands proof by "scientific evidence". Who is to say that science KNOWS? Both our theories agree on inonization of clouds I believe, so who is to say that magnetism is not the main factor in our seeing those lights? Only what we both have accepted as sensible. We share what we honestly believe to be true, but factually we don't really know do we? Nobody knows for sure if Science is correct, but a Scientific conclusion is a thousand times + more likely to be correct than anything else.

[Don]

You mean like the scientific conclusions in the 1990s that we were entering an ice age?

Or do you mean like the scientific conclusions that the speed of light is an invariable constant?

Or perhaps you mean the scientific conclusion we can never send explorers to the Moon.

[solaris152000]

You mean like the scientific conclusions in the 1990s that we were entering an ice age?

Or do you mean like the scientific conclusions that the speed of light is an invariable constant?

Or perhaps you mean the scientific conclusion we can never send explorers to the Moon.
So I suppose I should respond to that by quoting all the times non-scientific conclusions have been wrong? I could go for thousands of examples and I'm sure you can too.

But it was Science that put man on the moon, Science that discovered the speed of light, Science that prevents so many deseases.

Sure Science can be wrong, but you really think any other method to explain an unexplained phenomona can be better?

[Soren K (existing)]

But it was Science that put man on the moon, Science that discovered the speed of light, Science that prevents so many deseases.


Why should this suggest anything more than the usefulness of its calculations? Perhaps there are completely different purposes in mind and the debate is a genuine non-starter? Or... well, what if there were different purposes for the various explanations, would that make a difference?

[Soren K (existing)]

Sure Science can be wrong

'wrong' or 'no longer useful'?

[solaris152000]

'wrong' or 'no longer useful'?
What?

Of course Science is useful, if it wasn't for science we'd still be living on farms churning milk like amish folk.

[Soren K (existing)]

What?

Of course Science is useful, if it wasn't for science we'd still be living on farms churning milk like amish folk.

:rolleyes:

...nevermind...

[Don]

So I suppose I should respond to that by quoting all the times non-scientific conclusions have been wrong? ... Sure Science can be wrong, but you really think any other method to explain an unexplained phenomona can be better?

Good try at a reframe! LOL!

Let's recap:

You wrote: "Scientific conclusion is a thousand times + more likely to be correct than anything else."

I showed how scientific conclusions are often wrong.

Your response was an attempt to reframe and get around the clear evidence that your blind support for what you think is scientific is limiting your beliefs and hence your actions and concepts.

The bottom line is that when it comes to discussion of phenomena, there is no such thing as "science," only the opinion of scientists, and sometimes they are quite seriously wrong. Put another way, the debunker mentality (what you're calling "science" in this discussion) is just one paradigm for interpreting phenomena, and following it can result in problems understanding other phenomena.

What I am saying is that your description of "science" is faulty. Rather, what you're calling "science" is "debunkers' mentality." And that is a highly limiting belief.

Yes, there absolutely is a better way of approaching new phenomena that the neo-ludddite "debunkers' mentality." That would be the true skeptical (and not debunker) attitude of, "I don't know, but I'll use an open mind to research until I find out."

Had your name been Flemming, you would have seen that mold and thrown it out. It is an open mind, not one dogmatically following any particular belief system, that opens the way to truth.

[Connie]

Had your name been Flemming, you would have seen that mold and thrown it out.

My hubby said the identical thing! :)

[Terry (existing)]

Put another way, science is the conclusions of a person who is limited by an eductation which has closed his or her mind, so as to live within certain boundaries dictated by that education. Sorry, but I happen to disagree, and I therefore have no problem with having someone else disagree with me either. The scientist on the other hand has only a own narrow field of interest to protect, and will do so because there is no alternative other than to accept the fact the he is indeed fallible, what a horrific thought.
I know I am fallible, but I enjoy that fact, it shows my mind is not so bound up in being right that I overlook other possiblitities. I would however make one suggestion to those who depend so much on "science", and that is to leave this board which is dedicated to results achieved via the imagination, while science is dedicated to just the oposite. To read here, and still depend so much on science leaves you in danger of a split personality:eek:
It was science that discovered that each snow flake was different from all the others. Now I confess I couldn't do the research to be able to say this. Imagine examining millions upon millions of snow flakes before being able to say with reasonable certainty that they are all different? Imagine the bordom for a free spirit who just loves snow, and wants nothing more than to wallow in it? Nah, I would never want to be a scientist, just me.....:p

[solaris152000]

Put another way, science is the conclusions of a person who is limited by an eductation which has closed his or her mind, so as to live within certain boundaries dictated by that education. Sorry, but I happen to disagree, and I therefore have no problem with having someone else disagree with me either. The scientist on the other hand has only a own narrow field of interest to protect, and will do so because there is no alternative other than to accept the fact the he is indeed fallible, what a horrific thought.
I know I am fallible, but I enjoy that fact, it shows my mind is not so bound up in being right that I overlook other possiblitities. I would however make one suggestion to those who depend so much on "science", and that is to leave this board which is dedicated to results achieved via the imagination, while science is dedicated to just the oposite. To read here, and still depend so much on science leaves you in danger of a split personality:eek:
It was science that discovered that each snow flake was different from all the others. Now I confess I couldn't do the research to be able to say this. Imagine examining millions upon millions of snow flakes before being able to say with reasonable certainty that they are all different? Imagine the bordom for a free spirit who just loves snow, and wants nothing more than to wallow in it? Nah, I would never want to be a scientist, just me.....:p
That is not how Science works. No Scientist looked at every snowflake quantam theory tells us that know two objects will ever be the same because the particles inside them are changing all the time.

Don, all Scientists admit that Science does produce the wrong answers, but it always produces better answers, answers with more rationality, if not it is not Science.

[Don]

That is not how Science works. No Scientist looked at every snowflake quantam theory tells us that know two objects will ever be the same because the particles inside them are changing all the time.

Don, all Scientists admit that Science does produce the wrong answers, but it always produces better answers, answers with more rationality, if not it is not Science.


The concept that "no two snowflakes are identical" existed long before quantum theory. How, then, did they know?

If "all scientists admit that science does produce the wrong answers," they would never know which ones were right and which were wrong and could never trust any scientific theory.

The answers are not more "rational," they simply fit a particular paradigm. To me, living in a de facto Newtonian cosmos, the wall is solid. To a quantum physicist, the wall is simply moving energy and not solid at all. Which one of these scientific views is right? Both of them. They just come from different paradigms.

[solaris152000]

The concept that "no two snowflakes are identical" existed long before quantum theory. How, then, did they know?

If "all scientists admit that science does produce the wrong answers," they would never know which ones were right and which were wrong and could never trust any scientific theory.

The answers are not more "rational," they simply fit a particular paradigm. To me, living in a de facto Newtonian cosmos, the wall is solid. To a quantum physicist, the wall is simply moving energy and not solid at all. Which one of these scientific views is right? Both of them. They just come from different paradigms.
Both situations just have different requirements for something to be 'solid'. My point about the snowflakes and quantam theory is that they didn't look at every single snowflake as Terry suggests, thats not how Science works.

[Connie]

I love the capital S. Science, not science! Bow down! :)

[Charlie]

I love the capital S. Science, not science! Bow down! :)

Why shouldn't Science be spelled with a capital "S"?

Other subjects are, e.g. Philosophy, Religion, History, ……Hypnosis…..NLP…..

Lazily, I've only skimmed this thread, but I think elements of agreement can occur with both Solaris AND Don points of view.

I wouldn't much want to live in a world without Science. But then I wouldn't much want to live in a world without NLP/Hypnosis.

And I'm sure Connie has lovely Orbs, two......

:) ;) :)

[The Length]

i have often seen this occurance. you would take a picture and upon looking at it at a later date you can see clearly these mysterious energies, that you could swear were not there when the photo was taken. and its like its stuck in limbo, afraid of the light but wary of the shadows, the negativity that lurks in the corners and other hard to reach places.

its like they want to cross over but need assistance from the physical realm. ive seen several of these recently and wanting to help them over to the light, i went to a specialist and they suggested using cleaning products.

have you ever tried communicating with the dust? maybe a bit of all purpose, multi surface cleaning spray. did the job for me.

[Terry]

Sol, I support your right to believe anything you wish to believe. Thank God for the differences. What I don't understand is why you visit this board, when science tells us that Hypnosis and it's allied fields is nothing more that a placebo, and we so politely tell them they are full of it.
Here we have two different groups, and you have chosen which group you lean to, so I repeat, why are you here? Please understand, I have no problem with your presence, but as a researcher, I am interested in everything around me including your attitude.Sometimes this is a curse, but humor me if you will.
We are agreed that science can make mistakes, it would be hard to argue with such a statement, but without any scientific proof, you state that science is 1.000 times plus, more likely to be right than are we. Why is that? I would sit at the feet of someone who was teaching me electrionics, they are almost certain to know more about the subject than I do. I would listen with rapt attention to the kind person who was willing to teach me more about the computer, even if their knowledge was only slightly greater than mine. However, when it comes to research into hypnosis, any scientist who disagrees with my findings can kiss my Royal North American ass. I DO know better....
So you see my friend, I find it curious that you waste time communicating with the plebians here instead of hob nobbing with the scientists you regard with so much respect. You should know that when it comes to this subject, and this subject alone, I would put my trust in a dozen of our members here not just in my own research, before taking any interest in what a scientist said.
Well, I might be persuaded to change my attitude if I found a scientist who had been able to go without food for a couple of weeks without feeling hungry, and without losing weight:eek: That would prove dedication to his work in a practical sense that commands my respect....

[Don]

SD, does that single explanation for all orb photos fit better with your personal view of the universe? Does it make you happy?

I've seen several different explanations of the phenomenon. Some have been described in the thread, and they don't agree with your simplistic answer.

Personally, I don't know the cause or causes. I'm inclined to think that there are many things--dust, chance, an imperfect lens with the proper lighting, and maybe even something paranormal. I don't know. But that's because I'm a skeptic, not a debunker as you make yourself out to be.

Hmm. In your profile you say you're interested in anime and your avatar appears to be of a youngish man. So let me guess. You're 24 years old or younger, have a few books on magic but have never performed for others, and think "The Amazing Randi" is the most incredible person on earth.

How well did I do?

[Don]

I have seen no evidence that you are 36. However, in another post you claim you have read books on hypnosis for 20 years, meaning that you first read a book when you were 16. Not only that, but over the 20 years you claim to have read 30 books (although you refuse to name or review any of them). You certainly claim to have read a lot of books on a subject you don't believe it! The most obvious way to explain this is that you are prevaricating.

James Randi is not a skeptic, he is a debunker. But I can see how you are a devotee and a true believer in debunking. It comes through in all of your posts. By the way, did you know that he worked as a fake astrologer and lied to people in a newspaper for a long time (he has written about it)? Did you know he has never apologized to the people he deceived? Is that really the type of person you idolize?

Your explanation is NOT the same one "a scientist or photographic expert will give," it is only one of several explanations. However, I could be wrong. Please list five scientists and five photographic experts you have consulted with, along with contact information for them, to support your claim.

[Don]

Interesting how you refuse to review all of those book you claim to have read on hypnosis. Above Top Secret is a book on UFOs, not hypnosis. Just another attempt on your part to introduce a straw man and irrelevant data. Typical of a troll.

Mr. Randi is a debunker, not a skeptic. He, like you, defends a predetermined mind-set.

By the way, his "agreement" that people sign for his his test includes a clause that allows Mr. Randi to say anything about the test and the person being tested cannot protest. That is, Mr. Randi could lie and nothing legally could be done about it. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if Mr. Randi has debunked true things.

You refuse to defend your statements. This is typical of a debunker, and a troll.

It's been fun, but frankly, I'm just getting tired of it. If you will not support your claims, I'm going to start deleting your troll posts.

In short, put up or shut up.

[Poodle]

The Book list of 20 books on hypnosis/hypnotherapy complete with reviews by YOU!

Got it? If not, get it!

[Docresults]

But wasn't this topic about orbs?
I was quite interested in both orbs and rods for a while until I watched a documentary on TV that clearly demonstrated how they could easily be replicated by ordinary means.

The same with hypnotic phenomena outside of hypnosis.

My dear young fellow it seems your mind is made up about what you believe and it seems you enjoy finding counter examples (ok only one counter example) to disprove a whole area of pursuit.

It seems your interest is in disproving instead of curiosity of how many different or possible ways something may work. One counter example does not make a thing true or untrue and if true or untrue was the basis for decisions we'd all be in trouble. (No one really knows what is true/false, we know what we feel, then think is true/false but we make it up according to the maps/models/filters in our head.)

Now results is a different issue. If you want relief from a particular problem or have an issue you want to change and you are curious (not interested) in how to change that, we are more than happy to give you suggestions on what to ask a competent hypnotist to get the solution to your issues.

But coming from the place of a critic does you nor any profession any good. You want the facts, but the funny thing is facts from the Greek factum meaning "made up". Your concept of proof/facts depend upon made up filters. I prefer results for the client instead of some mental masterb.... fact.

As the 1st Fundamental of Life says, "The Individual is the Meaning Maker". Without a Meaning Maker there is no meaning. The individual DOES NOT have to believe anything BUT Whatever one does believe WILL BECOME their perceived and felt reality.

To Your Best,
Dr. Vetter

[Connie]

Whatever one does believe WILL BECOME their perceived and felt reality.

And that is utterly cool!!! :) Or, Kewl, as the kids here like to say.

[Docresults]

So based on your answer. Get off this list and run as fast as you can to a stage hypnotist so others can enjoy what you want... trippy entertainment

[Don]

SD, one of the difficulties of written communication on the 'net is that people often think they are fully sharing information when, in fact, they are not giving everything that is needed. Now you have added extra information and I can give you a more thorough answer.

NOBODY can guarantee that when you go to a stage hypnosis show that you will be hypnotized. That is because the primary purpose of stage hypnosis is entertainment, not hypnosis.

If a person comes on stage and just plays along, even if he or she is not hypnotized, it's much better for the show than someone who goes deeply into trance and simply wants to sit there and feel how nice it is in trance.

Let me compare it, for a moment, to a good movie. Good movies are NOT about events. They are about people and how they change because of the events. The events themselves are just "plot points" to stimulate change in the characters.

Similarly, a good hypnosis show is one where people have a great time, have a chance to let loose and act silly. The hypnosis is only a means to that end. If there is another means--such as a person just playing along--that's fine for the stage hypnotist.

So a major difference between stage hypnosis and hypnotherapy is that the stage hypnotist doesn't have to hypnotize anyone (Old showmen used to carry actors with them to pretend to be hypnotized. Some, known as "mules," were insensitive to pain [or could turn it off] and the "hypnotist" could stick pins and needles through their arms.) while the hypnotherapist needs to be able to hypnotize every client.

Other differences: A stage hypnotist needs to develop a stage show, learn public speaking and possibly train in stage presence. They need to know how to walk on stage, walk across stage, and exit. They need to be entertainers. They need to know how to run a stage show. For larger stage shows they need to know how to train and work with assistants who watch over the hypnotized "actors." Although some hypnotherapists do learn all of these things and more, they do not have to.

You may be old enough to remember a TV commercial where a man says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television." Stage hypnotists don't have to be hypnotists (although many are), they just have to play one when they're on stage.

If you want to be assured of being hypnotized, go to a trained and experienced hypnotherapist. If you want to be entertained, go to a hypnosis stage show.

[Connie]

I went to this training in Palm Springs, and I didn't take many photos...just a few. One semi-something-there orb photo. However, someone else had a magnificent orb photo. Taken during a trance exercise in the seminar room! :eek: Very cool. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Orbs liked Igor. Who wouldn't?

[The Length]

hmm strange. the image of us that was there is now not. how perculiar.

[Apsinthion]

Well, here's my contribution to the thread ... I have no real opinion on the 'authenticity' of the orb-phenomenon, but I do tend to 'believe' the more fun alternative, which, in this case, would be that they are 'real' and somehow represent supernatural activity.

This first picture I took during the summer. I took on a second job to help pay for the hypnosis classes I'm taking now, which was working with a tibetan buddhist wood carver, helping him to prepare his materials. I took this photo of one of the many pieces of art he has laying around his property and was surprised by just how VIVID the orb is, and not only that, but it's context seems to add some strange validity.

The second picture was taken THAT SAME DAY, this time in my room. My bestest friend in all the whole world (left) came to visit me (right) from back home in Iowa. We've always had a very close relationship and there is certainly magic between us, so this photo was quite nice to find. I count at least 10 orbs.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2844174182_9bfd10b181_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2801047327_55624be887_o.jpg

[Connie]

Cool! Thanks for sharing those. :)

Here's the orb pic from the hypnosis training room. It's right by the head of the man in the gray shirt, 4 from left! Very, very bright!!

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/6355/orbattrainingnk7.jpg

[Poodle]

I really don't think it's Igor. It's you that are attracting them. They really seem to love you and it could be all the positive energy you project.

I've been playing on YouTube with "Singing Bowls". I know they are used in Reiki and are great for balancing Chakras but I had not heard of them actually "healing" per se. I'm still not sure the lady here knows how to use them properly -- large "bowl" for large areas like backs???

I "think" Skip or Don knows quite a bit about this.

Pood :)

[Poodle]

Julie and John. Great people.

Have you ever thought Connie that you are someone special too and perhaps he learned a thing or two from you?

I'm still waiting for Igor to resurface. I don't want a gob of CD's or DVD's or whatever they are selling. I want Igor in person. ;)

Pood

[The Length]

hmm strange. the image of us that was there is now not. how perculiar.


and now my post has disappeared!!

either some ghostly spirit has erased it self from the forum for lack of wanting to be seen or there has been some good old fashioned fascist moderating.

one is a lot more believable than the other.

heres the original pic:

http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp12/yourdeluded/Dust-Orbs.jpg

you can imagine how scared we were.

[Connie]

That's nothing otherworldly...that's dust!

[The Length]

That's nothing otherworldly...that's dust!

oh really?!

[The Length]

i lovely bit of self ownage on connies behalf. =)

[Don]

Anybody with even the slightest bit of camera experience can tell the difference between an orb and the dust you presented.

[Connie]

lol. And, the broom is a good hint as well.

[The Length]

Lmao! Lmao!

[Poodle]

Last week on the Travel Channel they had a show about orbs and, ghosts and spirits. It was done with movie cameras and then independently verified to make sure there was no hankey-pankey going on. The orbs are definitely real and are spirits.

They then went to an abandoned hotel in Nevada which is highly haunted. One could actually hear the voices (weirdly). There was a brick that went thru the air and it was scientifically proven that it would be impossible for a brick to do that without someone doing it. It had one orb -- small and very loving. It's supposed to be the wife of the man that owned the place.

We now have scientific proof for the naysayers around this place. I was going to call you but I don't know if the number I have is home or work????

Hopefully it will have a rerun.

You go lady!! :D

[The Length]

Last week on the Travel Channel they had a show about orbs and, ghosts and spirits. It was done with movie cameras and then independently verified to make sure there was no hankey-pankey going on. The orbs are definitely real and are spirits.

in your 'relality', yes. lmao.


There was a brick that went thru the air and it was scientifically proven that it would be impossible for a brick to do that without someone doing it.


well, theres your answer right there.


We now have scientific proof for the naysayers around this place. I was going to call you but I don't know if the number I have is home or work????

scientific proof from the travel show?! sounds a bit dubious.

what was the name of the program?

ever watch most haunted? they like to film particles of dust, small insect etc aswell and pretend they are something spiritual. actually some of the staging on shows like this is very comical but i find it very mis leading to people that believe this sort of nonsense, if not quite damaging. oh well!

ps. i think you have my work number but if you could just email me atm because i am very busy.

thanks x

[blackritual0]

I mean, why can't we see these things with our eyes?
some people can, have you ever heard of kirlian photography? it allows people to photograph the human aura and energies put off by people. rarely though, some people are born being able to see auras and some can be trained to see them. there are several planes of existence that overlap ours that we cannot see, its like asking why we cant see radio waves, there there, there just outide of our visual spectrum. You'd be surprised at exactly how little we can actually see