Is this a photo of 'Something that goes Bump in the Night'?

**jorolat** · 16th April 2007, 06:50 AM

On the first Sunday in April, and after a great deal of effort that left me battered, bruised and very, very dirty, I 'accidentally' fell into an underground tunnel system (er, possibly closed to the public) know as the North Center Bastion (Annotated Aerial View showing main tunnel systems, drawbridges, etc.)

The fall was due to some clot having partially excavated the tunnel floor since my last visit, years and years ago. Anyway, after picking myself up and wringing out one jacket pocket as a result of the component parts of my juice container deciding to go different ways, I then checked the other pocket to see how things had fared there.

Not only was nothing else broken, but I was amazed to find I was carrying a torch, digital camera, spare batteries, and various other items condusive to exploring and photographing supposedly impenetrable underground tunnel systems. "Hey," I thought, "That's handy, I might as well take some pics while I'm here then.."

This is image number 11, it doesn't look much (and probably isn't):

(please note all images are copyright)

The following extracts are from the Comment appended to the photo webpage:

"This photo of Tunnel 1 (looking north and downwards towards the Caponnier) has a 'smokey effect' in the first archway. The tunnel is actually very dark and the apparent illumination is entirely due to the flash.

When I first looked at this image after loading it on to my computer yesterday, I zoomed in to see what the 'smokiness' was because there was nothing showing on the two preceding pictures taken from further up the tunnel (behind the viewer).

To my eyes, the top part of the blue smokiness looks quite like a sideview of a child's head and upper body.

Don't get me wrong, I don't (yet) believe in esoteric things like astrology, ghosts, etc., but I can see how unexpected results like this can give rise to such speculations - I'll probably be more receptive to "Oh that effect is well known, it's caused by..." rather than "Oh my God - that's a Ghost!!".

The smokiness is obviously clearer on the "original size" but the best way to view it (in my humble opinion) is to save the original size image and then use a viewer with a variable zoom (my Windows Viewer allows use of the mouse wheel for this).

It was only as a result of rapidly zooming in and out that I felt (deletes "stupid") brave enough to put pen to paper (ok, finger to letter key) and describe the image as anything other than Underground tunnel leading to the Caponnier."

The second 'optical oddity' that appeared on the photos I took I originally thought of as 'Blue Spots' (primary characteristic) and 'Soap Bubbles' (secondary).

A little research revealed that the spots are more commonly referred to as 'Orbs' - as you all know but I'd never heard of 'til now - which some paranormal enthusiasts apparently believe to be the "Basic Spirit Form" (BSF), the first stage in a manifestation. The orb being the most energy-efficent shape.

Below are two images showing 'reasonably solid' blue orbs (again, the best way to see them is in a viewer with variable zoom). The first has the secondary characteristic of additional transparent discs, one of which - on the righthand side of the photo - clearly has the blueness and tinged edge of the main orb:

The second image has a single 'solid' blue orb which enthusiasts argue are less likely to be explained by the following:

With the advent of digital photography numerous images with orbs appeared on the internet and Canon were so inundated with queries that they issued a technical letter which begins:

We have checked your camera and are happy that the camera meets all design specification.

The problem you have been experiencing is due to a phenomenon not associated with the camera.

When a picture is taken and reviewed afterwards, circular spots may be noticed on the picture. The problem does not occur with every picture. Additionally, the spots are randomly positioned throughout the picture. Highest concentration is in aareas closest to the flash unit when the picture was made.

The cause of the problem is common to a lot of digital cameras with small CCDs, not just the Canon digital cameras. Such digital cameras have a greater depth of field compared to 35mm cameras, due to their smaller focal distance. This in even higher degree when the camera is set to wide angle.

Because of the above, small dust particles, droplets of water, etc., drifting in the air close to the camera and not within depth of field for normal 35mm cameras, are within depth of field for digital cameras. Under normal circumstances this is not too big a problem, as these are very small.
When flash is used, its light illuminates these dust particles or water droplets, and these therefore show up and are extemely obvious on pictures taken. The problem is worsened, because the flash unit is positioned close to the lens barrel.

Another Canon letter states (under 'User Comments'):

When shooting with flash, you may notice areas sometimes described as ?orbs? or ?spots? appearing in the picture in front of your subject. These ?orbs? or ?spots? usually appear as bright white or gray out-of-focus spots. The ?orbs? or ?spots? are generally caused by particles in the air that reflect the flash. Examples of these particles include but are not limited to; dust, sawdust, snowflakes, rain or even insects that reflect light. The brightness of these ?orbs? or ?spots? will vary depending on the distance from the camera?s flash, the closer they are to the camera the brighter they will appear.

There are orbs and there are orbs and a lot of the internet images I've seen on the internet I immediately dismissed as being (almost obviously) moisture. Those of Dover's North Center Bastion are different to the photographic images shown in the first Canon letter and do not fit the descriptions of the second.

This does not mean I'm arguing the case for a supernatural explanation. Indeed, another possibility for (some of) the North Center Bastion's secondary orbs is that they are spores: in one completely detached tunnel system (not shown on the annotated map) a white fungus grows which clings to the walls like a fine layer of snow - perhaps there are some colonies in the tunnels where the photos were taken.

Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge", a statement which I relate to - particularly when the 'flights of imagination' are an explorable extension of a known reality, rather than fulfillment of an unacknowledged psychological need. That is the case I'm arguing for :)

I have another image with an even smaller blue orb on, others with only various sized transparent discs, which I may upload later.

John Latter / Jorolat

The Grand Shaft from the inside.

**Cuddles** · 16th April 2007, 09:23 AM

Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge", a statement which I relate to - particularly when the 'flights of imagination' are an explorable extension of a known reality, rather than fulfillment of an unacknowledged psychological need. That is the case I'm arguing for :)

So what exactly are you claiming? You took photos in a dark, unused tunnel that look exactly how you would expect photos from a dark, unused tunnel to look. You even gave the explanation for the defects in your post. Where do you think any imagination is required? And at which point would anything other than the real explanation be "an explorable extension of a known reality"?

**vbloke** · 16th April 2007, 09:44 AM

OK, cranking open Photoshop and doing some (admittedly basic) image examination, photo 11 - the "blue smoke" appears to be dust clouds (was there a breeze through the tunnels?) from you walking around and kicking up the dust from the floor, coupled with some creative paredolia (I couldn't see a child's head anywhere).

Dust scatters blue light very well, so the blue haze could be due to the blue part of the flash and diffused sunlight being reflected back at you.

The "orbs", as Canon have rightly pointed out, are artefacts of an inbuilt flash on a digital camera - if a mote of dust is inside the focal point of the camera, it will reflect the flash and appear to be transparent and much larger than it actually is.

Before the advent of digital cameras with inbuilt flash units, orbs never made an appearance, which is very telling that they are more likely to be an artefact of digital technology, rather than anything supernatural.

**jorolat** · 16th April 2007, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by vbloke

OK, cranking open Photoshop and doing some (admittedly basic) image examination, photo 11 - the "blue smoke" appears to be dust clouds (was there a breeze through the tunnels?) from you walking around and kicking up the dust from the floor, coupled with some creative paredolia (I couldn't see a child's head anywhere).

Dust scatters blue light very well, so the blue haze could be due to the blue part of the flash and diffused sunlight being reflected back at you.

The "orbs", as Canon have rightly pointed out, are artefacts of an inbuilt flash on a digital camera - if a mote of dust is inside the focal point of the camera, it will reflect the flash and appear to be transparent and much larger than it actually is.

Before the advent of digital cameras with inbuilt flash units, orbs never made an appearance, which is very telling that they are more likely to be an artefact of digital technology, rather than anything supernatural.

I took 62 photos that day of which just half over half were taken underground.

Photos 9, 10, and 11 were all taken in the same tunnel system as I entered it. Photos 9 and 10 were perfectly ordinary except for camera tilt, etc. (I couldn't see a thing) which is I why I 'zoomed in' on image 11 once it was on my computer.

The following image was taken after I had walked down this part of the tunnel and then returned to take the shot (although a period of time elapsed before I did so). It just shows a few 'dust' orbs (though I tend to think of the non-'solid' blue orbs as transparent discs - orbs I've seen on the internet since taking these pics are often bright and/or fuzzy):

Image 11 is the only one with that particular kind of 'optical oddity': It would be a big step to move from "I don't know what's caused this" (where I'm at) to "I don't know what caused this therefore its supernatural" (where I can't ever imagine ever being).

Although I haven't the reference to hand, apparently orbs do appear on non-digital cameras but with far less frequency, no doubt largely due to the factors that Canon describe. I'm not trying to be picky, I'm only mentioning in case other readers go away with the wrong impression - and then, perhaps, try and impose what they've read about, but have no first hand experience of, onto other people. Like the background radiation to the Big Bang, such psychological noise can be found everywhere.

My primary interests in the North Center Bastion are historical and personal. I am absolutely delighted, however, in having photos of which "What's caused this?" can be asked. It adds to the 'mystique' of the place, rather than detracts.

John Latter

Underground Drawbridge, and:

Nearby Cave-In

**vbloke** · 16th April 2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by jorolat

The following image was taken after I had walked down this part of the tunnel and then returned to take the shot (although a period of time elapsed before I did so). It just shows a few 'dust' orbs (though I tend to think of the non-'solid' blue orbs as transparent discs - orbs I've seen on the internet since taking these pics are often bright and/or fuzzy):

Image 11 is the only one with that particular kind of 'optical oddity': It would be a big step to move from "I don't know what's caused this" (where I'm at) to "I don't know what caused this therefore its supernatural" (where I can't ever imagine ever being).

My primary interests in the North Center Bastion are historical and personal. I am absolutely delighted, however, in having photos of which "What's caused this?" can be asked. It adds to the 'mystique' of the place, rather than detracts.

this photo that I took show hundreds of "orbs". It's actually snow, unfocussed and lit by the flash so they appear transparent and show a wide variety of colours.

The fact that after you walked through the arch where the "blue smoke" appeared, turned around and got "orb" photos, shows that it was more than likely dust from the floor carried by a breeze through the tunnels, being lifted and diffused in the air.

**jorolat** · 16th April 2007, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by jorolat View Post

The following image was taken after I had walked down this part of the tunnel and then returned to take the shot (although a period of time elapsed before I did so). It just shows a few 'dust' orbs (though I tend to think of the non-'solid' blue orbs as transparent discs - orbs I've seen on the internet since taking these pics are often bright and/or fuzzy):

Image 11 is the only one with that particular kind of 'optical oddity': It would be a big step to move from "I don't know what's caused this" (where I'm at) to "I don't know what caused this therefore its supernatural" (where I can't ever imagine ever being).

My primary interests in the North Center Bastion are historical and personal. I am absolutely delighted, however, in having photos of which "What's caused this?" can be asked. It adds to the 'mystique' of the place, rather than detracts.

Originally Posted by vbloke

this photo that I took show hundreds of "orbs". It's actually snow, unfocussed and lit by the flash so they appear transparent and show a wide variety of colours.

Thank you for that Dr Woo - your image shows precisely the kind or orb that I described in my previous post as 'bright and fuzzy' (as opposed to the transparent discs appearing in the tunnel pics).

The fact that after you walked through the arch where the "blue smoke" appeared, turned around and got "orb" photos, shows that it was more than likely dust from the floor carried by a breeze through the tunnels, being lifted and diffused in the air.

I shall certainly be more aware of 'environmental factors' when I go back again - though I may add, I'm going back primarily for pics of gunrooms, galleries, and wells, rather than orbs or smokiness.

The distance between the two images, at a guess, must be more than 50 yards. I didn't just take one pic, walk down, turn around and take another - and then there was the time lapse too.

As the man on the spot, so to speak, airflow doesn't do the job. And as I said before, I'm not leaping from "I don't know what this is" to a supernatural explanation.

John Latter

The Beginning of the Caponnier Complex and its..

..Room of Gloom!

**Dr B** · 18th April 2007, 10:43 AM

What about baseline pictures? Take 70 pictures of your house - or a comparable location and I bet you get the some similar instances of nebulous nothingness like this.

ASSAP has some good articles on orbs and their technical (normal) explanation. There really is no mystery here.

**vbloke** · 18th April 2007, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by jorolat

I shall certainly be more aware of 'environmental factors' when I go back again - though I may add, I'm going back primarily for pics of gunrooms, galleries, and wells, rather than orbs or smokiness.

The distance between the two images, at a guess, must be more than 50 yards. I didn't just take one pic, walk down, turn around and take another - and then there was the time lapse too.

As the man on the spot, so to speak, airflow doesn't do the job. And as I said before, I'm not leaping from "I don't know what this is" to a supernatural explanation.

One thing to remember is that any dust you kick up when walking around does not need a strong breeze to carry it - the fine dust particles can float in the air for a long time (rather like cigarette smoke) and settle far from where the main "cloud" settles, giving a very diffuse blue glow to your photos (this is the exact same reason that cigarette smoke, when brightly illuminated, looks blue - the fine particles scatter the blue light).

This is known as Rayleigh scattering.

**Nicky** · 29th April 2007, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dr B

What about baseline pictures? Take 70 pictures of your house - or a comparable location and I bet you get the some similar instances of nebulous nothingness like this.

No, you'll end up with someone thinking that there house is haunted ...........

**jorolat** · 29th April 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dr B

What about baseline pictures? Take 70 pictures of your house - or a comparable location and I bet you get the some similar instances of nebulous nothingness like this.

Bound to - I only vacuum my house when I open the front door and bang my head on the ceiling!

ASSAP has some good articles on orbs and their technical (normal) explanation. There really is no mystery here.

I've been back to the North Centre Bastion since my last post and now have quite a selection of 'orb' photos.

The photo below was taken looking up into a shaft after I had been rumaging around in the debris at the bottom (just click on the thumbnails for a better view):

Loadsa dust orbs - I call the pic "Invasion of the Orbs"

On the other hand, I do like the 'glass ball' effect of this one:

John Latter

Spooky tunnels

**jorolat** · 29th April 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by vbloke

One thing to remember is that any dust you kick up when walking around does not need a strong breeze to carry it - the fine dust particles can float in the air for a long time (rather like cigarette smoke) and settle far from where the main "cloud" settles, giving a very diffuse blue glow to your photos (this is the exact same reason that cigarette smoke, when brightly illuminated, looks blue - the fine particles scatter the blue light).

This is known as Rayleigh scattering.

But what if 'apparitions' aren't teflon-coated so that very fine particles of dust 'stick' rather than slide off?

Don't take my comments too literally please - I'm just curious about some of the images I've taken.

I've now got two misty/smokey photos and I've 'enhanced' them (although just about anyone else could do a better job):

Ghost 1:

Ghost 2:

John Latter

Is this the UFO equivalent of a car-wash - or just an ordinary fountain? You decide! (God, the things I do for publicity..)

**jorolat** · 29th April 2007, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Nicky

No, you'll end up with someone thinking that there house is haunted ...........

My house isn't so much haunted as inhabited by a poltergeist, and pretty grumpy he is too!

At 8.19 am yesterday morning, f'instance, I was just finishing a reply to a forum post when the poltergeist struck and caused the whole building, an' me in it, to wobble all over the place.

My eyeballs were independently rattling around inside my head, and after catching brief monocular glimpses of my computer crashing and taking with it half-an-hour's work, I was just about to yell "HEY YOU - PUT MY FREAKIN' HOUSE DOWN!!" when the poltergeist saw the look on my face and suddenly it was all over.

No bottle, that's the trouble with poltergeists.

Anyway, as usual the authorities - and their uninmaginative puppets of state - are trying to cover the whole thing up with stories like "Kent earthquake damages hundreds of homes". Hah - as if anyone's going to believe that!

John Latter

From this:

..to this:

..What went wrong? :-\

**vbloke** · 29th April 2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by jorolat

Don't take my comments too literally please - I'm just curious about some of the images I've taken.

Don't worry, I'm not, I'm just trying to give explanations so that you can explain what these things are without having to rely on shades and spirits.