It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Russian scientist photographs souls leaving body at death.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
sorry here it is:

Ah yes, the force .

I've seen Star Wars also.

I think this is much more detailed than that. Especially since this is a Russian and they're usually not that forgetful of proved science. Maybe there's some connection. IDK

Thanks for adding this though.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by aleon1018]

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Lasheic

Reality is objective, regardless of your subjective perceptions of it.

I could argue that the your objective reality is a result of our subjective perceptions. There is too much that we simply cannot comprehend at this point to be able to think in a black and white mentality. Of course I agree that ultimately if you're able to look down upon the 'big picture', then reality would indeed be objective... but we don't have that luxury. Whether you'd like to admit it or not, we are completely ignorant of the big picture... and to say that something is purely subjective just because it cannot be comprehended in an objective manner, would be dishonest.

My point is, from a scientific point of view there are certain objective occurrences that simply cannot be observed at this point, as they are beyond our comprehension. The fundamental laws on which our 'scientific perception' has been based on, does not allow for this comprehension to take place.

Absolutely not. Faith is nothing to be respected or praised. It is self-imposed blind ignorance.

A certain (temporary) degree of faith is necessary to move forward. I don't suggest, and in fact I'm completely against putting faith into something and leaving it at that... all I suggest is having faith that anything is possible, and exploring those possibilities where they are observed -- objectively or subjectively.

[edit on 27/8/09 by Navieko]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:27 AM
Kirilian photography got famous in the 60s, I believe, when they were able to image the part of a leaf that was missing. In other words, if you were to take a leaf, cut off perhaps 1/3 of the top of the leaf, expose it to the KP, you would see a lingering image of the missing part of the leaf.

At that time, it promoted the visibility of the "soul" or the "aura" of the missing part. I believe it was also extended to human appendages.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Lasheic
Evidently, you're not understanding the basic definitions of that which you're arguing. I think you're just making up your own unique definitions in an attempt to obfuscate the issue into something inarguable.

Consciousness is not a synonym for soul/observer.

Obviously vaguely these terms are similar and people commonly associate them together but the distinction makes sense.

Consciousness is the constant experience created by the physical brain.

The soul is the eternal entity or power that actually feels and responds to the experience.

This is why people don't always understand themselves.

I think if you really thought about it you would agree.

Originally posted by Lasheic
You don't want to face the conclusions of the evidence, and cling to flimsy justifications and apologetics. I think you're afraid of the implications of the de-mystification of the soul, of the mind.

I'll admit that this a theory that is supported by logical reasoning and not necessarily definitively proven by science but no current science negates the theory of a separate observing entity, and often it supports it.

Originally posted by Lasheic
Even if the soul were to exist as flowing input to our brains, cognitive neuroscience and our increasing understanding of the human mind have reduced the importance of the "soul" to YOU and YOUR personal identity to essentially nothingness. It would be little more than a passive component, as integral to defining who YOU are as the oxygen you breath which you referenced earlier. Less important even, than the electricity firing across your synapse.

This part shows your starting to understand the issue.

Your reluctance is that you believe the observer-reality connection is some how religion or faith based.

I'm not talking about Casper here.

I'm talking about the other side of the equation.

Like electricity or a fire. What is the fuel?

Plants and animals have it, but we just have the volume turned up.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by jinx880101 The same technology which had been used to photograph peoples auras for the last couple of years, is now being used to photograph the 'souls' of a dying person leaving their body.

Not sure why that would be a surprise seeing as the aura is the energy of your soul

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Alien MindShow me proof that we have gotten so advanced in short amount of years that we all of the sudden know how the human soul work.

Seems to me humans have had a soul since there were humans. All you have to do is ask yours... be surprised at the answers you get

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
Yip,sounds like plain old gobbeldy gook to me.He doesn't even tell us why these pictures are a soul...a little thing called evidence.Seems he has a nice background,but that doesn't mean he is immune from taking wild leaps of imagination with nothing to back up the claims.And in the end..your soul is just your brain,your memories/experiences create you and when the brain is starved of oxygen it dies then slowly decomposes ie no you.It's not some magical *thing* that floats away when you die and other such nonsense, that sort of thinking belongs in the beliefs of ancient peoples,not the 21st century.Imo of course.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Solomons]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by Solomons

Well, it would really suck if an OOBE only lasts as long as our bodies are still warm. That would be the second death.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:49 AM
I watched the video posted by jinx880101. The colors from the aura in Coggins' computer display are generated from electrical impulses from the HAND. There is no aura actually being photographed, only information from a GSR (Galvanic skin response) that is getting electrical impulses from the hand. This video breaks no new scientific ground at all. Any good Cognitive Scientist knows that when you are nervous/excited/angry you are going to have differences in your GSR no matter what. It is basic physiology, and lie detector tests have been using this same method for decades.

To prove my point about how misleading this video is, when you look at the video from 8:50-8:55, it shows a girl with a green "aura". However, notice how the "chakras" are slightly off-center. This is because the information about her "aura" is being taken from her hand, and you are not really looking at any "chakras". What you are looking at is a computer that takes info from the subject's hand and then displays what the researcher thinks the aura would look like based on GSR from the hand. The whole aura, chakras and everything, is COMPLETELY COMPUTER GENERATED. That's why the chakras aren't centered on the parts of the body. Wouldn't you expect the chakras to be centered if an aura were really being photographed? Personally, I want to know how the researcher decided which "chakras" belonged where in the first place? How did Coggins correlate color to raw electrical activity coming from the hand? There is plenty of room for bias to be introduced here, and plenty of room for misinterpretation. You are not getting all of the pieces to the puzzle.

You might be asking, "why is this relevant?" It is relevant because it shows that Coggins has preconceived notions about what chakras are, where they are, and what parts of the hand correlate to the "chakras" which are supposed to be located on the body, what color the aura is supposed to be, and what the aura means. This is pseudoscience because of the misleading way the man is claiming to be photographing "auras," at best since no auras are really being photographed. At worst, it is a creepy guy filming teenagers kissing one another while also spreading rampant mis/disinformation, hate to be honest but just denying ignorance here.

Let me state flat out and for the record that what you are looking at is not Kirlian photography. Kirlian photography requires that the object being photographed be pushed against an electrified metal plate. What you are looking at is a dude taking normal webcam shots of people and then overlaying a completely computer generated image over them. He then has people "read" the auras, just like any fraud psychic can do.


'Russian scientist photographs souls' article = NO PICTURES/NO PROOF


Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
Kirlian photography, It seems odd to me that a photographic method that supposedly captures souls or auras of living beings produces almost identical auras around inanimate objects. Do they suggest that inanimate objects have souls or something else?

Originally posted by Lasheic
As for open mindedness, it is only a virtue when complimented by reason. Without reason, open mindedness becomes gullibility.

Lemme add a quote to this list: Believing something should never be a matter of faith until you are done using your brain first!

Lasheic, it is good to see someone else who knows a damn thing about Cognitive Science on these forums. This thread was getting pretty ridiculous! It seems like people lose their sense of critical analysis during the summer here...

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Albastion]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta

Thank you so much for your post, very informative and interesting! Will definately have a look at those links, much appreciated.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by accuroman

The topics I wish to discuss and are being discussed are completely different from that thread, which didn't even go anywhere. You should accually read the whole thread before posting, otherwise the whole thread is full of the same replies.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:46 AM
This is complete and utter non-science. Just because they name the colors on the thermal imaging scans "soul" does not mean that is the case. Jesus.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:46 AM
I watched the first minute or two of the almost 50 minute video you posted about Korotkov. In the video at the beginning it claims he is one of the top 5 physicists in Russia. If that were true one would think that there would be more info about him than his contributions to an alternative medicine journal.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Albastion]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by Albastion

Thank you for the compliment. Believe me, the feeling is mutual. I've noticed there's quite a few topics that members here are often very verbose in opposition to, and have very little understanding of... perhaps because the answers are unsettling. Complexity (We are not in control), Evolution (We are not god's special creation), Cognitive science (There is no eternal soul), and even some who hold out against Heliocentricism (we are not the center the of the universe).

Though, I do have to point out that the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in which Korotkov is published IS a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Not a highly respected one, nor one which carries much weight in the academic community... but it is science. Then again, his peer review submissions in no way substantiate the OP, and in no way validates Korotkov as a respectable source.

After all, even William Dembski managed to get one of his papers through Peer-Review.... a paper on search engine algorithms anyhow.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:50 AM
First of all, thanks for everyone who contributed to this thread so far, it has been a pleasure, and yes even to the sceptics.

What I don't understand though is why some of you are so hell bent on proving that a soul doesn't exist? I mean, would it really be such a bad thing?
Secondly, alot of you have said "oh,and this coming from a site that features "World’s strongest vagina breaks own record lifting 14 kilos " and whole bunch of other crap.

The first link I posted was the Mos News site

The second was a link to the book review of ''___' The spirit molecule.' No adds for anything else on there either.Just the book review, no other articles featured.'___'_The_Spirit_Molecule.html

And the third link was an Adobe Acrobat file, just an article, no adds

So, I don't know which links you've been following..
In any case, people must then just agree to disagree, I mean,who are you to tell someone their soul does not exist? And how do you then explain peoples account of NDE's etc. IMO, does it hurt someone who doesn't believe in a soul, to tell them that such a thing accually exists?
If you want to believe that you just rot in the ground and your life was for nothing then go ahead. Really, sometimes I don't know what some of you even do on sites like this when you do not believe in anything, it seems all you want to do is argue.

But without you, threads would't be as much fun or as interesting. Sometimes, I just think some of you could go about it in a more respectfull way, you know what I mean? You probably will find that people might agree with you if you don't sound so arrogent.

As for the person who said this was posted before and sarcasticly commented about me having a problem with the search engine, that other thread in the link you posted, spoke very little in depth about what we are talking about here. Yess, the topic might be the same, but the content and writings of my original post has a totaly different content. In fact, the other thread just had a pasted news snippet, and a one line comment. I doubt you even read my original post anyway. It doesn't phase me.

Sorry for the rant but I needed to just get this out.
Anyway, thanks to everyone again.

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by ChemBreather

Wait a minute. I forgot about the mediums.
Allison Dubois from the TV show Medium.
She can see ghosts.
It's genetic.
Her children also have the gift/curse.
Allison says hospitals are the worst.
Ghosts are everywhere because they died at the hospital
and chose to stick around.

Man, now you'r just being scary !

But there is this woman , I dont remember the name or if it is the same woman you talk about, she seems to see and talk to spirits and have good credibility amongst her fellow ghost 'busters' .

I remember when my father died in 2000, the moment he passed on, the room light up insanly and I was the only one that saw it..Don't know what that was about, but it couldnt have been the lights since no one else saw it !!

[edit on 28/8/2009 by ChemBreather]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:44 AM
what utter twaddle - by this metric - a photo of any complex eletronic device will " reveal " that it to has an alleged " soul "

all the word sallad and psycho / psychic babblings in the world cannot hide the obvious fact that this is simply imaging electrical feilds .

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:03 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

Hi there- Ignorent_ape!

I posted this before but will posted again for you!
Maybe you want to download the whole doc?

"The Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV)
Bioelectrography camera measures the human
energy field and allows us to detect and monitor
changes in the subtle energy fields of the individual.
The GDV is the most advanced comprehensive and
quantitative full body-imaging device available on
the market today. Research conducted over the last
20 years by Professor K. Korotkov, inventor and
leading Russian scientist/physicist, and his team has
confirmed beyond doubt that recording the bioenergy
field distribution from the electrophotographic
emission of the fingertips provides a
very comprehensive image of the function of the
entire mind-body system."

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:03 AM
reply to post by jinx880101

What I don't understand though is why some of you are so hell bent on proving that a soul doesn't exist? I mean, would it really be such a bad thing?

No, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't harbor any ill will against the concept of a soul. I just harbor a greater love for the truth, so I will champion the concepts which have the greatest probability of being true based on the available evidence.

I also harbor a deep appreciation and love for the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. But there's no real evidence for it which the Savannah Theory doesn't accommodate equally or better. So I champion the Savannah theory over AAH, even though I like the AAH better.

I'm not proving the soul doesn't exist, just falsifying perceptions of what the soul is based on what we know of the brain. If that doesn't leave any room left for the soul... well... it can't be helped, and without positive physical evidence or mathematical logic to suggest that it does exist, there's no reason to base an argument on the precept that it does.

Is it really such a bad thing to suggest geocentricism? To believe that we are the center of a grand creation crafted just for us? No... but it's not true. And to be frank, I think our understanding of the universe (even the ugly truths) together in concert form a far more majestic and amazing tapestry of depth, complexity, and wonder, than anything postulated by metaphysics or religions.

Really, sometimes I don't know what some of you even do on sites like this when you do not believe in anything, it seems all you want to do is argue.

I do come here to debate and argue. I don't seek out complimentary self-affirming views. I seek out contentious opposing views. Not because I want to change anyone's mind... but because I want the opportunity to change MY mind.

Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine. Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change it. ~ Thomas Paine

To extrapolate on the above quote, if I do not challenge my own opinions - I become a slave to them. This doesn't mean I'll agree or even take seriously someone else's opinion... merely that I'm exposed to other opinions. A particularly well crafted argument which the preponderance of evidence to back it can change my mind, and inversely - the research involved in the debate process can further my understanding of a subject by being exposed to studies and views I may have previously overlooked.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:24 AM
reply to post by Lasheic

Is it really such a bad thing to suggest geocentricism? To believe that we are the center of a grand creation crafted just for us? No... but it's not true. And to be frank, I think our understanding of the universe (even the ugly truths) together in concert form a far more majestic and amazing tapestry of depth, complexity, and wonder, than anything postulated by metaphysics or religions.

Now there I agree with you, and that was a nice post by the way. I don't think we can fully comprehend what the 'soul' 'spirit'/universe/multiverse accually is or what it is capeable of or it's reason for existance. If that made any sense... We are all just here looking for answers, aren't we?
Thanks for that post!

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in