Natasha Demkina, a young girl living in Saransk, Russia, began to receive a lot of media attention around the middle of last month. It started with an article in Pravda, which hailed her as the 'Girl with X-ray vision'. You see, Natasha possesses the unusual ability to peer through human flesh and spot diseases and injuries that are lurking unseen within people's bodies. Or, at least, this is what Pravda claimed. It didn't take long for more newspapers to catch onto the story. The British Sun has been the most relentless about pursuing it. They've actually flown Natasha to London and are now parading her around like some kind of weird curiosity. Does Natasha really have x-ray eyes? Well, I doubt it. But I'm sure The Sun is going to milk this for all it's worth.
Comments
CSICOP is run by rude and hostile people. Therefore, Natasha Demkina's claims must be true. You're not saying that either, of course.
You don't really assert anything in your posts. You just like to point out irrelivent things that might be "interesting" to the people who ARE saying something.
I don't agree with fomalhaut on some things, but at least he has the intelligence and spine to actually make an argument to support a proposition.
I'll make an assertion, now. Natasha Demkina is either a fraud or delusinal. She CAN NOT "see inside peoples bodies" as she claims. She is completely unable to demonstrate that claim. The fact that CSICOP investigators were rude is inconsequential. She couldn't see a metal plate in someone's head.
Get over it.
Natasha was tired that day OR the "vibrations" in the room were wrong OR the plate in the person's head is of a different kind of metal than Natasha is used to detecting OR the Moon was in the wrong phase and on and on.
Why is it always that the onus is on skeptics to prove a negative (which is almost always impossible)?
Then when testing shows that the person with the "powers" can't demonstrate them, they pooh-pooh the results. THEY on the other hand never provide ANY evidence and still get to claim victory. Something's cockeyed here.
This "I believe it and that settles it" paradigm needs to change.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/demkina.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html
Enjoy.
"Natasha's gift could simply be just that--a discovery we have yet to make."
What gift indeed? Andrew, there's a difference between "could be" and "is."
The simple fact is that everytime Natasha has been asked to demonstrate her "gift," she's failed.
Things CAN be tested. Natasha has been tested. She has failed. End of story.
If and when someone comes along who can prove that they really have X-ray vision, that will be a very interesting thing for science to try to understand. It hasn't happened yet and it isn't very likely to happen.
For many reason's Mishal's suggested test would not be a valid scientific test. For one, there is no way to eliminate the "Clever Hans" phenomenon -- which would make the test he proposes utterly useless.
I believe he was trying to say, "Whatever the arguments for and against."
For Morrison, I suspect getting 4 things right out of 7 "is a remarkable achievement in anybody's book."
Boy, I'd love to be a three-card Monte dealer in his neighborhood -- I'd be able to retire early. In the past 30 years, I don't think he's met a single psychic charlatan he hasn't endorsed as having real, genuine supernatural powers.
"Said the Nobel Laureate, "I think Uri is a magician, but I don't particularly believe that he is using trickery."
Anyone who is fooled by Uri "Please don't think of me as Jesus" Geller should not be taken seriously by anyone on the subject of the paranormal.
Geller is a fake and not even a very good one.
Calvin, have you considered taking an adult reading class? It might help.
It is truly evil when media interferes with science.
What is "truly evil" is the promotion of ignorance and superstition over science and reason. Malroy argues for Natasha's right to deceive the desparately ill and that it's immoral for researchers to put a psychic's claim to a controlled test -- although it's perfectly moral for a psychic to tell sick people that she can see diseased organs with her supernatural vision, while doing nothing more than giving them a "cold reading."
I don't defend David Wiseman. I don't even know a David Wiseman.
the bottom line:
- the ability of cold reading to determine an unknown is a proven ability
- natasha is unable to diagnose a patient by mere sight
- her claims of a "vision" which enables her to diagnose is thus dependent upon dialogue with the target person
- being able to view and talk to the person, natasha was still unable to determine three of the diagnoses.
- statistical significance is not even an issue in a test that obviously gave her the advantage of utilizing cold readings.
- as said before, why can natasha see through a person's clothing but not a fabric screen in front of the person. further, i am certain any test of natasha's VISION without being able to talk to the target individual will show she diagnoses no greater than chance.
cheer, bryan
Try to imagine nothingness.
To be none existing.
The begining and end of the spacial uneverse.
When you figure these ones out you will know.
There must be a logical reasoning for all this...
First, Natasha's vision is probably base on certain light that enable to see through flesh and see organs.
There must be a reason she couldn't see the metal plate. Maybe she couldn't detect the metal because maybe her vision only allow her to see internal organs. That's why she isn't able to see through walls or something.
When she took that test in the US, she was very confident about it and wasn't aware of what was going to happen. That creates anxiety. Like not taking a PSAT before SAT 😛
She's young... She probably don't know a lot of the concepts of the human anatomy and stuff. She probably used everything she learned at her medical school. Her school probably doesn't know much because they probably never experience human body first hand (disection). Another words, poorly educated.
I believe she haven't heard of psychology yet. She learned about what other people generally talk about. Medical things. If she had heard of psychology I think she would also study it. It's an interesting subject. She could probably see human behavior, see parasympathic system, body temperature, sex drive, etc. in human body.
I don't know much myself. I'm 1 year younger than her. I just wish that people would stop the money-making, smart talk(degrade other), and arrogance... and start working together for a better future, not to deny other people's beliefs or opinion if they are reasonably helpful.
But I strongly suggest Natasha take psychology classes as well :D
"There must be a logical reasoning for all" these apologetics for yet another psychic who doesn't past the test.
And it must be psychological.
Some people have a deep need to believe in myths and superstitions. So deep that they are willing to make up the most absurd excuses to explain away all
evidence contrary to their superstitious beliefs.
Notice how Terablade works from his closely-held belief that Natasha has supernatural powers and then gropes for "reasons" to dismiss her failure to do what she
claims she can do.
Question his belief in her supernatural powers? No way! That's not in his "psychological" makeup
I'm just saying that there must be a scientific reason for this and it isn't psychological... What I said about psychology is that it's interesting 😛
It's not really supertition... it's not psychic nor beliefs. It's her ability. She claim she could turn it on and off... must be something she learned how to use to see other spectrum of light...
I don't really know much, but im trying trying to explain the facts as much as possible...
Seeing that she couldn't detect a metal plate was because it was metal 😛
The component of metal is.... ground, solid, thingys, dark, iron? haha RAWR!
Continue with your arguement 😛
to perform the miraculous, one must have faith in the power of the miraculous. Less faith=less results. (4/7)
Good thing for those who doubt as well as those who believe.
"it is simple
to perform the miraculous, one must have faith in the power of the miraculous. Less faith=less results. (4/7)
Good thing for those who doubt as well as those who believe."
Sorry, but that seems very simplistic, to say the least. If "miracles" are being performed, then they can be scientifically tested. If they fail, then there's no reason to think that they were miracles in the first place.
"There must be a reason she couldn't see the metal plate. Maybe she couldn't detect the metal because maybe her vision only allow her to see internal organs. That's why she isn't able to see through walls or something."
There is a VERY GOOD reason for why Natasha couldn't see the metal plate: HUMANS CANNOT SEE THROUGH SOLID OBJECTS THAT AREN'T TRANSPARENT. Sorry, but it really is that simple.
I know you want to believe in her "abilities." When she fails a test, you grope wildly to come up with an explanation. Why are you doing that? She failed because she claims to have an ability that humans, to the best of our ability to test, do not possess.
There's nothing new about claims of extraordinary powers; it's been going on for as long as people have existed. She's just the most recent claimant.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? This is the perfect place to employ it. Either she has X-Ray vision which, amazingly, can't work when she is tested scientifically OR she is lying. Which one is simpler and more likely?
It's fun to imagine things like X-Ray vision; I was a big fan of Superman when I was a boy. It's another thing altogether to believe that it exists in the real world.
By the way don't use the word grope cause someone already has use it against me 😛
Nothing is really simple. Everything in the world is more complex than you think. There's many possibilities for anything and you just haven't seen it yet because your crowded with everyday society and stuff.
I not saying I'm believing in her... I'm just wondering if anyone had any good conclusion in this, because I've seen what she had done on T.V.
I'm just amaze about how many people are saved by her, but CLEARLY ALL you people haven't SEEN the footage of her ability.
The fact is she is really helping a lot of people out there. Impressed or not impressed she "sees" it.
I can't believe this is the wrong place to talk about this, because it's the museum of hoaxes. This place is consists of people who are jealous, arrogant, narrowminded, etc...
I came here because I was searching for an article about this to investigate more about this for my curiosity.
The same channel I saw the "girl with x-ray eyes" also had another interesting discovery. Chimerism... Two different DNA in one individual.
Well I'm done here. If you don't believe in it don't bother to post because this IS the unofficial museum of hoax website
"Malroy's comments show that he or she doesn't understand what the CSMMH/CSICOP test measured or how it was conducted." - one of the Argument Ad Hominem askolnick use...
askolnick it's clear that you don't understand how the CSICOP test was conducted. Also you've been attacking other people's comment instead of talking about why you've disappove of this whole thing.
"Notice how... doesn't understand... (insulting others by degrading them)"
You're basically ripping humanity. Have some silence and sincerity...
People these days...
You also blundered when you said, "skolnick it's clear that you don't understand how the CSICOP test was conducted." Wrong again. As one of the three investigators who designed and conducted the test, I understand how the test was conducted.
Terablade, you came here with an unbudgeable belief in Natasha's supernatural powers and offered up clueless rationalizations to explain away her failure to demonstrate any. Now you're whining about being criticize for those rationalizations. One reaps what one sows.
As for why the test wasn't a well-controlled, double blinded study, we were not given that option by Discovery Channel's producer and Natasha. So we designed and conducted a preliminary test to see if there is justification for a more carefully conducted study. We found none. Of course, we anticipated that there would be plenty of Natasha's apologists complaining that the test was not ironclad. It was not supposed to be. Too many people just can't seem to grasp the fact that it's not the obligation of researchers to disprove a claim. It's the obligation of the claimant to prove it. Many claims are simply non-falsifiable. There would be no amount of evidence that could ever prove to Natasha's supporters that she has no supernatural powers.
Once again, we did not set up a test to prove Natasha is a "fake" or to "get her." Sorry to disappoint you Jason, but that wasn't our goal. We simply performed a preliminary test to see if we found evidence that would warrant further study. We found no evidence that would support any further inquiry.
Thanks for responding. I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I appreciate the points you made, but I feel that it would serve your organization better to automatically establish a minimum number of test batteries to scientifically conclude a positive or negative result. I just feel that your current setup gives ammunition to those out there who say the test was incomplete and that she really does have powers (or anyone else claiming, etc.).
If you guys would have setup 5 exact but separate tests and the results were consistently in the range of guessing, then you would have nailed it down. I think the pre-qualifier your organization has devised is off-track and should be revised into a proven scientifically and mathematically repeatable battery. This would greatly benefit you when facing the gullable masses...😊
Would you admit it if you did? I think not. I do think your test was at the very least inadequate.
I saw the show on TLC. Read all the accusations and answers on the CSICOP website. Disappointing. Not Natasha, but CSICOP.
The testing methodology utilized by CSICOP was flawed. Surely you could have done better than that. The second round of testing could have been set up to remove all doubt about the young girl's talents, but it appeared that the test itself, the environment and the means with which it was administered was meant to cause failure. If that's the best science can come up with...well, let's just say that it's NOT the best and casts a shadow on the credibility of CSICOP.
And you bamboozled her on top of it, took advantage of a little girl. She clearly stated that she couldn't diagnose two of the seven. You told her that she could get those wrong and still pass, when you really should have removed the two and set something else up. Flawed and unacceptable scientific methodology.
Further, this is presumably a "psychic" power. So the girl's mental state was of supreme importance to truly identifying whether or not her ability was real. Everything in the second test looked like it was meant to squash her mental state, cause stress and result in her failure. The setup was unnecessary to proving or disproving her ability, it was only necessary if she was being set up for failure.
I was really hoping CSICOP would do a better job than that. Like I said. Disappointing.
And you know, even with all those handicaps, statistically speaking...she passed the test anyway.
You could tell from the way the CSICOP members spoke that they wouldn't have believed had she been 100% right in every one of their flawed tests.
The powers are psychic, and to throw the girl off was unfair. But I think that was CSICOP's goal, to show her wrong no matter what. And you know what? If it wasn
"We simply performed a preliminary test to see if we found evidence that would warrant further study. We found no evidence that would support any further inquiry."
Especially as a premiminary screening test, the method employed was totally and fatally flawed. But even if it were adequate, the results clearly required further inquiry. This is even before you factor in the errors made by the CSICOP team.
Heck, the girl just might be a fake or deluded, but CSICOP failed to provide suitable scientific evidence to show that.
"We simply performed a preliminary test to see if we found evidence that would warrant further study. We found no evidence that would support any further inquiry."
No. Especially as a preliminary screening test the second phase of the testing performed by CSICOP was fundamentally and fatally flawed. Even if it were not flawed, the results clearly indicated further inquiry.