Let me work backward on that garbage you call a post.
First, "parapsychology" is neither a "science" nor "new." The first looks at the pseudoscience that refers to itself as
parapsychology occured in the 19th century, though it was popularized in the 1950's and 1960's (though there were some efforts conducted in the 1920's with folks like J.B. Rhine) with the increases in education numbers of the colleges and universities of the United States. There were suddenly more students following WWII and too few professors and instructors and the standards of education slipped a bit... this plus the rebellion and counter-culture of the period encouraged young people to seek alternatives to the "establishment" or mainstream society.
Things have changed little since then, or so it would seem with those like yourself who seek
alternatives to established science in search of the mystical, supernatural and the paranormal.
The primary problem with "psi" researchers is that they fall victim to confirmation biases, seeking only information that
supports their claims (or hopes) while discarding or ignoring data that are not supportive. Heavy emphasis is placed by so-called researchers in parapsychology on statistical analysis that rarely stands up to skeptical scrutiny.
In spite of the book you cited, parapsychology has yield no results that concluded anything or gave any evidence of the existance of "psi." Whenever this topic comes up in a forum like this, the psi proponent says something like, "go out and research it! Your just stupid because you don't bother to read what's been written."
My response to such nonsense is that I (as well as others here)
have read some of the parapsychology nonsense. Moreover, if there was anything worth reading or remotely convincing, I should think that the psi proponent would be
anxious to present it in a forum like this one -paraphrasing the original author's evidence and arguments and giving personal opinions about the same.
Instead, when asked for convincing explantions about specific claims like "psychotronic energy" we get pseudoscientific nonsense or "go read for yourself, I'm just making the claim. If you don't bother to read it, that means I'm right."
Second,
Unidentified
Flying
Objects do continue to be seen. But there has been
no conclusive evidence that suggests that they "defy our laws of physics." Indeed, there has been no evidence shown that can conclude that they aren't simply natural or manmade phenomena that simply cannot be fully explained without more data. A UFO nutter once produced a video of a "light" that he shot in a field of what he claimed was a UFO. It
was unidentified. But there was nothing to disprove that it couldn't simply have been an insect either luminous or being illuminated. It "flew" like an insect. It passed in front of objects that were only a few meters away, like bushes/trees. It didn't land -no occupants asked directions to the whitehouse... nothing. Just a bug. This is pretty much what the ETI-UFO communities call "evidence."
Third, websites are evidence of nothing but the fact that people want digital soapboxes. Moreover
kirlian photography is a fraud if claimed to be evidence of "auras." I'll quote Terrence Hines (2003):
Hines said:
Living things...are moist. When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum
What must be remembered is that involved with kirlian photography are electricity, moisture (always must be present), and the metalic chemicals of the film itself. As a photographer, nothing in kirlian photography strikes me as paranormal. Indeed, the different effects that are noted in varied "auras" are due to various moisture changing attributes (stress, activity, temperature, etc.). The alleged "phantom limbs" are either outright frauds or impressions of the object (i.e. leaf) prior to it's removal.
I conducted an experiment with kirlian photography years ago when I was taking classes in film processing. I wanted to create "auras" of leaves like I had seen in
Omni magazine but could not create the effect. You can make your own kirlian photos with a metal plate attached to two 6-volt lantern batteries and polaroid film. Put a leaf on top of the film (green leaves work better than dead) and cover with a platic or wooden sheet with some weight behind it. Complete the circuit for a few seconds and you'll have your photo.
There's no mystery or paranormal effects.. only science.
References:
Alcock, James (1981).
Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon Press.
Hines, Terence (2003).
Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd ed. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Park, Robert L. (2000).
Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud Oxford University Press.
