For many years I (and many others) have been researching the balls of light phenomenon. Everybody who studies this phenomenon thoroughly, reaches the same conclusion:
in most cases the lights are not dust or moisture particles. Nor are they insects or false light entering the camera lense. Still, many people remain sceptic. Why?
Simply because they haven't done proper research themselves...
I too was a sceptic when I started my research. When you flash photograph a bed cover for instance, you will indeed get balls of light on your pictures.
And when you flash photograph fog at night, you will also get something that resembles balls of light. But does this explain away the balls of light phenomenon?
No, it most certainly does not...
Under the button Lights, I have paid a lot of attention to this phenomenon already, with abundant photos and evidence.
Here's a recap:
- The lights not only appear on digital photos, as many sceptics say.
They also appear on analogue photos and slides; - They are not only photographed when you flash, as many sceptics say.
They also appear on photos where no flash was used; - They are not simply the reflection of the flash against moisture particles.
A simple experiment can prove this. When I was in Hong Kong I expected thousands of balls of light on my photos, as the moisture level was between 80 and 100%. However... no balls of light appeared on any of my photos; - Neither is it the reflection of the flash against dust.
Dust can show up as orbs in photographs, but upon comparing a 'dust orb' with an 'energy orb', you will see a major difference. The dust orb seems dead, it is flat and has no 3D-effect (inner structure), while a real ball of light seems alive: in most cases it has a beautiful innner structure, in some cases it has a motion blur, and upon 'feeling' the picture, you will discover that the ball of light 'breaths': it is alive (no matter how strange this all sounds...)
Today I discovered something new when I took another good look at my snow pictures.
In the case of balls of light on snow pictures too, sceptics claim that the lights are merely the result of the flash against snowflakes. But take a
good look at the following pictures, shot in my garden in the Netherlands:
What do we see?
First of all, snowflakes are never round. Secondly, they have no inner structure. Thirdly, they have no motion blur, simply because they don't fall
fast enough in relation to the flash. Fourthly, no matter how far they are from the camera lense, they are never transparent. And... most importantly: they cast
a shadow! Take a look at these blow ups:
The following photo clearly shows the difference between snowflakes and genuine balls of light (or rather: manifestations of consciousness as I tend to refer to them):
The large ball of light casts no shadow on the face of my boy friend Mik Thurlow, but the snowflake that seems to be attached to the top of the big light, does!
Furthmore, the snowflake to the right of Mik's forehead does cast a shadow (on his forehead), but the light to the left does not.
The following picture of Mik and me also shows the clear difference between real balls of light and snowflakes:
The snowflakes on my chin and hand cast a shadow, but the ones on Mik's chin does not.
Once again, this shows that balls of light are NOT the result of the reflection of the flash against snowflakes..
