Page 1 of 2
Please note: We are no longer accepting photos of orbs, mists, ecto, or vortex/vortices. For more information, please read the information below...
Many people submit photos to us to either show us their evidence or ask for an analysis of what the photo might be.
We thank everyone for doing this and appreciate your support.
A couple of rules, unfortunately, have to be put into place due to the large amount of photos we do get in every week...
First of all, we can only (at the moment) accept your photo digitally... If your image was taken with a "film" camera, we do ask that you try to get access to a scanner and send it to us as an attachment. If our photography team would like to see an original print or the negatives, they will contact you to arrange shipping and returning the photos after they have had a look. These people can be reached at
Please ensure the image is either in JPEG (.jpg) or GIF (.gif) format and the images are each less than 100 kilobytes in size. (Our mailbox is often full due to submissions in "Bitmap" or other formats that are extremely large. Again, if a more detailed image is required, our photography people will contact you for help.
The photo will remain in YOUR ownership and if you do not wish us to publish it online, we will not. If you do give us permission, the photograph is still in your ownership, but we assume the ability to reproduce the photo in our publications and those we have volunteered or agreed to work with, but you may give out, exchange, or otherwise do with YOUR photo what you wish... We just hold the right to use our copy as need be.
Also, if so desired, we will NOT publish or give out your name, address, e-mail address, or any other information to anyone if you wish to remain anonymous. Of course, if you wish any credit for the photo, you must also let us know this as well.
If the photo you're submitting is of an "orb", "mist", or "vortex", we ask that you read the note below... If it is not, please skip this section...
- - Information on Orb/Mist/Ecto/Vortex Notes - -
Next, although many people feel that "orb(s)", "mist/ectoplasm/ecto" - "smokey" or "misty", and "vortex/vortices" photos are good proof of the paranormal, our group is hesitant about this and as these three types of photos are very easy to achieve by accident (and design), we do not "validate" or accept them for analysis or as "proof" of ghostly activity. Please understand, although we do realise that many feel that these images are valid, our studies and information has shown that they are, unfortunately, very easy to re-create/duplicate using natural means (rather than "supernatural").
Also, people sometimes feel that their "orb" or "mist" has a face or other visible entity in it. Again, we ask that you ensure before sending this that you are confident that this "face" or other image is clearly visible and is not something that one must look very hard to see within the photo.
So, effectively, we are no longer accepting photographs of orbs, mists, ecto, or vortexes.
We do apologize in advance and we also point out that there are many other groups and websites that do not have as strong views on these photographs as we do. If you are located in Ontario, we suggest a Google Search for a group nearby that might be able to assist you and/or give you the information that you desire.
We will, however, be interested in a particular type of "orb photo" if you might have one which would allow us to re-examine our views... Please click here to see the information about this.
One thing we cannot stress enough to people with "orb", "mist", and/or "vortex" photos is that they may have come from a place with reportedly "paranormal phenomena" happening in them and still be quite mundane in themselves. As we said in our "final orb" article: "...if a pet cat wanders into a photo taken at a haunted location, is the cat a ghost?"
In other words, just because this one piece of "evidence" is not conclusive does not mean that we discount the other reported activity experienced there and we are always interested in your reports and experiences.
The long and the short of it is, if you send in an orb, mist, or vortex photo, you probably will not get a response to your submission. We're sorry, but due to the sheer amount of submissions we get, we need to do this.
- - End Information on Orb/Mist/Ecto/Vortex Notes - -
So, if you're still interested in submitting your photo (and we do appreciate it if you do,) please
them and your specifics to
Again, many thanks in advance for your information.
If you wish to send an "orb" photo that may makes us re-examine our views (which many people do), we are interested in "orb photos" that show a clearly obscured orb (to prove that it is not near the lens or flash of the camera). For an example (which we have created... it is not shown to be "proof" as it is, more or less, an intentional hoax manufactured for this article to demonstrate the "orb photo" we'd be interested in a photo like this:
Please also note, there are "pitfalls" even to the "half obscured" orb. Most orbs, as seen on the right in figure 1 (Fig 1) are in the forefront of the image. not obscured at all, but most of the 'orb photos' we've seen are not usually so easy to detect as the example here we've built, but still very evident and very simple to pick out of the average photo. These types of orbs, whatever their origin cannot be accepted as "proof" or valid evidence based on the work seen in the original article in terms of Fuji Film/Cameras and Dr. Bruce Maccabee.
On the left (Fig 2) is more common and note, the background colours bleed through the orb itself. This, in certain situations, can be misleading as if the orbs opacity ("solidness") is very thin, it will appear to be obscured because the background image or colour has bled through to such a degree to make it extremely difficult to tell. Pulling an image like this into a photo editor and viewing an extreme magnification of it *might* lead to seeing it's outline within the item that is reportedly obscuring it but, if the resolution of the image is too low or, again, the orb is does not have enough opacity then it cannot be accepted as truly being *proven* to be obscured. Don't see this as a 'debunking', I would liken this to taking a very fuzzy image of what might be a Sasquatch way off in the distance of a woodland area by mistake (y'know, "I was taking a picture of my kid camping and when I saw the photo after it was developed, I saw this Bigfoot in the background!" even though it's really just a very faint, blurry image of what could be almost anything) and submitting it to a cryptozoologist as "proof" of the creature on it's own. Needless to say, it really probably won't be accepted as "proof" but a poor researcher would completely deny it without thorough investigation... who knows, right? The problem for ghost researchers everywhere is that people submit photos with blurry orbs that may or may not be obscured and want us to say "By Jingo! You've got yourself a genuine paranormal photo! No doubt!" and needless to say, most of us trying to do good work with evidence cannot say this... and now I hope you can understand why.
The next type we see is the type seen here on the right as figure 3 (Fig 3) which shows an orb of the same (or extremely close) colour to part of it's respective background. Again, the two-dimensional problem comes into play. This orb, although solid and seemingly bisected in an obvious fashion, it is not. In fact, as the "creator" of this image, I can state that indeed, this orb was "pasted" over the two background colours. Again, it is blending and therefore, in a two dimensional world, seems to be obscured even though it is not. This is *very* common in white orbs (most common colour thanks to the flash and/or natural and manmade light sources) and white backgrounds or near-white backgrounds such as light greys or light browns. Again, it's a case of where the image is expected to be accepted because of this possibility and cannot be. For those that have these, we do apologise.
Now, the ideal obscured orb (Fig 4 on the left) is a solid colour and is very easily seen as obscured. This is not as "impossible" as it may seem. Most people's homes and environments are not "pure white" and yet most orbs are white. So, imagine a white orb, bright and clear obscured by a brown chair against a blue wall (or some variation of this). It should be relatively easy and common to do this if we are to believe that the orb is away from the lens and flash and is an entity unto itself in a more 'paranormal' sense.
Like all the articles here, I do wish to point out TWO very important things...
First of all, *we* (the GHRS) are not fully debunking and would accept and appreciate valid evidence. We also are not saying all your images of orbs are dust and other airborne particles but if you wish to have validation, not only to the image being paranormal in origin but as "proof" of ghosts, you must be willing to meet certain criteria. We cannot and will not be able to say "That's a ghost!" in an image unless we were intimately involved with the image being taken and the developing process so we cannot "validate" your photo and would not insult you by trying. Your belief is your belief and what we are asking is that in order to make *us* fully believe or take better stock, please remember that we need better and more valid evidence... even if someone does supply one of the aforementioned obscured orbs, in our guesstimation, we would need to see this becoming more and more "normal" to see them as opposed to probable lens-orb/flash-orb images.
If after reading the above, you feel you have a photo that might make us review our findings, please feel free to send the photo to
We are always open to changing our minds and looking into evidence of paranormal phenomena.