From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:49:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:04:15 -0400
Subject: Re: New Orb Images - King


>From: Barry Taylor <stingray.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:21:09 +1000
>Subject: Re: New Orb Images

>>From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:35:51 -0500
>>Subject: Re: New Orb Images

>>>From: Barry Taylor <stingray.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:28:36 +1000
>>>Subject: New Orb Images

>><snip>

>>Perhaps my time working in a commercial photo lab, and my years
>>of taking photographs have made me cynical, but I see nothing on
>>the referenced site which appears to be anything more than what
>>most would call a bad photo...marred by dust, smoke, etc. They
>>are all easily reproducible, and predictably irreproducible
>>under non- ideal conditions.

>>Is any serious student of UFO-related anomalies actually
>>studying the subject of orbs? From any kind of scientific
>>perspective? The "enhancement" images on the site do not
>>qualify, IMHO. Like the previously noted "Hungarian UFO",
>>enhancing distortion or noise simply makes the noise louder.
>>Not at all revelatory, but wholly obfuscatory.

>If you would like to put your "... time working in a commercial
>photo lab, and your years of taking photographs... " experience
>to practical use, then I offer you a page on my web site where
>you can present your case and display your duplicated fake Orb
>photos that we can use as comparisons to the real ones.

>If you want to contribute practical research to this subject,
>here is your chance. "Put your money where your mouth is", as
>the saying goes. Produce your bad photo...marred by dust, smoke,
>etc. If, as you say, "..are all easily reproducible, and
>predictably irreproducible under non- ideal conditions". You
>should have no problems with this. Then we can gauge who is most
>"vociferous". (as you would say) That's not too obfuscatory for
>you is it?


Hi Barry,

As it happens, I am photographing a middle eastern dance show
this very evening. While the "mists" will be unlikely since
smoking is not allowed, I feel the vibrations are good for some
orb-viewing.

I shall cull through the results and pass along any I find of
interest. If I don't find that luck has shone on me, I will
resort to the garage... I have a billion orbs living out there.
I really expect to get a shot of at least one free range orb
tonight, however.

If I may ask, what is it that makes you feel that orbs are
anything but what I describe? Do they talk to you? Respond to
commands?

In other words, if I produce images as you request, why wouldn't
you simply state that I had recorded a real orb? I ask because
you mention "real ones". Please explain what you mean by "real
ones".

Hopeful,

Kyle