Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Ghosts: Part 6c - Vortex

These are sort of a cross between mist and orbs. They are long streaks of light, essentially a very large orb. Like orbs I think that these can be easily explained as camera defects or as something moving very quickly that the flash reflected off of. Anyway here's some pictures :)










The first picture is clearly a strand of hair up close and the third one is probably the flash reflecting off something. The second image does defy explanation other than a camera defect or a photoshop but I don't want to use that as an explanation because just assuming a camera defect is just that same as assuming it's real. Here's a "video":
I don't believe this is real at all. Not for any particular reason just because its not an actual video but a few still images. It just seems a little bit too coincidental that something that happens that quickly is caught on a camera which must be set up on a tripod as the positioning doesn't change at all.

Images taken from the following sites:
http://www.hauntedtraveler.com
http://www.paranormalunderground.net
http://www.angelsghosts.com

16 comments:

  1. Wow, I am afraid now.
    http://baxxmans.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. these are really neat. i do have a few orb pics but i don't think i have any vortex pictures. the 3rd pic kind of looks like a close up of smoke though...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crazy stuff. I'd hate for a vortex to get me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i associate vortexes with teleporting in my mind

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you. Like orbs, these are either the result of something like debris on the lens, reflection, ect, or photoshop.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The second photo just looks like photo shop all over it. It doesn't even have the same color tone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. seems like you could fake this pretty easily, maybe its real I dont know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think a lot of the older types of this picture was the result of the lanyard hanging in front of the camera.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Assuming a camera defect is not the same as assuming its real, as camera defects have been previously observed while paranormal activity hasn't. Sorry to rain on your parade.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Waaah~ now I can't sleep o.O

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Stuff that matters: What I meant was that if you look at a picture like that and just assume it's a camera defect then you're just being too skeptical whereas looking at it and assuming it real would make you too accepting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "assuming a camera defect is just that same as assuming it's real. "
    NO
    a camera defect is within the established laws of science. a paranormal explanation is not. it's like saying "my toast disappeared when i went for a shower, it could equally have been my eaten by my cat or taken by magical elves". extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually it's like saying. "My toast disappeared, it could have been eaten by my cat who likes to eat toast but is rarely in the house or it could have been eaten by my dog who lots of people say likes toast but I've never seen him eat any."

    ReplyDelete