The Algonquin Hotel "orb" footage

[PPI Brian]

Paul Kimball presents video and still photos from an investigation of New Brunswick's Algonquin Hotel where many visitors have reported seeing the image of a woman in white believed to be the ghost of a woman who took her life when left at the altar on her wedding night nearly a century ago. Kimball presents the footage, acknowledging that he doesn't consider the presence of orbs to be a genuine indication of paranormal activity. He states his intention is to allow the viewer to assess the value of the footage as evidence of something extraordinary.

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2010/09/algonquin-hotel-orb-footage.html

Introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/v/XMIZQZIU0IA?fs=1&hl=en_US

http://www.youtube.com/v/VWyFwpAI4Yc?fs=1&hl=en_US

[PPI Brian]

[crickets]

Okay, so here's a little history about the place:

http://www.fairmont.com/algonquin/AboutUs/HotelHistory.htm

[ljiljanac]

I always think of a bug when seeing an orb.  I don't know much about the difference between a ghost orb and a bug orb.  It doesn't appear that they found anything else to go along with it.  It's a trip how it seems to materialize, but it could also just be the hall light or a camera light, I suppose.   

[PPI Brian]

I always think of a bug when seeing an orb.  I don't know much about the difference between a ghost orb and a bug orb.  It doesn't appear that they found anything else to go along with it.  It's a trip how it seems to materialize, but it could also just be the hall light or a camera light, I suppose.   

Here's a link that claims to answer "all your questions about orbs". 
http://www.theorbzone.com/

[PPI Karl]

I'm not sure why they had to subject us to the banter on the couch to set up the evidence, other than to seize an opportunity to be pretentious. Yes, next time we investigate, I'll pop in this non sequtur:  "Life like a dome of many-colored glass / Stains the white radiance of Eternity."  Shelly or Keats, everyone?  C'mon, you ingrates, answer me.  Anyway, it's morning, and I'm grouchy, so here are a few things to gripe about: 

1.  The "orb" is unseen at the time, like most are.  Right?  Holly, the woman investigating, is looking into the mirror but doesn't actually see a point of self-emanating light.  Ergo, it's caused by the videographic process:  dust mote caught in IR light.

2.  The infrared light is aimed at a mirror.  One of you experts can perhaps address the likelihood of this happening when you aim your shots at a mirror, but to my mind it seems likely that it appears to originate from the mirror because the camera's IR beam is aimed there.  I could be mistaken, though.  Can someone confirm or correct this?

3.  What about the room's climate conditions triggering, both, the direction of the dust mote and the direction in which Holly looks?  A breeze?  The sound of the HVAC powering up?  Why does Holly not state what it is she turned to look at? 

Overall, I don't feel is this is the most significant video footage of an orb ever taken; that seems a little <ahem; cough> "exaggerated," shall we say?  Clearly, not pronouncing it a paranormal event is wise, but suggesting the evidence is mysterious and inexplicable seems equally disingenuous.  Where is the discussion of the possible causes?  Furthermore, I would like to have seen the next thirty seconds of the video to observe what else happens coinciding with this event?  Are there more dust motes zipping about?  Does Holly make an adjustment to the camera?  An adjustment to her bra strap?  Does she seem spooked or curious?  Startled or annoyed?  Is she remembering she forgot to pay her electric bill, or is she reacting to footsteps in the room above?  And so on.  I'm just saying that singling out evidence like this can sometimes make anything seem more special than it is; it would have been nice to see the whole context.

I milled around the "Orbs Explained" site, too, for a while.   It's hard sometimes to tell what the stance is about orbs, as though they don't want believers in orbs to spot the words "not paranormal" and go fleeing from the scientific tyranny (like a rag-tag fugitive fleet).  I respect the attempt to delineate all the conditions that frequently coincide with the capture of orbs, but at a certain point I just didn't feel like there was any reason to read on.  Do we need a whole "Orb Zone" to explain scientifically a simple effect of light on particulate matter, moisture or insects?  I feel this way probably because this site is intended for some other audience than the skeptical paranormal enquirer.  I've already arrived at the conclusions they want to inch toward whilst holding the reader's hand.  If that's the case, I respect what they are trying to do.  Maybe--just maybe--we could do it better (but without resorting to an entire zone on our site)? 

Thank you so much, Brian, for posting this.  As always, your video picks flint my noggin.

[ljiljanac]

Thanks for the link, Brian.  I'll look at it. 

[PPI Tracy]

Maybe this is wrong, but I will admit that when I stumble upon a paranormal group that talks about orbs as spirits and has tons of photos (you know the ones I'm talking about) that claim millions of dust particles and or moisture in the air are "ghost orbs" and the like, I tend to write their group off automatically....as well as write run-on sentences.

To me, it seems as though the information about how photography works and what happens when dust or moisture or even an insect is photographed in the right circumstances, is out there for people to read up on and get educated.  People just want to believe that it is something more than what it really is.  Even when you try to explain it to someone, they still hold firm like their feet are stuck in concrete. 

With all the information out there, it is amazing to me that so many people still refuse to believe what can be proven about all those so called "orb photos".

[PPI Brian]

I agree, but there are still some orb photographs that defy explanation. I will try to compose my thoughts on this subject later today, and see if I can dig up one of my 30 year old photos of orbs taken with 35mm film. 

[PPI Brian]

Back in 1980 when I was a fledgling paranormal investigator, I had a modest collection of investigative equipment. I had a manual Minolta SRT 102 35mm SLR camera, a couple of cassette tape recorders and a variety of external microphones, an Olympus microcassette recorder, a couple of analog thermometers, a compass, a pendulum and that's about it. Although my equipment was minimal, I was fortunate to have access to one of the most intriguing reputed venues in the city of San Diego -- the Whaley House Musuem. June Reading was the curator of the museum from 1960 until her death in the late 1990's, and she was very open about her personal experiences in the house. She enjoyed telling the story about then local TV journalist Regis Philbin and his infamous one night investigation of the Whaley House with America's original Ghost Hunter, Hans Holzer, and psychic medium Sybil Leek. I re-discovered some audio tapes of June Reading that I recorded 30 years ago, and I hope to put them together for a future PPI podcast. The original cassettes deteriorated to the point where they were no longer playable, so I was forced to transfer the audio tape to brand new cassettes and then record them in digital format. Anyway, June spoke about seeing what she described as "orbs" in the house -- minute pin points of light that moved about like fire flies. June often spoke about orbs in terms that are considered cliche by today's standards -- she believed that orbs were manifestations of paranormal activity, but they were only energy, not ghosts or spirits. She described these orbs as something that emitted light, and when they appeared on film they had a nebulous or "gauzey" quality that made them look very much like astrophotographs of dim comets. This is significantly different than the spherical refraction orbs that are commonly captured by digital cameras and infrared surveillance cameras used in the field today. She also believed that flash photography was detrimental to paranormal investigation in general. Not only did flash photography interfere with orb activity, she believed it adversely affected paranormal activity in all of its subtle forms.

We were determined to capture physical evidence of the intriguing phenomena that June and the docents described, and we went to great lengths to avoid using flash photography. Doctor Hans Holzer had established basic "spirit photography" protocols that made a lot of sense, and we adopted them as our protocols  -- use oly high speed black and white film, slow shutter speeds, high f-stops and no external flash under any circumstances. Use only fresh 35mm film, and do not open the package until you arrived at the venue. I developed the negatives myself in the photo lab at Southwestern College. I took copious notes on the days that we investigated the museum, recorded our impressions and personal experiences and collected weather reports from the local newspaper.

When I developed the negatives I noticed the anomaly immediately. It appeared to be a light burn, a dark spot on the negative that could only be caused by a bright source point of light that was not seen at the time the photograph was taken -- although it is worth mentioning that the reason the photograph was taken in the first place was due to reports of "orbs" and "flashes of light" on the staircase earlier that week by the guides and guests. There were no other guests in the house the afternoon this photo was taken, and as we ascended the stairs, the subject in the photo remarked that he thought he saw a flash of light in front of him. He stopped on the 9th step and posed with his hands apart like a psychic channeling the "spirit energy" while I took a couple of pictures.

Here is the photograph showing the anomaly:



Here is the picture taken immediately after:



I made dozens of prints from this negative over the years, many of which have been enlarged but never displayed on our website. I recieved a compact digital negative scanner for Father's Day last year, and these were some of the first negatives I scanned. There is a lot of dust on these images, and I really need to clean them and scan them again, but for now it illustrates the point beautifully. This orbs is consistent with descriptions from the Whaley House staff. Needless to say, June Reading was impressed, and she displayed them in the museum until mangagment of the museum changed hands after her death. 

These photographs were taken on a rainy day in December 1981. They were taken with a Minolta SRT 102 35mm SLR camera, using Ilford black and white 400 ASA film "pushed" to 200 ASA, and no flash. The exposure length was 1/30 of a second. For those who may not be familiar with "pushing" black and white film, Push Processing is a technique that compensates for under exposed images by over developing the negative. Here's a link with additional information about Push Processing: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=88 

One possible explanation for the anomaly was that it was not a paranormal light, but merely an air bubble trapped in the developing solution. At the time of this capture I had been developing black and white film for about 6 or 7 years, and had actually had a batch of negatives ruined by air bubbles, but these were always very distinctly round areas of under exposure that looked like air bubbles, not the diffuse glowing blob shown in the first image. Over the next ten years I shot hundreds of frames of 35mm film under similar environmental conditions, but we only captured three or four images with similar anomalies during follow up investigations, and we never captured anyting as dramatic as this image. Three decades later, I am still unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for this anomaly.

Note: The subject's face has been blurred to protect his privacy.  

[PPI Karl]

That's fascinating, Brian.  This anomaly doesn't seem to have any margins the way bubbles do, but I'm not familiar with the development process.   How close a comparison does it make to other photos with artifacts attributable to air bubbles in the solution?

This would make a really great case study.

[PPI Tracy]

I agree with Karl. This would make a great case study.

I have always thought back to this particular set of photos that you have here, when I hear about various "orb photos" and when I get them submitted via email to me.  These look so much different than what you typically see in photographs that are nothing more than dust, moisture, etc.  I tend to think that your set of photos here are possibly the real thing.  Do you have any other photos from either this or any other location that resemble this one? 

[PPI Brian]

That's fascinating, Brian.  This anomaly doesn't seem to have any margins the way bubbles do, but I'm not familiar with the development process.   How close a comparison does it make to other photos with artifacts attributable to air bubbles in the solution?

This would make a really great case study.

You're not alone -- although it's hard for me to believe, there is an entire generation of photographers that have never developed their own film. This short video explains the process of developing a roll of 35mm black and white film.

http://www.youtube.com/v/rROBVLNEb3M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US

Here's a link that describes the process shown in the video: http://www.wolfes.com/classes/processhints.html

I agree this would make an interesting case study. This image has literally haunted me for the last thirty years. It appears to be consistent with the personal experiences described by the musuem staff, and it is very different from other orb photos I have seen over the years. I have images of other anomalies that are consistent with these, but they were also captured at the Whaley House using the same 35mm camera. As you can tell from the youtube video, it's fairly easy to prevent bubbles from forming on the negatives during the developing process. When bubbles do form, they create round spots on the negative with very clean edges. Since the bubbles prevent the chemical developer from touching the film, once you add the stop bath and fixer all of the light sensitive silver is washed away from the film emulsion and you're left with an unexposed transparent dot on the negative -- which translates into a black dot, on the image when you place the negative in the enlarger and expose the photo paper. This is a very important point -- the anomaly in this image is a white smudge, not a black dot.

It's worth searching my old negative archives for an example of negatives that I screwed up over the years for comparison purposes. I look forward to trying to capture images like this again using the same protocols with a digital camera.  

[PPI Tracy]

What is haunting about this photo aside from the orb is that the young man's hands are on either side of it.  Almost like he knows it's there and trying to catch it.  I don't know the details around the photo, other than where and when it was taken.  Very compelling photo. 

[PPI Tracy]

Resurrecting an oldie but goodie. This would make a great case study.

[PPI Brian]

Agreed. This was going to be part of the Orb Study video we were going to film at El Campo Santo. Perhaps we should reschedule this outing? 

[PPI Tracy]

Sounds good!

[PPI Brian]

Resurrecting an oldie but goodie. This would make a great case study.

I look forward to discussing this investigation in detail with you at our next meeting. 

[PPI Tracy]

Nice!