Again you have not studied your subject in enough depth to offer better than speculative criticism. Finally, you are guilty of bad faith, because you essentially imply that persons reporting such things as phantom half leaves are either so foolish as to conduct the experiment sloppily so as to confound the results with the effects on which you speculate, or else that they are liars who misrepresent their technique. From what I have seen the people conducting both Kirlian photography research and those doing research on the Rorschach are working harder and more intelligently, and certainly with more good faith, than what you have done. Apparently, you have a difficult time reading. Moisture is not what is photographed.
Electrical discharge is what is photographed.
I don't doubt that your researchers work hard, nor do I challenge their intelligence. Whether they have good faith or bad faith, I can't say. However, I think your critical comments demonstrate the uselessness of such expressions. Jul 1996 I hope you will take the time to talk to a psychologist or psychiatrist before debunking a sometimes useful tool. The Rorschach ink blot can be over-interpreted to be sure, yet, there are certain characteristics of response which very accurately predict mental illness and conflict.