But are you perfectly sure? Have you had your eyes checked recently? So you went to Reiki, and out of the blue you start seeing "things" or "auras". My first thought would be to go have my eyes checked, have you done this? If my vision was fine, and then it changed, and in this case as it would seem quite significantly, then this would be the first thought to cross my mind, not that I had some new special ability.
I would agree in general with everyone else regarding the photographs, they show some effect, but there's no proof its "auras" instead of something mundane. The fact that the photographic process is different in the first place seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. Or rather finding a way to change the photographic process to reflect what in your mind an aura should look like. Another good question was, did people come up with Kirlian photopraghy first and go, "hmmm whats this we're seeing? Lets ponder. Hey I know, maybe their auras". Or did the concept of auras already exist, and Kirlian photography was simply found as a potential means of showing them?
aumgn said:
No need to get so complex. I've seen people who claimed/believed they could see auras debunked on TV, by Randi in fact. Not only could they not sketch an aura, theycouldn't even see one.
All you need is a wall with people standing behind it leaving 1 inch from the top of the head to the top of the wall. Place people in random spots behind the wall and you have to spot them by seeing their auras.
Aumgn- I assume you will appreciate that there are two fundamental mental approaches to this issue:
As "mundane" explanations are ruled out one by one, some people will be increasingly convinced you are describing an unknown or unexplained phenomenon.
People of a different mindset will be increasingly certain that you are either deluded or deliberately lying.
Most regulars at this site fall into the second group. You are aware of this. So don't be dismayed if some of us are brusque or dismissive. We would be astonished, but fascinated if your ability had some grounding in fact. We will not, however, believe it without hard evidence.
If you can produce such, we will be happy to see it.
Meanwhile, please consider what voidx said. A sudden change in the nature of your vision may indicate anything from astigmatism to a brain tumour. Taking you at your word, I urge you very strongly to see an orthoptist as soon as possible. (Not just a prescribing optician who might find your eyes appear fine, as this would further convince you that the aura effect is real.)
Frankly, I hope you are imagining this, as that is the least dramatic conclusion to the issue I can imagine.
One question. You say you can see the aura in the dark. Does it illuminate things? Can you, for example, read by the illumination?
As "mundane" explanations are ruled out one by one, some people will be increasingly convinced you are describing an unknown or unexplained phenomenon.
People of a different mindset will be increasingly certain that you are either deluded or deliberately lying.
Most regulars at this site fall into the second group. You are aware of this. So don't be dismayed if some of us are brusque or dismissive. We would be astonished, but fascinated if your ability had some grounding in fact. We will not, however, believe it without hard evidence.
If you can produce such, we will be happy to see it.
Meanwhile, please consider what voidx said. A sudden change in the nature of your vision may indicate anything from astigmatism to a brain tumour. Taking you at your word, I urge you very strongly to see an orthoptist as soon as possible. (Not just a prescribing optician who might find your eyes appear fine, as this would further convince you that the aura effect is real.)
Frankly, I hope you are imagining this, as that is the least dramatic conclusion to the issue I can imagine.
One question. You say you can see the aura in the dark. Does it illuminate things? Can you, for example, read by the illumination?
aumgn said:I personally can attest that a hazy field (or, the "etheric" layer of the aura) is visible extending an inch all around the body of myself and others, because I have seen it and can see it at any time. My original ability to perceive this layer was minimal, but since practicing exercises to develop "auric vision" it seems much more tangible, and I don't need to relax my eyes or get in a calm state to see it. Assuming I'm not lying about what I'm seeing, is there a scientific explanation for an indistinct hazy layer extending ~1 inch away from the body? I'm quite sure I don't have a vision disorder.
My personal experiences seeing a hazy glow around people's bodies and testing my book knowledge of auras against a girl who claims to see colors are in accordance with what is commonly known (in "woo woo" circles) of auric anatomy, and thus lead me to "believe" that auras surrounding humans (and some other forms of life and matter, to varying degrees) do, in fact, exist.
Gloucoma can have "aura" associated with it. It is also a progressive disease so any increase in your proficiency at detecting auras might simply be associated with going blind. There are other types of disorder that might explain "auras", I can experience them when I have read too much. What happened is that the cilliary muscles spasim causing your lens to go in and out of focus rapidly.
You can duplicate "auras" with something like this:
It simply uses diffraction to give the illusion of "X-ray vision". I, for one, got suckered in as a kid. If you look thru a transmission diffraction grating you will see "auras" too. That said, a pathological condition can duplicate these things.
If you really see stuff, get your ass to an Opthtomologist right now. By the time you have perfected your "aura" reading, you might be blind.
Good advice, free of charge, from the sceptical community.
One has to ask why auras can be seen with eyes but can not be seen in ordinary photographs. Methods of allegedly photographing auras all require manipulating the process in some way.
The aura can not be electromagnetic, otherwise it would be measurable and detectable. Films are available with sensitivities far exceeding human vision across the spectrum from infrared to ultraviolet to x-rays, but none of them can capture an aura by straight forward photographic technique. Instrumentation can measure precisely the frequency and energy of electromagnetic radiation, but can not detect auras.
Manipulating the film in some way does not rule out valid results, as long as you can show that the manipulation does not cause the alleged effect. For example, astronomers often bathe their film in hydrogen before using it to increase the sensitivity. The chemistry of this is well understood and it can be proven that it does not cause any other changes to the film. Kirlian photography, and other manipulations alleged to enhance auric photography, can be shown to produce effects on the film even when no photographs are actually taken. And it is not hard to explain the ordinary physical cause of the effects.
Human vision is a complex process involving optical, physiological, and psychological processes. Optical illusions and "tricks of the eye" are well known. When you see something out of the ordinary you must rulle out all mundane causes before you can posit supernatural causes.
You should think very carefully about why no one who claims to see auras has ever passed the kind of blind tests described above. Try to think of an answer that does not require unknown, undetectable forces or effects supressing auras or the ability to see them...
The aura can not be electromagnetic, otherwise it would be measurable and detectable. Films are available with sensitivities far exceeding human vision across the spectrum from infrared to ultraviolet to x-rays, but none of them can capture an aura by straight forward photographic technique. Instrumentation can measure precisely the frequency and energy of electromagnetic radiation, but can not detect auras.
Manipulating the film in some way does not rule out valid results, as long as you can show that the manipulation does not cause the alleged effect. For example, astronomers often bathe their film in hydrogen before using it to increase the sensitivity. The chemistry of this is well understood and it can be proven that it does not cause any other changes to the film. Kirlian photography, and other manipulations alleged to enhance auric photography, can be shown to produce effects on the film even when no photographs are actually taken. And it is not hard to explain the ordinary physical cause of the effects.
Human vision is a complex process involving optical, physiological, and psychological processes. Optical illusions and "tricks of the eye" are well known. When you see something out of the ordinary you must rulle out all mundane causes before you can posit supernatural causes.
You should think very carefully about why no one who claims to see auras has ever passed the kind of blind tests described above. Try to think of an answer that does not require unknown, undetectable forces or effects supressing auras or the ability to see them...
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
What about a half inch? how about 1/4 of an inch. You think 1/4 of an inch would be acceptable?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Put a couple of wax dummies in the test somewhere.....
You say its not necessarily a biological phenomenon, yet at the same time say you cannot see the second layer which shows color and emotion. Why if as you say, everything has an aura, inanimate what have you, would a rock persay have an aura with the additional yet apparently completely useless second level for displaying emotions. I'm just noting a little inconsistency here, you say its not a biological phenomenon, but then state as though it were as normal and mundane as apple pie that you can almost, but not quite make out the second emotional level. If its not biological, why does it need an emotional level?
To me if everything has an aura that makes more sense with the scientific explantion offerred for what is shown in the kirlian photographs. The combinations of moisture and whathaveyou could have the same effect possibly on inanimate objects as they do on people when it comes to kirlian photographs. Has anyone done Kirlian photography on rocks, or say, moist face clothes? Do they have Aura's, and if so, what emotions might my face cloth be feeling?
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
hmm...well if everything has an aura then the test of say a human hand held just below a shield wouldn't work since the shield would give an aura of its own. So much for that test. So would wax dummies or anyother kind of dummy material. Anyone have any better tests?
Well lets be careful here. I'd like some clarification if the people that do kirlian photography, and believers in aura's agree in general that all things have aura's, or if this is just aumgn's take on it. Obviously the people doing the tests had no problem with the protocol at the time, so I get the feeling not all aura-ists would agree that everything has an aura. Also as stated by aumgn's the emotional level is colored, so the test could still work. So long as there is a color aura emanating from over the enclosure they should still be able to tell.SteveGrenard said:
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Yes Steve, I have another test, and it is easy peasy.
Put the testee in a dark room, blindfolded. Take off the blindfold. Ask them to identify how many other people are in the room, and the other major features (i.e. couch, table, not whether there is a picture hanging on the wall).
Edited to add: obviously they are not allowed to stumble around touchng thing, and a good control would be some blind people, as they have experience with detecting things in the dark.
Put the testee in a dark room, blindfolded. Take off the blindfold. Ask them to identify how many other people are in the room, and the other major features (i.e. couch, table, not whether there is a picture hanging on the wall).
Edited to add: obviously they are not allowed to stumble around touchng thing, and a good control would be some blind people, as they have experience with detecting things in the dark.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
aumgn,
From your last reply :
Test one - Darkness.
1. Walk into a completely darkened room, face a corner, close your eyes (ideally, have headphones covering your ears).
2. Have one or two friends (you don;lt know how many) enter the room with you, and tap you on the shoulder when they are ready.
3. Wait 5 seconds, then turn, and identify how many people are in the room with you from their auras.
4. Repeat at least 10 times.
Test Two - Screens
1. Sit down, place a solid (wood/metal) screen a few metres from you, with the top at or just above your eye level.
2. Have friend sit on the other side of the screen, next to it.
3. Close your eyes.
4. Your friend rolls a die - on an even number, they hold their finger horizontally a few millimetres below the top of the screen. On an odd number they hold the finger 30 centimetrs from the top
5. Open your eyes, and tell then whether the finger is at the top of not.
6. Repeat at least 10 times.
If you get a result in both tests that's about chance, then perhaps you need to rethink your claim.
If you get a result in either test that is way above chance (100%, even), then spend some time to think if perhaps there is some other factor that is at play here. Try to eliminate any alternative methods you might be using to determine the number of people. Rerun the tests if required to see if the result remains after you change the conditions.
If you still get solid "above chance" results, contact Randi - you have a claim and protocol that you believe are satisfactory. If you don't trust Randi, contact
Once you've done the tests and generated the results, we can discuss auras. Until then, you haven't even bothered to attempt to address alternative solutions.
Both these tests are simple, and require only a few 'helpers' and probalby no more than an hoiur of your time. Try a few reiki associates if you need assistants who won;t mess up the tests with "negative vibes". If you're not prepared to even attempt a clear and unambiguous test of your claims, then don't expect to get support from skeptics. If you are perpared to do such testing, then be honest in your approach - try to generate data without wanting a certain outcome. Let the data lead to a conclusion, not a conclusion lead to data.
From your last reply :
You've made two completely testable claims here. No need for debate, no need for theory, no need for any further information - just do some testing.
Test one - Darkness.
1. Walk into a completely darkened room, face a corner, close your eyes (ideally, have headphones covering your ears).
2. Have one or two friends (you don;lt know how many) enter the room with you, and tap you on the shoulder when they are ready.
3. Wait 5 seconds, then turn, and identify how many people are in the room with you from their auras.
4. Repeat at least 10 times.
Test Two - Screens
1. Sit down, place a solid (wood/metal) screen a few metres from you, with the top at or just above your eye level.
2. Have friend sit on the other side of the screen, next to it.
3. Close your eyes.
4. Your friend rolls a die - on an even number, they hold their finger horizontally a few millimetres below the top of the screen. On an odd number they hold the finger 30 centimetrs from the top
5. Open your eyes, and tell then whether the finger is at the top of not.
6. Repeat at least 10 times.
If you get a result in both tests that's about chance, then perhaps you need to rethink your claim.
If you get a result in either test that is way above chance (100%, even), then spend some time to think if perhaps there is some other factor that is at play here. Try to eliminate any alternative methods you might be using to determine the number of people. Rerun the tests if required to see if the result remains after you change the conditions.
If you still get solid "above chance" results, contact Randi - you have a claim and protocol that you believe are satisfactory. If you don't trust Randi, contact
Once you've done the tests and generated the results, we can discuss auras. Until then, you haven't even bothered to attempt to address alternative solutions.
Both these tests are simple, and require only a few 'helpers' and probalby no more than an hoiur of your time. Try a few reiki associates if you need assistants who won;t mess up the tests with "negative vibes". If you're not prepared to even attempt a clear and unambiguous test of your claims, then don't expect to get support from skeptics. If you are perpared to do such testing, then be honest in your approach - try to generate data without wanting a certain outcome. Let the data lead to a conclusion, not a conclusion lead to data.
I really think we need to nail down what has an aura and what does not. What does aumgn mean when he/she says everything has an aura. You should technically be able to take a kirlian photograph of a chair, it will show an aura, not a colored second level emotional one, but a grey one or something nonetheless. Has any kirlian photographer every tried the simple experiment of placing any random object in the view of their camera's and take a picture and see if it has an aura or not? Hmmm would a dead person have an aura? Perhaps a bit morbid but would a fresh corpse show an aura? Are aura's tied to only living beings? I'd say no if you claim that inanimate objects can also have aura's.
We've had lots of discussion about what we think the effects of it are. aumgn, what do you believe an aura is? What is it made of? Where does it originate from? Which of its properties makes it able to be photographed by the special process of kirlian photography?
We've had lots of discussion about what we think the effects of it are. aumgn, what do you believe an aura is? What is it made of? Where does it originate from? Which of its properties makes it able to be photographed by the special process of kirlian photography?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,551
Even if everything has an aura.. they should still have different auras, correct? I mean, human emotions give humans different auras at different times. However.......... inanimate objects don't have emotions so their "auras" should be the same at all times.
I propose this. Get several objects that look identical, but made of different material. They should have different auras because of the differing material. Then play a mix and match game. If a person can truly see auras, then they should match 100% in every trial.
I propose this. Get several objects that look identical, but made of different material. They should have different auras because of the differing material. Then play a mix and match game. If a person can truly see auras, then they should match 100% in every trial.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 874
I mean look at us we’re skeptics we don’t have some kind of belief based agenda! ◊◊◊◊!
?
?