Friday, July 31, 2015

Orbs Keep Dropping in at the War Memorial

Photo date: July 30, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

Below are some photos taken last night in front of a memorial to honor soldiers who died in the American Civil War.

Here is a photo showing an orange orb on the left.

orange orb
Here is another photo showing a vertical line of orbs including an orange orb.

Here is a photo showing a bright peach-colored orb that seems (perhaps) to be touching another orb.



There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good."

A Midsummer's Night Orb Swarm

Photo date: July 29, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken in dry weather in New York City at 9:31 PM.

orb swarm
 Notice that the photo shows a dense swarm of orbs, but virtually none of them appear in front of the buildings. This is a strong indication that these orbs were not merely some particles (such as dust) near the camera lens.

The same thing is suggested by the photo below. A photo taken during the same minute (at 9:31) of a piece of cardboard at arm's length showed no orbs.


There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality as listed on airnow.gov was "moderate." When I took these photos, there was nothing unusual I could see with my eyes, and I could not smell anything unusual.

This Blue Orb Is Not the Moon

Photo date: July 22, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

Today the moon will supposedly have a rather bluish appearance, and we may see lots of "blue moon" photos. But the photo below is not such a photo, because we do not see the moon here. We see instead a mysterious unexplained orb, floating over a skyscraper in New York City.

blue orb
 The next photo I took of this tower showed no such orb, although it did show a white orb with a pinkish aura.

Then the next photo from the same angle showed the blue orb once again appearing, although this time a lot more to the right.

blue orb

There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good," with a rating of 23 (anything below 50 is considered good).  The pollen count listed on airnow.gov was medium, with a rating of 5.8.

Eerie Wall Weirdness

Photo date: July 22, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

Below is a photo taken in Grand Central Station in New York.  We see something very strange on the wall shown on the left, at a point a little to the left of the center of the photo. It is as if some strange eerie face can be seen on the wall.

wall face
Here is a closeup showing this "eerie face":

An earlier photo (from July 9) of the same area shows no such anomaly.

This is one of numerous strange non-circular anomalies I have photographed at this place, besides innumerable circular anomalies (orbs).

High and Mysterious

Photo date: December 15, 2014.  Photographer: Mark Mahin.

Below (from my backlog) is a previously unpublished photo of two orbs, taken at Grand Central Station in New York.


Here is a closeup of the larger orb, cropped from the photo above:

blocked orb

A photo such as this provides additional evidence that orbs are not particles floating near the camera. This orb seems to be behind a light that was more than 30 meters from my camera.

Below is a closeup of the second orb in the photo at top (I used the "Auto-adjust colors" menu option on this closeup). The orb seems to have a smiling face.

orb face

For other photos of orbs with faces, see my many posts labeled "air orb with face," or check out the Orbs & More site at this location.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

A Mystifying Horde of Orbs

Photo date: July 29, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken at 9:30 PM in front of the main branch of the New York Public Library. We see an astonishing swarm of orbs.  The photo has been uploaded directly from the camera, without any cropping.

orb swarm
The photo I took a few seconds earlier (also at 9:30), shown below,  was of a piece of cardboard at arm's length. This showed no orbs, indicating that what is shown in the photo above is not at all dust.

The next photo (also at 9:30) also showed a huge swarm of orbs.

spirit orbs
But the next photo, also taken at 9:30 (of a piece of cardboard at arm's length), also showed no orbs.

As in all of the many times I have tried it (while in the middle of photographing many orbs), this cardboard test showed no orbs, strongly indicating that what I was photographing was definitely not particles (such as dust) near the camera lens. Another thing indicating that we are not seeing dust is the fact that in the first photo we see none of the orbs in front of the building at the bottom right.  If I had been photographing particles near the camera, we would have seen the particles scattered evenly across the picture area.

The next photo (taken at 9:31 PM) again showed a big swarm of orbs.

night orbs

There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality as listed on airnow.gov was "moderate." When I took these photos, there was nothing unusual I could see with my eyes, and I could not smell anything unusual.

Enchanting Night Orbs

Photo date: July 24, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

Our sun is not part of a star cluster. But on this night the mysterious orbs came out, perhaps to show us what the night sky might have looked like if our sun was part of a star cluster.

night orbs
There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good." The photo was taken on Fifth Avenue in New York City.

A Favorite Spot For Floating Orbs to Rest

Photo date: July 19, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken in Grand Central Station in New York. As I have seen in many different photos taken here, a blue orb is positioned on one of the row of lights at the station.

spirit orb
On July 14, 2015, I got a photo showing an orb in the same position.

Below is the way this part of the station normally looks.



Vivid Blue Orb Floats Near the Flag

Photo date: July 20, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In the photo below, we see a mysterious blue orb floating near a US flag. Supposedly this week there will be a very rare "blue moon" effect with the moon, but this object was not at all the moon.

blue orb
There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night.

A Super-Spiky Orb Veil

Photo date: July 23, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken while photographing ordinary water drops falling against a dark background. We see one of the very strange things I call orb veils. These things typically have spiky edges, and this one has more than 10 of these spiky edges.  We also see some of the internal circles often seen in orb veils, which almost look like organelles in a cell.  See my 41 posts labeled "orb veils" for other examples.

orb veil

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Fast and Bright Orb

Photo date: July 24, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below shows a bright orb speeding past the Met Life building in midtown Manhattan. Although it appears to have an oval shape, we seem to be seeing motion blur involving an orb moving very fast.  See my posts labeled "speeding air orb" for 141 posts showing fast-moving orbs. Or see this post for a video showing 88 speeding orbs.

fast and bright orb
Below is another photo from the same angle, taken on the same night, showing no such orb.


A Strange Paradox

Dear readers, I notice that while this blog has received 22,087 page views, we have an extreme shortage of readers who have clicked on the G+1 button at the top of this blog. Plus I find that posts which seem to be very popular often get only one G+1 click.

I realize it is a bit of an inconvenience to keep pressing the G+1 on posts you like, but the great thing about pressing the G+1 button at the top of this blog is that you only need to do it one time.

This Orange Orb Isn't From Florida

Photo date: July 27, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below shows a church in New York City. Floating in front of the church, we see a mysterious orange orb (one that did not appear in other photos from the same angle).  No color or tint adjustment was done on the photo, and the bright orange color is exactly how it looked in the original photo.

orange orb
There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality listed on airnow.gov was moderate. We see here a cropped photo taken from across the street. I've taken more than 10 photos from such an angle, and never seen any signs of lens flare shooting from this angle (the light shown here is not very bright).

Paranormal Positioning

Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photos below were taken in Grand Central Station in New York. The left half was taken on July 22, 2015. The right half was taken on May 1, 2015, and is from this previous post.  Note how both orbs are precisely placed on the top of the window structure, with the bottom of the orb exactly aligning with the top of the structure. What is the probability of this happening by pure chance? So low that this pair of photos must be regarded as evidence suggesting that orbs are being selectively positioned. 

paranormal
The photo below shows the appearance this part of the station normally has.


Fabulous Floating Foursome

Photo date: July 24, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In this photo we see 4 orbs with a variety of appearances floating above a skyscraper in New York. Two of the orbs have an orange aura, and the other two do not.  One can only wonder: do dull brown orbs envy orbs with an attractive aura, like average-looking people envy the handsome and the beautiful?

night orbs
There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The local air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good."

Speeding While Changing Colors?

Photo date: July 28, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In this photo from yesterday showing a drop of pure, clean water, we seem to see two smiling orbs at the top. At the bottom of the drop, we see something almost as interesting. It looks rather like an orb that is moving in an arc motion, and changing colors as it moves. Or perhaps it is several orbs arranged in a way that mimics a single orb in motion. We will never know.

water drop orb

Bright Orbs Provide Some "Christmas Lights"

Photo date: December 22, 2014.  Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In this previously unpublished photo taken in Grand Central Station, we see 9 different orbs scattered all over the picture. A photo like this with different orbs of different positions, sizes, brightnesses, and colors is impossible to explain through any theory of dust or reflection.  Regarding the two brightest orbs, one never gets objects this bright from reflections of dust, which reflects little light. (To realize how little light is reflected by dust, imagine a hand mirror dipped in a bucket of dust. Can you see your reflection in that mirror? Of course not.)

orbs in Grand Central Station


Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Enigmatic Embrace

Photo date: July 24, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In this photo we see (above a New York City skyscraper) two orbs that almost seem to be nuzzling each other. Could it be a budding romance?

pink orb
There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good."

Like That Shot in 2001: A Space Odyssey

Photo date: July 22, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, there is an image in which we see the mysterious black monolith, and above it are two orbs: the orb of the sun, and the orb of the moon (which are in eclipse). I thought of that image when looking at the photo below. We see two orbs (one pink) aligning with a tower in midtown Manhattan.

orbs in New York

The Math Showing That Orbs Are Not Dust, Pollen, or Water Vapor

Orbs are strange-looking circular objects that show up in photos, without any obvious explanation. There are skeptics out there who claim that most of the orbs in photos are just dust. These skeptics all have one thing in common: they forgot to do their math before making such a claim. Let's do the math, which will show that the “orbs are dust” claim is nonsense. Similar math will debunk the idea that pollen or water vapor can explain orbs.

The Math Relating to Dust and Orbs

To do this math, we must consider a simple ratio that I will call the blockage fraction. The blockage fraction is the ratio between the width of a natural particle floating in the air, and the width of the area right in front of a camera lens. Computing such a ratio will tell us whether it is reasonable to think that suspended dust particles in normal air might be big enough to appear as visible orbs in photographs.

For a point-and-click camera, a simple measurement is enough to show the width of the area right in front of the camera lens. This width is roughly 15 millimeters.

But what about the width of natural particles suspended in the air? Although a skeptic may try to “cloud the waters” here by suggesting this is a matter of great uncertainty, it is no such thing. The size of particles floating in the air is settled science widely used by air quality experts, pollution experts, and meteorologists. Scientists have electronic instruments that allow them to measure such particle widths very exactly. Do a Google search for “particle size chart” and you will get quite a few charts that all give pretty much the same numbers (such as those shown in this wikipedia.org article on particulates).

There is general agreement about the following particle size estimates, although estimates may vary by as much as 50%. A micron is a thousandth of a millimeter, or a millionth of a meter. You can find many charts like the one below by doing a Google image search for "particle size chart."


Condition of air Particle size
Outdoor air, dry 1 micron
Indoors, normal 10 microns
Indoor dust spikes (vacuuming, etc.) 50 microns
Outdoor heavy smog 30 microns
Heavy fog, mist 500 microns
Heavy visible dust in air, reducing visibility 500 microns
Rain 1000 microns or more

Now let's plug these numbers into a spreadsheet that computes the blockage fractions. The spreadsheet is below. The numbers in the fourth column are simply the numbers in the second column divided by the numbers in the third column.



Air Condition
Particle size (microns) Length of area right in front of lens (microns)


Blockage fraction (maximum size of natural orb as fraction of original photo width) Would you notice a photo orb caused by a natural particle suspended in air?
Outdoor air, dry 1 15000 0.00007 or 1/15000


No
Indoors, normal 10 15000 0.00067 or 1/1500


No
Indoor, dust spikes (vacuuming, etc.) 50 15000 0.0033 or 1/300


No
Outdoor heavy smog 30 15000 0.002 or 1/500


No
Thick fog or mist 500 15000 0.03 or 1/30 Maybe
Heavy visible dust in air, reducing visibility 500 15000 0.03 or 1/30 Maybe
Rain 1000 or more 15000 0.07 or more Maybe

This table tells us how absurd is the notion that dust particles in ordinary outdoor air are sufficient to produce orbs in photographs. Since such particles cannot block more than about 1/15000 (one fifteen thousandth) of the original photo width, they are many times too small to produce noticeable orbs in photos. This table also tells us that dust particles in ordinary indoor air are way too small to produce orbs in photos. Such particles cannot block more than about 1/1500 (one fifteen hundredth) of the original photo width.

You also need not suspect that some orb in an indoor photo was caused by some dust spike causing the average particle size to rise as high as 500 microns – not unless the visibility was sharply reduced, and the air was visibly thick with dust. Whenever the air becomes filled with particle sizes larger than 100 microns, they decrease visibility quite noticeably, because the human eye can detect particles as large as 50 microns. So unless you were blasting out a wall during construction or toppling a large book case or making a big mess in the kitchen with lots of baking powder flying around – or doing something else that caused a noticeable decrease in visibility – there is no chance that the natural particles in the air were sufficient to produce noticeable orbs in a photo. Particles as large as 100 microns or larger always settle to the ground fairly quickly, at a rate of about a meter per six minutes. So indoor dust spikes quickly die out.

Could it be that we might get a different “blockage fraction” when we consider not a point-and-shoot camera but an expensive DSLR camera with a much wider lens? Yes, but in this case the “blockage fraction” would not be larger, but 50% smaller. So things aren't helped if a skeptic assumes a big camera lens was used – in fact, it then becomes twice as hard to believe that natural particles may have caused an orb.

In this discussion I have been extremely generous to the skeptic, by assuming pretty much the smallest possible “length of area right in front of lens” (the second column in the spreadsheet above). In fact, any particle photographed right next to the camera lens will appear as very blurred. When considering an orb that appears with a sharp, non-blurred edge, you must consider a “length of area right in front of lens” to be 2 or 3 times larger than 15 millimeters. That results in a “blockage fraction” that is even smaller (by a factor of two or three times) than the fractions shown above, which just makes it two or three times more unlikely than orbs in ordinary air could be produced by natural particles.

These considerations clearly show that dust cannot be a major source of orbs in photos. Under 99% of the conditions under which orb photos are taken, the particles of dust in the air are way, way too small to produce orbs that you might notice in a photo.

The Math Relating to Pollen and Orbs

Now let's consider the math relating to pollen and orbs. We must again consider particle sizes. Almost all types of pollen have particle sizes less than 50 microns, although a few types of pollen have particle sizes as large as 100 microns. So you might think that if we use a chart like the one above, we would consider that a pollen particle might block as much as 1/150th of a photo width.

But there is another important thing to consider in regard to pollen: the number of particles per cubic meter. A pollen forecast is normally given as low, medium, high, or very high (and it is very rare to get the “very high” forecast). Here are the number of pollen particles per cubic meter that correspond to these forecasts, according to a page from the University of Worcester (similar information is given here).

Pollen Forecast Pollen Particles Per Cubic Meter
Low Less than 30
Medium 30 to 49
High 50 to 149
Very high 150 or more


Now, from these figures we can calculate a likelihood of a pollen particle existing in the area right in front of the camera. Since pollen particles are so small ( less than 100 microns), we can conclude that if a pollen particle was not right in front of the camera, it could not possibly appear as an orb in a photo. The area right in front of a point-and-click camera has a width of about 15 millimeters (15,000 microns), which is equal to 1.5 centimeters. What fraction of a cubic meter is a cubic area with a width of 1.5 centimeters? It is only 1 divided by 666,666. Even if we assume that a pollen particle might be visible in a photo if it appeared in a slightly larger volume next to the camera lens (an area of 4 cubic centimeters), that 4 cubic centimeters is only 1/250,000 (one two hundred fifty thousandth) of a cubic meter.

Using that figure, we can expand the table above to show what the probability would be of a pollen particle being right next to your camera lens when you take a flash photo. The fourth column is obtained simply by dividing the second column by the third column.

Pollen forecast Pollen particles per cubic meter Number of 4 cubic centimeter volumes per cubic meter Chance of a pollen particle existing in a 4 cubic centimeter volume right next to camera lens
Low Less than 30 250000 Less than 1 in 8333
Medium 30 to 49 250000 Between 1 in 8333 and 1 in 5102
High 50 to 149 250000 Between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 1678
Very high 150 or more 250000 Greater than 1 in 1678


Given that the “very high” pollen forecast is very rare, what these probabilities means is that your chance of taking an outdoor photo and having a pollen particle floating right next to your camera lens when you take a flash photo is negligible. Perhaps a few times in a lifetime, a photographer might take a flash photo in which a speck-like orb showed up because a pollen particle was floating right next to the camera lens. But given the probabilities above, we should not expect that to happen more than once in a year. So pollen can be ruled out as a source of orbs in photos, except for the most extremely rare “blue moon” type of event, which would only result in something like a speck on a photo. We can therefore be quite confident that 99% of the orbs shown in photos were not caused by pollen particles. I also have many photos (shown here) that show lots of orbs on days when the local pollen count listed on pollen.com was very low.

Mold Spores

Mold spores are more common than pollen particles, but mold spores are much smaller, being smaller than about 50 microns in width.  This means the math for a mold spore is similar to the "vacuuming" case discussed above. So mold spores can't block more than about 1/300 of the width of the photo, which is too small to produce anything more than a speck in a photo.
 
Water vapor particles

Another possibility sometimes mentioned as a natural source of orbs is water vapor particles in the air. But water vapor particles in ordinary air (called aerosols) are not any larger than dust. So the same blockage fraction consideration (discussed above) that rules out dust in ordinary air as a source of orbs also rules out water vapor or aerosols in ordinary air as a source of orbs. Since water vapor in ordinary air only has a particle size on the order of 1 micron or less, a typical particle of water vapor will  block no more than 1/15000 (one fifteen thousandth) of the area in front of a point-and-click camera (15 millimeters or 15,000 microns), which is way too little to produce an orb in a photo.

The only exception is the case of heavy fog or heavy mist, which is quite rare and very easy to notice. Heavy fog or mist can account naturally for no more than a tiny fraction of orbs photos (because of the rareness of heavy fog or mist in almost all locales). Heavy fog or mist cannot account for any of the paranormal-looking orb photos on this site, as I am careful not to photograph under conditions of fog or mist (which is very rare where I live during the hours that I photograph).

In the very rare cases in which heavy fog or mist occurs in the air, in sufficient amounts to produce orbs, it blankets most of the photo with little circles, making it very easy to notice, and making it unsuitable for an explanation of any photos showing one or a few orbs in a photo.

Conclusion

The bottom line is: virtually all orbs produced in photos taken in normal indoor conditions and dry outdoor conditions cannot be the result of any natural particles in the air, for the particles floating about in the air under such conditions are way too small to produce orbs in photos (or, in the case of pollen, both too small to produce orbs bigger than specks, and also exceedingly unlikely to appear right in front of the camera lens). So why is it, then, that the “orbs are dust” idea has been so widely spread about? The reason is that skeptics have an extremely effective propaganda machine which allows them to spread their ideas far and wide – even when they are in glaring conflict with well-established facts such as the average sizes of particles in the air.

These conclusions are confirmed by the simple observational fact that at least 99% of the total number of flash photos taken by the world's photographers do not show orbs. If dust or pollen or water vapor in ordinary air was sufficient to produce orbs, then a large fraction of the world's flash photographs would show orbs -- but much less than 1% of such photos show orbs.  The skeptic conveniently ignores this fact, which by itself is sufficient to rule out the hypothesis that most orbs in photos are caused by dust, water vapor, or pollen. 

Are there any known natural or artificial things that can cause orbs in photos? Yes, those things are heavy fog or heavy mist, rain, and lens flare. I am sure that the great majority of photos on this web site cannot be explained by assuming that any of these things was the cause. I know that rain, fog, or mist cannot explain orbs in any significant fraction of my outdoor photos because I am careful to avoid taking photos when any of these things are present (and when presenting an outdoor photo I always state that none of these things were present). I also know that lens flare (which almost always has a very distinctive “easy-to-spot” look) is not a cause for any large fraction of my orb photos, because lens flare is only produced when you point the camera at the sun or a very bright artificial light close to the camera (something I am very careful to avoid). All of my many Grand Central Station are photos taken from balcony spots in which there is never a bright light near the camera.

In short, the orb photos on this site are mysteries that cannot be currently explained. Maybe someday someone might think of some ingenuous natural explanation, but none of the things discussed here are suitable candidates.

Below is an example of a photo completely inexplicable through any hypothesis of natural particles in front of the camera.The photo has been uploaded directly from the camera, without any cropping. The photo was taken on a night (July 8, 2015) with no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation. We see a purple orb that is 10 percent of the photo height.  To produce such an orb, a dust particle would have to have a size of about 1500 microns -- some 1500 times greater than the actual size of particles on a day like this. In fact, dust particles suspended in the air never get larger than about 1000 microns, even when the dust is so heavy that it blocks visibility. See here for 54 similar photos showing large orbs.

big orb
 See my posts labeled "air orb too large to be dust" for 32 similar photos, including some showing orbs larger than 60% of the photo height.

The overall reasons for rejecting the idea that orbs are particles of dust near the camera include the facts that many orbs are too big to be dust (for the reasons discussed in this post), too bright to be dust (as shown in my 268 posts labeled "bright air orb"), too fast-moving to be dust (as shown in my 318 posts labeled "speeding air orb"),  too colorful to be dust (as shown in my 700+ posts labeled either "blue air orb," "yellow air orb," "purple air orb," "green air orb," "pink air orb," or "orange air orb"), or too far from the camera to be dust (as shown in my 48 posts labeled "air orb too distant to be dust" which often show orbs partially behind distant obstructions).

Further very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that when I start getting lots of orbs in my photos, I often pull out a piece of cardboard, and photograph it at arm's length; but not once have any of the resulting photos shown a single orb in front of the piece of cardboard. You can see these photos by looking at my 41 posts labeled "cardboard test." 

Further  very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that I very often have seen a very strong "vertical bias" in my orb photos -- a tendency for orbs to appear many times more frequently in the upper part of my photos. See my posts labeled "orb vertical bias" for examples.  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. 

 Further  very strong evidence against the idea that orbs are dust is the fact that when you attempt to photograph dust in front of the camera (using artificial techniques such as squeezing a dusty cloth right in front of the camera), such as shown here, the resulting dust orbs are dull, colorless, featureless, small, and with blurry edges. Contrast these with the orbs shown on this site, which are so often colorful, bright, and with sharp edges and face-like details or stripes or  outer rings

The diagram below may help to illustrate how absurd it is to try to explain photos like the one above as photos of dust.  The diagram shows one tenth of the area right in front of a point-and-click camera lens with a diameter of about 15 millimeters (15,000 microns).  The arrow points to a tiny particle that is the size of the largest dust particles floating about in ordinary indoor air (which are only about 10 microns).  The particle is so small you won't be able to see it clearly unless you bring up the image in an editor and zoom in.  Could a particle this size cause an orb as big as the one shown above? No, it's many times too small.  For me to have got a picture like the one above from a floating dust particle would have required a dust particle of some 1500 microns. Dust particles in ordinary outdoor air are only about 1 micron, and if they are ever bigger than 50 microns visibility is sharply reduced.  

dust orb
 Postscript: For a discussion of the type of misleading videos and photos produced by skeptics trying to suggest that orbs are dust (which typically involve raising dust levels much higher than normal), see this post entitled, "When Skeptics Engage in Deceptive Cheating." 

Postscript: The images below show orbs I have photographed with the same strange squiggly pattern (as reported here). The probability of coincidentally getting this much pattern repetition from natural particles is zero. 


 Below is another example of a recurring orb pattern, as reported here.  We see six repetitions of an inverted Y pattern, a degree of repetition that would be impossible if natural particles were being observed. 

paranormal photo
 

Art Deco Anomaly

Photo date: July 24, 2015.  Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below shows a beautiful sculpted Art Deco relief above a building entrance in Rockefeller Center in New York.  To the right we see a mysterious bright orb floating about, one that has an orange aura.



As the photo below shows (from a few days earlier), the orb was not a light, because there was no light installed at the spot where the orb is hovering.


There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night. The local air quality listed on airnow.gov was "good.".

Orb Leverages the Lights?

Photo date: July 24, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken in Grand Central Station in New York. We see a blue orb on one of the great windows at the station.

Below is a closeup of the orb. Note how it is positioned just right so that two lights in the background seem to give the orb two eyes. Is this coincidence, or was this orb "leveraging" the background lights to give itself the appearance of eyes?

blue orb

Juxtaposition of the Marvels

Photo date: July 27, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

The photo below was taken while photographing pure, clean water drops falling against a dark background.  We see in the background one of the mysterious objects I call an orb veil. Apparently in front of the orb veil  are some equally mysterious objects I call orb crescents.

orb veil
This orb veil has some of the typical characteristics of an orb veil. The illustration below shows some of the typical visual features of an orb veil. See my posts labeled "orb veil" for photos of orb veils that have these characteristics. See also my posts labeled "orb crescent" for many photos of orb crescents.

orb veil


Monday, July 27, 2015

Orb Speeds Past the Steeple

Photo date: July 17, 2015. Photographer: Mark Mahin.

In this photo we see an orb with a noticeable "comet tail."  The orb seems to be speeding past a church steeple.

orb comet tail
Below is a closeup of the orb.

orb comet tail
See my 23 posts labeled "orb comet tail" for other examples of orbs that show these type of comet-like "tails."  All of these photos were taken when there was no precipitation.

There was no fog, mist, rain, or precipitation on this night.  The air quality was listed as "good" on airnow.gov, with a level of 22 (anything below 50 is considered good). The pollen level listed on pollen.com was low-to-medium, with a rating of  3.9.

2 Replications of the Oatmeal "Mind Over Matter" Experiment

In this post I reported on a "mind over matter" experiment I did with oatmeal, similar to the "mind over matter" experiments on rice originally done by Masuru Emoto. The Emoto-style rice experiments have been widely replicated, as you can see by doing a Google search for "Emoto rice experiment."  My first experiment was supportive of the "mind over matter" hypothesis. Below is a report of two simultaneously run experiments attempting to replicate this result.

On July 21, 2015 I prepared some oatmeal in a bowl that had been well-washed. I took four small glass jars, and steam-sterilized them. Having previously discovered that you can ruin lids of this type of jar if you try to steam sterilize them, I merely washed the lids in soap and hot water.

After waiting a few minutes for the sterilized jars to cool, I then spooned freshly made oatmeal into the jars, alternating which jar got a spoonful of oatmeal. When I was done, I tightly sealed the jars, labeling two of them with a "Love" label, and two of them with a "Hate" label. Below is the first set of jars.

The second set of jars looked like this:

For six days I would (several times a day) hold the small jars in my hand. To the jars marked "Hate" I would say things like, "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you -- die, die, die," while trying to feel strong feelings of hate. To the jars marked "Love" I would say, "I love you, I love you, I love you -- thank you, thank you," while trying to feel positive thoughts.

Below are the results of the two experiments (which I call experiments 2 and 3 because they are the second and third experiments I've done on oatmeal).

Experiment 2

After 6 days the jar marked "Love" had only slightly changed, having a slightly more liquid appearance. But the jar marked "Hate" had changed dramatically. Not only had it almost completely liquefied, but it had also changed color, turning into a kind of muddy brown color quite different from the original color.  The two jars are shown below (in a photo taken on the day the 6-day experiment ended).

Experiment 3

After 6 days the jar marked "Love" had little noticeable change. It still looked like good "spoonable" oatmeal that someone might eat without complaint. But the jar marked "Hate" had changed dramatically. Its color had not changed, but it had almost completely liquefied. The two jars are shown below (in a photo taken on the day the 6-day experiment ended).

mind over matter
Summary of the 3 Experiments


Below is a summary of the 3 experiments done thus far on this topic.

Oatmeal Experiment Number Dates Results Supports “Mind Over Matter” Hypothesis?
1 July 16-July 21, 2015 The oatmeal in the jar marked “Hate” almost entirely liquefied, but the oatmeal in the jar marked “Love” did not liquefy, and did not change appearance. Yes
2 July 21- July 27, 2015 The oatmeal in the jar marked “Hate” almost entirely liquefied and also changed to a muddy brown color, but the oatmeal in the jar marked “Love” did not change color and only slightly liquefied. Yes
3 July 21- July 27, 2015 The oatmeal in the jar marked “Hate” almost entirely liquefied, but the oatmeal in the jar marked “Love” did not liquefy, and had little change in appearance. Yes

What are the odds of getting these results by chance? Imagine we estimate probabilities such as these, which seem reasonable.

Chance of both jars not looking significantly different from each other at end of experiment (with or without changes): 80%.
Chance of the oatmeal in the "Love" jar looking significantly worse than the oatmeal in the "Hate" jar:  10%.
Chance of the oatmeal in the "Hate" jar looking significantly worse than the oatmeal in the "Love" jar:  10%.

Given such probabilities, the chance of doing this experiment 3 times and getting each time a result suggestive of "mind over matter" (with the oatmeal in the "Hate" jar looking significantly worse than the oatmeal in the "Love" jar) is 10% multiplied by 10% multiplied by 10%, or about 1 in 1000.

So these results so far are rather suggestive of the "mind over matter" hypothesis, but I would need to do additional experiments before I could claim to have any evidence that is highly suggestive of such a hypothesis.

Postscript: All of the jars in these experiments were stored in the same place,  in a dresser drawer. The jars were held for equal lengths of time, and handled in the same way. None of the jars were shaken during the experiment.