russian girl debunked on tv?

trotsky

Student
T
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
35
Remember "this morning" the uk show which had that x ray girl astounding everyone?
well i just caught the start of the program today,and they have 2 men who are going to tell everyone how she did it. and i recognised one as a randi style magic man, so we'll see.
;)
 
Let us know.

By the way, I like that phrase, “a Randi style magic man.”

I’m gonna try and work that into a conversation today.
 
One was an eye doctor, who was only really there to say how impossible any kind of X-Ray vision was. He was sceptical in attitude ("That's convenient", he said with a smile, when the presenter said that they had to interpret the translations), but he clearly hadn't done his homework - not that I can blame him, he wasn't really there in the capacity of professional sceptic.

The other was Lionel Fanthorpe (who used to be a priest, but wasn't identified as such), a paranormal investigator. He used to present Fortean TV.

Bad Phil and Fern, they gave the viewers the impression that she'd had no contact with the test subjects. If you saw the program when they tested the girl, you'd know that she was in the same room with them before the programme (but the presenters that the language barrier was enough of a blind).

:rolleyes:

Still, for This Morning, this is almost Randi-like scepticisim.

David
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
some errors to this post have been corrected up there (name of investigaor etc)

ok just watched it, it didnt pan out just like i thought, but in the end it did.
the person who i recognised wasn't a 'randi style' man at all but paranormal investigator (Nigel Fanchurch, maybe, cant remember he looked quite like randi though but was a priest i think?) the other man was a leading 'eye doctor'. the conversation wen't something like this.

the doctor took the part of the open minded sceptic and the investigator the open minded fantasist. the doctor pointed out the girl couldnt have seen by x rays or any other way with her eyes etc soft tissue scans need mri etc. then the presenters came back with "well we were the ones that called her x ray girl it may be that she can see by some other means"
the doctor came back with " well perhaps she sees by some paranormal means but thats for the investigator to say not me, but if you asked me i would think that it's nonsense"
then the investigator came out with some aura photos he'd had done at a psychic fair which showed some colours around his face, dont know what that proved?
then he theorised that maybe it was a power we all had in the past which had came back with this girl. then he stated it may have been a new power evolving and researchers looked at these evolutions all the time etc.
the presenters then went back to the readings she gave on the show before.
she had seen 'undulations'(ungulations?) in the abdomen of doctor someone or other (show's regular doctor) . (they stated they had translated it as undulations as there were no direct translations, or something?)
when he had wen't to a scan they had stated there may be something there. (that was the kidneys, spleen ,stomach etc area) which they took as proof.
when the eye doctor took interest in whether the other doctor really had a problem they said when they looked more thoroughly into it he had no problems at all, so?
to which the eye doc looked smug.
then the presenter said in these cases the young person normally grows out of the paranormal behaviour when they are investigated.
the camera panned to the eye doctor for his response to which he looked as if he would die of smug superiority. but before he could answer the presenter said something along the lines of ' thats very handy for them isnt it?'
to which the doc looked surprised and said yes it is isn't it, to which they both smiled knowingly.

Anyway that was obviously my badly spelled and personal account of what happened at short notice while at work.
anyone with any better transcript feel free to correct.
cheers :p
 
Is this the same girl (Natalia?).

I seen a follow to her diagnosis of Dr Chris on TV yesterday afternoon (9 Feb 04 ~1330 GMT)

In this post interview Dr Chris stated that the diagnosis was in fact false and that so far the testing of her had been inadequate.

This diagnosis had put a great deal of stress on the doctor and his family. His children heard about it through their University friends and were very worried as a result.

Basically Natalia said he had a serious illness and initial tests were inconclusive and further testing was required - All the woowoo's jumped around shouting out that she had been correct and this was undeniable proof etc etc. Further testing PROVED SHE WAS INCORRECT and there was nothing wrong with Dr Chris at all QED. So using the same approach that this test proved she was the real deal then surely the same woowoo people must come to the conclusion that she is a fraud as she failed it.

I agree some of the stuff is pretty compelling when viewed in isolation - proper testing is obviously required - but now i'm very suspicious indeed of the claimed abilities - i'm not saying she is 100% a fraud but the cracks in the claims are beginning to appear. TBH I assume defining a solid testing protocol won't be too hard for such claims as they are pretty clealy defined.

Roll on a JREF challenge and we will find out ! ;-)

AX
 
AlienX said:
Basically Natalia said he had a serious illness and initial tests were inconclusive
Click to expand...

Initial testing was in no way inconclusive - she mentioned a list of ailments none of which was substantiated in any way by the medical tests.

As a result of those tests a possible indicator of a problem was identified, but this was in an area not mentioned at all by Natalya. That is what follow up testing was done on.

In other words the tests gave about the most conclusive result possible - not only does she "diagnose" problems that don't exist, she fails to identify potentially serious problems.

I can't see how she could have had a worse result, yet some people claimed this as a success!
 
Sorry Ian i missed your opinion on this subject.. what exactly were you correct about?


I'm just saying what Dr Chris said yesterday live on TV.

On a previous show he agreed to go for tests after Natalia said he had a serious illness - his initial test results came back (live on TV again) saying that something may actually be wrong (inconclusive at this point - yet Que the woowoo's and the papers saying she was the real deal etc).

Yesterday he revealed that the full tests showed he was in the clear, and stressed how much grief it had caused his family.

She was incorrect with her diagnosis, suggesing either she just made a mistake or she's a fraud.

This result suggests the latter as it's totally incorrect. Still I think she should be tested but we already have rumblings about how testing causes the "power" to vanish. Maybe i'm just cynical but unless she's tested "properly" then I assume fraud.

Some people think it's arrogant to have the standpoint where I wan't people to prove they are not a fraud rather than just take what they say at face value. Do I require unacceptable levels of proof.. err honestly i'm not really sure, what can I do.. I simply don't accept some of the offered proof, some of it is just comicaly inadequate.

I assume there are things that "believers" don't believe in, why not?, if you accept poor evidence for one thing why not another?

The moment she starts avoiding "proper" testing then instantly I will suspect foul play even more than I do now.

AX
 
AlienX said:
...we already have rumblings about how testing causes the "power" to vanish.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have heard this claim before. Some who have been tested by Randi claim that a "skeptic field" of negative vibrations nullified their powers.

It is like one of my favorite sayings, "If I hadn't believed it, I never would have seen it!"
 
AlienX said:
On a previous show he agreed to go for tests after Natalia said he had a serious illness - his initial test results came back (live on TV again) saying that something may actually be wrong
Click to expand...

But, and sorry to repeat myself but this is important, NOT what she had claimed was wrong. There was never any evidence that she had actually been able to do what she claimed because not only was what she claimed was wrong with him incorrect but she missed the signs that something might have been wrong.

Its like taking your car to a "psychic mechanic" who tells you that that the oil pump isn't working properly but when you actually check it out with a real mechanic he finds that the brake cables are frayed. Is the fact that something might be wrong that is completely unconnected with what was claimed enough to score a hit?
 
Check out the following
http://www.granadabroadband.net/cgi/mb/thismorning/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

And click on Todays show.

There is stuff there, a psychic healer who starts talking about Auric fields and chernobyl etc.. btw as well as being a "healer" (And a mother.. not sure what thats got to do with it though) for 16 years ... lo and behould she can see into people also.. BUT only in black and white... Your powers are growing weak old one!!

It's so frustrating reading peoples comments with the same stuff some of the "better" believers use here, only less informed and used to the arguments.. sheesh if your gonna spout the word of the woowoo at least be good at it.

Anyway check it out some of the stuff is higly amusing, apparantly science doesn't know everything (like duhh!) and this means paranormal stuff must exist etc. Thats some wierd logic.

The best thing is some of the believers there admit she was wrong (err ohh well they say slightly wrong or mainly right etc).. Sorry she was 100% wrong wrt the diagnosis!.

Maybe one or two of of our better skeptics would care to comment on the boards as it seems to be mainly going unchallenged.

AX
 
I saw the "exclusive" interview with the girl with xray eyes and her mum on "This Morning".
I was waiting for it and finally it came...the same old crap about sometimes it doesn`t work if the subject the xray girl is looking at doesn`t believe or doesn`t have faith. That`s the get out card we all know.

As for the presenters, well what can you say? they insisted the girl had been tested and had baffled scientists etc. All the same old same old. They were saying things like the girl has incredibly piercing eyes and it really unnerves you when she looks at you...she looks right through you etc.
Well when those sort of comments are meant to be taken as some kind of evidence then we are all doomed.
I was dying for someone to mention the Randi Challenge but of course it wasn`t. Even if it had been I suppose it would have been misrepresented with one of the classic "oh, but Randi is a disbeliever in anything and would design an experiment to make sure she failed. He is known for doing that."
All sad really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom