X-Message-Number: 18094 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 08:40:18 -0500 From: Stephen Ritger <> Subject: Re: The nature of evidence. References: <> Hey George... > > In Message #18083, Mike Perry was kind enough to give an example of what I > am suggesting when he quoted The New England Skeptical Society, > *Encyclopedia of Skepticism and > the Paranormal*, http://www.theness.com/encyc/Kirlian-encyc.html: > > "... Phantom leaf effects, on the other hand, are very rare " You left out the rest of the sentence, which continues, "the Drexel team has never produced one, but they theorize a number of possibilities, including residue on the photographic plate and coincidence, not to mention the possibility of outright fraud in some cases." > > > So the evidence DOES exist. So do prosaic explanations for said "evidence". > > > Though "rare." Strange how that is, huh? If the effect is real, then why don't ALL leaves exhibit that phenomenon? > > > How very interesting. > > I understand it only requires ONE white crow to prove that not all crows are > black. I understand that the burden of proof is on the people claiming that leaves that are torn in half somehow magically leave a phantom image of the whole leaf. This has never been demonstrated to be anything other than leaf residue or plain old BS. > > > I urge anyone who has any curiosity to get to the truth regarding this issue > to test it for themselves and not merely listen to those who promise us that > all crows are black and (to paraphrase) " ...white crows, on the other hand, > are very rare." > ...and in the case of Kirlian photography, scientists are still waiting for verifiable evidence of that white crow. > > Just my way of trying to think logically and being open to the nature of > evidence, > But, don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out... > > George Smith > Society For The Preservation Of The Observation Of White Crows. > Stephen Ritger Society For Pointing Out Errors and Omissions Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18094