Dear group;
First, don't go calling Carl and SWR and others *naysyers* simply because they prefer to take a more analytical and scientific approach to so-called photographic anamolies. What they are saying is in fact the truth. I take photographs. I take LOTS of photographs, to be honest. I shoot over 50,000 images per year, every year. My dSLR camera sees a lot of use and abuse, my friends.
The photo that was originally posted above is a true anamoly, HOWEVER simply because one goes outdoors with a digital camera, or even with a film camera loaded with light sensitive film and takes photos in *pitch* darkness and then sees light colored images where there should be none is not unusual, nor is it even a strange phenomenom. The only thing it proves is that the camera is functioning in a perfectly NORMAL manner, my friends!
This is also a correct statement. A still image camera may be accurately described as nothing more than a high-tech light gathering device. Without light, there are no images. It's as simple as this. Cameras are NOT designed to take completely black images, my friends. If they were, then there would be a lot of boring photographs around. No, cameras are designed to gather in as much light as they possibly can and attempt to capture and then process this light into some type of coherent and recognizable image.
There is no such thing as *pitch darkness* when one is outdoors, my friends. There always exists some ambient light even though it may not be visible to our eyes. A camera, on the hand, is a very precise light gathering instrument and if there's any light at all then the camera will capture this light, amplify it then attempt to process it into an image.
That is EXACTLY what happened in the first photograph, my friends. The camera sampled the ambient light then it chose a super sensitive sensor setting (called the ISO in modern camera lingo and ASA in antiquated terms) and adjusted the aperture to a full, or a nearly full opening. Then it chose a low shutter speed to allow as much light as possible to be captured on the sensor. This is why the photo looks fuzzy around the edges of the light source. it was obviously moved about when the shutter was opened and capturing all available light.
I've captured breathtaking photos of statlit skies by mounting my dSLR camera on German Equatorial Mount tripod and, after opening the aperture to f/1.4 and selecting an ISO setting of 1200, proceeded to take a 5 minute exposure of our own Milky Way galaxy. The resulting photos are absolutely stunning to behold, yet one cannot see nearly the amount of fine detail with the naked eye as they can with a digital image.
The reason for this is because our brains are not wired to do what a camera can do. We can not see the very fine star clusters with our unaided eyes because, even though they are right above our heads, the images are so incredibly faint that our brain does not readily register the image as significant and it disregards it. Even if a person can not immediately see a very distant point of light on the horizon in pitch darkness, if that person were to concentrate their vision on that point long enough, the point of light would begin to reveal itself, dimly at first and then more brighter as our eyes take in more of the light source.
Also, one may expect to find many more photographic aberrations and anamolies with inexpensive point and shoot cameras that they would with a top of the line dSLR camera using top dollar lenses (glass). This is because the light source passes through the lens and when it does this the light rays tend to bend. How much they bend and how far they bend depends upon two basic factors, the quality of the lens elements and the amount of elements housed within the lens housing.
Point and shoot type of cameras are notorious for aberrations and anamolies simply because the camera manufacturers can not devote a significant amount of resources to develop and manufacture a lens group of very high quality while at the same time maintaining a low price point. A serious photographer soon realizes that it's the lenses which are more important than the camera body. For instance, my current camera body cost me 750$ whereas I have lenses in the 4,000$+ range.
The *orbs* that certain people seem to think are ghosts or other such nonsense are in reality nothing more than a portion of the ambient light source being reflected back off of one portion of the lens group and then recorded as part of the image. In other words, the *orb* is nothing more than the image of the lens being reflected back upon itself. Sometimes there are more than one orb and this same fact holds true. It's merely the lens reflection being reflected back and forth on the lens group, or even between lens groups, multiple times. One can even purchase filters in order to induce this same effect in those cases where lens reflections are desirable.
To close, the above photograph does not state there is a pot of gold nearby or that a ghost is wandering about aimlessly. It merely states that the sensor captured a light source while the camera was moving and it processed the image as such.
Your friend;
LAMAR
That's what I thought...No treasure! Poor sad broke no find believers! 
I see we have another one on board! 
I wouldn't ask them to prove --deleted--, because it don't work anyway so there is nothing to prove! 
That's cool! 8) You all keep searching glowing pictures...that leaves the real treasure for the real hunters! 
This may turn out to be the longest string in Tnet history! 
I like verbal sparring! 
Nothing like a good argument! 
Maybe I can become a gold member just on this string! 
Do you think Mel Fischer took pictures of the ocean and looked for glows to find the Atocha? 
I don't believe I have EVER read such a mangling of a heretofore simple set of statements. You have masterfully bungled the interpretation of a very good (even if I do say so myself) dissertation of the present state of affairs in today's scientific arena. You deserve an award.
nty
