Since the first description of orbital blow-out fractures, there has been much confusion as to their aetiology. Two principal mechanisms have been proposed to explain these fractures, the buckling and hydraulic mechanisms, caused by trauma to the orbital rim and the globe of the eye, respectively. Previous experimental and clinical studies have aimed to support one or other of these two theories. However, these studies have failed to provide quantifiable data to objectively support their conclusions. We present the results of a study of these two proposed mechanisms under identical conditions, using quantifiable intraocular pressure, variable and quantifiable force, and quantifiable bone strain distribution with strain gauge analysis in fresh intact human post-mortem cadavers. Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that efforts to establish one theory over the other as the primary mechanism have been misplaced. Both mechanisms produce orbital floor fractures, although these fractures differ fundamentally in their size and location. We have objectively demonstrated that it is easier to fracture the orbital floor by the hydraulic mechanism than by the buckling mechanism, and provided quantitative data for the average force required to displace the orbital floor.