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 

produced one, but they theorize a number of possibilities, including residue on 
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 
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.  

has never been demonstrated to be anything other than leaf residue or plain old 

> 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