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
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.
"Would you admit it if you were [a hired shill working for Natasha's agent to rationalize her failure to past the test?] I think not." I do think your arguments and false statements are "at the very least inadequate."
You resort to absurd arguments like the one you started with because you have neither facts nor reason to make your case. Your comments are either clearly false or as illogical as the one you start with -- that we are probably guilty because we deny our guilt. This is the logic of the Dark Ages, when they convicted "witches" on the basis of accusation supported by the accused's refusal to admit guilt. It seems to me that the logic of the Dark Ages may appeal to you at least as much as the period's unquestioned belief in the supernatural.
You've made no effort to get your facts straight. There was not two tests or test phases but one. Natasha does not claim to see "auras." Nor does she "diagnose." She says she sees organs, tissues and foreign objects inside of people's bodies down to the cellular level and by doing so, she looks for abnormalities -- including signs of long healed health problems. It appears that you are simply parroting the latest rationalizations being circulated among Natasha's apologists to explain away her failure to demonstrate the supernatural abilities she claims. And no, she did not pass the test. Merely repeating falsehoods do not make them any less false.
You and her other supporters are simply making up claims to explain away her failure, but you fail to back up those claims with anything but misstatements and baseless opinions.
You began your unreasoned tirade by chastising us for setting up a test to "prove Natasha a fake." And you end by chastising us for failing to prove that she's a fake. There are only two things consistent in your arguments: Your belief in Natasha's supernatural claims and your unreasoned hostilitity towards us.
To illustrate this, one merely has to look at my statements and your interpretation of the same. For instance, I questioned whether or not you would admit it if the test were indeed set up to cause failure. This in no way indicates any thought on my part that you are guilty by "dark age" reasoning that because you failed to admit guilt, that you were indeed guilty. Silly, Skolnick. It merely questions if you would actually admit it if you did set up the test for failure. it draws no conclusions of guilt from failing to admit guilt. Nice job getting things off track Skolnick.
What this shows me is that you either purposely misunderstand and twist things or that you don't truly understand what you are reading. Bad for scientific methodology, either way.
One thing that does make me think you are guilty are the unbelievable lengths you go to in your offensive attacks to defend your scientific methodology. That and your methods were flawed. Even your math is flawed.
There were TWO phases of your test. First phase (or section) of the test was with five persons, the second phase was with seven people. Simple. Are you even really Skolnick??
As for what the girl actually sees, I think you are the one who really does not understand what the girl is seeing. I can excuse verbal gaffes from the young lady who does not know English and doesn't know proper medical terminology, but you are a completely different story. You didn't do your homework on many levels. Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake. You merely proved that CSICOP is either inept or just a fake.
My hostility towards CSICOP is completely reasoned, and comes from my own thoughts and observations. I happen to agree with your critics, which doesn't make me a parrot.
I'm not even a supporter of Natasha. I merely would have liked to see a series of fair and reasonable tests that showed whether or not she could do what she claimed. CSICOP failed. Miserably.
Statistically speaking, four of seven is passing the test. No matter what your "higher bar" expectations were, or what your "agreement" of testing conditions was. Plus, I think you cheated by setting up a hostile and uncomfortable environment and changing the rules at the last minute.
Your attacks on my comments are actually pretty funny. Dark ages and all that. The twisting of my words is nice, too. I never said she saw auras; I said it might be something like that. Seeing some type of energy that she translates into an image of internal activities of the body. The girl may not even know what cellular means. You didn't bother to truly research all that, did you?
Continued below
Right now I'm just a viewer that didn't think your methods or motivations were good.
Natasha may be fake or delusional, but you guys are a joke. I'm not certain when this first aired in the USA, but I just saw the show last night. When I first saw the title, I thought it was a b-movie from the '50s or something. Then when I saw it, I was appalled by the lack of professionalism on the part of the CSICOP members. Outrageous.
A review of the written test protocols will show that your claim that the test had "two phases" is false:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/demkina.protocols.doc
There was only one test which consisted of one phase. The demonstration Natasha performed the day before the test was not part of our test. The fact that you would repeat the falsehood instead of admitting error hardly serves your credibility.
Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake."
Only badly misinformed or dishonest people have been making this accusation. From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything. It was a fact-gathering test to see if further study would be warranted. That you would keep repeating such demonstratable falsehoods incicates you have no interest in fair or honest discourse.
The rest of your baseless accusations have been answered here repeatedly. That you would simply ignore the answers is not surprising.
I see. The first part with the five individuals, which I and many others took to be part of your test wasn't part of the test at all.
That's disappointing because I thought it was a far more legitimate test than the one performed with the seven individuals. It just makes CSICOP even less credible.
Plus, the documentary made it seem like it was part of the test. Which, I would think is a valid assumption based on the fact that you flew her to NYC to test her...then the first element isn't part of the test?
And. You did twist my words. In no way did I claim you were guilty because you failed to admit guilt. Dark ages, not..
It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie.
I guess you've been attacked so much on so many sides that your defensive posture is automatic and goes right towards the theory that everyone is a hired shill or some nonsense like that.
"From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything."
If you made it clear, then I wouldn't be questioning you on it. But, just saying something doesn't make it true. It appears to me that you designed the test to prove she was a fake - whether she was fake or real.
That's what it looked like. To me.
Deal with it.
The events on the show made CSICOP look like they were either inept or so one-sided that they concocted an unfair test that was meant to disprove any claimed ability by Natasha, whether she had the ability or not.
My opinion has been further reinforced by my reading other opinions on the web, both for and against CSICOP.
I am adding my voice to those who have expressed disbelief in CSICOP's methods, conclusions and excuses. I'm adding my opinion that CSICOP is completely biased and did a hack job on the girl with the x-ray eyes.
CSICOP members are insulting and hostile towards anyone who questions thier validity and methods.
I have no hidden agenda, nor am I some superstitious clod from the dark ages. I just see a bunch of old men who formed a group called CSICOP that appears to have no true scientific validity or agenda, and even when they admit to their mistakes, they cannot see the impact of those mistakes or the appearance their group makes in the public eye.
This whether or not Natasha eyes are x-ray or normal.
Obviously, any true discussion around the scientific or social merits of the CSICOP investigation is impossible.
Ooo, maybe we can have a heated discussion on my utilixation of the word "impossible" in that paragraph...or the use of the word paragrapsh...maybe it was only a sentence. How foolish am I? Sheesh.
By golly, you do like the word "parrot" though, don't you? I just love that....
Wanna cracker?
Ok, I admitted that I was wrong and said she was seeing Auras, now why don't you address the core of my comment, which was the lack of investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description. Instead of addressing that question, you merely attacked my use and definition of "Aura".
I don't think you know what she thought or claimed she was seeing.
And if you did investigate it...it certainly didn't come across that way.
Anyway, I'm done here. I've said my piece on this and will be awaiting the next appearance of CSICOP in the anals of lousy science.
"It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie."
Archangel, your lie here is by innuendo. Your statement dishonestly implies that we attempted to prove that Natasha is a fake. You've been told that this is false more than once. The written test rules and our published reports make it clear that a) our test was not designed to "prove" anything; and b) we never claimed Natasha is "a fake." Your persistance in posting these falsehoods disguised as "opinion" is only more evidence of your dishonesty.
Another falsehood you're now repeating is that we did not investigate Natasha's claims. You appear to just make things up (like your claim that she reads "auras"), but that's not how we conduct an investigation. The record shows we had researched published reports and also asked Natasha what she claims to be able to do. Furthermore, we submitted the exact test design to Natasha for her approval a week before she came to the United States to be tested and we received it. If we were not testing what Natasha claims to be able to do, she would have agreed to come and be tested by us.
Like all careful researchers, we built a public record trail. Like many of our critics, Archangel has nothing to respond with but innuendos, falsehoods, and appeals to the expertise of his own opinion.
You thought that was a typo? Nope. Purely intentional. Just like your anal-ysis of Natasha and your parroted responses. You merely show yourself to be the hack that you are.
I have to personally laugh at your persistence that I'm "lying" and telling "falsehoods" by presenting my opinion. I'm not saying anything by innuendo - I'm OUT AND OUT SAYING DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY THAT IN MY HONEST OPINION, I BELIEVE CSICOP INTENTIONALLY SET UP THE TEST IN A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO PROVE NATASHA IS A FAKE. No innuendo, it's my direct opinion. Not a falsehood, 'cause I'm not lying, you dope. You may not agree with it, and it may not even be true, but because it's my real opinion, it's not a falsehood. Your consistent comment that you've already addressed this and said it's true has done nothing to prove that it is true. A falsehood is not something that's merely incorrect or wrong, it's a lie. I'm not lying or telling a falsehood when I say that it appears to me that CSICOP was doing their best to make this girl fail. My 12 year old niece could set up a better test than did CSICOP.
I think YOU are the liar when you claim that you weren't trying to prove her fake.
Further, you performed a very superficial investigation into Natasha's claims, any reputable scientist would throw your methodology and conclusions out the window.
Why would a reputable scientist be jousting with people on this forum? Makes no sense. Either you're not Skolnick or you're the hack I believe you to be.
Anyway, you appear to be just a troll. I've gotta stop feeding the troll.
[lack of a "proper and in-depth" investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description.]
Researching "published reports" and the superficial questioning of Natasha performed was not a correct or complete methodology for any scientific investigation.
It does not appear that any true or proper in-depth direct questioning of the subject was performed by CSICOP to either design the test, or to find out the details about what Natasha was claiming to see. In reality, CSICOP mainly relied on hearsay and information from a third party, Monica Garnsey. From the documentary, I am quite unsure as to why the researchers didn't understand why the subject couldn't see through a cloth hanging in front of the subjects. This is only one example. What does it mean when she uses the word "concentrate" what does it mean when she says she sees a the cellular level? Did she even say that to them, I didn
It is not the subject's responsibility to make sure the researchers are testing the proper things; it's the complete and total responsibility of the researchers. Being able to bully or
A Troll:
Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The more attention the troll's activities draw from users, the more persistent the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Interestingly enough, this "troll-like" behavior seems to apply to the entire CSICOP contingent that appeared on "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes"
Facinating.
?the researchers failed to fully take into account the available data about Natasha's vision, both its scope and its limitations."
Scope, limitations and functionality. And the understanding thereof.
Additionally, this illustrates the true depth of the research and analytical skills of askolnick, which clearly and undeniably shows that askolnick has no investigative or analytical skills, and has absolutely no feel or talent for making a conclusion from the facts given. Exactly the same poor showing as in the case of Natasha.
This is a truly remarkable showcase of the half-baked investigative skills of this man.
Wrong person, wrong target, wrong country, wrong conclusion and someone else's study. Truly powerful investigative skills! Hah!
I'd take credit for it if I wrote it, because I completely and totally agree with everything it states.
I was very curious to see how Trollish your response would be, and I'm not at all disappointed.
Thanks for the excellent laugh. Troll.
Oh, and obviously everyone should read the article I posted earlier, it must hit home like a ton of bricks to Mr. Trollnick.
Gee, I kinda like feeding the Troll.
<font size="+1">
_"Testing Natasha"
"The Girl with Normal Eyes"</center> </font>
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_demkina_050128.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina
</font>
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Natasha_Demkina
(Oh, and thanks for the support, UncleBob! Glad you enjoyed Troll Fishing...told ya...classic..I'm sure he's not done with you yet. You must have hit the mark because he's reposting all the crap he and his cronies wrote...if it's even him and not some crack-head imposter....😉
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/X-ray_sequel.htm
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=38855
http://dream-detective.com/_wsn/page9.html
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1899.shtml
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:132190057&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao;=
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/syllabus.html