An Astronomer's Goofy Orb Experiment

On the page here an astronomer tells about tests that he did trying to debunk the phenomenon of orbs.  He states the following:

"I did a lot of tests to make my own 'Orbs,' including using spray and snowflakes and I had fantastic results.  Most orbs are easily recreated by natural means."

Apparently what the astronomer did was to spray mist particles into the air using a mist sprayer, and then take photos. But such a test shows nothing. When you do that, you are creating an air situation radically different from the air situation under which orb photographers photograph.  Orb photographers do not spray mist in front of their cameras when they take photos. 97% of impressive orb photos are taken in ordinary dry air.  For example, the series of 600+ photos here, all showing mysterious striped orbs, were are all taken in clean, normal, dry air (except for fewer than 20 taken when there was light fog).  Our astronomer has apparently forgot a rule of experimentation taught to elementary school students, that if you are trying to experimentally explain something observed under some particular set of observational conditions, you must reproduce something like those set of observational conditions, rather than doing an experiment using some radically different set of observational conditions. 

As for taking photos during snow, such photos are irrelevant, since 98% of impressive orb photos are not taken while it was snowing or raining. Almost none of my outdoor orb photos were taken while there was fog, mist, rain, snow or precipitation. 

The astronomer shows a very unimpressive orb photo (one I would never publish), suggesting (without evidence)  the orb is an out-of-focus dust particle.  That does not work as an explanation for orb photos, for reasons discussed here. Outdoors the average size of a dust particle is 1 micron, which is only a hundred millionth of the area directly in front of a camera lens. Such a particle isn't big enough to produce a speck, and is 1000 times too small to produce a decent-sized orb in a photo.  Out-of-focus particles have blurred edges and no details, but mysterious orbs very often have nice sharp edges and distinct details such as stripes, which we never see in dust particles. 

Our astronomer then spoils his own attempt to debunk orbs, for he states the following:

"There was only one exception out of 100 plus photos that may have been an anomaly, which was a little light object that was going too fast (calculated 750 Km/h) to have an easy explanation."

So after taking only 100 photos, our astronomer has an anomaly he cannot explain: something traveling at a speed he calculates at 750 kilometers per hour, far faster than the speed of any natural earthly object.  Why has he not shown us a picture of this anomaly? Far from debunking mysterious orbs, it seems our astronomer has provided more evidence for their paranormal character. 

The astronomer has withheld his photo of a speeding anomaly, but you can see 700+ such photos by looking at this series of photos of mysterious speeding orbs.