Talk:Kirlian photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Explanations?

Gee where is the water? The reason Kirlian photography went out of vogue was because of before and after photograph taken of a coin some time in the early 1970s. I believe it was a dime. The first photo the coin is dry and the second after being misted with a spray of water. Of course with the dry coin there was no trace of an aura and wet it exhibited its "soul". Now to leave out the most important aspect of this phenomenon seems rather odd. Water's well known abnormal effects in magnetic fields is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindavid (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Photo of a finger of a hand in high voltage electric field

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)