Like a Venn Diagram

 Photo date: July 14, 2026. Photographer: Mark Mahin. 

Below is a photo I took indoors. We see what looks like an oscillating or pulsating orb. Or maybe it is three orbs intermingling. 

How to Make a Five-Star Report of the Spooky or Paranormal

 It is very common for humans to report seeing or hearing something that seems to be paranormal. But reports of such observations vary in quality. How can you can judge the quality of a report? Below is an informal system in which an observation report is assigned a number of stars that can vary between 0 and 6. A six-star observation report is one that has the most weight as evidence. 

Add 1 star if we have first-hand testimony or testimony exactly quoting what a witness said he saw

People can make mistakes when reporting what someone else saw. They may misinterpret or poorly remember what someone said.  It's much better to have a first-person account spoken or written by the person who claimed to have seen something.  One of the lowest quality reports of the paranormal we can imagine is someone saying something like, "Long ago my friend said that she saw something she thought was a ghost," without giving an exact quotation.  Similarly, a newspaper report saying "Mrs. Wilson says she saw a UFO" is offering a bit of evidence inferior to an exact quotation from Mrs. Wilson about what she saw. 

Add 1 star if we have a named and reliable witness 

You often read online and in books or magazines reports of unnamed single witnesses claiming to see amazing things. Such reports tend to have less value as evidence than reports coming from named witnesses.  The reason is partially that an unnamed witness may feel that he is free to lie without any consequences.  So, for example, if I read a stunning UFO story told by someone with an anonymous user name such as metssuperfan, it has relatively little weight as evidence. It also has lesser weight as evidence when a writer tells us that Mr. B. saw such and such a thing, without listing a full name. It also has little weight when a named witness with a record of lying reports seeing something. But it has much more weight if a named and reliable witness reports seeing something. 

Add 1 star if a written or videotaped dated eyewitness report was made very soon after the observation occurred, with the report being quoted, or the account being such a report

The longer a gap has passed between an observation and someone's recollection of the observation, the greater the chance that the recollection may be inaccurate.  So your mother's story about a ghost she says she saw twenty years ago does not have nearly as much evidence weight as your mother's written account of what she saw on that night, written on the same night as the observation. Credibility is increased when we have someone's report of what that person saw  when an observation was fresh in his memory. 

Add 1 star if the observation report was published very soon after the observation occurred

Dated written reports are a good thing to have, but it is even better if such reports are published soon after the claimed observation. Such a thing helps to prove that the claim of an observation was made very soon after the claimed observation date. If someone has a written dated page saying that he saw the ghost of his mother, with the date being two days after his mother's death, that suggests (but does not prove) that such a claim of seeing a ghost occurred at the reported date. There is no proof because the person could have written the report at a much later time, and put an earlier date on the report. But if the report is published soon after the claimed observation, then we have proof that the observation claim did occur by a particular date. The publication of a report also lends credibility by putting the witness "on public record" of having seen a particular thing. 

When you have a short time gap between the date when an event occurred and the publication of the report describing the event, that minimizes the risk that some embellishment or exaggeration gradually occurred to compromise the reliability of the report. 

Add 1 star if the observation report was made by multiple witnesses who agree with each other

It is rather obvious that the more witnesses we have of something occurring, the more credible is the observation report. 

Add 1 star if the observation report is backed up by physical evidence such as a photo or video

The fact that people are sentenced to prison very frequently based solely on eyewitness testimony shows that physical evidence is not a necessity for a credible observational report.  But when physical evidence such as a photo or video exists, it provides additional strength to the credibility of an observational report. 

Let's give some examples of using this system:

Example #1: Reddit user georgiaguy23 says he remembers his mother Ida long ago saying that she saw a UFO. Rating: 0 stars. 

Example #1: Joe Smithson says he remembers his mother Ida long ago saying that she saw a UFO. Rating: 1 star, but only if Ida is a trustworthy person.  If Ida is a shady character, the rating is 0 stars. 

Example #2: Joe Smithson quotes a letter written by his mother Ida on June 8, 2023, saying she saw a ghost about twenty years ago. in  2003.  Rating: 2 stars, if Ida is a trustworthy person.  

Example #3: Joe Smithson quotes a letter written by his mother Ida on June 9, 1993, saying she saw a ghost on June 8, 1993.  Rating: 3 stars, if Ida is a trustworthy person.  The short gap of only one day between the report and the claimed observation event merits an additional star in the rating. 

Example #4: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost ten years ago. Rating: 3 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness. 

Example #5: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024). Rating: 4 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness.   

Example #6: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024), and quotes his brother as saying that he also saw the ghost. Rating: 5 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness.

Example #7: David Honderstram publishes a report on June 12, 2024 saying that he saw a ghost the previous day (June 11, 2024), and quotes his brother as saying that he also saw the ghost. David also has a photo showing what he says is the ghost he saw. Rating: 6 stars, if David is a trustworthy witness, and the photo holds up to scrutiny.

Some reports of the paranormal do not qualify as 5-star reports using the system above. An example is the very interesting tale of hypnotic clairvoyance told on page 248 of The Psychology of the Future by Emile Boirac. Boirac quotes a report of a subject who reportedly displayed the most astounding clairvoyance, describing what was going on as a man met with two others very far away. In the account the very specific details given are soon verified as correct. But there are some reasons why the account fails to qualify as five-star evidence using the system above. First, Boirac does not give us the full name of the person who gave the account, merely saying it was provided by Jean B.  Secondly, Boirac's book dates from 1918, but the account is of events that supposedly occurred in 1892, with the account not published before Boirac's 1918 book. So sadly the report only earns one of the five stars mentioned above. 

But very many reports of the paranormal qualify as 5-star reports following the system above. In the 1870's very many people holding seances were very good at publishing very detailed reports of their  observations, with the reports very often published very soon after the observation event. Examples of such reports are quoted in my posts here and here. In those posts are actually some examples of reports of the paranormal which should be rated 5 or 6 stars using the rating system above. The observations claiming materializations of Katie King during the seances of Florence Cook were reported in  many different extremely detailed eyewitness accounts by very many reliable witnesses, typically giving their full names and often giving their addresses, over years of observation, with the reports very often being published soon after the day of observation, and with photographs being published as corroboration. The reports appeared in the Spiritualist newspaper during 1872 and 1874. Examples of such reports are quoted in my posts here, here and here.

Here is an example of a report that must be rated highly. Using the system above, we can rate is as 4 stars or 5 stars. The report appeared in the December 10, 1938 edition of the Psychic Observer publication here. We have three witnesses testifying on November 21, 1938 to phenomena they say occurred quite recently, on October 12, 1938.  The one-month gap might be a justification for granting only 4 stars rather than 5. 

See page 5 of the document here for more testimony in favor of such wonders. 

The advice above also applies to anyone witnessing a crime or witnessing something that might be the center of a lawsuit. 

Let us now look at a case of a report of the paranormal which should be rated as a 5-star report according to the system above. It is a report by seven named witnesses of seeing on Monday, March 23, 1901 an apparition of the deceased Julia Murray while near a coffin which contained Julia's dead body. The report was published in a newspaper on Friday, March 27, 1901. The image below shows part of the newspaper report:

You can read the full newspaper account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1901-03-27/ed-1/seq-3/

We have seven named witnesses who all say they saw an apparition of the late Julia Murray on Monday, March 23, 1901. We even have the addresses of the witnesses. The accounts include these:

• Giving firsthand testimony, Mrs. Mary Corbalis states she a vision of Julia Murray came from behind a picture on the wall, becoming an apparition surrounded by "white, filmy clouds." She says the room lit up dramatically, and that Julia wore a wreath of roses.  
• Giving firsthand testimony and using an old word for ghost ("shade"), Rose Kearns tells of seeing the same thing, saying, "The shade of Julia Murray appeared there. I saw it." Rose says the apparition "appeared to have something on the head," saying that some said it was a wreath.  (The article has apparently used a section header misstating Kearns' first name as Kate.) 
• Giving firsthand testimony, Rose McGowan says, "I looked and saw Julia in white and a wreath of roses at her head, the most beautiful thing I ever saw." She says Julia bowed her head slowly, and put her hands together in prayer. 
• Giving firsthand testimony, and using the old word "shade" meaning a ghost or apparition, Mary Regan says, "I saw the shade of the young girl who was dead," saying "her features were plainly distinguishable."
• Giving firsthand testimony in a separate newspaper account dated one day later (March 28, 1901), Katie Kane states she saw a brilliant light on the wall, and saw Julia with a wreath of flowers around her head, and also clouds around her head. 

The same apparition sighting is described in the news report here and here. 

Now, let me get what the title of this post promises to tell you. Below are some tips on how to make a five-star report of the paranormal or spooky. The tips will be useful if you have been lucky enough to see something paranormal or spooky.

Tip #1: Try to get photographic evidence of anything spooky you saw

Nowadays this is very easy. You can just use your smartphone to take a picture or a video of the spooky thing you saw. Try to do that, even if you think you will never publish such a photo or video. When you describe the event, it will be helpful to have the photo or video, to make sure your description is correct.   

Tip #2: Write down (or video-record) a dated and timestamped account of the spooky event as soon as possible after you see it. 

The longer a gap has passed between an observation and someone's recollection of the observation, the greater the chance that the recollection may be inaccurate.  So your brother's story about a near-death experience he says he had thirty years ago does not have nearly as much evidence weight as your brother's written account of what he experienced on the day of that experience, written on the same day as the observation. 

Even if you do not think you will ever publish an account of the spooky thing you saw, make an account of the event as soon as possible. A simple way to do this is to write down your account on a piece of paper, signing the paper, and recording the date and time. An alternate technique is to make a video of yourself describing the incident, while stating the date and time. If you saw something particularly notable, you can make the video recording in front of a TV set showing today's news, which will help to prove that you are stating the correct date. 

Tip #3: Try to avoid things that may tarnish your credibility

One of the stars in my system of awarding stars is simply that the witness be a named and reliable witness. Your report won't earn that star if you have done things to tarnish your credibility as a witness, such as lying about something you saw, or engaging in drug use or heavy alcohol use that might tarnish your credibility as a witness. 

Check any report you are about to publish for accuracy and consistency. Any inconsistency in the report will damage its credibility.

Tip #4: If any other person saw the spooky event, try to get their testimony as soon as possible after the event 

If someone else saw the spooky event you saw, that can be a very important factor in increasing the evidence value of your report. If someone else saw the spooky event you saw, try to get that person's testimony as soon as possible. There are several ways to do this:

(1) Get an anonymous written statement from the other person describing the spooky event 

(2) Make a video of the other person describing the event, either as a fully anonymous video (in which the witness is heard but not seen), a semi-anonymous video (in which the person is seen but not identified), or a non-anonymous video in which the person is both seen and identified. 

Depending on how spooky the event was, a witness other than yourself may be reluctant to be identified. The more the witness is identified, the stronger the evidence. But you may need to start out by getting testimony delivered in an anonymous way. Later if the person changes his mind about anonymity, the person could be identified in a longer video in which you named that witness.  Videos can be combined using tools such as ffmpeg, and there are tools allowing a longer video to include a shorter video within it 

Tip #5: Publish (or communicate by writing to others) an objective-sounding account of the spooky thing you saw, very soon after you saw it, ideally one identifying yourself (if you feel OK about doing that)

Here we have a situation in which what is best for you may conflict with what is best from an evidence standpoint. Without question, from the standpoint of producing the best and most reliable evidence, what is best is for you to publish as soon as possible your report of the spooky thing you saw, using your full name. But that may not be the best course of action if you feel that publishing a report might cause harm to you. We must remember that we live in a society sadly dominated by the false ideas of materialism. In such a society you may be damaged by publishing a report of the paranormal. For example, someone who identifies you with the report may become less likely to hire you or promote you.  You may be less worried about that type of damage if you are retired or self-employed. 

One way to reduce potential damage from publishing a report of the paranormal (one in which you identify yourself) is to report the bare minimum of what you saw, without drawing any conclusions or implications. For example, if you saw a strange thing in the sky that you can't explain, don't publish a report with a title such as "The Night I Saw a UFO" or "The Day I Saw a Spooky Spaceship." Instead use a more modest-sounding title such as "I Can't Explain This Sky Anomaly I Saw." And if you have a report of  seeing an apparition, you might avoid using a title such as "The Night I Saw a Ghost," but instead use something sounding more non-committal such, as "It Seemed as Real as Someone Standing Near Me."  The less dogmatic you sound, the smaller the chance you will suffer harm from making the report. 

When reporting on the spooky, I suggest saying little about your inner feelings upon witnessing the spooky things. The more emotional-sounding your report is, the less credible it will seem to others. If you have testimony from witnesses other than yourself, it is important to include such testimony; but only identify witnesses who gave their permission to be identified. 

An alternative to publishing an account online is to send by writing to others (such as friends or relatives) a written report describing the spooky thing you saw. You can include your name, while requesting that the report not be published without your permission. Later should some investigator investigate your claim of seeing something paranormal, you can refer the investigator to the private notification you sent to a small group of your friends or relatives. 

Much of the advice above also applies to anyone witnessing a crime or witnessing something that might be the center of a lawsuit. Below is how the New York Times reported the extremely interesting case of James Sutton. Sutton was found dead at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. His death was reported a suicide. But his mother claimed that the apparition of his son had appeared after his death, saying that his death was not a suicide  but something like a murder or manslaughter. The mother claimed the apparition persisted for four days. The mother made every effort to officially clear her son's name, but the official record was not changed. If she had done a better job of recording exactly what she saw on the day or days she saw it, and telling others of what she saw as soon as possible, the mother might have prevailed in her efforts. 

A Bright Orb

Photo date: July 12, 2026. Photographer: Mark Mahin. 

We see below a mysterious orb I photographed indoors. 

 

Orb Shows Up for the NDE Scene

 Photo date: June 9, 2026. Photographer: Mark Mahin. 

We see below a mysterious orb I photographed indoors. At the moment I got this orb, the TV was showing an emotional scene from episode 2 of the Netflix series The OA. In the fictional TV scene, a little girl was experiencing a near-death experience, and the TV showed a big blue mystical-looking circle. 

Harvard Astronomer Writes Post "On Mysterious Orbs and Fireballs"

 Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb recently wrote a post entitled "On Mysterious Orbs and Fireballs." One thing I find very strange about Loeb's post is that it has some visuals, almost none of which are photographs of mysterious orbs. Instead, five out of six of Loeb's visuals are water color paintings by artist Greg Wyatt, which include circles, but nothing looking like a mysterious orb. As there exists so many thousands of stunning authentic photos of mysterious orbs (such as you can see on this site), why adorn your article on mysterious orbs almost entirely with water color paintings, rather than choosing some of those photos?  It is surely not because of any permissions hassle. I have had for years on this blog a "Sharing Content" notice saying that content on this blog can be shared elsewhere, as long as there is a link back to this site. The same notice appears on my two other blogs (here and here). 

Loeb fails to include any of the more impressive-looking photos of mysterious orbs, and fails to make any mention of the long-running phenomenon of people getting mysterious orbs in their photos. He also fails to make any appreciable mention of the widely reported phenomenon of people seeing mysterious orbs with the naked eye. This may be another example of the kind of censorship of the spooky that has gone on for so many decades in the writings and teachings of professors. They fail to tell their readers and students of hundreds of the most important types of human observations that such people should be informed about. It is just as if they are following a rule such as "don't mention anything that might cause people to doubt the storyline of materialism." 

Instead of having any mention of the long-standing phenomenon of ordinary people getting mysterious orbs in their photos, Loeb strangely has a long irrelevant paragraph describing the physical effects (such as a very loud sound) that would result if there were to occur a "warp bubble moving at a speed comparable to the speed of light." I have often photographed mysterious orbs that seemed to be moving very fast, showing a "string of pearls" effect in which the camera seems to have captured multiple position states of something moving very fast (one example is below). But no one maintains that mysterious orbs are moving at even a tenth of the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second). So Loeb's long paragraph about the sound effects and shock effects of an orb traveling at near lightspeed is irrelevant. 

A photo I took in 2018

Loeb then gives some logic trying to persuade us that if pilot David Fravor had seen what he claimed to have seen, this would have caused a violent shock wave that would have been felt on the aircraft carrier Nimitz, one that was not reported. His reasoning on this is not persuasive. Rather than spending so much time on such armchair reasoning, it would be better use of Loeb's time if he more deeply studied the topic of mysterious orbs and other unexplained phenomena. 

Loeb incorrectly states, "Current scientific research projects focus on known unknowns, such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy." Neither dark matter nor dark energy are "known unknowns." Both are speculative concepts. Neither dark matter nor dark energy has ever been directly observed. Mysterious orbs, conversely, have been directly observed in abundance, both in photographs and by the naked eyes of many observers. 

Mysterious Green Indoor Orbs: A Retrospective (Part 6)

 Below is Part 6 of a retrospective showing some of the better photos I have taken indoors of mysterious green orbs.

We see below a mysterious orb I photographed indoors. With the eye-like feature at top, and the mouth-like feature at the bottom, we have a rather face-like appearance. 

We see below a mysterious green orb that I photographed indoors. 

We see below a mysterious green orb I photographed indoors.

Below is a mysterious green orb I photographed indoors. 

Below is a mysterious green orb I photographed indoors. 

Below is a mysterious green orb I photographed indoors. 

We see below a mysterious orb I photographed indoors.

Wayback Machine Archive Snapshots of This Blog's Content

 Should it ever happen years in the future that you attempt to access this blog but find it is not available, you will always be able to read previous snapshots of this blog's contents using the Wayback Machine facility at www.archive.org. 

The way this Wayback Machine works is that you must type the full URL of some site whose content you want to view by examining previous captures of the site.  Follow this procedure to access previous snapshots of this blog's contents:

1. Go to www.archive.org.

2. In the search box at the top, type in the following:

 

3. You will see an interface allowing you to choose any of various snapshots of this blog's contents taken over the years. Choose the latest one. After doing that, you will be able to navigate this site's pages. 

The only reason I can imagine that someone would do this would be if there were some reason why the regular site (the site you are now at) was not available.  That could conceivably happen if this site were to be hacked by malicious actors, or conceivably it might happen long after my death. 

The Wayback Machine has many snapshots of the previous contents of my three blogs, going all the way back to 2015. You can access them by typing these URLs into the search bar of the Wayback Machine, shown above. 

https://orbpro.blogspot.com/

https://headtruth.blogspot.com/

https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/ 

The Wayback Machine's snapshots of this blog's content between 2015 and 2020 (published at www.archive.org during those years) shows that most of the more notable photographs on this blog were published long before any good AI image generators had been invented.