There are two schools of thought on orbs, the circular objects sometimes visible in photographs, and their presence is welcome or not according to which of them one subscribes. The first is that they are caused by particles of dust, pollen, moisture, or other tiny objects floating in front of the camera at the moment of exposure, caught by the camera’s flash. The other is that they, or at least many of them, are emanations of spirits, or entities from some other realm. The Orb Project (2007) is definitely in the latter camp.
Míċeál Ledwith (an ex-Roman Catholic priest) and Klaus Heinemann (a physicist) are convinced they are photographing intrusions from a higher-level region into ours, and that they have the visual evidence to prove it, some included in a colour section at the end of the book. They did not collaborate on the taking of photographs, but despite different approaches (Ledwith mostly worked out of doors with few people around, while Heinemann focused on indoor situations, primarily spiritual retreat settings with people present) felt their attitudes to the results were sufficiently congruent to allow combining their researches into a single volume.
William Tiller’s introduction, in which he elaborates on what he grandly calls ‘The Tiller Perspective’ and the intricacies of psychoenergetic science, is very technical and will leave the non-physicist baffled. The upshot is that if orbs are a higher-dimensional life-form, they should be photographable under certain conditions. Ledwith contributes Part 1, ‘The Orb Phenomenon’ and Heinemann Part 2, ‘Orbs – Evidence of Divine Presence?’ Unfortunately, alarm bells begin ringing when Ledwith talks approvingly about Ramtha (J Z Knight contributed a foreword to Ledwith’s section).
For all their efforts, the authors do not make much of a case because they note the presence of orbs is affected by environmental conditions, precisely what one would expect of natural processes. They use low-spec digital cameras, flash is required to record them, apparently because of the higher frequency state they are in (even though we are told the spirit orbs actually generate their own illumination by fluorescence), and operating inside in a dusty environment creates better conditions than outside. Night is preferable because they are best seen against a dark background. Heinemann sometimes uses computer enhancement, manipulating image contrast and colour, adding further layers of uncertainty.
Orbs are said to be able to ‘manoeuvre’ in unity, referred to as a ‘group mind’, but air currents could be responsible. The assertion that some orbs must be further off because they are partially obscured by other objects can be explained by said objects being pale in colour and reflecting light from the flash back to the camera which is stronger than the light reflected from the particle in front of it, washing it out. Apparent internal structures in some could easily be instances of pareidolia.
The authors concede many of their ‘genuine’ orbs look similar to ‘fake’ ones showing dust, pollen or vapour, but their tests said to distinguish them (such as the assumption that dust and pollen effects would be seen in successive images so if they aren’t, you have the real thing) only serve to confirm what they have already decided are the paranormal ones, rather than appreciate that not every exposure will have moving particles at the right distance from the lens to show up. The selection of photographs included are said to show orbs doing all sorts of things that demonstrate sentience, but there is no independent corroboration.
There are assertions about orbs’ remarkable abilities, changing size and position at will, and travelling at fantastic speeds because they appear more than once in the time it takes the shutter to operate. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether these are different orbs that look similar, so we have to take it on trust that the orbs are the same ones, with characteristics that if ordinary dust would not be obeying the known laws of physics.
The authors state that evaluation is subjective, based on interpretation, with ‘discernment’ required to distinguish genuine (paranormal) from particle-based orbs, so it is easy to see how they might have been carried away by their theories and read more into their photographs than is warranted. We are told some orbs can be seen with the naked eye, but by definition there is no record available for independent scrutiny, and it would be easy for someone committed to the orb hypothesis to confuse them with, say, floaters within the eye or ordinary dust motes.
The simplest explanation for these effects appearing in photographs has nothing to do with aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum providing more favourable conditions for their manifestation because they are sensitive to a portion the human eye cannot access, as Ledwith and Heinemann argue; it is rather because the flash on a small digital camera is close to the axis of the lens, allowing the light reflected from the particles near the lens to be recorded.
Heinemann discusses an experiment using stereoscopic photography, which he says shows the spirit nature of the orbs. He found that orbs only appeared in one of the stereo images, not the other. This he attributes to ‘intentional directionality’ – the light is being sent to one rather than the other, like a laser beam. This cannot be random because it is aimed directly at the camera from a ‘distance of several dozen feet’ at the moment the shutter is open, so provides firm evidence of the orb’s genuineness. But why one camera and not the other? Well, because directing a coherent light beam to two lenses simultaneously ‘might well be a task too difficult even for powerful Spirit beings, given the limited experimental physical conditions at hand.’ They did the best they could in the circumstances.
It is a theory, true, but not a very good one, and a better one was elegantly demonstrated by Steve Parsons, as described in his inelegantly-titled paper ‘Orbs: A Load of Balls! At Last Some Definitive Evidence that they are not Paranormal’. He reasoned that an orb found in one image but not the other in a stereo pair must be closer to one of the lenses than the other, and within the angle of the lens and that of the flash.
His Para.Science group tested this hypothesis by doing the same experiment as Heinemann (though with a single camera containing a pair of lenses, rather than a linked pair of cameras as Heinemann had done), at allegedly haunted venues. They got the same result. However, rather than claim it was a limitation of the orbs’ ability to direct a beam of light to two places at once, they reached the more obvious conclusion that far from than being dozens of feet away, the orbs were indeed so close to the camera, a matter of centimetres, that they were only within range of one of the lenses.
Of course, technically the debate cannot be settled definitively (despite Parsons’ use of the term), because it is impossible to say with certainty that the orbs are not higher-dimensional entities of some kind rather than prosaic specks reflecting back light from a flash. On the other hand, those who say they are such entities have to stretch for evidence that to anyone examining the claims dispassionately looks implausible because easily explained by known mechanisms. Attempts to distinguish between ‘real’ (i.e. spirit-based) orbs and dust, and assess particular characteristics of the former which allegedly indicate some form of consciousness, are unconvincing because there is no way of validating the authors’ interpretations.
In sum, The Orb Project is a masterpiece of wishful thinking. Looking at the two authors, while I can understand a theologian, even one with New Age interests, being convinced, I am surprised a physicist and materials scientist would subscribe to these speculations. There is advice on how to take orb photographs, but it is hard to fathom why one would bother. The authors have produced thousands of the things, but it is effort poorly expended when there is so little reason to think they represent anything other than what any camera manufacturer will say they are: bits in the air caught by the flash. This field of endeavour did not exist prior to the introduction of digital cameras, which speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, organisations such as the Society for Psychical Research and the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, which scrutinise photographs said by their takers to contain paranormal elements, still get sent orb pictures for assessment. The volume indicates the numbers of hopefuls who really believe they have found the proof of an afterlife they yearn for in the orbs littering their photographs, a belief Ledwith and Klaus Heinemann have encouraged with this book.
Reference
Parsons, Steven. ‘Orbs: A Load of Balls! At Last Some Definitive Evidence that they are not Paranormal’. Para.Science, 2012.
The Joy of Mere Words 