Funny T-Shirts

Natasha was on Good Morning (a British morning TV program) the other week, and they queued up a line of ill volunteers and asked her to say what was wrong with them. They also asked her to give a detailed description of the ailments the program doctor was suffering. Her hit rate for the genuinely ill people was lauded, and she also gave a good list of illnesses the doctor had.

The next day, the doctor had a high-resolution scan on a 3d imager. Not one of the ailments Natasha mentioned showed up. (These included gallstones; unfortunately I can't remember the others.) However, the scans did show another problem, which Natasha didn't notice, which the doctor is now receiving attention for.

One phrase - The JREF Million-Dollar Challenge. If Natasha Demkina doesn't want to take the challenge, then I think we've all gained a special ability ourselves...We can see through her.

I believe in Natasha's ability - I think she should take the JREF $ 1,000,000 challenge .

First of all this girl has just been cheated in the USA by Wiseman and Hyman.......... they fraudulently changed the experiment minutes before her test to one she has never done before.

Once again Wiseman cheated by moving the goal posts....... and even then this girl scored 4 out of 7 and odds were 50 to 1....... did they conduct more test, did they treat her fairly not a chance they did. SCICOP are debunkers and will never be fair open and honest to a psychic

I certainly believe in Natasha her gift! I have enough of all that sceptical nonsense... I don't say we musn't be skeptical but there are limits. Open your eyes! Be open minded! Give that Girl a fair change! Be fair to yourself!!! She CAN see inside people their body. And she isn't the only one! There are hunderds of people who have the same ability. It's something that can be learned, developed! Barbara Brennan teaches it at her international school "The Barbara Brennan School of Healing". She is also a real phenomenon. Also a person which I respect deeply. She began seeing aura's, chakra's and later she learned to look inside the body. She can see inside the body, on different energy levels, and she can choose on wich scale she wishes to perceive things. She can even see viruses. Isn't that amazing. Her healing abilities are great. Just read her books! "Hands of Light" and "Light Emerging" In "Hands of Light" she discripes the process of "inner-scanning" (x-ray vision). She sees streams of golden light that come in through the third eye and the physical eyes. It is light of a higher frequency that penetrates the skin. The lightstreams cross eachother and come together in the pineaple. For her it feels like the pineaple is a kind of scanner inside of her head. She also has developed excersises to develop x-ray vision! She really IS amazing.

I don't have x-ray vision myself, but I CAN see aura's around people and I often can feel other people their feelings. Without prejudice.

I respect every one as the person they are, but that doesn't mean I musn't question their beliefs. It feels good to tell everyone about my experience, without losing respect. Their is more between heaven and earth! It's time we let go of our fears, because they cause the destruction of this world. We have to take risks, discover the unknown!

Byebye, Marlon

In the test of Scicop, Natasha failed to see that a man had a metal plate in his head, placed there after brainsurgery. And she had been told in advance that one of testpersons had this plate in the head! How can you miss that IF you really have x-ray eyes? And that was just one thing she totally missed. Natasha has simply mastered the art of cold-reading, probably by accident. What at first was probably just fun ran out of hand and now she's created a monster she can't kill.

Its funny how often the skeptics go on about Cold Reading........

Randi tried it on TV in England a year ago and was a complete failure..... Cold reading does not compare to the real deal.......... And Natasha has proved in the that her Disgusting treatment did not stop her getting a 50 to 1 result......... way above chance and Wiseman has got himself into big trouble over his moving goal posts over it. He is now being discredited all over the world. See Professor Brian Josephsons website.......

For an update of evidence for and against Natasha Demkina's claimed powers, visit:

http://www.csmmh.org/demkina

well-known TV doctor in England says..."Getting an unfavorable horoscope from your astrologer is one thing, but getting 'medical readings' from a psychic may prove hazardous to your health."
That was funny...

����ʓ�� ��ϑ�� ��ےē���� ��� ��������� ��‘Α���ϒ�� ������� ������

http://www.dream-detective.com latest on CSICOP

Actually, I said that. (Thanks.)

That well-known TV doctor in England still says Natasha Demkina's psychic diagnoses are amazingly accurate -- despite the fact that her reading of him scared him into getting a colonoscopy and other invasive and expensive medical tests, which showed the abnormalities Ms. Demkina "saw" were not there. I suspect they examined the wrong part of his anatomy.

Hi

I think things will become more clear when more cases like Natasha show up in the media. I'm certain that will happen sooner or later.

Bye bye

The Csicops statistics were flawed. Getting 4 right out of 7 is a 1 in 840 chance or 0.12%. That is better than significant odds by a large margin. This girl has been robbed.

I wonder if she would divine my apathy at this discussion. Here are my own psychic predictions. One: All of you who believe in her abilities will feel a wave of anxiety tomorrow when you look up in the sky and see that the Illuminati have been spraying chemtrails again in your neighborhood. Two: All of the rest of us will continue leading more productive and satisfying lives.

Puck T Benson's claim is clearly false. Not even paranormalist Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson, who has been leading the attack on the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina, disagrees that Natasha had a 1-in-50 chance of matching 4 of the 7 medical conditions correctly. And those are the odds of Natasha blindly guessing. She was not blindly guessing. She had a multitude of normal clues to help her increase her number of correct matches. She said she couldn't do a truly blinded test so the investigators were forced to go with an incompletely blinded test. In any case, Puck Benson's claim is demonstrably false.

People need to learn more statistics because they are so easily taken in by supposed experts. Here is why ...

To get the first one precisely right (ie, matching the right person to precisely condition) is 1 in 7. You now have 6 people left. Picking another precisely is now 1 in 6, and so on ... 1 in 5 and 1 in 4.

A warning here: this is where they made their mistake This is NOT a lotto style draw. In which case she would only have had to pick the 4 people that had the 4 conditions, not which person had which condition.

Try it yourself. Take 7 scrabble tiles, letters 'A' through 'G'. Turn them face down and get someone to muddle them up. Pick a tile and predict what letter it is. Do that six more times. You may NOT guess the same letter twice. Record how many you get right out of 7. Now reset the game and try again and again, recording your results for each game. You could do that a hundred times and you'd never be able to get a count of 4 right (well, there is a slim chance).

The chance of getting 4 exactly right out of 7 in a blind non-return test is (1/7)*(1/6)*(1/5)*(1/4) = 1/840.

In addition to this rather rudimentary statistics, even if the result WERE 1 in 50 (which it is not) the result would still be significant, 2% likely, which is very low and not very likely by pure chance.

As I stated before, she was robbed.

Dear MR. Puck T Benson.....It is very clear many of us would really wonder about Natasha's ability.If natasha is capable of distinguishing even the tiniest pathology on a molecular level in the very deepest corners of our human body and if the rule of statistic is properly understood, statistic cannot be applied to medical diagnosis.I guess you know better than anyone else... In my honest humble opinion,there is no such things like a secondary vision so Nathasha did not get robbed.

����� �� ��‘Ԓ���� ���� ��ʐ�� ������ ���Γ���� ��������� ..����� ...

Doesn't Puck T. Benson know that it's a crime to falsely report a robbery?

I asked Ray Hyman, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Oregon in Eugene, to help me correct Puck's confused thinking. Prof. Hyman did the original calculation of the odds for the Natasha Demkina test. Those calculations were later confirmed by Prof. Richard Wiseman and others -- including one of our critics, Nobel laureate physicist Brian Jospehson. Here is Prof. Hyman's reply, including reference works for those who would like to verify the calculations for themselves:

"Statistics and combinatorial probabilities can mislead even the brightest people into terrible boo-boos. In the present case, the self-assured critic has made two serious blunders. He has misconstrued the problem. The problem we are dealing with is known as the matching problem. The mathematics for calculating the correct odds is not self evident. Indeed, it is very complicated. I painstakingly worked out the correct probabilities using the formulae in Frederick Mosteller's Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability With Solutions. I believe this is still available from Dover Books. The critic might find it useful to carefully follow the argument in this book. My other source was Hoel, P.G., Port, S.C., and Stone, C.J. (1971). Introduction to Probability Theory. This latter source provides some useful approximations for those who do not have the patience to calculate the exact probabilities. Richard Wiseman was able to check my probability calculations using tables provided by the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Our probabilities agreed.

The second mistake this critic makes is to use the probability for getting exactly four correct matches. The number that is relevant for our test is the probability of getting four or more correct matches. Contrary to this persons assertion, the probability of getting exactly four matches in our test is .01533 and not 1/840 (.0012) as he claims. The relevant probability is the probability of getting four or more correct matches which is .01899 (rounded to .02 or 1 in 50).

"I do not have time to give a lesson in probability theory and the matching problem, but let me give a simple heuristic example of how this person's approach provides a misleading answer. Assume we have three subject with conditions A,B, and C. And assume that Natasha's corresponding matchings can be designated a, b, and c. A correct match would be one where she assigns a to A, or b to B, or c to C. For this simple example, we can enumerate all the possible matching attempts. Once we get to four or more subjects, the enumerations become unwieldy."

[continued]

[continued]


"Here are all the possible matching attempts that Natasha could make in the present example:

Subjects: �� A��. B ��. C ��. No. of Correct Matches
��������... a ��. b ��. c ��������. 3
��������... a ��. c ��. b ��������. 1
��������... b ��. a ��. c ��������. 1
��������... b ��. c ��. a ��������. 0
��������... c ��. a ��. b ��������. 0
��������... c ��. b ��. a ��������. 1

"Consider the probability of getting exactly 1 match in this situation. By simple enumeration, we can see that it is 3/6=.50. If we follow the logic of this critic, we would get the probability of exactly 1 match as 1/3 (obviously wrong!). Now let's look at the probability of getting all 3 matches correct by using the "logic" of this critic: We would get 1/3*1/2* 1/1 or 1/6th, which is indeed correct. What about the probability of getting none correct? From enumeration we see that this is 2/6 or 1/3rd. How would our critic calculate this within his system? Also, how does this critic take into account that it is impossible to get exactly 2 correct matches? -- Ray"

Puck Benson shows us that people armed with a little bit of knowledge can indeed be dangerous. I'm reminded of Shakespeare's Puck, who had the power to change his voice and appearance, to "lurk in a gossip's bowl," and cause mischief. He took much fun in changing men into donkeys. When people like Puck pop up to teach us something like statistics, I think it's time to "go swifter than arrow from the Tartar's bow," without bothering to look back. ��� Askolnick