Why paranormal events can't be caught on film?

I just decided to do an experiment. I set up a camera focusing on a mirror and began expanding my aura until it was clearly visible with beautiful colors resonating around me. However when I played it back this was not visible, it was what I expected, but I am still unsure why it wouldn't be visible.

A camera is an objective observer that just captures light isn't it? So if I focused in a way to see those things why couldn't I focus in a way as to see them in the video too? Perhaps the aura is like the spirit in moment-to-moment form and cannot be captured or frozen in time. What do you think?

I wouldn't think of an aura as an actual light, it's more of an.. aura.. It's kind of an essence in and of itself, and is not physically light that can be captured by a camera. A spirit may be able to interact with light, therefore making it photographable by cameras.

auras can be described more as a form of energy than light, and a normal camera does not capture energy.

there is a supposed way to capture auras by method of kirlian photography. it's controversial whether or not this photographs the aura or just corona discharge. that's for the reader to decide.

but also, i would not say that all paranormal events cannot be filmed. if i were to record myself moving a small candle across the room, narrating and illustrating that there were no gimmicks or tomfoolery, it would be most valuable to skeptics.

some paranormal events can be filmed, but unless one can conjure up these skills at will and not just have random moments of uncontrollable mindful ecstasy, it's unlikely that one would have a camera nearby or someone to record said events as they unfold.

I don't know a lot about auras, but if they actually exist I would suggest that they have more to do with the person "seeing" them and interpreting them than their physical existence in this reality. Most research seems to indicate that some paranormal events and effects may operate in engery fields unlike EM fields (although sometimes they may interact) that we can't currently measure or even detect.

Kind of but not exactly like the way we can think about things that happened in the past and remember them as visual images, but there's no camera in existence that can take the pictures.

Originally posted by HighEye
I set up a camera focusing on a mirror and began expanding my aura until it was clearly visible with beautiful colors resonating around me.

So...

You can stare in a mirror and manifest your aura at will, and physically see it?

You got mad skills.

Yes, just don't blink or move your eyes, stand perfectly unflinchingly still and look right at the center of your forehead at an exact point with all of your focus and you will begin to see things happening within 30-60 seconds.

I get a lot of etheric energy building up while doing this so I can see how it has more to do with energy than light. But what I would say is that if I telepathically move object a1 5cm to the left and video tape it then this is not really good proof since it only demonstrates a change in states and not the causing factor of that change. I certainly wouldn't call that scientifically valid, we need a way to actually capture the energy flow itself.

Originally posted by HighEye
But what I would say is that if I telepathically move object a1 5cm to the left and video tape it then this is not really good proof since it only demonstrates a change in states and not the causing factor of that change. I certainly wouldn't call that scientifically valid, we need a way to actually capture the energy flow itself.

that is a very good point. one can only video record the 'what' and not the 'why'. i do not know of any 'energy' scanners out there that can record and gauge it. the closest thing i can think of are thermal scanners, but heat is only a byproduct of a certain type of energy, not energy itself.

so truth can only be found through the eyes of the experienced?

reply to post by HighEye


That's probably because auras don't exist...

I hear it's pretty hard to get pictures of the Loch Ness Monster in a McDonalds drive-thru, too.

I have got to see your video of you staring at your forehead mentally commanding your Aura to free itself. Post that video on up.

I can make myself see double, have always been able to. No magic about it, I have a lazy eye.

I also hear it's pretty hard to record ignorance on a video camera, especially in cases where it is perpetuated by the arrogance of believing all that exists in your world is all that exists in all worlds, funny that.

reply to post by HighEye


Is it ignorant to expect at least the slightest bit of evidence before lapping up a belief? Or is it ignorant to think that anecdotal evidence of "phenomenon" makes it true...

Auras don't exist.

My point was just because something hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean it will never be proven, science is always finding new phenomena and providing proof for it - but until then we should not just close off our minds and wait for the authorities to bring us a silver platter of authenticated information.

I equate auras to the same category of phenomena as human feelings. If you can provide proof for human feelings then it is easier to find proof for auras. In other words when I say "feeling" there is little level for abstraction - I mean, what is a feeling anyway? However when I say aura at least I can abstract that to ambience or atmosphere (both of which are yet again easier to prove).

I do not think it is ignorant to feel content, happy, angry, upset, I think it's called experiencing the fullness of life whether that is true or not. It's certainly not false for me if that's what you are inferring. If you have other than empirical proof for any of the above feelings then that would be great because it would make proving auras a lot easier...

Until you do I guess we should stop having human feelings since that would be ignorant? That's what I gathered from your proposed train of thought and the intrinsic relationship auras have to human feelings.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by HighEye]

if you really think about it. Visible things can only be seen if light is bounced off it and then we see this image with our eyes. If an aura exists, maybe its so small or fine that light can't bounce off it so we can't see it. Or maybe auras ghosts paranormal events can't be seen on camera or sometimes the human eye because these things are made up of a different state of matter? Anyone care to explore this theory a little more?

I'd say it's more to do with our visible spectrum of light, perhaps you are on the right track when saying auras are too fine, perhaps they are too intense for us to be able to perceive with regular photographic instruments.

Anyone who has watched What The Bleep will recall a scene about native tribes not being able to see ships sailing on the ocean because a 'ship' was unheard of to them, they had no such conception anywhere in their conscious or unconscious mind, so they just saw water. But if that was captured on camera would they see the ships then? When we move from the subjective belief-driven awareness and sensory filtering to the objective plane of awareness it becomes messy to isolate how filtering occurs on that level.

You wont be able to photograph your aura...youde require a special camera for that. Goggle aura cameras online, and see what you come up. Auras, as a few sated here, are different energy's...
even photographing a spirit, or dmon inst easy, because for them to manifest, it requires energy. Hence, the presence of orbs, or so its theorized. So, the more a spirit materializes, the camera will pick it up. It all depends io guess, wether or not, the being wnats to bee seen.