Talk:Kirlian photography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Connected topics"?

Now, I'm just browsing here out of boredom, so I'm not an editor and won't generally make any changes. I can't see any connection at all between this article and the two it cites as "Connected topics":

   * Kevin Trudeau
   * Metroids

Out of curiosity, I read both those articles to see if they even _mentioned_ Kirlian photography and they don't.

Not in the least. I took the liberty of deleting them. A cartoonist and a fictional flying leech have nothing to do with this topic. -- Kuroji 11:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

no heading

I'm not here to criticize this article, and I'm not personally advocating the validity of Kirlian photography, but this article seems to have a skeptical bias.

I've removed the following sections:

External links

James Randi's web site (http://www.randi.org) Auras in the "Skeptic's dictionary"

James Randi, for example, has for several years offered one million US dollars to any person capable of repeatedly detecting auras (or any other paranormal phenomenon; see his article). No person has yet succeeded in claiming the prize.

These have nothing to do with the subject at hand and are obviously biased. -- Redxela Sinnak 10:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

direct link to James Randi info on Kirlian Photography http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirlian%20photography.html 70.253.79.131 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikhail Gaikin

I removed the following paragraph: "further research however has shown that the acupuncture chart correlates the strongest points in the energy field to those shown in the kirlian photographs. This was later translated into the tobiscope by a scientist called Mikhail Gaikin. The tobiscope was shown along side the Vostok spaceship at expo 67."

Now, I'm hardly an expert on Kirlian photography here, but frankly, I'm not convinced. This is sketchy and looks like it's been written by someone who really wants to believe this but doesn't have a lot in the way of solid facts. Google returns only a few hits on Gaikin, the first one of which is an article at atlantisrising.com [1], which provides absolutely no hard scientific data whatsoever and only mentions Gaikin very briefly. The other links aren't any better. Point is, I don't think there's enough solid evidence of any kind to provide verifiability and thus warrant the inclusion of something like this, particularly as no sources are cited. So, I took it off. -- Captain Disdain 00:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

biases

I am neither a believer or a skeptic, that is why i'm on this page, to find out more. but I feel this page is highly skeptical. it could use some info from the site that supports kirlian photography. Dwenaus 15:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the page is skeptical about kirlian photography: it seems that it works and nobody doubts it. The controversy is about the interpretation of the photographies obtained with various objects. --Philipum 12:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philipum. Science agrees that these photos are of something (likely the corona discharge effect), but the problem is interpretation. So many have tried to adapt it to new age beliefs that the whole area has been tainted somewhat in the eyes of a large portion of the scientific community. Bobak 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the implicated inconclusivity of this article, I suggest that it be removed from the Pseudoscience category, which is perhaps the most biased part of the page. 66.196.23.86 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think removing it from the Pseudoscience category is a terrible idea. This effect will always be pounced upon by the new-age community in the absence of scientific interest, so it is important to make the reader aware of that. That said, this is one of the worst articles I've read on Wikipedia. It needs to be completely rewritten. 220.253.133.200 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't nearly skeptical enough, WP:UNDUE maybe violated, I think we can get a lot more information in here from a reality based perspective. Tmtoulouse 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a slant towards the solidly skeptical. In one way, the use of the words "high voltage" was frequently used. As no such "high" voltage is used I fixed this. Also, there were a few gratuitous jabs at the subject and so this editorializing was also eliminated. Gingermint (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image?

We really need an image of a Kirlian photograph. I realise not many Wikipedia contributors have access to such a machine, but if you work or go to school at a place that does, please see if you can acquire an illustrative image. Thanks. Deco 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• [2]

Here! :) --Artman40 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo of a finger of a hand in high voltage electric field

Photo of a finger of a hand in high voltage electric field

Photographing process occurs in a dark room or at red illumination. On the device creating a field of a high voltage put not shown photographic paper. From above establish interesting object. It can be tree sheet. If to tear off a part of sheet and to repeat shooting on a place of a remote part of sheet the luminescence will be observed, but weaker on intensity. During high voltage giving the luminescence round object which lights photographic paper is observed. After photographic paper development the brightest places become dark as it is visible in a photo. As the hand finger concerned photographic papers (a circle in the center) this area remains not lighted.--Shatilov Konstantin 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aura relevance

This article seems to spend at least as much time talking about "Aura photography" as it does about Kirlian photography, the subject of the article. Surely a simple statement that they are not the same would do.

I came to the article to learn about Kirlian photography as I hadn't heard of it, and I feel like I'm being lambasted for thinking it was aura photography - which I also hadn't heard of.

Hmmm, spooky; two things that are supposedly different, but are united by this article being obsessed with them, and my not having heard of them.... cue twilight zone music

unsigned comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.104.157 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed

removed "Needless to say, this study is consistently contested.[citation needed]" Apart from the lack of citation the wording alone is very negativley POV and I'm a skeptic :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.182.196 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A few other such effusions, for or against, may profitably be removed. Redheylin (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

??

Skeptics of the paranormal have long disputed the claims made concerning auras and Kirlian photography.

What means this exactly? Can we have some clear critique? Does it mean, for example, that it is not possible that the Kirlian effect is visible as clairvoyants claim? Or just that there is nothing special about the corona discharge from living organisms in the first place? Redheylin (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing Fact

Hi, I think it is important to mention the fact that you can see the energy field of a living thing, even when a part of it is not there anymore (there are Kirlian photographs exhibiting a whole leaf, when in fact it was torn in half before taking the photo). Kirlian photography is not an open and shut case, as it is still studied by the scientific community, and whoever wrote this article seems to be biased. Wikicmk (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)wikicmk

Care to offer a source for this information that can be used? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Experiments conducted by researchers I. Dumitrescu, Allen Detrick, Dr. Thelma Moss.213.16.132.226 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)wikicmk

I just added a refererence to Randi's opinion on the matter;

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirlian%20photography.html

Here's the quote of the most relevent section regarding the leaf:

"The most famous effect of Kirlian photography occurred when a plant leaf was “photographed,” then a section was torn away and the leaf was rephotographed. A faint image of the torn-out section was still seen in the second photo. Since the same glass plates had been used, it is believed that moisture from the missing portion was providing the ghostly image. Since the glass plates used as dielectric material would tend to break down along the edges of the object, allowing easier passage of the discharge, that may also account for the effect. The observed “phantom leaf” effect was not found again in better-controlled experiments, but has continued to serve as a point of argument for the believers." Kirlian123 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Corona.

It has been shown that if two lovers fingertips together will create a link between them, while a recently divorced couple will show a barrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this statement? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A heartfelt apology...

I should hugely apologize for my extreme idiocy and absent-minded rudeness; I had signed up an account here, and reading through (well, more like skimming through) barely half of all that I should have read before I took any action,... I took action. I had previously been under the impression that each of these article pages were the work of a vast many, and had no idea they were works of individual people. Assuming this, like a moron, I had posted up an external link on your very nicely done page (and some others for which I should apologize to their respective creators for) without asking. Someone named Consumed Crustacean had taken the links down, and explained things to me in polite detail, that I should come to you first and discuss the addition of such links, here, on a talk page, as is apparently explained in the parts of the orientative reading, that I neglected to fully read through when I first opened my account here. Had I done so in the first place, my rude mistake could have been avoided. (There's still much for me to read, I'm ashamed to say... still reading it now.)

I feel like a complete @$$ and I'm really very sorry.

As it turns out, according to the discussion on the WikiProject Occult discussion page, the article I wrote detailing a technique to be able to see the aura with the unaided eye was not acceptable for use here due to the article's whereabouts (anyone can write about anything there without verifiability), the fact that every thousand viewers on that page makes writers earn a few pennies (unrealized fully by me until recently), and that it's "original research".

Once more, my deeply sincere apologies. It was never my intention to overstep my bounds and scribble over anyone's art/hard work.

I'm very sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be so hard on yourself! It's good to be bold in editing pages and remember that we always assume good faith. :) -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A.E. Van Vogt & The Anarchistic Colossus

A possibly includable in the pop culture section is a book that was significant in the output of the science fiction writer A.E.Van Vogt, entitled "The Anarchistic Colossus". In the book, "Kirlian computers" look after society which is in an engineered state of total anarchy. The computers attempt to determine somebody's intentions through real-time "Kirlian Photography" and if adverse will render them temporarily unconcious via lasers that are located on every street. Its like a mirror-image of 1984, probably the author's intention. Its complete bunkum and rides in on the 1970s craze for the paranormal, no doubt riding the massive ESP popularity spike that occured then (thankfully, long over). 118.209.8.96 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)