Gold Dragon Body Photos

[ralis]

Kan took the photos himself and used a tripod with a timer. Why not let others in the room? Disingenuous on his part!

[Guest paul walter]

Kan took the photos himself and used a tripod with a timer. Why not let others in the room? Disingenuous on his part!

 

 

Well if you're taking photos with a timer and there are multiple exposures this is the blur that results.

 

You know when photography first came on board they said painting was over because photography was effectively replacing paintings hegemony as the principle medium that represented/captured visual 'reality'. The premise was flawed from the beginning but it is a premise we continue to live with: if it's a photo it's 'proof' of some kind, a step higher than hearsay but not as believable as motion film...and so on goes the logic. This logic only holds because the original assumption was never questioned and we are in perhaps murkier waters than ever these days to judge the 'real' and the 'fake' in terms of image representation becuase we not only live under the original misunderstanding but the saturation of the image culture is reaching total. We need to re-establish contact with our eyes, not just use our eyes as they get what they see processed through our overloaded and overwishful minds.

 

Documentary films can also be argued to be more "fictional" than "fiction" films (due to the manipulation of all the elements involved in their making due to the process of their construction) yet we/they still swear to be representing 'reality'.

 

And: so what if they are of the Dragon Body--it's entirely questionable why anyone would set out to photograph and sensationalise such a thing unless it's for gain and fame anyway. Paul

[ralis]

I sent the photos of Kan to a friend of mine who is an artist and master at photo shop. I will let the forum know what his opinion is.

[Guest paul walter]

I sent the photos of Kan to a friend of mine who is an artist and master at photo shop. I will let the forum know what his opinion is.

 

 

 

Hi Ralis, this is all bringing up some things I deal with everyday but have no outlet for . It's part of the self-conning process that we have to get our presumptions/perceptions/doubts validated from "experts" and "authorities".

 

I'm reminded of experts etc who gave the verdict of 'innocent' to the Zapruder film in the Kennedy findings against those who didn't or the analyses of those moon photos by various researchers who find all sorts of differing things (from Richard Hoagland "seeing" huge glass structures in the moon photos to the eminently more realistic, analysable and 'seeable' effects of misaligned Scotchlight screen light refraction used in Kubricks suppossed front-screen projection process)depending on their state of mind. I'm sure your friend will give the verdict of "dumb" (and guilty) so it's not he I'm questioning but the process we put ourselves through. How many other areas of our lives do we apply this giving over of our power to perceive and conclude to?

[ralis]

Hi Ralis, this is all bringing up some things I deal with everyday but have no outlet for . It's part of the self-conning process that we have to get our presumptions/perceptions/doubts validated from "experts" and "authorities".

 

I'm reminded of experts etc who gave the verdict of 'innocent' to the Zapruder film in the Kennedy findings against those who didn't or the analyses of those moon photos by various researchers who find all sorts of differing things (from Richard Hoagland "seeing" huge glass structures in the moon photos to the eminently more realistic, analysable and 'seeable' effects of misaligned Scotchlight screen light refraction used in Kubricks suppossed front-screen projection process)depending on their state of mind. I'm sure your friend will give the verdict of "dumb" (and guilty) so it's not he I'm questioning but the process we put ourselves through. How many other areas of our lives do we apply this giving over of our power to perceive and conclude to?

 

 

My reason for asking his evaluation is that he is a world renowned landscape painter. He has a better eye at picking out fakes than I do. Further, I have an interest since I have been practicing Kunlun for almost 1 year.

[orb]

I would probably be more interested in this if there were some scientific investigation into max and his students.

 

http://www.lamathunderbolt.com/largetrailer.htm

 

This trailer for the upcoming max movie has really turned me off to the practice. It really looks fake to me.

 

I think max could settle this whole affair and allow himself to be studied by scientists and filmed.

 

 

You don't even need scientists. All you need is a non-practitioner that is willing to slap him. Max is unable to demonstrate his "empty force" on a non-practitioner!

[goldisheavy]

I don't know about all of the pictures, but some of them look definitely deceptive. Are you guys aware of something called long exposure?

 

If you take a shot using a low sensitivity film, you need to expose the frame for a longer period of time compared to what you'd need for a higher sensitivity film. Long exposure can be something like 30 seconds or even longer. During that time you can move your body and make it appear fuzzy. Also, you can begin exposing a frame, have the person sit on a chair after some time. The result will be a shot that captures some of the features that would ordinarily be blocked by the body in the chair. In other words, it will look like a transparent body.

 

Digital cameras allow you to digitally set the sensitivity of your "film". To get a better effect, you can also put a very dark filter onto your lens, to block most of the light and to increase the needed exposure time. With enough effort you can probably get the exposure time even in a well lit room into the minute range. Consider what the photo will look like if you begin the exposure with an empty chair and wait 30 seconds, then have the person enter the frame and sit on a chair, taking 3 seconds, and finish the other 27 seconds of the exposure. What do you think this will look like? It will look like a clear semi-transparent body sitting in a chair in an otherwise normal room.

 

Considering how easy it is to make a fake shot like that, I will accept no photographic "evidence" of any of these things.

 

In fact, I am 99% sure all these photos are fake. They all use a well-known photography technique that I describe in this post. Be careful my friends.

Edited October 17, 2010 by goldisheavy

[3bob]

Even if somehow the pictures were real that really is not the main point to me.

(since the whole universe also dissappears)

 

It is the motives along with a very serious need and reason for such a transformation to be displayed in public. (and is there such here (?) I don't see it)

 

Thus and for instance picures of people being helped, healed, relieved of other types of suffering and connecting with dharma are far more important than such far-out dispalys that can tempt a mind for power.

 

Om

Edited October 17, 2010 by 3bob

[That Guy]

THANK YOU! Some decent skeptical arguments!

Thanks Scotty

 

@ Paul

 

We do give our powers away, and sometimes it a good thing.

 

You have the power, no doubt. But power without knowledge is dangerous, so even if you have the power to make your decision, but lack the knowledge to make the right one, how does keeping all your power benefit you?

This brings me to the next thing, wisdom. Wisdom is what you need to help you decide when you should be giving your power away and to whom.

 

Experts are human too, they cant always be right, and even though they are all "experts" they can still be worlds apart is their expertise of a subject. Either way it is always wise to get a second opinion, especially by those who have great knowledge in that field.

 

In conclusion, use your power wisely.

Edited October 17, 2010 by That Guy

[Rocky Lionmouth]

I don't know about all of the pictures, but some of them look definitely deceptive. Are you guys aware of something called long exposure?

 

If you take a shot using a low sensitivity film, you need to expose the frame for a longer period of time compared to what you'd need for a higher sensitivity film. Long exposure can be something like 30 seconds or even longer. During that time you can move your body and make it appear fuzzy. Also, you can begin exposing a frame, have the person sit on a chair after some time. The result will be a shot that captures some of the features that would ordinarily be blocked by the body in the chair. In other words, it will look like a transparent body.

 

Digital cameras allow you to digitally set the sensitivity of your "film". To get a better effect, you can also put a very dark filter onto your lens, to block most of the light and to increase the needed exposure time. With enough effort you can probably get the exposure time even in a well lit room into the minute range. Consider what the photo will look like if you begin the exposure with an empty chair and wait 30 seconds, then have the person enter the frame and sit on a chair, taking 3 seconds, and finish the other 27 seconds of the exposure. What do you think this will look like? It will look like a clear semi-transparent body sitting in a chair in an otherwise normal room.

 

Considering how easy it is to make a fake shot like that, I will accept no photographic "evidence" of any of these things.

 

In fact, I am 99% sure all these photos are fake. They all use a well-known photography technique that I describe in this post. Be careful my friends.

 

At first i thought this link was wrong or something, on some "whats with the contemporary amateur artistic photo thing?"

First thing that came to my mind when i realized this was supposed to be proof of a magic technique was what you just mentioned!

It's easy to use even with your average random "not so expensive and advanced" digitals, even though an ordinary 35mm film camera would yield a better, more "spectral" result. High aperture values and long exposure with a low sensitivity film or a dimly lit room and presto! You look like you're an etheral creature, dissapearing into thin air, or being extremely fast in your movements comic-book style. This is photo-school 101.

 

Now i'm not discrediting the guy who claims to be able to turn invisible and his high level technique, but his evidence is on the level of cheap parlor tricks.

[ralis]

The figure in the photos is distorted and the proportions of the figure are skewed.

[ralis]

Since there is a credibility problem with these photos, there may be a problem with the claim around Kan healing from paralysis.

[ralis]

You don't even need scientists. All you need is a non-practitioner that is willing to slap him. Max is unable to demonstrate his "empty force" on a non-practitioner!

 

Obviously, it only works on the true believer! I guess this is another example of authoritarianism at it's finest!

[Astral_Anima]

A topic of interest to me. Before one gets into such a "realm" I would suggest considering a few videos...

 

This series has some great explanations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeacZwl2pbg&feature=related

 

This is the BEST video EVER, lol

 

 

Again the fact that Max can't use his abilities on the "non-practitioner" is sketch at best. The idea of being "open" and "playful" is great for mental health and emotional balance but also leave one open to illusion. I've never met Max and wont be able to until next year, and I don't know his abilities, but what he's shown so far isn't that impressive. However if he can turn "transparent" live, real time, then that would be alittle more believable. If he truly has reached the state people claim he's reached then he probably has MANY more powers than what he's shown (thunder magic?). Since he has a healing practice in Hawaii, I would inquire about that and perhaps see who he has healed and what the success rate was and what the people experienced. Or perhaps get a healing from him in person.

 

So far the only one's that I know of that have been able to claim concrete, demonstratable and re-demonstratable abilities with objective results are John Chang, and some of Verdesi's "masters". However I myself have never experienced such things and I know how some of their things can be faked, however it seems more likely for them to be legit than some of the others.

 

In counterpoint Kunlun is more of a "spiritual" system that seems to utilize some different form of energy. It seems to affect the spiritual/emotional/mental more than the physical. It's likely that it wouldn't work on those who are not receptive to it, making it a bad choice for those who wish to have a demonstratable effect on others (it seems). The argument that a persons energy channels are too closed and using energy on them would hurt them is an unstable argument from a "master"; it shows they don't have control of how much energy they use. For example JC was able to give a general percentage of how much power he was exerting, and when healing he says he only uses a small fraction of his energy so not to harm people.

 

Personally I think kunlun is great for mental/emotional health, when I do it I feel "connected" and smile and laugh all the time, feels very "light". I also feel the "magnetic feeling, esp from the Red Pheonix practice, my brain feels like a magnet after doing that. However without enough demonstratable evidence or proper explanation certain things are harder to believe.

 

It would be great if there were a practitioner or two here who has either met Max and experienced these things or has achieved some level with abilities, who could share a few things with us. Apparently Kan has only done Kunlun for 7 or so years before he attained Gold Dragon Body.

 

The other question is: Does GDB mean immortality? No-one has answered that. Usually the goal of daoist alchemy is eventual immortality, so I would assume this does that, but nobody has answered that...

 

Those are my current thoughts

-Astral

Edited October 17, 2010 by Astral_Anima

[al.]

None! As far as I know it is just hype. If extra strands of DNA occurred in humans, wouldn't there be obvious physical characteristics?

 

Just thought I'd mention that this seems to be a theme with a number of people-

 

eric pearl (of reconnective healing) suggests that his healing work is aligning with a new vibration of light and information that has only recently appeared on Earth, which changes or adds to our currant DNA composition.

 

drunvalo melchezidek- also suggests that the global shift is changing our DNA/ enlarging our DNA

 

also the 'indigo children' thing is based on the same assertion.

 

It all seems abit far out for me, but strange that it keeps on popping up...

a

[goonis38]

Hey there,

That is amazing... Looks like the vibrational state, I have been trying to achieve that you go into before OBE. Do you think it to be similar?

Great information... Melanie

[ralis]

Hey there,

That is amazing... Looks like the vibrational state, I have been trying to achieve that you go into before OBE. Do you think it to be similar?

Great information... Melanie

 

If one carefully examines the photos, a few problems can be observed.

 

1. The first and second photos shows distorted body proportion i.e, hands.

2. The so called light around his feet is very angular as if from movement.

3. There is a lot of over exposure behind the figure.

 

Examine the photos without preconceived notions i.e, no woo woo. See the photos as they truly are.

Edited October 17, 2010 by ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Then I guess the 16th Karmapa is also a photoshop master.

 

http://www.artameditatiei.ro/corpul_de_lumina.htm

 

Max has shown more amazing pictures in person. Yes they could all be photoshopped, but that would be one funny story if he did. .

 

Show any mystical pictures these days, no one will believe it anyway.

[goonis38]

If one carefully examines the photos, a few problems can be observed.

 

1. The first and second photos shows distorted body proportion i.e, hands.

2. The so called light around his feet is very angular as if from movement.

3. There is a lot of over exposure behind the figure.

 

Examine the photos without preconceived notions i.e, no woo woo. See the photos as they truly are.

 

I know rails... It is hard when we know from first hand experience on these things, some of us any ways...

It is ever so frustrating no one ever seems to get proof of stuff.

My arms where levitating while meditating, quite often now. I had to call my husband to come look once, and they held there for awhile, and slowly lowered back down to rest on the bed, not just drop...

 

Like you said, you have seen your friend do this... right? Didn't you post that? But it is just getting proof. We can go to the astral plain, on an OBE... But who can give proof... No fair... Mel

[Encephalon]

There is no short way that I can respond to that. So here I go....

 

It's not about shifting the responsibility from the individual. It's about having a shared system of accountability.

 

For example, let's say I want to buy a car. I go down to the car dealership, and a salesman says, "oh yeah, this car is really great. Lots of people have bought this car, and they all really like it. A few people have had problems, but for the most part, those are people who used the car in the wrong way."

 

And you ask: "what's the gas mileage?"

 

And their response is: "well gas mileage changes depending on how you use the car. High performance cars sometimes need to drive at higher speeds to get better gas mileage, so if you are mostly driving around in the city, it might not be as good."

 

And you go: "uh.... okay, what's the average gas mileage?"

 

And their response is: "well that depends on the factors I already stated."

 

So you go: "okay... nevermind.... is this car safe?"

 

And they respond: "well that depends on what type of accident you get into. If you get hit by a semi truck, it'll be a lot worse than if you got hit by a motor scooter."

 

And you say: "okay... well, what's its overall safety rating?"

 

And they say: "well that depends on you as an individual! Are you a good driver? You should examine your own driving habits to determine if you are at risk of a fatal car accident. You shouldn't pick a car that will be a death trap for you."

 

Would you buy a car from this salesman? I'm going to say that most of us will not.

 

Yes, there is the responsibility of the buyer to do research. If you haven't gone off road before, buying an off road vehicle and taking it off road on your own probably isn't the best idea. You might have a bad experience of it because you have no idea what you are doing. On the other hand, if there is a set of standards to determine what general performance is, that greatly helps. And if you are a seasoned off road driver, reading a report of someone who's never done it before saying, "I took this car out on my first time off road, and it was horrible!" you are going to know that that individual report probably doesn't apply to you, nor will it greatly affect your own enjoyment of the vehicle.

 

On top of that, there are things like gas mileage, safety ratings, and things like that. Obviously things change in a case by case basis. But it's good to have a baseline of what something can and cannot do.

 

Now while most people would never buy from a salesman like that, people in spiritual traditions REGULARLY act in the manner of these salesmen, and all kinds of people spend their time and money on a system that may or may not turn out to be trash, or may or may not turn out to be a jewel. How many people have had their money wasted, or their bodies seriously injured, by fraudulent teachers handing out poor systems? Call it karma, call it whatever, but in my opinion there is no rational justification for this.

 

Having a set of standards to hold everyone accountable to is the first step in ensuring that effective methods (for whatever) get to the people who need them. It is ridiculous that for every 1 legitimate method out there, there are 100 false, potentially harmful ones out there, and someone can go their entire life and NEVER encounter a legitimate method, simply because there is so much shit floating around out there, and no way to tell the garbage from the jewels.

 

Spiritual traditions have created an atmosphere where asking questions is wrong. The mark of a good student is that he or she tries a method out themselves, and "proves it to himself/herself". Ignoring the fact that many of these techniques reportedly require years to manifest results, this is just plain NOT COMMON SENSE. You're telling me that the only way to figure out if something is real or not is to do it myself? You realize how ridiculous that is? It would take YEARS just work through all the traditions I've come across in my own short span of life. How about this: if you say you can do something, or that a system can get you to a point where you can do something, you DO IT and SHOW that it can be done. Hm?

 

I've tried to draw, for example, and can't do it at all. Yet I know it's possible because there are artists doing stuff every day. They put out art all the time. I can go up and ask, "how did you draw this?" And they will show it to me. And I will try the method. And I will fail. But someone else will try the same method, and will succeed! So I'll try the method again, and get an ok looking picture. And another person will try it and fail, or make a great picture.

 

I've never been able to clairvoyantly see something (you don't know how convenient that would have made test taking in school!), yet for all of the people running around saying they can see things at a distance, NO ONE has reliably demonstrated it. If you ask them to, you get responses like, "do it yourself!" or "be responsible for your own life!"

 

We have people like

running around, and why? Because we LET her by not holding people accountable to some standard, and just buying into whenever someone says they have "something".

 

If we as a society held spiritual traditions, psychics, qigong masters, and everyone else to the same standard of accountability that we hold everything else to, frauds would have no room to exist, and real teachings could spread to the people who need them!

 

People have associated a virtuous student with one who shuts up and sits still, and a non-virtuous student with one who asks questions and wants it proven to him or her, and as such, they can hide behind that to avoid taking responsibility for their own claims. If you ask a question you don't like, you obviously "aren't ready" for the teachings.

 

The burden of proof falls upon those who are making the claim. This is a basic axiom of informal logic. If I expect you to disprove the existence of the invisible quartz oracle hovering over my head, then I am quite mad.

[Aetherous]

If I expect you to disprove the existence of the invisible quartz oracle hovering over my head, then I am quite mad.

 

If I claim something to be fake without investigating it first, then I had horrible teachers.

[gendao]

If one carefully examines the photos, a few problems can be observed.

 

1. The first and second photos shows distorted body proportion i.e, hands.

2. The so called light around his feet is very angular as if from movement.

3. There is a lot of over exposure behind the figure.

1. How are his hands distorted?

2. His feet ARE moving (swinging) off the floor.

3. He's backlit from bright daylight.

 

I agree though. Unless there's a smoking gun error, I think these photos are intriguing - but won't prove much.. They only tend to confirm bias.

Believers will take them as proof, non-believers will consider them fakes.

 

Another interesting experiment would be if someone could truly replicate a similar photo? Using Photoshop or a long exposure or whatever...

However, what about your friends who allegedly saw Max disappear live? Their testimonies would be far more convincing... And why didn't they take any photos or footage?

Edited October 17, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

Time exposure photograph - gymnasts legs appear transparent.

 

[ralis]

Then I guess the 16th Karmapa is also a photoshop master.

 

http://www.artameditatiei.ro/corpul_de_lumina.htm

 

Max has shown more amazing pictures in person.

 

 

 

 

Exactly what do you mean? Max has a photo album of himself?

[Guest paul walter]

!

It's easy to use even with your average random "not so expensive and advanced" digitals, even though an ordinary 35mm film camera would yield a better, more "spectral" result. High aperture values and long exposure with a low sensitivity film or a dimly lit room and presto! You look like you're an etheral creature, dissapearing into thin air, or being extremely fast in your movements comic-book style. This is photo-school 101.

 

 

Frankly I think it looks more convincing in the long exposure photo frauds of a hundred years ago-at least they had gelatine prints to add to the 'beauty' of the 'spectre' and more careful processing.