I am intrigued, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate? What were the TV discussions about, for example? Am I the only one to be left in the dark? Is this a frequent topic of conversation outside the circles in which I move?

Go well,

Jon

I think I know what you are referring to.  Would it be those ghostly fuzzy blobs that appear on some still photos or videos? 

If so, all these are small airborne objects such as dust specks or insects, yes.  Cameras operating in lower light, at night or in room light will open their lens irises wide to let in as much light as possible.  This reduces their "depth of field": the distance over which objects will appear to be in focus. 

When the depth of field is narrow, any speck near the lens will be a blur.  If a flash or strobe is used, or the light (or infrared LED in night vision camcorders) is turned on, these fuzzy blobs are particularly highlighted and brighter since they are close to the camera.  This makes them look ghost-like to some people viewing the resulting images.

It is also worth mentioning that one often sees on TV shows about UFOs badly out-of-focus highly zoomed-in nighttime shots of blobs of light in the sky. 

Autofocus circuitry and software perform poorly (if at all) at night or in any low-light situation.  If the autofocus fails, then the image outline of the blob of light takes on the shape of the iris petals inside the lens, and any other obstruction in the optical path inside the camera.  So these blobs sometimes seem to have a fluted outline, or a semi-circle plus a straight part to them.  This is not the shape of the thing in the sky.  It's all designed technology made by intelligent creatures, yes!  Just inside the camera--not in the sky.

PTO,

There is a question remaining in my mind, namely precisely what your question meant.

Science does not in fact deal in proof in the fundamental sense of the word, so scientific "proof" really amounts to evidence too strong to reject in a reasonable way, insofar as we are in a position to be sure that our idea that we know what is going on is sound. For example, it would be reasonable to accept as proof that because we could not find any sign of oxygen to support fire on the sun, it must be emitting heat derived from gravitational energy. Pretty good proof, right? 111 years ago you would have had a hard time arguing against that proof! In fact, palaeontologists did have a hard time of it...

Unless you happen to have some inkling about nuclear reactions, plus some evidence for their occurrence on the sun, which of course the palaeontologists of the day did not.

Nowadays we know better and have proved that solar energy is indeed the product of nuclear reactions.

Unless you happen to have some inkling about...  ahem... whatever might be eliciting sniggers from the students of our great grandchildren's students.

But yes, we do have proof, reasonable proof of the existence of orbs and stuff. Perhaps not very proper scientific proof, in the sense that people have carried out and exposed to falsification, properly controlled experiments, but at least many people have seen the rods and orbs, and many pictures no doubt have been preserved for sceptics to blunt their fangs on. Also, experienced operators would be in a pretty good position to establish the circumstances in which the various effects occur, so it would hardly be a challenging field of research.

That is pretty strong evidence for effects in the pictures. But surely that is not what you meant? If so, then what did you mean by "proof of their existence"? Proof that they are in fact insects and what not? Or something supernatural or otherwise mysterious? Is there a school of thought that attaches some special significance to the effects?

As I said, before reading Jim's friendly explanation I had never heard of them, but I have heard of fringe partisans making much of photographic artefacts as proof of spirits and the like, so I just had to ask. Could you please elaborate?

Cheers,

Jon