<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> Hello, This is my first post on this forum. I ended up here searching for proof for or against the Kirlian effect. So far, the most frequently cited serious proof against Kirlian seems to be the study conducted at Drexel University, but I couldn't find any web page at drexel.edu detailing their study. I also email-ed them one week ago at "research dot med at drexel period edu", but there has been no reply yet. As for the "pro" evidence and some counter-rebukings, I ran across http://www.kirlian.org/kirlian/faq.htm, which states that: <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The claims that Kirlian photography are merely related to moisture are false. There have been numerous studies that show that moisture is not the main variable in Kirlian photography. I believe that many people get irritated by claims that seem unscientific, and will make efforts to invalidate non-traditional views without bothering to be scientific themselves. I have yet to come across a serious study that shows that moisture is the principal variable in Kirlian photography, yet I have come across several careful studies that show just the opposite. I have however, come across many references to the "fact" that Kirlian photography has been once and for all shown to be merely based on moisture. No specific studies are ever mentioned, nor are the studies that show otherwise ever properly rebuked. It is my belief that those who claim this is so are wholly uninformed, and are merely spreading their favorite rumor, in the hopes that somehow the world will become more rational. New technologies are often irrationally bashed when they don't fit into established frames of reference.</SPAN> Anyone kind enough to counter-counter-rebuke this?</SPAN>
