Talk:Kirlian photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Connected topics"? 2 no heading 3 Mikhail Gaikin 4 biases 5 Image?

[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)

[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)

[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)