One of the biggest debates raging in the paranormal research community is over the validity of orbs and whether or not they are simply false positives created by dust or other airborne particles.  Depending on who you talk to, you will get a variety of answers.  Some researchers automatically dismiss all orb photos as dust contamination and refuse to accept them in their research.  Others feel that every orb photograph they obtain shows proof-positive that they have captured a ghost or spirit on film.  To date neither of these theories have been proven 100% right or wrong.

Based research and tests conducted by our group, I tend to lean more towards the middle of this debate.  While I feel that dust can sometimes play a role in creating false positive images, we have collected enough evidence which I feel proves that it is not as problematic as some researchers would suggest.

In April 2002, we conducted a cemetery investigation at Beemerville Cemetery in Sussex County, NJ.  During this investigation all of our researchers were remarking on the unusually high number of positive orb photos we were capturing.  Suspecting that something was not right, we began experimenting with our flashlight beams until we discovered the culprit -- pollen. Being that it was the middle of Spring, we were able to see large quantities of tree pollen that was floating in the air.  After careful consideration we decided to scrap all of the photographs taken during this investigation as contaminated and unusable.  This taught us an extremely valuable lesson.  Now, whenever we conduct an outdoor investigation we automatically test the air for any significant amount of dust, pollen or other airborne particles.

The same holds true when conducting an indoor investigation of a private residence or other location.  During our preliminary walk-through while we are taking our EMF and temperature readings, we will also test for significant amounts of dust particles in the air that would effect our photo and video evidence.

We have collected some impressive video clips during our investigations of orbs and other anomalies (please visit our Video Gallery).  However, we follow strict protocols and do whatever we can to rule out natural or man-made phenomenon.  If we feel a video anomaly has been contaminated, we toss it out.  If we do record a positive event, we try to recreate it if possible to rule out a false positive.

Recently we conducted an indoor investigation of a private residence in Woodbridge, NJ.  While we did happen to capture some positive video events in other parts of the house, we quickly discovered that any footage recorded in the basement of the house was tainted and inadmissible due to the high quantity of dust. 

While the orbs appear similar, there are some dramatic differences that help to differentiate the positive from the false positive (FP).  The FP dust "orbs" float through the camera light very close to the lens, thereby appearing out of focus and orb-like.  Notice how the multitude of dust "orbs" appear relatively large and undefined.  They also move in the same general direction as they are carried along by the airflow perpendicular to the camera lens. 

Now compare that to the genuine positive orb which appears clear and focused.  This orb does not move perpendicular to the camera lens, but appears to travel three dimensionally across the room towards the camera.  It also seems to emit a bright, strobe-light effect as it travels across the room.  While the FP orbs appear very close to the camera, this orb is obviously across the room.  A piece of dust would not reflect the camera light nor appear as large as this from that distance.

We will continue to test our findings in the hope that we may eventually come up with a proven method of differentiating between orbs and dust for all researchers to utilize.  Until then, I'm sure that the orbs vs. dust debate will continue for awhile longer.