Shoveling water up hill...
The ignorance and falsehoods spread to defend Natasha Demkina is never ending.
I know I'm just "shoveling water up hill," but here are some key facts:
- Natasha's mother stated on camera that Natasha's readings have been 100 percent correct. We did not require anywhere near that level of performance.
- Natasha, her mother, and her agent agreed that this was a preliminary test to see if her claims warranted a better-controlled study and they agreed that there would be no further test of her claims if she failed to match at least 5 of the target conditions to the correct subjects.
- Natasha failed to match at least 5 of the target conditions to the correct subject and therefore, as all parties had agreed prior to the test, no further testing was considered warranted.
- Natasha's task during the test was MUCH easier than the "readings" she normally gives. She didn't have to scan every subject's entire body looking for unknown abnormalities. Instead, she was given a list of 6 different abnormalities (such as an artificial hip, a removed appendix, and coronary bypass graphs) and was told exactly where to look for those abnormalities. Incredibly, she took more than 4 hours to look for these 6 well-defined abnormalities in the seven subjects. (She normally does a entire body "exam" looking for here-to-fore unknown abnormalities in just a few minutes!)
- The odds of correctly matching 4 of the 7 subjects was approximately 1 in 50 -- BUT that is ONLY the odds of someone BLINDLY GUESSING. Natasha was NOT blindly guessing. She refused to submit to a blinded test! So she was able to study the 7 subjects for more than FOUR HOURS, looking for a host of clues to help her make her matches.
- In spite of all that, she failed abysmally in matching the correct subject who was missing a large section of skull covered by a metal plate just beneath his scalp (which could be seen with normal eyes!). And if that's not failure enough, she claimed to see the missing bone and metal plate in the head of a perfectly normal subject.
In her "defense," she said she should have looked more carefully -- as if 4 hours of studying those 7 heads wasn't enough time. And her defense for not being able to find either of the two subjects who had their appendixes removed is that appendixes can grow back following an appendectomy! When I told her that no, appendixes can NOT grow back, she insisted that they do in Russia.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/natasha_demkina_the_girl_with_normal_eyes/
Trying to deal with such ignorance and deceit is actually more like shoveling sewage up hill.
