The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Girl cries crystal tears
Here's an oldie but a goodie (Thanks, Nettie!). This video from 1996 shows Hasnah Mohamed, a 12-year-old Lebanese girl who "baffled medical experts by producing crystals from her eyes."

Girl Has Crystals Coming Out Of Eyes


Fake? Of course. Hasnah's crystal tears were debunked by Joe Nickell in a 1997 Skeptical Inquirer article:

Hasnah, who claims to produce up to seven crystals a day, showed a collection of the allegedly apported rocks. From their rhomboidal shape and other properties, I recognized them as the natural quartz crystals generally known as "Herkimer diamonds." With the television crew being expected to arrive here the following day, I hastily made some phone calls and soon had acquired a handful of the gemstones.
Although such stones are indeed sharp - and I could see a dark red spot inside the girl's eyelid that probably represented a wound from one of them - I decided to duplicate the effect. All that was necessary was to pull out the lower eyelid to form a pouch and drop in a small crystal so that it rested, only a bit uncomfortably, out of sight. A tug on the lower lid causes the stone to come into view and then pop out of the eye. This I demonstrated at an appropriate time for the television camera, allowing their reporter to actually do the extraction himself. The effect was indistinguishable from the Lebanese "miracle."
Categories: Body ManipulationParanormal
Posted by The Curator on Wed Jul 23, 2008
I'm having to respond to the ignoramus who calls him/herself 'scienceminded', as even in a rebuttal, he has been unable to put forward any form of convincing arguement. I simply draw his/her attention to my previous comment as he/she has failed to deal with the logical approach presented in the argumentation!

Furthermore, a citation in a book can not seriously be considered a similar-level of evidence! An experiment can not be reproduced in a book. At best, it is simply an interpretation of the observation. You call yourself science-minded. Do you even know what is required when putting forward a scientific hypothesis and how the significance level is calculated? You think simply a citation, or even reading a book constitutes science? Heck, a religious fundamentalist stands on firmer ground than you! At least he/she follows books that have some level of subtantiation, even if it is only historical, archaelogical and based on consensus. No wonder the world is in chaos. I suggest a name change for you from 'scienceminded' to 'closeminded'.
Posted by Critic of the enemies of common sense  in  Leeds  on  Sat Jan 23, 2010  at  07:27 PM
To Critic of the enemies of common sense

The reason I cited the book wasn't because it parroted the claim that it was tested by Joe Nickell, i was that on page 238 of the book it has photographs of him doing it. I just think that you it would be incorrect in saying he was unsubstantiated in his claim of reproducing the effect, and that in his career he was a charlatan. You can find people putting various things in various places, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and do unusual tricks with them, I don't know if we can trust an impressionable young girl to be sincere about this, so that leaves the father's word in question.

I was given several explanations and citations for this case.

1. Miraculous ability bestowed by God.
2. Unknown biological production of mineral tears (we can't really substantiate the citation of the type of crystal it was by your standards).
3. A hoax in which the crystals are placed in the eye prior to the interview.

We have these pieces of evidence for an explanation.
-Video of the child producing crystals from her eyes from an unknown source.
-Photographs of Joe Nickell producing crystals from his eyes that were previously placed there.
-The child stops producing the crystals for an unknown reason.

The circumstances she was in aren't evidence but they are important, news died down, then she stopped making tears. Her father did have something to gain, so motive can be established, as well as explanation for the tears stopping. Which gives possibility 3 a perpetrator and explanatory power, viable grounds for a theory.

I did not agree with you that this was most likely real, or even inconclusive at best, I drew a conclusion and pointed out that the citation was at least adequate, and that the conclusion, like a theory, can be repeated, and has explanatory power over the events people witnessed about the girl.
Posted by Scienceminded of youtube  on  Sun Jan 24, 2010  at  02:05 AM
To
Posted by Critic of the enemies of common sense and sience  in  Leeds  on  Sun Jan 24, 2010  at  09:43 AM
5) Wow what limited ways in which you have presented the limited explanations you were given. Can you not think of any alternative explanations? Why have you not taken account of the first and second explanation you give? (Oh and, there are means of substantiating the type of crystals but just not by a single citation that poses more questions than answers). Oh why do you state unverified knowledge as fact? What lead you to the conclusion that the girl has stopped producing the crystals?
6) Ok, so you now say that circumstances are not evidence but important. OK, well let
Posted by Critic of the enemies of common sense and sience  in  Leeds  on  Sun Jan 24, 2010  at  09:44 AM
Dear All what is the situation of that girl now after 14 years passed.....??? if any one know then please let us know as well.
Posted by M A Tanoli  in  Belfast Uk  on  Fri Feb 26, 2010  at  01:20 PM
Just reading through these comments i have to say some things whether or not its read. First, people are stupid to think that magic is real and can even compare to this video. second, The guy did not have proof he did it anyone can say anything. he must think people are dumb for believing what we cant see if half the people who DID see a video of it still cant believe it. Third, whether he did it or not doesnt matter because yes people can put things in their eyes and take them out. but also i think thats amazing too what she did, fake or real because if its fake than good for her because i know myself and pretty much everyone i know would not even TRY to stick something sharp in their eyes, let alone MORE THAN ONE thing. and if it was real than i still think thats amazing to have to put up with that EVERYDAY of her life it must be rediculously annoying and inconvienent. Fourth, i believe that it is a science issue because people really do have weird shit happen when not everything in there body is balanced or in the right place or doing the right thing or whatever so some people have amazing abilities from just how there body is made. fith, she is how old? and people are really sitting here saying "oh shes fake her dad told her to do it whoop de woo" umm what kind of child sits there with her dad and says, hey if i stick a bunch of sharp crystals in my eyes and "cry" them out we could get famous! lets do it, it doesnt sound scary at all! ?????? are you guys stupid? wtf lol. and last but not least WHOEVER wrote that longgggggg comment...is retarded for even thinking that anyone reads it LOL. OH and BTW this video might be old, but for some people that NEVER heard of the story its brand new so yeah theyll probably have something to say about it, you cant act like you wouldnt. Im pretty sure i didnt research the damn thing to see what happend later in life lol
Posted by MV  on  Mon Jul 26, 2010  at  07:03 PM
and if you just really went through and read MY whole comment..


gettt a lifee.. lol


=]
Posted by MV  on  Mon Jul 26, 2010  at  07:05 PM
@Critics

1. Im not focused on being correct, I'm just focusing on giving this an explanation that fits the available evidence as you are. You say you never claimed it being as I said "most likely real". I assume that is what you mean when you say "the evidence presented thus far shows that Hasanah
Posted by scienceminded of youtube  on  Sun Aug 29, 2010  at  12:21 AM
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/girl-fakes-weeping-stone-ailment/20713-13.html

this is a possible hoax. That covers means, at least in my view. The motive is the possibility of publicity, money, the usual motives for hoaxes, this is a religiously associated condition and taking advantage of the honest believers for large sums of money is not new. The opportunity is trickier, but previous to the incident there is nothing special about the girl, if it is possible to hold the crystals produced in the interview, 3 by my count, which seems odd, producing nearly half the daily account in a few minutes or even in a single hour which happens to be the time cameramen came to interview them. And soon the tears stopped flowing and the case is closed to further examination or discredit by removing the opportunity by say removing the father's chance or the girl's chance.
We have inconclusive evidence for divinity in that you do not ask faith to be more than it is, if the faithful believe it doesn't matter to them, you won't disprove even discredited things in the popular mind.

We have seemingly negative evidence for biology as there doesn't seem to be a way to crystallize quartz which is produced by current understanding from geological phenomena.The hoax idea is debatable, which is why we're...debating? But the parts seem there, possible to do, possible to gain from, possible to have been committed. Not proven, case is inconclusive.

If you do think it's prudent to make a judgment based on this information, what is the most likely explanation in your view? If not I understand your hesitation on making a conclusion with such sparse information.
Posted by scienceminded of youtube  on  Sun Aug 29, 2010  at  12:22 AM
I cannot beleive the west. If the girl had said she saw Jesus or some Jewish or Christian holy figure. It wpould have been a 100% miracle and used in churches, synagog, Fox news ,NBC...but seeing it is a Muslim girl, an UNEXPLANABLE Hoax has to be the answer. Scientist just do not want to be proven otherwise. I am Baffeled, as to how she does not suffer severe eye bleeding, never mind the scraches....give a logic PROOF and i will beleive. She apparently said the white knight told her he has no idea when it will stop, so meaning it is not a forever thing.
Posted by Vixi  on  Wed Dec 29, 2010  at  09:53 AM
I don't think it's a hoax at all, and I would argue points but almost everything that can be said has already been said except for the argument that she produced too many crystals for the cameramen. It seems more than likely that the cameramen were at her place of residence for a long period of time talking to the family, filming and whatever else. I was however wondering, even if she hid the quartz under her eyelids wouldn't you at least see a bump? especially with that many hidden in your eyes? It seems like it would be something so easily detectable. Oh i was offended by the plausible choices offered as an explanation, it can't only be those three and to forcefully categorize all possible outcomes as one of those three is a little unfair.
Posted by AM  on  Sun Jan 09, 2011  at  12:31 AM
Oh and to add on to my previous comment, even if there was no bump they would have to somehow hinder her blinking or make it awkward when she tries, or at least i would imagine. The debunker himself said it was rather uncomfortable to keep them in his eyes as well.
Posted by AM  on  Sun Jan 09, 2011  at  12:34 AM
i believe in miracles!!! yea and i also believe every time i ring a bell an angel gets wings.......retarts
Posted by tone  in  nj  on  Sun Feb 20, 2011  at  05:29 AM
What moronic god -- because that's who they're implying granted this "miracle"! -- would conjure a miracle in this ridiculous fashion and for what purpose? Mass convertion? The only miracle would be something that is so miraculous, every single person on Earth will notice it no matter where they are or what they're doing.. and will be so unbelievable that science wouldn't even try to explain it because the scientists themselves are convinced it's miraculous.

If there's a god who knows what the hell he's doing... that's the only kinda miracle.
Posted by Maphesta  on  Tue Jul 10, 2012  at  04:08 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.