Talk:Nina Kulagina/Archive 1

Untitled

Did some trimming due to the fact that scientific test accounts, failsafes, methods and records can be easily found. Try supernature by lyall watson as an easily available one. It does not however mention the frog killing one, what is the source on that one again??

trimmed again the same bit,[leave it out now] heres a link from the parapsychological institute of numerous records of the experiments and failsafes carried out with nina kulagina http://perso.wanadoo.fr/basuyaux/parapsy_eng/documents/abstracts/PK.txt so stating that the experiments and there failsafes had no records is untrue. Robin

Hyperparathyroidism

Hyperparathyroidism, brought on by lifelong exposure to massive quantities of normally healthy magnesium? heart attack, irregular heartbeat, high blood sugar, endocrine system , pains in extremities, uncoordination, dizziness Her hair sustained melanogenesis til the end, which also suggests magnesium. Does anyone know the town she is from?

Neutrality

At least the second paragraph is not neutral at all. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the second paragraph, let me know if there are any other issues. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a paragraph "trickery" which states that some people believed there was trickery involved. Why isn't there a paragraph "telekinesis" which states that some people believed there was telekinesis involved? Why side with one group of people and give their side a whole paragraph when the claims of trickery have never been proved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Duh. Telekinesis is the obvious interpretation everybody immediately sees - but does not necessarily believe. It is pretty obvious that the gullible part of humanity believes it. Why does it need to be spelled out? And "have never been proved" is a bit disingenious, since she has been caught doing it. Are you one of those who won't believe a fraud is a fraud unless she has been caught every time (which will only happen to utterly incompetent ones)? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Parts of this appear to be plagiarized. For example, the sentence reading in part "Sergeyev was one of many scientists present when Nina attempted to use her energy" can be found in many places around the net, and perhaps more tellingly, there is no other mention of a "Sergeyev" in the article, so I have no idea who this is even referring to (it's actually Dr. Genady Sergeyev) without referring to other sources such as http://weird-people.com/psychic-nina-kulagina/ (the specific "borrowed" section is on page two of that link) Snowrail (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Birth

Should her birthday say 1826..? (Currently, the page says "30 July 1926 – April 1990.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vokesk (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kulagin also agreed to undergo testing with Americans

"However, Kulagin also agreed to undergo testing with Americans such as Montague Ullman, which places doubt on the propaganda hypothesis." Short question: Why? If such a test by an American would help to make Kulagina's alleged psychic powers more believable, why would it be an argument against the propaganda hypothesis? Wouldn't the UdSSR try to make those alleged psychic powers as believable as possible, if it wanted to use them as propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.203.107 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Publish that in a reliable source, and we will be able to use it in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The propaganda hypothesis is not credible

If this was meant to be a propaganda action, why the soviet establishment would allow soviet scientists and investigators to dismiss it.. If the dismissals were real..

Publish that in a reliable source, and we will be able to use it in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources regarding trickery are unreliable

These are pulp writings, popular books, not actual scientific documents. 94.53.248.165 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They are the relevant sources. Scientific sources are not relevant, since scientists are not experts in the field of prestidigitation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

your answer is irrelevant. if scientists are not experts in observing experiments, why these books would claim that they did it.. 94.53.248.165 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

these sources (and quotes) only claim that she was caught or that she was using tricks, without actually describing the investigation or giving names of the investigators. and videos with her experiments are in contradiction with these claims, which are common among the skeptics, without actually being proof. only one source indicates investigative details about other two pks, but not about kulagina.94.53.248.165 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"why these books would claim that they did it"

Please try to make sense when writing. I have no idea what you are trying to ask.

So you need "proof" that someone is a fraud but you do not need proof that someone can do real magic. That is your personal preference. Do not force it on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Videos with her performance

In one of the recordings, she moves a group of matches and a matchbox covered by a transparent box. Either the whole recording team was involved in trickery, either here is no explanation how she could manipulate these non metallic objects without wires. In other video (min. 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZVCxjTFRo ) she was filmed by 2 German scientists moving covered objects. 94.53.248.165 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure? Did you use the following "logical step"?

• "I cannot find an explanation, and I am extremely smart, therefore there is no explanation"

? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

is not about figuring, but about presenting information. unless you have an explanation, the "logical steps" you present are applicable for the trickery hypothesis.

94.53.248.165 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You are still not making sense. You are not smart enough to figure out a magic trick, and you demand that people either explain it or write into the article that it was real. That is silly. Please go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)