Today's New York Times

Reminder for NY Times access: Cookies must be turned on. You can access using login account "f_cknyt", password "f_cknyt", without the quote marks and with vowel substitution.

(Got this tip from Foodbunny)
 
But hers is a tightly circumscribed gift. Natalia performs only in the presence of Mr. Komissarov. She cannot "see" with, say, a bag over her head. Papers and books must be down and not at eye level. She also tilts her head while "seeing," leaving the impression that she is peeking through her custom-made blindfold.

Nonsense, said Mr. Komissarov, who attributed these quirks to the mysterious ways of the brain.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why reporters feel a need to present a 'balanced' report when the facts are clearly not balanced. Why not come right out and say that the child is peeking?
 
IN recent months the setting of ground rules has resulted in a contentious exchange of letters between Mr. Randi and Natalia's lawyer, Eliza Grinberg. Mr. Randi suggested using padded eye shields that could be bought at Eckerd Drugs (Eckerd product number 063131), to which Ms. Grinberg replied that "glue-based eye covers do not solve all of the problems, and, therefore, I will categorically object to the use of such covers."
Click to expand...

"Glue-based" is bad?? I wonder why...:rolleyes:
 
Instead, she diligently practices the paranormal exercise of "seeing" with her eyes blindfolded, so that one day she might open them to find a check for one million eye-popping dollars.

She is a pupil of Mark Komissarov, a cabdriver from Russia whose side job is teaching how to tap into the extrasensory potential of the brain. Twice a week his students gather around a small table in Brooklyn, close their eyes, and try to "see" the colors of the paper that he flashes, or, more fittingly, the dollar bill that he hides inside one of two dozen opaque cups.
...
Mr. Komissarov said that he helps his disciples to activate a sensor in the brain that enables them to read or bicycle with eyes closed.
...
She cannot "see" with, say, a bag over her head
Click to expand...

I've tried to point this out in a couple other threads, but what exactly does Natalia claim she is doing? (allegedly) Seeing without use of her eyes is a negative claim. Is she seeing with her fingers? Her forehead? If it was actually ESP as Komissarov claims, I don't see why it should be disabled by a bag over the head. A positive statement of what she is doing would seem to be necessary in order to formulate proper controls.
 
Funny, isn't it? All the wrangling over how to properly cover her eyes, when supposedly she doesn't need them.

BTW, Randi ought to make sure there aren't any books around with faux-gold-leaf on the bindings. Could cause reflections of the psi-waves.
 
I'm disturbed by the whole thing.

Sylvia Brown already used this girl as an example why she would not take the challenge (I think she said "russian girl").

I think "raising the bar" is the most comment criticism of the JREF challenge. Now don't lambaste me, but it seemed that Randi was raising the bar last time by placing more and more tape on that girls head. I believe Randi when he says that she and her lawyer agreed to it before he did it, but this seems like a vague point. The challenge is all about determining the testing protocols BEFOREHAND and not during a test.

I'm disturbed that when (if?) this girl is tested again, she will fail, but it will become a crowbar against JREF. I predict it will be very hard to determine the testing protocol before the test, but I really hope Randi will define it before the test and not deviate one iota from it. It would be better to clearly define a test that she refuses to take than to give her any out.
 
Is it "raising the bar" if you believe you notice a cheat and act (in agreement with the claimant) to avoid it?

Is it making the legitimate performance of her claim any more difficult?
 
Originally posted by Gnome
Is it making the legitimate performance of her claim any more difficult?
Click to expand...

No doubt it is, for reasons unknown to me. If her claim is to be able to read text without exposing her cornea to light, but must not have her eyelid darkened or covered, or messy tape placed all over her face because it obstructs her abilities, then simply place her in a room completely void of light.

Remove all masks, goggles, tape, bags, or whatever. Hell, she can even open her eyelids under this scenario.

No more excuses this way, and the sooner she wins the million, the sooner this story is on the front page of the Times. Oh, I forgot.
 
Better stop up her ears, as well, so she can't hear subtle clues from her handlers.
 
I hope he does the trick again where he lets her get a peek at the newspaper she's supposed to psychically read, then he adds more tape so she can't cheat - and turns the page!
 
She is reading with her third eye, so she needs light.

This was pathetic the first time; it's even more pathetic this time.

~~Paul
 
arcticpenguin said:
I hope he does the trick again where he lets her get a peek at the newspaper she's supposed to psychically read, then he adds more tape so she can't cheat - and turns the page!
Click to expand...
There's a variation on this technique that is just as telling (and was reported by Martin Gardner as a technique for testing "facilitated communication"). With the blindfold in place (but without controls to prevent peeking), "explain" to the subject that you will open a folder to show her a picture, and that you will ask her to describe the picture "in this folder." (In other words, you suggest to the subject, truthfully, that the folder will not be switched.) As you explain what you are about to do, casually open the folder and show the picture. If the subject is peeking, she will see this picture.

Then ask permission to apply the controls to prevent peeking. If the subject has already peeked at the picture, then the subject is less likely to object to controls. Then open the folder, but show a different picture than the one shown previously. What picture, if any, does the subject describe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom