AUTHOR: Aisling
DATE: 16:01
-----
BODY:
<div style="clear:both;"></div>Whenever I post an article providing a natural explanation for some ghost photos, I feel like such a skeptic.  I try to keep in mind that, if we don't keep our critical thinking skills engaged, we look less than scientific and objective as researchers.

That said, I still hate to say that a site isn't haunted, or that a photo doesn't show anything paranormal.

Today, we posted a series of articles (featuring experiments with hair near the camera lens) that may 'debunk' some 'ghost vortex' photos.  I'll feel sad if this spoils anyone's fun.  I mean, most people <span style="font-style: italic;">like</span> the magic of believing, and they feel affirmed when a photo can't be explained in normal terms.

On the other hand, our tests with dust and dirt have--so far--confirmed what many of us have said:  Ghost orbs <span style="font-style: italic;">aren't</span> necessarily dust, pollen, or moisture.

I'll keep trying to create convincing orbs with dust, dirt, and other particulates, but nearly 50 test photos last night didn't offer any encouragement with dust and dirt.<div style="clear:both; padding-bottom:0.25em"></div>
--------