Talk:Kirlian photography

To a large extent
To a large extent, It has been used in alternative medicine research.

Is there a piece of an earlier sentence missing here? &mdash; MaxEnt 19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Torn Leaf Experiment
It is said here: However, if the imaging surface is cleaned of contaminants and residual moisture before the second image is taken, then no image of the missing section will appear.

And then a citation to::

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

However, no further proof is available in the source that this claim is true. It only talks about some "probable causes" like the glass plate having a fissure in the electrical discharge.

I believe that the affirmation should be either removed or a better source should be used for it. It is not because a source is discrediting a paranormal effect that it should be accepted as a more reliable reference, it should also be able to prove what it is claiming.
 * This is not how citation works. We say what the reliable sources say. We do not do original research to filter out those things that we believe are not satisfactorily justified by the source.
 * But I seem to remember that Flim-Flam! would be a source for this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about Flim-Flam! It does mention Kirlian photography, but not the torn leaf thing. I found two articles on the net, though: one by a professional photographer, the other by a physicist. I also put Randi back, because of what I said above.
 * BTW, calling this a "claim" is disingenious. See WP:CLAIM. That torn leaves leave a miraculous aura is an extraordinary claim. The explanation is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your link about the original research, however, what made you belive that three webpage entries were more valid then a peer reviewed published article? I checked the revisions and the modification on this section of the wikipedia article was citing a reliable source, published article and it was removed. I am reverting the changes and adding an extra source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.143.115 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Found another source: "Physics and Psychics" by Victor Stenger, page 241. The article already has sources for that explanation of the torn leaf effect though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Intro
″these claims are unsupported by the scientific community″ Claims are either supported by evidence or not supported by evidence.

The scientific community doesn't "support" or "unsuppoort" anything. Maybe it either accepts or rejects, but these are weasel words.

Suggest either these claims are unsupported by evidence or these unsupported claims are rejected by the scientific community BioImages2000 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to "rejected". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Torn Leaves & Moisture
The current section on the torn leaves experiments seems out of date with regard to the claims of Kirlian Photography/Aura proponents - they're now claiming that the missing portions of the leaf will appear even on an entirely fresh setup, which has never been in contact with the intact leaf and thus could not be contaminated with moisture.

Obviously this seems physically implausible, but it should at least be mentioned. I added a citation to that effect, from a pseudoscience/alt-medicine journal, but it was removed as an unreliable source. Surely such a journal is a reliable source for their own claims? - 212.129.80.227 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:FRINGE, it cannot stand alone, without any mainstream comments from better sources. Wikipedia does not collect crazy claims from all sorts of people that have not got any attention from science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)