Over the course of time, the legitimacy of orb photographs has come into grave question. After all, let's face it, orb photos are such a common anomaly in ghost research that one cannot help but to ask questions. It is my belief that extensive hours of investigation have assisted us in drawing a reasonable conclusion about the orb phenomena.

First, let me begin by saying that we cannot totally deny the existence of the orb phenomena. Our investigations have revealed strange orbs of light that have been witnessed by investigators to pass completely through solid objects (i.e., walls, etc.). On some of these instances, not only are these orbs seen leaving areas in this manner, but they have also been seen to reemerge into areas adjacent to those they just exited. Typically, when they are seen in this fashion, it is with the assistance of night vision. Let me tell you that this is even more exciting to witness first hand, than it is to read about it here. In addition to orbs passing through solid objects, in some rare instances, they have also been documented to interact with investigators who are present. It is for these reasons that we cannot totally deny the existence of orbs.

Our questions about orb photographs have primarily originated from the equipment used to capture them, cameras. Cameras, no matter their cost, or if they are digital, film or Polaroid, are susceptible to many natural circumstances. Of those circumstances, most of which are readily identifiable, airborne particles such as dust, pollen, etc., are the biggest cause of my skepticism. Almost always, dust and other airborne particles are impossible to entirely rule out as being responsible for any orb photograph. Therefore, orb photographs are rendered impossible to authenticate as being genuine paranormal anomalies.

Perhaps a better understanding of how airborne particles would appear photographically is now in order. It would be reasonable to ask, "how would dust appear as an orb in a photo?" Well, the explanation is quite simple. When you aim your camera at any given area you wish to photograph, either you focus manually on this area, or the camera does it automatically for you. Dust, and other small particles floating in the air, are too small for you to see through your viewfinder and for your camera's auto focus to detect. Of course, those objects close to the camera are out of focus. The closer to the lens they are, the more out of focus they become. While in this state, large objects can still be relatively easy to identify. However, smaller objects such as dust become distorted. So much so that they appear spherical as opposed to their true shape. Also, due to their close proximity to the camera lens, they appear larger in size than you would expect dust to appear. (Most often, until you use the flash, you won't see them with the naked eye.) Now, if you take this spherical shape that is in close relationship to your camera, and illuminate it with the flash, an orb is oftentimes what you can expect to capture in your photo. The worst part about this scenario is that it is, in nearly every case, impossible to differentiate such orbs as being dust versus a true anomaly. Something else to consider is that the likelihood of it being dust is much greater than the possibility of genuine phenomena.

Of course, as mentioned above, this conclusion has not come easily. Every investigation we have conducted has played part. Over this course of time, new protocols have become standard within our institution. Protocols designed to address the orb phenomena directly in many instances. Stringent protocols, such as a 15 minute waiting period in which investigators extremely limit their motions (permitting dust to settle) before photos can be taken, as well as others have led us to this same conclusion. Even with all our efforts to eliminate dust as a possibility, if you take a night vision camera, turn on the night shot while in the darkness, and then simultaneously turn on the cam's light, you still can't help but record just short of a snowstorm of dust. Hours into the footage of a camcorder used in an area uncontaminated by the presence of people, flurries of dust still abound. This should serve as additional proof suggestive of why we must be extra skeptical of our results of orb photos. With the intense illumination of the camera flash, similar results of dust can be expected.

Also mentioned above is the fact that genuine orbs cannot entirely be ruled out. As a direct result, we are oftentimes left with the dilemma of being unable to distinguish between the two in photos.  It has always been our philosophy that the actual anomalous photograph only accounts for 10% of that piece of evidence. The other 90% is attributed to how that piece of evidence was obtained. However, dust is a culprit difficult to control. Even with our standards. So, we have upped our standards once again: While observing all current PGHA standards and protocols, we find in our best interest to accept only those orb photos captured while simultaneously obtaining results from another piece(s) of equipment. Although, when it comes to orbs, even then they are suspect and cannot be entirely relied upon.