Ming the Mechanic:
Teenage girl's x-ray vision baffles scientists

The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Teenage girl's x-ray vision baffles scientists2004-01-25 12:36
picture by Flemming Funch

Russian scientists have been unable to disprove a teenage girl who claims she has x-ray vision and can see inside human bodies.

Doctors at Saransk's children hospital carried out exhaustive tests on 16-year-old Natalia Demkina whose claims she has x-ray vision has gripped the Russian public.

But so far they have been unable to come up with a logical explanation for the vivid and detailed accounts she gives of what she sees when she looks inside the human body.
Eh, maybe the logical explanation is that she HAS x-ray vision.

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]



25 Jan 2004 @ 16:04 by ming : Skeptics
Well, I'd like to see some impartial scientists involved, rather than people who's business it is to fool people, and who statedly don't believe in "paranormal" phenomena, even if they're charming. I'm sure they could do some fun x-ray tricks if they tried, though.  

25 Jan 2004 @ 20:38 by vibrani : What she does
is see with her inner eyes, ming. It's not something that can be found out through x-rays of Homer Simpson, or bloodwork because it's psychic seeing and more common than some people might think. I have been able to do this, and I have a few friends who are very good at it, too. Ah, and Carolyn Myss is a real wiz at doing this and diagnosing diseases.  

25 Jan 2004 @ 21:02 by daniel g. @ : another tangential comment
I am interested in what people can see when they look at the OUTSIDE of a human body. Apparently it can be quite revealing.

We tend to think of the body as just the output of a genetic code, mixed in with various factors like nutrition and personal exercise preferences.

But I am starting to believe that, beyond the basic idea of the body's healthiness, it also reveals oodles about us from its shape, the muscular tension, the way we move and laugh, etc. While we are in this world, we are intricately bound up with this body of ours, so... it's kind of odd when you realize that we are under the cultural impression that the body does not substantially reflect a person's inner, psycho-spiritual processes. According to some, the body can be read like the rings of a tree, showing what a person has been through, and maybe even what they have yet to experience (which is sensible, because what a person presently is, is going to play a large part in their future trajectory)

I have read that people who are heavily involved in bodywork tend to become more 'centered' in their bodies, and the head (and its associated thoughts) begin to seem more like just an appendage, than the center of consciousness.

Just some thoughts on the body.

I also find the whole skeptic-vs-believer thing to be pretty silly. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the scientists who test such claims, as well as the paranormalists who attempt to prove their beliefs, seem to be missing the point, or engaged in some kind of weird drama that will never be resolved. Both sides are ridiculously trying to prove that some objective SOMETHING exists (or can't exist), and that other people need to be converted. And yet there are scientists who wouldn't even reduce themselves to testing such claims to begin with, and people who experience the paranormal on a daily basis, who would see no purpose in trying to show their experience to someone else.

I think a more useful idea is, "some people experience certain things in their lives, and it is not necessarily the place of others to experience those same things." A good deal of human beings have this thing for "the one right way," and a lot of energy has been wasted, and blood shed, over trying to act out that idea. Maybe we all just have different paths to follow.

I had a dream awhile back, and while the real intensity of it left me upon awakening, it was quite an epiphany in the dream itself. Basically the idea was that, during our lives, certain people we are more or less destined to meet, because in some way we are actually quasi-physically bound up with them. I was imagining a rubber membrane with "fingers" poking out of it, the fingers being people. And if you were geometrically close to certain people (fingers) in this membrane, then they would be guaranteed to be part of your life in this world.

But the interesting part was about everybody else. According to what I felt, it was actually very difficult, and exquisitely dangerous to make contact with people that you weren't supposed to meet. You might pass them everyday in a hallway on the way to work, but they might be very far removed from you on the membrane. A meeting would just never occur, never be allowed to happen. But apparently it /did/ occur now and then, for reasons which I did not understand, and the results were horrific.

So I get that feeling about experience, too. We tend to think that humans aren't really bound by any sorts of higher laws, because we can't understand them from where we're at... a bunch of superstitious nonsense, some might say. And yet, when you look at people's lives, or even your own life, I think it's hard to really believe that we can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING we want to. Instead there seems to be an intelligence which lays down a certain path for us, and we can attempt to get through it as best as we can.

So maybe if we could better recognize our own paths, and realize that... maybe what has happened to us isn't really meant to be shared, or can't be shared even if we would like. James Randi just isn't allowed to share his skepticism with certain people, and likewise certain people will not be allowed to share their experiences with him.

Isn't diversity the whole point of Creation?  

25 Jan 2004 @ 22:20 by jstarrs : I think..
...it's healthy to have 'unexplainable things' in our lives, like girls with X-ray eyes, pickled baby dragons, (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/drag1.jpg)Mexican policemen who swear they've seen flying Moth women (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/elnortereporte.jpg) and pots of coriander that are always full however much you use them (or so said Mrs Blochett from Swindon back in 1963)& rains of frogs & crosses.
Makes the world a magic, myth-full place, IMHO.
If scientists want to crack their heads on these, let'em!  

26 Jan 2004 @ 05:48 by ming : Realities
Yeah, I kind of like some unexplained things around. And I find it perfectly acceptable that we all experience somewhat different realities. It is just that I find the James Randi Skeptic religion really, really annoying. So I guess I'd really like to wake up the Skeptics to realize that reality is more real and interesting than their old theories. But, hey, maybe I'm not in the right membrane.  

8 Mar 2004 @ 02:12 by Ibrahim @ : Ignorance regarding skepticism
I strongly recommend to most people here to open a book and learn a thing or two about the Scientific Method before making further pronouncements. When I hear things like "skeptics should be subject to the same rules of reasons they demand of others" I wonder if it's just not time to give up the fight against ignorance and go cry in a corner.

Skepticism is a method, not a position. Specifically, it is the strict application of the scientific method, which itself is simply a tool to cut away the crap from what is scientifically verifiable. Whereas those ignorant of the scientific method may think that skepticism is the position of automatically disbelieving any surprising claim, this is absolutely not so (that would be a poor excuse for a skeptic).

A skeptic simply asks whether a claim is real or fraudulent. Whether an observed effect is in fact occurring or not. Whether there is trickery at work. A skeptic distils reality from that which is around us. A skeptic is, very simply, the opposite of a gullible person, because the skeptic does not take anything on faith, but demands to see evidence in support, and applies the scientific method accordingly.

A person who disbelieves every unexplainable claim is NOT a skeptic, but an automatic gainsayer. A skeptic simply says: "stop talking and show me instead, and let us see whether your claim is real or rubbish". Every good scientist is a skeptic -- discovery and innovation would be impossible otherwise.  

8 Mar 2004 @ 03:20 by ming : Skeptics
I wish it were so. Just seems to me that most people I've run into who apply the Skeptic label to themselves with some vigor are of the Automatic Disbelief kind.

So, I choose to proceed with extreme skepticism whenever anybody quickly and forcefully makes conclusions about a certain phenomenon not existing.

Granted, most of the Skeptics with a capital S aren't really scientists, but more like wannabees who either haven't learned how, or who's in some academic position of talking or writing about it, but not doing it. Just like how the most fervent religious fundamentalists often are the people who haven't really experienced that which they're talking about, but just somehow have concluded that it is a good idea.  

25 Aug 2004 @ 04:56 by QMAL @ : seeing through solids
This actually is not that hard for me to believe.. The human eye is fully equiped with the ability to sense or see morphogenic psi based energy, and has its own type of receptor for this purpose. In the right state of mind, opened conscious and in sensation of this energy, one can easily through living or biological based solids. Another thing I say I definatly feel something when the dentist pushes that x-ray button, always have.  

20 Oct 2004 @ 11:53 by Al @ : X-ray
Our in ability to take responsibility for our emotions and needs, gives us the need of something our someone higher.
This creates the need to belief in something higher then our self, in that we have the need to belief in miracles and the logical unexplained, in this is the hope that there is a higher above us.
The only possibility that we have as human beings is to develop our self more and more until we are aware of God, This ability is in all of us.
I to have a need to belief, the logic why I'm enable is that there is a reward of 1.000.000,- Dollar for someone that is able to prove a extra ordinary phenomena, the lady in question is then able to get every study she wants.
Until this day nobody was able to get this reward.  

20 Oct 2004 @ 13:58 by ming : Award
Well, it is because the award is guarded by the most hardened Skeptic there is, Randi, who refuses entry to any prospective entry that actually have a chance, on grounds that they're "impossible". Like the airian fellow who wanted to demonstrate he could go several months without eating. And he only allows an offical attempt to the obvious crackpots. He might be stubborn, but he isn't stupid. The criterion for entry is that Randi can consider it possible. And then, even if you do what you say you can do, Randi can produce a stage magic trick that shows the same thing as an illusion, which counts as disproving your feat. So, it is a win-win for Randi. The stuff he deems impossible is the stuff he can't come up with a trick for.  

17 Oct 2006 @ 02:00 by yoyo @ : X-ray
I think that all this scientific comments and such are interestin g and all but i think that the only way to have X-Ray vision is through some glasses or being a genetically wird alien or shocked or somthing.  

17 Oct 2006 @ 02:01 by yoyo @ : quick load
wow that loaded up quickly  

3 May 2007 @ 08:37 by joel @ : pickled baby dragons
i wana know more about the pickled baby dragons. where did it come from , how it was found and who? and so on....  

22 Nov 2007 @ 01:54 by robert matthews @ : girl with xray eyes
everyone misses the F*****g point. However the girl arrives at her Diagnosis (SOLUTION), she pinpoints then problem and this leads to a lot less suffering. Isn't this what healing (medicine) is all about?? CASE CLOSED!!!  

29 Apr 2009 @ 18:30 by boms @ : how des she know
how does she know what x ray vision is then?
if she had xray vision all the time, surely she wouldnt be able know the difference between normal vision and x ray vision  

Other stories in
2009-11-01 16:35: Seven questions that keep physicists up at night
2008-10-14 20:33: Where are the podcars?
2008-07-05 00:08: Self-Organized Criticality
2008-05-16 13:34: The Universe as God
2008-01-11 19:00: Richard Dawkins comes to call
2007-12-02 21:10: An E8 theory of everything
2007-09-27 00:46: Parallel universes are a bit more real
2007-07-05 23:40: What happened before the big bang
2007-06-27 00:58: Naïve realism
2007-05-26 02:26: Mars cave

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 

Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001072.htm
Main Page: ming.tv