12 Inaccurate Predictions of the Orb Zone Theory

A site like this shows numerous anomalous-looking circular objects in photos. Such objects are called orbs. One attempt to naturally explain these type of photos is a hypothesis called the orb zone theory. The orb zone theory is the hypothesis that orbs in photographs are caused by little particles such as dust, pollen, or water particles. The hypothesis is that there is a little “orb zone” a few inches from the camera lens, and that camera flashes reflect off of tiny particles in this zone. Such reflections, the theory claims, are what causes anomalous-looking orbs in photos.

Let us look at the predictions implied by this hypothesis, and see whether they are accurate or inaccurate. There is a site promoting the orb zone theory that claims that it has made some successful predictions. But these claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

For a long time the site made the following claim:

Several predictions of the Orb Zone Theory have been formally tested to scientific standards. These include:

• that orb numbers vary according to the depth of field in a particular photo
• that orb numbers are unaffected by the megapixels of a camera
• that orb numbers are unaffected by whether photos are taken in haunted or non-haunted

The site gave a link to a scientific paper that supposedly supported these claims. But the paper that was linked to did not at all predict the second item – it predicted the opposite. The paper predicted this: “It is hypothesised that varying the effective rate of digital camera megapixel count will affect the number of orbs captured. “

Shortly after I complained about this fact to the person maintaining that site, the site was changed, and the line about the megapixels was removed. Now the claim merely reads as follows:

Several predictions of the Orb Zone Theory have been formally tested to scientific standards. These include:

• that orb numbers vary according to the depth of field in a particular photo
• that orb numbers are unaffected by whether photos are taken in haunted or non-haunted locations
  

Neither of these qualify as a substantive prediction that has been verified. The prediction that “orb numbers vary according to the depth of field in a particular photo” essentially means “you will see fewer orbs if you zoom in your camera lens, to show a smaller area.” But that is true about essentially everything – you will also see fewer buildings, people, flowers, birds, cars, and everything else when you zoom in your camera lens to show a smaller area. So this does not at all qualify as a substantive prediction, but is merely a statement of an obvious truth. Similarly, a theory cannot claim to have made a substantive verified prediction if it makes a claim such as “there will be some severe thunderstorms next year” or “some people will be killed in car crashes next month.”

As for the claim to have successfully predicted that “orb numbers are unaffected by whether photos are taken in haunted or non-haunted locations,” that is a bunk claim of predictive success. First I may note that orb photographers such as myself do not maintain that orbs are things mainly found around “haunted locations,” as people like me get orbs showing in a large variety of locations. So the prediction is not even a relevant one. Secondly, the paper that supposedly verified this prediction did nothing of the sort. When we look at the paper, we find that the experimenters used only one location that the paper's author was told was a haunted location, and took only 160 photos there. Such a paltry data set is completely insufficient to establish the claim that orb “numbers are unaffected by whether photos are taken in haunted or non-haunted locations.” It's a little like taking 160 photos at some particular street corner, and claiming to prove from those that “men like the color green more than women do.” You can't prove such a thing with such a small data set. We have no idea whether the single “haunted location” selected for the test really was such a thing, nor do we have any particular reason to suspect that orbs would appear more often at such a place if orbs are some paranormal phenomenon.

Another bunk claim of predictive success made on this “orb zone theory” site involves a series of photos taken with a double lens camera. The camera was a special type in which there are two lenses a few inches apart, which can fire simultaneously, giving the camera holder two pictures taken at the same time. A series of such photos supposedly showed lots of cases in which orbs appeared in one of the two photos, but not the other (only a handful of these photos have been released, so the claim is questionable). The page promoting the orb zone theory claims this result as a predictive success of the orb zone theory, but this result is actually quite the opposite. While there are several paranormal ideas about orbs that are quite compatible with such a result (as I explain here), this experimental result is not at all what we would expect if the orb zone theory is true. If orbs are mainly caused by particles a few inches from the camera lens, then such orbs should actually appear in both of two simultaneous photos taken with such a camera, in which the two lenses are only a few inches apart. Far from supporting the orb zone theory, this experimental result gives us a good reason for rejecting it.

In short, we see that the orb zone theory has no substantive record of predictive success. Each of the supposed “predictive successes” are either trivial, obvious predictions, unproven predictions, or predictions that are not actually implied by the theory.

The orb zone theory actually does make some interesting predictions, but not all of them are  mentioned on the site promoting the theory. Let us now look at what those predictions are, and how well they stand up to the facts. I may note that the predictions of a theory are whatever is implied by the theory, regardless of whether any proponent of that theory has stated such a prediction in print. I may also note that in listing the predictions of a theory, we should not at all “cross out” from our list a prediction if such a prediction is ruled out by observations. The predictions of a theory consist of whatever logically follows from such a theory, regardless of whether any such implication is consistent with observations.

Prediction #1 of orb zone theory: orbs should not appear larger than about 10% of the original photo width or height (unless the orbs are produced by lens flare when pointing the camera at something very bright).

This prediction is made on the site promoting the orb zone theory, where it claims that the orb zone theory explains “why orbs are never larger than around one tenth of the size of the photo frame.” When you try photographing dusty particles deliberately poured in front of the camera, you don't get dust orbs larger than 7 percent of the photo width or height.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. In fact, the site you are now on shows numerous orbs that are much larger than 10 percent of the photo height. See my posts labeled “air orb too large to be dust” for 22 such photos. See in particular my posts labeled “giant purple air orb” for photos showing orbs that are more than 70% of the original photo height, photos that were not taken while pointing the camera at anything very bright that might produce lens flare. See also this very large photo stream for many photos showing orbs much larger than 10 percent of the original photo width. See also this site showing some orbs much larger than 10 percent of the original photo width.

Prediction #2 of orb zone theory: orbs photographed in dry conditions should not appear as bright objects.

Dust is not a very reflective material. Imagine a mirror coated with a layer of fine dust; you will not be able to see your face in such a mirror. When you pour some dusty thing like cinnamon or baking powder in front of your camera, you may get some dull-looking orbs, but not any bright orbs. So a prediction of the orb zone theory is that while one might see dull orb-like objects that are flash reflections of dust particles, such objects should not appear as very bright objects.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. Many orbs shown on this site are photographed in dry indoor conditions, and also appear as very bright objects. See my 53 posts labeled “bright air orb” for many such photos. Some of these photos show orbs about 100 times brighter than the orbs one sees when deliberately photographing dusty particles.

Prediction #3 of orb zone theory: orbs photographed in dry conditions should rarely or never appear in vivid colors such as pink, blue, purple, yellow, or green.

Ordinary dust has nothing like a vivid color. Take a damp cloth and go clean up random dusty parts of your home. When you are done, even if you examine the damp cloth with a magnifying glass, you will see a remarkably colorless set of particles, rather than any individual specks with vivid colors such as pink or purple. So a prediction of the orb zone theory is that when photographing orbs in dry conditions, you should not see orbs in vivid colors, because such orbs should not be produced by dull, colorless dust particles that typically look brown, gray or white. Indeed, the main page promoting the orb zone theory says that it explains this alleged fact about orbs: “that the vast majority are white or shades of grey.”

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. Using the labels shown on the right of this site, you will see  690 examples of blue orbs in the air, 317 examples of purple orbs in the air, 90 examples of yellow air orbs, 96 examples of green orbs in the air, 124 examples of pink orbs in the air, and 96 examples of orange orbs in the air (and many of my posts that show blue orbs in the air were not labeled with a "blue air orb" label). It is not at all true that the vast majority of air orbs shown on this site are white or shades of gray (by "air orb" I mean something not photographed in a water drop). A large fraction of the air orbs shown on this site are blue or some other color other than white or gray. See also this photo stream for a great number of photos of orbs that have a variety of vivid colors. See also this photo stream for very many orb photos showing a spectacular variety of vivid colors. See this post for why skeptics are unable to explain the appearance of such colors.

Prediction #4 of orb zone theory: orbs should very rarely or never appear as objects that seem to be moving very fast, unless there were very heavy winds when a photograph was taken.

Ordinary dust moves through indoor air at a speed of only about 2 miles per hour. Common insects move through the air only a little faster (for example, a house fly moves at a maximum speed of about 5 miles per hour). So a prediction of the orb zone theory is that we should rarely or never see photographs that appear to show orbs hurtling about at very rapid speeds (unless perhaps there are incredibly strong winds).

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. This site has 167 photos of orbs that appear to be moving at very rapid speeds, probably far in excess of 100 miles an hour: my posts labeled “speeding air orb.” These were almost all photographed indoors, and none were photographed when there were very heavy winds. You can also see many similar photographs by other photographers, by doing a Google search for “moving orb.” Use this link to see a composite image showing 37 of my photos of speeding orbs (all 37 of which were taken indoors when no insects were observed).

The attempts made by orb zone theorists to explain such photos don't work. They claim that such photos are coincidental random positioning of separate dust particles, but that ignores the fact that we very clearly see a streak of motion blur in many such photos that would not occur if they were merely caused by a coincidental random positioning of separate dust particles. Orb zone theorists also claim that such photos may show insects, but that explanation doesn't work. An insect such as a housefly moves at no more than 5 miles per hour, but moving orb photos seem to show objects moving far faster than 100 miles per hour. Such photos often show dramatic sharp right-angle turns (or u-turns or dramatic undulations) or a type that neither dust nor insects nor birds ever make. See my 33 posts labeled “inexplicable orb motion” for examples.

Prediction #5 of orb zone theory: either a large fraction of all photographers should regularly get orbs in their flash photos, or orbs should only appear in special “particle-rich” conditions such as very dusty conditions or misty conditions or rainy conditions.

A basic question raised by the orb zone theory is: is the dust or water vapor in ordinary, typical air sufficient to produce orbs in photos? If the answer is yes, then it should be that a large fraction of all photographers commonly get orbs in their flash photos. If the answer is no, then the theory implies that orbs should only show up in some special “particle-rich” conditions such as very dusty conditions or rainy conditions or misty conditions.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. Only a very small fraction of all photographers commonly get orbs in their flash photos – probably less than 2 per cent. Orbs also do not appear only under special conditions such as very dusty conditions or misty conditions or rainy conditions. I have got many hundreds of orb photographs indoors in places that are not dusty, as well as countless other orb photographs outdoors in air that was not dusty, foggy, misty, or rainy. So have other orb photographers.

Prediction #6 of orb zone theory: orbs should never appear behind distant obstructions.

The orb zone theory maintains that orbs are caused by particles just a few inches from the camera lens. So the theory predicts that we should not at all see orbs that appear behind distant objects far from the camera. As the main page promoting the orb zone theory says:

Supposing there was a photo showing an orb partly behind an object in the picture. This could not be explained by the OZT [orb zone theory] where orbs are caused by objects just in front of the camera lens

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. On this site I have 27 photos labeled “air orb too distant to be dust.” They all show orbs that are behind distant obstructions far from the camera.  See also this site, which has quite a few such photos, such as this very clear one and this very clear one.  See also this part of the "Orbs & More" site, which has two such photos.

The site advocating the orb zone theory acknowledges that there are photos of orbs that seem to be behind distant obstructions. But that site tries to explain away such photos by claiming that they all involve cases in which “the faint translucent orb was overwhelmed by a highly saturated colour in the object supposedly obscuring it.” But this claim is not accurate. If you examine the 27 photos I have labeled “air orb too distant to be dust,” you will find many cases of orbs that are neither faint nor translucent appearing behind distant obstructions. In fact, I have lots of photos of bright, non-translucent opaque orbs behind distant obstructions. See also the 2 photos mentioned in the previous paragraph (the ones I called "very clear") -- also bright, opaque orbs behind distant obstructions. 

Prediction #7 of orb zone theory: no orb photographer should see a big increase in appearances of orbs that is not caused by increased levels of particles.

According to the orb zone theory, the one reason why a photographer might see many more orbs showing up in his photos would be if he started photographing in conditions that had a lot more particles. The theory predicts an orb photographer should not see a dramatic increase in orbs unless it is caused by a big spike in dust levels, mist, or precipitation.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. The fact is that orb photographers such as myself report that orbs appear 100 times more often now than when they first started to photograph orbs. For example, on page 100 of the book The Orb Project, Klaus Heinemann (PhD.) reports, “Since that first orb experience, the frequency of orb features in my pictures has skyrocketed, from an average one in about fifty pictures in 2002 to several in each picture taken now in similar locations – a hundred-fold increase.” There is no way to account for this under the orb zone theory.

Prediction #8 of orb zone theory: faces should not appear in orbs, except when you have a very rare coincidental arrangement of matter that resembles a face.

Since the orb zone theory says that orbs are caused by natural particles near the camera, the theory predicts that faces should not appear in such orbs any more often than faces should appear in other natural things such as a random section of the moon or a random part of a natural landscape.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. On this site I have 327 photos of orbs that appear to have faces – many, many times more than we would expect to see by chance. See my posts labeled "orb face" to see such photos. See also the “Orbs & More” site for many photos of orbs that appear to have faces.

Prediction #9 of orb zone theory: there should be no other anomalous-seeming phenomena that often appear in orb photos, other than orbs.

Since the orb zone theory predicts that orbs are just caused by natural particles near the camera, it predicts that there should be no other anomalous, bizarre sights that often appear in orb photos.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. Orb photographers often get other hard-to-explain things in their photos taken while photographing orbs. The most common thing is mysterious veil-like structures which often appear in stacks or congruent formations. See my posts labeled “orb veils” for 27 such photos. See also this photo stream for many other photos of such veil-like objects. The same phenomenon is reported by the orb photographer Miceal Ledwith, who says that “objects that resemble graceful drapes of fine cloth appear in attractive formations” in his photos (The Orb Project, page 46)--the same highly anomalous thing shown in my photos labeled “orb veils.” Another anomalous sight that often appears during orb photography is the appearance of “plasma clouds” that resemble ghostly mists. See this post for discussion of some sites that show such photos. Another anomalous sight that I repeatedly get are inexplicable crescent shapes, like the ones shown here. 

Prediction #10 of orb zone theory: orbs will only appear to have “tails” when they are falling raindrops.

This prediction is made on the main site promoting the orb zone theory, where it says that the theory explains “how orbs can have tails, usually fading away downwards (because they are falling raindrops).”

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. On this site I have 31 posts labeled “orb comet tail.” Each such post shows a photo I took of an orb with a comet-like tail. All of these photos were taken on dry days in which there was no fog, mist, rain, or other precipitation. Among my 167 posts labeled “speeding air orb” there are also lots of other photos showing orb “tails” in indoor photos. There are also countless other photos of orbs on the internet that show these “tails,” as you can discover by doing a Google search for “moving orb.” The great majority have been taken either in dry conditions or indoors, and cannot be explained as falling raindrops. 

As for the direction of orb tails, an examination of the links in the previous paragraph will show that the orb tails point randomly in all directions, without any tendency to point in some particular direction.  Upward-pointing tails are about as common as downward-pointing tails, which are about as common as right-pointing tails, which are about as common as left-pointing tails.  That's very inconsistent with a "falling raindrop" explanation. 

Prediction #11 of orb zone theory: if orbs appear in a photo, they should be randomly scattered around a photo, without any pronounced tendency to appear in a particular half of a photo.

Since the orb zone theory says that orbs are little particles just a few inches from the camera, it implies that such particles should appear scattered in a completely random way in a photo, in cases when a photo has orbs.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. I studied the positions of orbs shown on two days in which I photographed hundreds of orbs in Grand Central Station in New York. On both days I noticed an overwhelming non-random “vertical bias” – a strong tendency for orbs to appear more often in the upper half of my photos. On March 15, 2015 I counted 101 photos in which orbs appeared more often in the upper half of the photos, and only 5 photos in which orbs appeared more often in the lower half of the photos. I got similar results on April 10, 2015. Using a binomial probability calculator, I calculated that the chance of this happening was 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 on the first day (March 15, 2015), and 1 in 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 on the second day (April 10, 2015). See this link for the relevant posts describing these observations. 

See my posts labeled "orb vertical bias" for other similar examples showing many photos in which orbs have a tendency to appear many times more often in the upper parts of photos. Such photos are completely inconsistent with the idea that the orbs are being caused by natural particles near the camera, for such particles would appear randomly across the photo area, not many times more often in the upper part of the photo.  For example, in this series of photos I found there were about 845 orbs that were not in front of a building at the bottom of the photos, and only about 7 orbs that were in front of that building. This extremely strong "vertical bias" is completely inconsistent with any explanation that the orbs were being caused by natural particles (such as dust) very near the camera.

Prediction #12 of orb zone theory: if done in the middle of photo sequences in which lots of orbs are appearing, photos of a piece of cardboard photographed at arm's length should show orbs appearing in front of the cardboard.

Since the orb zone theory says that orbs are little particles just a few inches from the camera, an implication is that a photographer who is getting lots of orbs at a particular time should at such a time be able to do a “cardboard test” photographing a piece of cardboard at arm's length – and he should expect to see orbs in front of that cardboard.

Is this prediction accurate? No, it isn't. I've done such a test more than 50 times, right in the middle of photo sessions in which I was photographing lots of orbs. Not once did any of these photographs show an orb in front of the cardboard (or an equivalent piece of paper) when I did such a test. See my posts labeled "cardboard test" for examples.

Conclusion

The orb zone theory is a thoroughly falsified hypothesis that makes 12 inaccurate predictions, and has no substantive record of predictive success. We do not know what causes the orbs shown in the more remarkable photos of orbs, and we cannot at all claim to have a workable natural explanation for the more remarkable orbs shown on sites such as this one. 

Below is a visual summarizing the predictions of the orb zone theory, and how far they diverge from reality. You can see it at full resolution by clicking on the image (it simply summarizes the points made above).

See the post here for a discussion of how particle size analysis refutes the theory that dust can be a source of significant-sized orbs in photos. The post explains why the particles of dust in ordinary air are about 1000 times too small to be a source of significant-sized orbs.

Postscript: I may add two additional inaccurate predictions of the orb zone theory. Prediction #13: orbs should not contain thick stripes. Prediction #14: we should no see no distinctive repeated patterns in the markings of orbs. Both follow from a claim that orbs are natural particles.  Prediction 13 is false, as shown by the 150+ photos here.  Prediction 14 is false, as shown by the series of photos here which show quite a few cases in which very distinctive markings were repeated in orbs between 2 and 7 times.

Below is an example from the photo series above, showing 6 repetitions of a very distinctive "pig tail" pattern:

Below is another example from the series above, showing 4 repetitions of an "inverted Y" pattern.

These photos were all taken over a series of several weeks. Between each such photo and the next such photo showing the same pattern, I took hundreds of intervening photos showing no such pattern.