Auras

[AuraSeer]

Um, Vix, I’m flattered, but “clearing everything up” is a bit of a tall order. Clearing anything up would be a neat trick, in fact. All I can do is give my take on the subject, and hope it makes a little sense.

I don’t actually see colors around people. To my eyes, an aura appears like a sort of transparent haze-- almost as if the air near a person is glowing very slightly. When I look at that for a while, I get a general impression of what color is there. (IOW, people don’t look like neon signs, but I do perceive a color “somehow”.)

I’m quite sure the effect is not a reverse-print or afterimage, because as far as I can tell, the aura color is completely unrelated to the color of a person’s hair, skin, or clothing. A pale, brightly-clad blonde has about equal chance of having a pastel yellow aura, or a deep, intense blue one, or dingy gray, or any of a thousand other shades.

I don’t claim to know what the colors mean, and I’m not one of the people who will try to tell your future from your aura. In most cases, as far as I can tell, they’re just pretty pictures that few other people can see.

I used to have grave doubts whether I was really perceiving colors, rather than just imagining or hallucinating them. But I became convinced of my own veracity when, of all things, my GF and I got our pictures taken by an aura photographer at a new age bookstore.

In the car on the way to the store, I said to her, “Your aura is all red and yellow. Mine is bright blue, with a little green.” And what do you know, both of those statements were correct. We’ve done this multiple times, with widely varying colors but the same accuracy. (I recently scanned my favorite photo, and use it as my profile pic on the TM homepage. Unfortunately, that’s the only one of which I have a digital copy.)

I’d previously talked to several others about auras, and found that our color perceptions about any given person usually matched. But I had still been willing to put this down to imagination, or unnoticed visual cues, or something. But when my observations are confirmed on film, it can’t be just in my mind.

Granted, this doesn’t prove anything about the cause or meaning of an aura, even from my own subjective point of view. And though I’m quite sure that the colors are real, I don’t expect my own testimony to convince anyone else of that. All I really know is that I see something, and the camera sees something, and the two images match very well.

(FTR, I do believe certain things about where auras come from and what they signify. But those beliefs are based to a large extent on my religion, and therefore have nothing to do with a scientific discussion.)

[Abe]

AuraSeer, I checked your picture and it does not look very reliable. The aura appears to be on a different stratum from you, leading me to think that the photographic film was tampered with or that the aura was added afterwards (or any other such process of falsification).

There are explanations for the other statements you make that would satisfy most scientists (and magicians), but that picture is the first actual item of proof someone has provided.

What is the process used to take this picture, and how was the picture taken? It honestly looks bogus to me. Kirlian photography and such aura imaging techniques have been thoroughly refuted several times from several angles, so I remain sceptical. I am also not inclined to accept supernatural explanations, because they are seldom explanations and because science and the supernatural do not mix well. We have incontrovertible evidence for one and zero evidence for the other, so I choose to believe in science.

Abe

IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling.
–Ambrose Bierce

[douglips]

SqrlCub writes:

DougLips: I wasn’t saying that it wasn’t a trick of the eye. Nor do I say that auras mean anything other than a trick of the eye. I was saying that, in fact, you can see them. No where in my post did I say that it was anything else than a trick of the eye. Go to college. Take a critical thinking class. Don’t try to read into my posts something that I did not say.

My my. Please try not to be so testy. Remember I was on your side with the whole tarot thing.

I’ll go to college as soon as I can save up the $1.25 tuition and the three cereal box tops. Maybe if I try real hard I can get into the same school that taught you to flame me for reading something into your post when in fact it was you reading non-existing statements into my post. Then maybe I could quit slaving away in my current job and get a real job at McDonalds in Assboink Idaho.

I was not saying anything about your assertions. I said:

Before talking about someone else’s rigid belief systems, why don’t you yourself try the experiment to determine whether it is real or a trick of the eye?

You brought up rigid belief systems and you said ‘Just try it, you big sissy - what are you afraid of?’ OK, so I paraphrase. You said (exact quote) “Shut-up or try it.” My response still seems totally appropriate to my uneducated and uncritical eye, and I still don’t know how you were able to see through my disguise to realize I’m an 8 year old boy who can’t think critically or comprehend the turns-of-phrase you use such as ‘rigid belief systems’.

My point was merely that people who live in glass houses should not cast aspersions before swine. Oh, damn! If only I could go to college so I could learn how to use metaphor!

[AuraSeer]

As I understand it, those pictures are not the same thing as a “regular” Kirlian picture. Instead of a simple photographic plate, they use a heavily-modified instant camera.

To get the picture taken, I sat on a stool in front of a black background. Each of my hands rested on a round plate, which had a number of metal contacts in the general shape of a hand. (My palm bridged three or four of them, and there was one under each finger.)

A set of cables ran from those plates to the back of the camera, which looked a little like a cross between an old box camera and a modern Polaroid. When the photographer was about to snap the picture, he told me to sit very still; the shutter clicked open for a few seconds, then closed. Half a minute later, he yanked the picture out the back of the camera and handed it to me.

My impression is that the plates measure the subject’s skin resistance, and some sort of image processor in the camera translates this into colors and overlays it on the image. The photographer said it’s not resistance, but has something to do with magnetism. (I’m not sure how far I trust him though, since he was obviously not any kind of physicist.) If you’re interested enough, you might try to call the company; the card I have lists a US phone number of (800)321-AURA.
On separating science from the supernatural, Abe, I completely agree with you. I am somewhat of a religious person, but I consider myself a scientist, and I know how to separate beliefs (taken on faith) from facts (proven by the scientific method).

Based on the information I have, I can think of two possible explanations for my seeing auras.

One explanation is that there really exists an aura or field around people, which is not visible most of the time, but which can be perceived as color in some circumstances.

The other explanation is that I simply imagine colored haloes around people; and that at least two people I have met, who imagine similar colored rings, somehow manage to come up with descriptions that match mine (and each other’s); and that it is by sheer chance that my imagined colors have repeatedly matched the hues generated by the above-described camera.

If this sounds a bit snarky, I apologize. My point is that, from the evidence I have, the first explanation is the simpler and is therefore to be preferred. From the evidence you have-- having never seen the effect, and not knowing whether I can be trusted-- the simplest explanation is that I am mistaken about what I claim to have seen. And unless some extraordinary new data shows up, neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind.
(I think I should mention FTR that I have no religious stake in whether auras exist. If someone can show that I haven’t been seeing what I thought, it may make me feel silly, but it won’t “rock the core of my faith” or anything like that.)

[douglips]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread for actual discussion of ‘Can we see auras for real?’

SteveCRC writes non-defensively and in a thoroughly college-level way:

A quick search through the Randi Website shows that proving that one can see auras and $0.65 will get you a cup of coffee, not a cool $1,000,000.65.

That’s interesting - I don’t get the impression that the million would be that hard to get. I would bet (substantially less than a million ) that the experiment described above would be adequate for the prize, provided the experiment was done under controlled circumstances.

SteveCRC also writes:

Let’s say I take like five or ten people, and give them copies of the aforementioned text file, editing out all of the metaphysical BS. When the subjects feel that they can indeed see auras, I’ll put them all in a room, with cubicle-esque walls between them. The subjects will then all observe a half dozen or so different people (all subjects observing the same person at the same time), and note the color of the aura, as well as anything else notable about the aura. When it’s all done, we compare the results, and see if there is any correlation.

It’s great that you are thinking about this - so many people aren’t willing to ask these kinds of questions. I do have some questions about this particular experiment.

First, let me try to get a better idea of what you are proposing. Would the aura seers be looking at an unobstructed view of the aura generators? Let’s talk about Alice and Bob as aura seers and Charles and Diana who have strong auras. Are you suggesting that Alice and Bob are sitting with a wall between them, but both can see Charles and Diana? I assume then that the wall is to prevent Alice and Bob from interacting. A good idea.

However, it seems as though this experiment can’t distinguish between trick of the eye and real ‘energy field’ phenomenon, because if the trick of the eye is due to the construction of the eye and the color of the subject etc., then Alice and Bob should see the same auras anyway. However, it would rule out the “it’s all in their heads” hypothesis that states they don’t really see auras but are imagining it - because if they are imagining it they should get different answers. This trial would satisfy SqrlCub, but would not win a million.

The real question is, if the aura is real, why do Charles and Diana need to see the person, why can’t they just see the aura when the Alice or Bob is hidden behind a curtain? In other words, take your same setup, but put a curtain in front of Charles and make Diana sit the experiment out. Be sure the curtain can’t let a clue to who is behind it sneak through. Have Alice and Bob take notes on the aura that sticks out above the curtain. Then, later, compare their notes AND present them Charles and Diana and ask them who matches the aura they saw.

The bit about matching the aura to Charles or Diana is easily guessed (50% chance) so you should instead show Alice and Bob 3 or 4 auras, then show them 20 people and ask them to find the 3 or 4 that match the auras they saw.

If it is too hard to see auras without also seeing the person, then we need to come up with another way of deciding between “Trick of the eye” and “Genuine energy field detection”. Any suggestions? Keep in mind that if it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two that I for one will have to accept “Trick of the eye” because I can wrap my head around it. Once it can be disproved, I’ll buy you a drink in Cozumel while I help you spend your million.

[Huemr]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread for actual discussion of ‘Can we see auras for real?’

I’ve found that staring at my monitor for 3 or 4 hours makes most things I look at afterwards, appear to have an aura.

I'm not even going to get into the "starbursts" I see when I'm driving at night, and how they increase in intensity when it's raining.

[system]

Are you suggesting that Alice and Bob are sitting with a wall between them, but both can see Charles and Diana? I assume then that the wall is to prevent Alice and Bob from interacting. A good idea.

Exactly. If auras are in fact the projection of some sort of energy, it would follow that their appearance is variable. The way I described earlier seems to be the easiest way to ensure that Alice and Bob are viewing the same aura.

However, it seems as though this experiment can’t distinguish between trick of the eye and real ‘energy field’ phenomenon, because if the trick of the eye is due to the construction of the eye and the color of the subject etc., then Alice and Bob should see the same auras anyway. However, it would rule out the “it’s all in their heads” hypothesis that states they don’t really see auras but are imagining it - because if they are imagining it they should get different answers. This trial would satisfy SqrlCub, but would not win a million.

Again, exactly. By doing something like this first, we can find out immediately whether it’s all in their heads, or if it is legitimately “something,” where something is an energy field, a trick of the light, or whatever. If it is indeed “something,” we can move forward with another experiment to determine what that something is. If it’s simply an overactive imagination, then we can just bury the results…

he real question is, if the aura is real, why do Charles and Diana need to see the person, why can’t they just see the aura when the Alice or Bob is hidden behind a curtain? In other words, take your same setup, but put a curtain in front of Charles and make Diana sit the experiment out. Be sure the curtain can’t let a clue to who is behind it sneak
through. Have Alice and Bob take notes on the aura that sticks out above the curtain. Then, later, compare their notes AND present them Charles and Diana and ask them who matches the aura they saw.

It’s much harder to see an aura without seeing the person. It can be done, though. I think the aura would be distinguishable if we have the curtain backlit, where the subjects are looking at a silhouette. If we have a good number of people(aura-donators?) with similar builds, doing this shouldn’t be a problem, right?

So let’s show our subjects and even number of males and females, all with similar builds in the situation originally described, with the walls seperating the subjects to prevent interaction. Immediately after they have taken what notes they need to, we will have the aura-donators come back out, on by one, behind the curtain, and our subjects will be asked to identify them.

If an experiment like this is conducted, and the results are favorable, would this convince the Randi foundation? More importantly, would this convince the TM?

[SqrlCub]

Douglips said, “I’ll go to college as soon as I can save up the $1.25 tuition and the three cereal box tops. Maybe if I try real hard I can get into the same school that taught you to flame me for reading something into your post when in fact it was you reading non-existing statements into my post. Then maybe I could quit slaving away in my current job and get a real job at McDonalds in Assboink Idaho.” and “If only I could go to college so I could learn how to use metaphor!”

I am so glad my perception of you wasn’t wrong. Thank you for admitting this yourself and in a public forum.

Sqrl

---

Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter

[SqrlCub]

Now for my real response. Reality is what someone makes of it. If you choose to make decisions on instances such as seeing auras or reading tarot then you should expect a result that is not necessarily the best thought out. I explained my thoughts on tarot in an earlier thread. Tarot really does make comprehensive thoughts in a logical order and can even point to specific people in your life, but does it contain magic? Some would say yes. I say, it only is an aid to thoughts already inside you. There is nothing that the lay person would really consider magic. At least not in my way of using the tarot. It is simply a tool. Anyway, I figure that an aura would have the same relationship. Yes, they can be seen. Does everyone always see the same aura? Probably not. If you only see the implication of colors it could range the whole spectrum. If it was something more specific such as an after image, which I am not saying it is, then the image that you see should be fairly consistent. The image that you see may very well be an optical illusion, but it is one that you can learn how to induce as the website that SteveCRC shows. For the record. I never tried to see auras until I went to the site and I was surprised at how easy the images come. Are they forced images? Probably. If they weren’t everyone would see them all the time. Are they magical and contain meaning? Only if you deem them to be. That is the nature of reality. You make things to be the way that you want them to be. You assign meaning to things that are meaningful to yourself.

My $0.02
HUGS!
Sqrl

PS: Douglips, I like you, it just seems that when issues that may involve pagan religion come up that we will tend to misinterpret eachothers meanings. I realize this in retrospect of my previous post. Perhaps we can get together for icecream in MPSIMS some day and talk of issues that are more central to our combined ideology rather than topics that many would consider to be more on the fringe of “normal” society.

---

Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter

[douglips]

I think I’m beginning to see why SqrlCub says some of the things SqrlCub says. I married a philosopher (despite my lack of education and young age ) and have learned a bit more about some of these issues in the last two years. What you (SqrlCub) said about auras and tarot I completely agree with.

The only thing I disagree with is the nature of reality thing. That whole postmodern ‘reality is what we make it’ thing really irks my squid.

I think you can shape your perceptions of reality, and where I diverge from the whole postmodern deconstructionist whatever-it-is branch of Philosophy (PM-DC) is that that is not reality. People in very similar situations can choose to be happy or sad, so there is a lot of truth to the Ananda folks who say ‘Joy is within you.’

However, I don’t believe that that makes reality any different. If I believed invisible pink unicorns hid under my desk it wouldn’t make it so. Transendental Meditators who believe that hopping equals levitating really truly believe they are flying or invulnerable, and the PM-DC view point argues that that is reality. However, if I go up to them and swing a baseball bat at an ‘invulnerable’ TM’er, I think they would have a different opinion.

Back to Auras, I did see an ‘aura’ last night, and I’m not too impressed. I currently have it filed in the ‘optical illusion’ category, but of course I’m open to other evidence.

And, SteveCRC, as to winning the million dollar prize, I described the above test I proposed to one of the folks at the JREF and he said something along the lines of

The test you suggested for seeing auras is exactly the kind of thing we
would set up - and have in the past.

So, get your million dollar budget ready! I am willing to help design the experiment, and I won’t take more than 5% of the winnings.

[douglips]

SteveCRC writes:

It’s much harder to see an aura without seeing the person. It can be done, though. I think the aura would be distinguishable if we have the curtain backlit, where the subjects are looking at a silhouette. If we have a good number of people(aura-donators?) with similar builds, doing this shouldn’t be a problem, right?

It might be difficult to convince folks that people were not able to discern the identity from the silhouette. However, a variant on the approach would be for you to show a mixture of silhouettes of people and just plain silhouettes projected by shapes cut out in paper. The aura seers should be able to say ‘Booth number 5 has no aura.’ This would still be a bit tricky due to the fact that the person could move while the silhouette could not. There may be a way to make this work. What about just showing the silhouette of the person’s hand? It would be harder to judge fatness/skinniness/shortness/tallness/gender from just a hand in a fist, but the aura should still be just as real, right?

If an experiment like this is conducted, and the results are favorable, would this convince the Randi foundation? More importantly, would this convince the TM?

If we can work all the loose ends out of it it would convince me, and I’m sure the Randi foundation would be willing to work together to try to suggest a sufficiently difficult test. They may balk at the silhouette ideas, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. If we can come up with a bulletproof design that eliminates the possibility of NSP (normal sensory perception) then they’d give you the cash.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

Reality is not what you make it. I have friend who really believed this. He believed that all negative things such as disease were in the mind and that if you just believed strong enough good thing would happen. He was wrong. He died believing this. It is pointless to try to come up with experiments to verify or disprove the existence of auras. People who believe in auras and such nonsense will continue to believe whatever they choose in spite of evidence. It reminds me of so-called scientific creationism.

douglips you did not tell us what color aura your pink unicorns have.

[moriah]

As for setting up the test:

Since I’m assuming that a person’s aura surrounds their entire body, even when clothed, then an aura can show through clothing. So, have the people being scanned put a white sheet over them (like a Halloween ghost). Have them stand in front of a white wall.

That should screen out body type (except for height) and tricks of color. Then have several ‘readers’ look at a succession of sheeted people and record the auras they see. Keep bringing back the same people in a random order to see if their aura remains the same.

If aura detection is possible, a person should have a stable aura each time they are seen by the same person, and they should have a stable aura as seen by different people.

Good luck. It’s all bullshit.

Peace.

[moriah]

Remember, the staff is promoting the “party” line. As in, we’re all at a party and should behave in well-mannered way accordingly. Hosts at parties don’t generally throw gratuitous insults at their guests. -Melin

Unless a course a guest makes a pest of themself by badgering the host. At which point, the host is entitled to insult the guest, who, if they don’t pick up on the hint, should be thrown out so that everyone else at the party can start to have a good time without that hump spoiling things.

[David_B]

DrMatrix said:

Reality is not what you make it. I have friend who really believed this. He believed that all negative things such as disease were in the mind and that if you just believed strong enough good thing would happen. He was wrong. He died believing this.

Unfortunately, this idea that reality is what you make it – that reality is subjective – seems to have a growing number of adherents.

It is pointless to try to come up with experiments to verify or disprove the existence of auras. People who believe in auras and such nonsense will continue to believe whatever they choose in spite of evidence.

In general, you are correct. Most of the True Believers will not be convinced. That said, it is no reason not to test it. I think there was one dowser who took Randi’s test, failed miserably, and decided that maybe there really wasn’t anything to this after all. A mind might have been changed!

Also, there is the chance that maybe there is something there. Is it likely? No. Do I think there is? No. But there might be. If there is, it is something that should be discovered and tested.

It reminds me of so-called scientific creationism.

In some ways it is, which is why you’ll find some of the same organizations dealing with both in a skeptical way.

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
– William Kingdon Clifford

[SqrlCub]

That’s it Douglips. Anyway, DrMatrix said, “Reality is not what you make it. I have friend who really believed this. He believed that all negative things such as disease were in the mind and that if you just believed strong enough good thing would happen.” I know what you meant. That your friend believed reality is as he made it. Not what is written. “Reality is not what you make it. I have a friend who believed this…” Anyway, the clarification should read, “your mental reality is what you make it.” This in mind, your mental reality can affect your physical reality, but is not necessarily so. In many instances, if you believe that you are going to get better you do. I am too lazy to look up any sites, but that is generally considered true. It takes much longer for a patient who thinks they are dying to get better than it does for someone who believes they are doing fine. Yes, perception of reality can change these things. Whence I was taking some introductory therapy classes in college (I have about 200 credits (based on roughly 3 hours per class…music classes tended to be 1 hour btw) the main focus when we got into the elderly and nursing home care was that the people pretty much decided how long you are going to live. Dr. Wanda McDowell, professor emeritus from Bowling Green State University, and Ohio State (IIRC), a noted psychologist on death and dying, also says the same thing. At some time in your youth you will decide how long you will live and pretty much live to that age. It is not necessarily a specific age, perhaps a degree of health and independence, but still, the idea is there. How does this relate to auras? Basically in my relativistic view, the belief is enough to make it true. Believe all you want in the “pink unicorns under your desk”. (A wonderful allusion btw)If they hold reality for you, I am not one to impose on that. My point about the aura as I stated earlier is that you can see them. They may not hold meaning or significance to you, but to the viewer they might. Their personal significance is what makes them important.

HUGS!
Sqrl

---

Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

David B You are correct. I implied that unorthodox or unproven theories should be summarily dismissed. This was wrong. They should be tested. This is how new theories are formed. It is just that when “theories” have been repeatedly disproven what is the point of beating a dead horse.

SqrlCub You have said that you don’t know what aura really are, but do you have some idea as to what they might be or any ideas for their application?
I have heard a little about a patient’s attitude affecting health and I think this is unexpected but exciting. I really don’t know enough about this phenomenon to have an opinion except to say I would like to see the results.

---

Virtually yours,

I J Matrix
“Lies, lies, lies, spam and lies” - Konrad

[handy]

Just cause you can’t see it doesn’t mean its not there.

Kerian [sp] photography is one way of seeing things you normally cannot.

[Nickrz]

Cecil said “Scientists, trying to be nice guys about it, note that the size of a human’s aura is dependent on his skin moisture, among other things, so maybe a Kirlian photo does tell you something about a person, much as a lie detector does. But the whole thing seems too dumb to waste much time on.”

There are things some people simply wish to believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and there are people who think they can convince them otherwise. This particular exercise in windmill at tilting is a prime example. Get thee to Great Debates with the words of Cecil ringing in your ears!