 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
My orb is intelligent! So isn't it paranormal?
People can mean a lot of different things by this, for example:
- My orbs appears to be moving rather than static.
- My orb seems to be interacting with me.
My orbs appears to be moving rather than static.
Sometimes this can refer to stills photo orbs or video camera orbs.
Some stills photo orbs give the appearance of movement. In reality they are not moving, but there is a specific question and answer about this.
The only 'intelligent' video orbs we've come across are those that move in a way that is inconsistent with wind (and hence dust) movement.
All the examples I've seen have been the result of the following:
- Insect movement. Insects move in an 'intelligent' way by virtue of being living beings.
- Reflection. One seminal case we dealt with showed orbs that seemed to appear and move in response to what was happening around it. It actually turned out that the orb moved whenever a particular bespectacled person moved their head: the orb was caused by the reflection of the person's glasses!
My orb seems to be interacting with me.
This could apply yourself, a colleague or one of the 'orb mediums' that were in fashion a couple of years ago.
The usual comment is that the orbs 'appear' when something else is happening. This might include when someone feels they having a paranormal experience or point to a particular place, and the orbs appear.
This usually stems from poor probabilistic reasoning. We have investigated locations where orbs are photographed in as many as 35% of photos. The chances are that the orb would have appeared there anyway.
Another factor is that of 'file drawer' reporting. In the paranormal community there is a tendency for only the most 'interesting' results to be remembered and shown. So a person may be photographed when 'feeling unusual' on dozens of occasions. On only one or two of these occasions does an orb appear. But everyone seems to forget to talk about the cases when the orb did not appear. If you think about it statistically it was most likely the result of coincidence.
Back to Your Questions Answered
|