404, Man, 404!
Stupid photo service! I checked them here! Standby…
As a father of a child with alphabet blocks who just conducted the same experiment, I confirm that this is correct. You can see quite a bit (1/3 is about right) of the block containing the “X,” so even accounting for the space of the actual drawn “X” and the top of the block, some of the “X” should be visible. (I love how some of us actually get the blocks out, and others construct a CAD model to come to the same answer.)
(Of course, the real answer is not enough information to tell. There may be a block just behind that hole. 
)
Try 'er now, captain.
That answers that. Thanks.
No. There is no hole.
I’m only half-joking about that, too. I’m assuming this is supposed to be a fair question, but that “hole” could have been better illustrated by keeping the bottom face of it white or gray or otherwise three-dimensional or something. Otherwise, it just looks like the black face of a block. That threw me off briefly at first, trying to figure out exactly what the question was asking.
Of course, what we can’t see in the illustration is the little downward-angled mirror just beyond the opening, hidden by the barrier. Did the instructions rule out anything like that?
Aside from that . . . it was obvious to me that you could see part of the X when looking through the top part of the hole.
I wasted a bunch of time staring at this as if it was an optical illusion. I thought if I looked long enough at it I could force a change in my perception in such a way that the “window” and ‘x’ were in alignment. Didn’t happen.
No. Part of a “x” isn’t a “x”.
I think the question would be better if it were rephrased “If you rotated the object, should you be able to see the X through the hole” (assuming that’s what you’re asking). I kept looking at the hole and
from the angle it’s positioned, of course you can’t. If you rotate it so you’re looking directly through the whole, yeah, you should be able to see the top part of the X.
I’m holding off on voting pending a comment on the rephrase of the OP’s question that I posted. 
And the answer did allow for a partial “x”.
I said yes. but not the whole thing. I figured maybe the top third, not a couple of dots.
I said no, but I am so poor with spatial awareness that I’m sure the answer is yes.
By my very rough calculations you could see part of the upper arms of the X, but not its center.
Most of the top half would be visible through the hole.
ETA: Now having looked at the figures linked in post #[strike]24[/strike]19, I’d have to say some of the top half of the X would be visible through the hole.
Oh, almost forgot that I took pics:
View through hole. You can see the right corner as well if you move to the left, and just barely the crown (top of the head between the ears) of the Mickey Mouse outline, but my phone wasn’t catching exactly the same perspective as my eye.
I’m another one who made a model (linked in the other thread, too), but it just confirmed what I had already concluded in my head.
Incidentally, I didn’t figure it out in my head by “rotating it and looking through”, but rather by leaving the model where it was and raytracing from the side.
EDIT: Right-click and drag to rotate the model.
Further, the ‘No’ answer required that the ‘X’ be completely obscured. I voted "Yes’ for partially visible and then made a Lego® model to confirm.
Trick question. There is no hole. Only the sides of the blocks are black, not the tops, so the center block is not missing otherwise we would see part of the lighter side of the top of the one in the row below. It’s just been colored black but is a solid wall.