The Girl With X-Ray Eyes

imageNatasha Demkina, a young girl living in Saransk, Russia, began to receive a lot of media attention around the middle of last month. It started with an article in Pravda, which hailed her as the 'Girl with X-ray vision'. You see, Natasha possesses the unusual ability to peer through human flesh and spot diseases and injuries that are lurking unseen within people's bodies. Or, at least, this is what Pravda claimed. It didn't take long for more newspapers to catch onto the story. The British Sun has been the most relentless about pursuing it. They've actually flown Natasha to London and are now parading her around like some kind of weird curiosity. Does Natasha really have x-ray eyes? Well, I doubt it. But I'm sure The Sun is going to milk this for all it's worth.

Health/Medicine

Posted on Tue Feb 03, 2004



Comments

I would probably take more blame for this, but reading through the historical posts by askolnick on this site, the pattern of his rude and abusive behavior is readily apparent. Perhaps this is because he sits in some type of ivory tower, looking down upon the unwashed masses, or perhaps it
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  10:34 AM
"Archangel" is furious over being outed as a troll with a virulent anti-science agenda.
Posted by askolnick  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  10:57 AM
It's good you can read my mind, askolnick. Perhaps you should be tested yourself for mind-reading skills.

I think anyone can see who the real Troll is askolnick. You. Your responses are so predictably trollish that it's laughable!

Anti-science. Very funny. You left out something. I'm anti-bad-science.

Don't feed the Trollnick! And hey, didn't you say YOU weren't going to feed the Trolls, and make like MacArthur and "return" from your ivory tower to post your "respectable links" from the anals of bad science?

You actually like being part of the flaming message contingent, don't you? I think it's truly a means for you to get your frustrations out.

Furious virulence. Very poetic. Someone should use that as a screen name....heh...
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  11:58 AM
BTW Charybdis, thanks for jumping in to try to keep this place more honest.
Posted by askolnick  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  01:27 PM
Once again, askolnick makes an innuendo. There's been no dishonesty here. Archangel and UncleBob have been very open that they knew each other and have been communicating on this thread. Archangel actually asked UncleBob to look at the troll-like behavior and make a comment.

When you're working from a NAT address on a SOHO, that's the way the IP ball bounces.

Good job on getting this thread off track and away from the solid points that have been made against askolnick and his bad science.
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  02:36 PM
Archangel, you're a dishonest troll who has been posting under multiple names. You've been outed by the moderator. It's time to crawl back under your bridge and take your alter egos with you.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  02:44 PM
Oh! This is even BETTER! Archangel recalls the earlier post from askolnick actually SUGGESTS that a poster come back on the thread with a new screen name:

"Puck, your opinion of whether the passing score, which was agreed to by Natasha and her represenetatives, was too high is no more credible than your previous false statements about the statistics. You best return here under a new screen name because this one has been pretty much discredited. --ASkolnick"

This is on page 2 of the thread, December 10, 2004.

What was askolnick trying to do? (besides insulting the poster and belittling him/her) Encourage dishonesty? Set a TRAP for the poster? "Ah-hah! You're using the same IP adddress...gotcha! Fell into my diabolical trap! Got you like I got x-ray girl. Am I not so very clever?" Whoo-hoo!

This is like dealing with a child. alskolnick cannot be an adult. He sure brings out the child in me! Hey, wait...I may actually be a child. But not from Brazil....heh...

What a Troll!
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  02:50 PM
Sigh. Somewhere, a lowly bridge is missing its ugly little troll.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  03:00 PM
Normally, I would just yes, you've got a point. Since both my uncle and I used the same network, it sure looks like one person has posted under different names. I'm the one who acutally got my Uncle into that position, when I could have done better to ensure that there was no confusion.

This is exactly what csicop should have done, created a test that ensured that there was no confusion about their results or motives.

It's a perfect example of that, however intentional it may have been.

It's also an example of how askolnick uses the worst possible scenario to evaluate a situation, and doesn't care to examine more balanced views. I'll bet if two of his supporters were posting from the same NAT, he'd be counting them as two different individuals.

I definitely admit to Troll behavior. But it's just reflexive biting at the Supertroll - aaskolnik.
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  03:08 PM
"Sigh. Somewhere, a lowly bridge is missing its ugly little troll."

This is a great game. I'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you.

You know, I only have time for this because I just got out a month-long stay in the hospital and I'm recovering. What is the excuse for a "reputable" researcher like aaskolnick? It's just unbelievable. Interesting, but weird.
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  03:14 PM
Archangel, your bridge just called. It wants you and your "Uncle" back.

While you may be a nasty little troll, when it comes to lying, you're as big as a giant.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  03:14 PM
Did you get a number so we can call it back? You have to take better messages than that.

Was it the bridge in Brazil or the one in Russia? Or the one across the River Kwai?
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  03:19 PM
Hello Moderator.

Since we have been identified as posting from the same IP address, are we no longer welcome on your site? I know we have participated in lots of flaming communications with one of the other posters, but we have genuine concerns and questions that we'd like to continue adding to the forum. But, if we're no longer welcome, then we will be happy to quit giving our clicks.

Thank you,
Archangel, UncleBob and the rest of the as-yet-unposted household.
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  04:25 PM
"..the rest of the as-yet-unposted household."

Not that anyone else necessarily wants to post from here. Mom's not to thrilled with our "obsession" Well. Ok. Archangel's seeming obsession. UncleBob could really care less and he's having a beer.
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  04:28 PM
Archangel, we've had problems with people creating multiple personalities to support their position before. Therefore, when I see one IP on two different users I make mention of it, just in case. It's perfectly valid to share a computer, and we have no problem with it if that's what you're doing.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  04:52 PM
Charybdis,

Thank you. I completely understand the concern about multiple personality creation, and I really appreciate your kind response.

It's not something either one of us would do, and we didn't really even think about it when we posted. Once I realized how it must have looked, it was a really strange position to be in and I had no idea how to fix it. Even if I posted photos of me and my uncle, what would that prove?

We acually have five pc's in the house using the same router connection. Glad my mom didn't post, that probably would have resulted in a total breakdown on the thread...heh..

I'll also try to keep things toned down a bit. I'm hoping the other poster will too.

Thank you again, Charybdis in Hell.

I like your screen name, btw. I'm a fan of ancient mythology - ok, well, I'll admit it, I really connected the name from the tv show "Hercules, the Legendary Journeys" one of my favs.. 😊

Thanks!
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  05:50 PM
askonick is a ticked off troll at the moment now. He's not being honest in anyway and he's losing his ability to type 500 word nonsense that makes him smart.

So face it, atrollnick. You don't understand the situation of the test and what happen if you were there. You're just making up bogus to support your fantasy world of "I am right no matter what you say".

Bottom line... Natasha can "see" the actual flow of inside the human body.
Posted by Trollfeeder  on  Wed Oct 26, 2005  at  10:30 PM
Trollfeeder: LOL!

I think this askonick claims that he actually IS one of the csicop researchers who performed the "x-ray eyes" test and appeared on the documentary.

Let's say that I have my doubts...but there are indications that he could be one of the guys who put together that poorly constructed "test" and then littered the process with insulting barbs and innuendo that really have no place in good science, at least when dealing with it's subjects. It's bad enough when researchers and scientists insult their own peers, but to insult the subjects, that's worse than unprofessional.

If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism on this very site are very enlightening. I've had a thought that someone might even be impersonating him here in order to make him look bad. But then again, it does match some of the poor behavior seen on the documentary and in the csicop journals on the subject.

Also, I think his analysis of the evidence where my "identity" has been concerned shows certain little gaps in his abilities, as he has been oh-so-off-target in his wild and strongly worded accusations. <sigh>
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  11:03 AM
Archangel, I see you're talking to yourself again -- or is he another one of your "relatives" who lives with you beneath the troll bridge?

You write: "If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism on this very site are very enlightening."

What's the matter, did you forget you were no longer typing as "Tollfeeder?"

Do you think anyone here with at least half a brain is fooled by your posting as an illiterate numbskull to cheer the "brillance" of your own posts? Archangel, most people aren't as stupid as you apparently think. I suspect most can see right though your troll games.
Posted by askolnick  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  11:40 AM
Nope. Wrong again. Trollfeeder is not Archangel, nor is Trollfeeder anyone Archangel knows. Archangel is perfectly capable of talking to himself and cheering himself on in his own posts...lol!

Verify with the Moderator, if you like.

You're just classic troll. Picking on an obvious typo, then claiming I'm posting as an "illiterate". Insulting Trollfeeder in the process. What a champ you are. You obviously know how to speak to the unwashed masses. I learn from the master. Sheesh.

I think the original sentence was actually:

"If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism, insulting behavior, wild and outrageous comments, and continual displays of troll-like behaviors on this very site are very enlightening."

It bears repeating, with the inherent correction involved..thanks for the opportunity..heh..

Then you prove my point IMMEDIATELY! It's brilliant!

Trollfeeder is right, though...you are quite the "ticked off troll" I'm truly impressed at your almost exacting ability to exhibit true, classic, Internet Troll behavior.

I like the way everything is a big conspiracy with you. You know what they say about "projecting".

Yep, I've done a little trolling on this site, but my god, man, you take the cake!
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  12:08 PM
Archangel said, "I like the way everything is a big conspiracy with you."

I would hardly call a troll sitting alone in his room, pretending to be multiple posters, a "big conspiracy." I'd call it "sad."

Archangel, you're fooling no one. You're a conspiracy of one.
Posted by askolnick  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  03:55 PM
Yep, it would have to be conspiracy according to your claims. If SuperTroll remembers, he first accused Archangel of being a "paid shill". That implies that someone paid him. Conspiracy.

Everyone who disagrees with askolnik is a Natasha supporter and is "anti-science".

Conspiracy.

Askolnick's accusations follow this weird and paranoid trail:

UncleBob was some Brazilian dude.
UncleBob and Archangel both were some Brazilian dude.
Archangel, UncleBob, and the Brazilian dude were all posting as illiterate "junior highschooler trolls"
Then Archangel and UncleBob were Trollfeeder and god only knows who else. But apparently not the Brazilian dude any longer.
UncleBob and Archangel cannot be separate people, because askolnick has no idea as to how networks function!

Some scientist, eh?

Maybe this entire thread is the result of a wild, insane paranoid delusion on the part of A. Skolnick: insane and paranoid csicop! Weirdo at large. Maybe every single post is from A. Skolnick and his multiple personalities.

Everybody's out to get poor little askolkinck.
I'd call that a borderline paranoid delusion in which everyone is 'conspiring' against askolnick. Yep, askolnick definitely has feelings of inadequacy...er, uh, conspiracy.

Or, askolnick's out to get everyone. That sounds more likely.

I think what everyone sees is that askolnick focuses on ANYTHING except the real issues. Misdirection is the name of the game. Well, along with insults, intimidation, repeating the same thing over and over...basically...trolling.

"Conspiracy of one" eh? I didn't know you were a rock fan!

http://www.offspring.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Offspring.woa/wa/albums?releaseName=Conspiracy+Of+One

Wanna play some more troll?
:lol:
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  04:59 PM
I was really hoping to get UncleBob to post again, he
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  07:00 PM
The above is all very enlightening. It seems to show that csicop and this askolnick-poster know they cannot win on the facts, so they insult, misdirect and just plain don
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  07:01 PM
Yep. Couple o' typos in the above. Too bad I'm so damned illiterate. :down:

lol!
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Oct 27, 2005  at  07:16 PM
Part 1

Hi Everybody,

Well, first of all I am not either Uncle Bob or Arch-angel. My name is Julio Siqueira and I have written some stuff on the web about the "investigation" (...???) that CSICOP and their "appendix" (CSMMH... - Skolnick included) have performed on poor Natasha girl in that TV program by the Discovery Channel. Just today I received an email letting me know of this list, and the guy asked me if I think it is really Skolnick that is posting on it. I say, Yes! It very much looks like him, and he knows things (even in his latest postings) that only Skolnick (or almost only him) knows. Anyway, I will be sending my postings to this list with a copy directly to Skolnick's email, just in case he has a "double" (Who knows? With so much paranormality and so many ghosts hanging around). As has been already indicated by some members, my main page about Natasha is at the link below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

Professor Brian Josephson has kindly placed a link in his web page to my analysis, and I very much thank him for his public efforts to make parapsychology better respected and less prejudiced against. I think all mankind benefits from it. At the same time, I thank CSICOP and friends (avowed skeptics in general) for the counter-balance they give to the excess of credulity in the paranormal. Mankind also greatly benefits from their work (again, Skolnick included... yes, I do not satanize Skolnick. Just like Disney's Shrek, and onions, he has "layers"). But I am nevertheless highly critical of CSICOP's unscientific procedures (again, Skolnick included), which actually are procedures that end up being counter-productive to what they claim to be their very social goal. I want briefly to "correct" some (but not all) misinformation posted by the one that calls himself "askolnick", and then briefly state my general position regarding Natasha and "the Natasha Affair" (i.e. the Csicop investigation of her).

I had many exchanges of email with Skolnick about their investigation. I did not want at first to investigate this case. Actually, two friends of mine in Brazil, one a believer and the other a skeptic (one still a friend; but the skeptic is now an ex friend, unfortunately) ended up luring me into that, because as a matter of fact I did not agree with either of them. Topmost, I saw signs of serious misconduct from the part of Csicop et al (as I have spotted so very often; please look at my anti-skeptic site for a better account of it, including book reviews where I show that some Csicop members do not read what they cite, including late phylosopher Paul Edwards and physicist Victor Stenger).

Continues in part 2
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Oct 28, 2005  at  07:09 AM
Part 2

I can say that being a man of so explosive a temper, Skolnick resisted pretty well the questionings and criticism that I advanced to him along the way (I, also having a temper, resisted also well his touchy and stingy way of adressing me...). Basically we broke because I misunderstood something he told me. He said something like Natasha was, during the test, say, seven meters from the subjects when she was sitting, and when she stood up she would get one meter closer. I wrongly understood that she would get one meter close (One Meter CLOSE, and not One Meter CLOSER, that is, I understood it as if she was allowed to stand up and walk as far close as one meter), and thought that he was misreporting the event (as I had seen in the documentary). Instead of cheking this only with him, I sent an email to Natasha's parties and Discovery Channel's people regarding this "discrepancy" of account. I sent a copy of this email to Skolnick at the very same time, keeping him informed of it. He blew! Eight hours after I sent the email to everybody, I read his reply where he laid clear my mistake. Immediatly I sent an email to everybody emphasizing that Skolnick had not said that Natasha got one meter close to the subjects. I also explained the reason for my misundertanding. Bad as my mistake might have been, I did not like Skolnick's reply to it in such a, let put it this way, "informal manner". He said he was "pissed off to say the least". I do not give him the permission to use this kind of language in that kind of situation. English is not only the language of America. It is an international language. I do not care if he uses the expression "pissed off" when he adresses the priests and judges in his home town. This is strong language, and when one uses strong language in delicate situations, the aftermath can be explosive. So I blew as well. My response to him was just as impolite. Since I am not afraid of hard talk, or of hard data, I did not chicken out of the debate. It was him that stopped the email exchanges.

The most important thing in this incident above is that the reason why I did not ask Skolnick beforehand about the discrepency is because I stopped believing in what he was telling me. Technically and factually, he lied to me in many instances. I describe this in detail in my review of their experiment with Natasha.

Continues in part 3
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Oct 28, 2005  at  07:10 AM
Part 4

So, basically, what is the problem with the experiment that Csicop did with Natasha? Did they do their best, given the conditions? I would say, yes. Is their statistics acceptable, and is their demand of five hits proper? I would say, yes. Is their conclusion that there seems to be serious problems with the alleged "X-ray" vision of Natasha a sound conclusion? I would say, yes. The problem is not these ones. The problem is that they violated their own protocols in very many ways (as I describe in details in my review), and nowhere do they acknowledge this. The problem is that they know that their test cannot yield final proof, and yet Hyman is happy to appear in the documentary saying that Natasha is living an illusion. The problem is that they know that there were conditions that favored Natasha during the test but also conditions that hindered her, and nowhere do they acknowledge this. The problem is that they are (or better, were) dealing with a girl that was quite amenable to being tested, that seemed to be very very honest, a girl that might incorporate the skeptic feedbacks from them, and yet they were indeed very dishonest to her. And since she is not supid, she perceives this; and this may have a bad impact on the way she accepts being tested by skeptics from know on, therefore pushing her to what Wiseman labelled "the soft option" (the non skeptics), which is an action against the cause of the organized skeptic movement. The problem is that they are dealing with someone who is indeed an informal diagnostic therapist, and therefore she may be contributing to people's death with her possible false negatives and false positives. Csicop guys (Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell) seem to have led a happy life, and have never lost a loved one by the hands of the so called "alternative medicine". Those like me who have indeed lost close relatives to these clumsy (or even criminal) hands know how serious this situation is. What is really a shame is that Skolnick, instead of being part of the latter group (as I, naively, had imagined before...) seems to belong actually to the former happy group. What a deception!

So what about Natasha? I myself would not let her diagnose me. I would not trust her diagnose. But I do not say that she does not have power. She may have. It has to be investigated. There is a public health issue here at stake. Her powers, if any, seem to have serious problems (as I have clearly commented in detail in my review). So she has to learn more about them. That is what she seems to be willing for, and what she is doing indeed. She entered medical school. Good for Natasha. She scored a hit. As for the Csicop (and appendixes) losers, again they scored a miss...

continues in part 4
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Oct 28, 2005  at  07:12 AM
Part 4 - final

Other misreportings by Skolnick will be corrected later. And as he said, yes, I claim to be a biologist, graduation in State University of Rio de Janeiro in 1993 (Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro) with a M.A. in clinical bacteriology in the same university in 2001. I have one article published as first author in the scientific medical journal Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. I claim to be Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros. And only that. A meager curriculum. But an honest and painstakinly acquired one. And I never worked as a biologist, I always stress. Just to warn the readers of the potential rust in my knowledge. I may not be perfect. But I am honest. Especially when dealing with public issues, and topmost when dealing with public health ones...

Best Regards for everybody,

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Oct 28, 2005  at  07:13 AM
Just to inform that all my messages were posted correctly, in four parts (I commited a mislabeling of one of them, but the content is all correct)

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Oct 28, 2005  at  07:25 AM
Part 1

CORRECTING SOME ADITIONAL "MISTAKES" FROM A "ASKOLNICK"

I am not going to check everything that askolnick said in his very many postings. I took a look at the now sixteen pages of this thread about Natasha Demkina, and I want to comment now only on a few "problems" with two postings from askolnick. Sometime later, perhaps even today, I will begin to summarize the top problems in Csicop's (and appendixes') investigation on Natasha.

First Message (my comments will begin with ###):

Posted by askolnick on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:44 PM
"Uncle Bob" appears to be the author of an online "study," which contains virtually all the same false and defamatory remarks.

### Please, askolnick, point out a single false or defamatory remark and it will be immediately corrected.

Like that author, "Uncle Bob" makes things up

### Again, anything that you prove that I made up will be immediately corrected, with the due apologies.

-- like his claim that we "cheated" Natasha,

### Quote exactly what I said, so that we can begin the reviewing process right now.
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Sun Oct 30, 2005  at  05:45 AM
Part 2

that we "insulted" and "made fun of her,"

### Again, quote me. Let's get started.

and that we "changed the test when she got there."

### Quote me! But I did say, and I did prove, that you violeted your own protocols in very many ways (this is even worse than changing the test). The very title of your page about Natasha in your CSMMH site is a violation of the protocols. It reads: "The Girl with Very Normal Eyes". You claimed in the protocols that your test could not yield this kind of conclusion. And yet you have come to this conclusion and insist upon spreading this all over the world.

He even had the to post his "study" with the claim that I had reviewed

### Did I say it? Where? Quote me!

it and that he incorporated my suggested changes.

### Yes I did incorporate. But not your "suggested changes". I never said that. I incorporated your feedbacks. Quote me, please. Do not hallucinate over what I said. In fact I got to see problems in Natasha's alledged powers in part due to your description of how things happened.

And like him, "Uncle Bob" is a shameless liar.

### If I am a liar, show a single lie in what I said. I am challenging you. The least that I garantee is that it will be immediately corrected with due apologies. As to the mistakes and distortions that the four of you (Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell, Skolnick) have committed in the Natasha Issue that I, and others, have pointed out to you, none have been corrected. And, as it seems, none will...
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Sun Oct 30, 2005  at  05:45 AM
Part 3


And the most shameless of his lies is his claim that my colleague is now in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct.

### I believe you may be referring to something "Uncle Bob" said. If not, I do not know what you are talking about. I do not know of any colleague of yours that might be in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct.

"Uncle Bob" appears to think that because he's is Brazil, he cannot be sued for libel.

### Someone warned you that you can check with the forum owner if the IP of Uncle Bob is a Brazilian one. Do that please. And check mine too. Anyway, anyone anywhere can be sued for libel (both my parents are lawyers; my mother now deceased, actually). The only pre-requisite for this suing is the libel itself. Show the libel then. It is a challenge from me. And a demand!

Second Message (again, my comments start with ###)

Posted by askolnick on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:46 AM
Charybdis, my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira. Siqueira claims to be a "microbiologist," although he admitted in an email that he never worked as a biologist.

### I have already commented on that. Unfortunately I live in a country where job positions are not easy to find. I presently (from 1999) work as an English teacher in primary public schools in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Such is life...

A year ago, Siqueria trolled for answers to questions about our test. He then distorted and rewrote our "quotes"

### Show a single instance of distortion or of rewriting of your quotes. Show yourself...

and disseminated them in a crude attempt to discredit us.

### Do you mean to say that I "raped the objectivity of scientific method?"... 😉. My God! Never thought you would plagiarize Victor Zammit...
http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/Nov2004.html
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Sun Oct 30, 2005  at  05:47 AM
Part 4

He eventually posted a collection of libelous statements on his web site,

### Show a single libel then...

which he calls a scientific "study." He even had audacity to claim that I had reviewed a final draft 10 days before he published his "study"

### Oh God, where the hell did I say that? What I said is that I sent it to all of you. I can't even know if you received it. I do not have a crystal ball of divination.

and that he had included my "feedback" in the final "publication."

### The feedbacks that came along the way were incorporated. Of course I did not incorporate the lies that you told me (that Natasha could spot molecules from afar, for example...).

None of this is true. Long before that, I completely stopped all communications with him upon discovering

### He "discovered" it because I myself sent the email to him at the very same time that I sent it to Natasha's fellows and to Discovery Channel's fellows... He should at least give me the due credit for this "brilliant discovery of his"...

that he was reworking our quotes and disseminating them in an attempt to discredit us. Julio Siqueira is to truth as a uremic dog is to a fire hydrant. You can read his libelous document here and see for yourself why I think he and "Archangel" are one and the same:

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

### Well, at least he directed people to my link. That is why I say that Skolnick is not completely a lost case. Let's have some faith, guys. He only needs a helping hand 😊

Best Regards for everybody!

Julio Siqueira
________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Sun Oct 30, 2005  at  05:47 AM
I'm not Archangel and Unclebob either...
But I do know that you're a troll, Andrew.
Posted by Trollfeeder  on  Sun Oct 30, 2005  at  06:52 PM
Julio, thanks for joining this board and posting an excellent rebuttal to all the misstatements and distortions posted by Skolnick. You bring up truly excellent points, each of which needs to be addressed by Skolnick. But where has he gone?

We have been anxiously awaiting a response from Skolnick to your commentary, but all we hear so far is a vast silence.

The man that Skolnick so crudely insulted is here on the boards, putting forth a calm and civilized discourse on the flaws of the csicop testing of Natasha and the distortions and accusations made by Skolnick on this very board, but where is the cowardly Skolnick?

Vanished.

Perhaps he is giving his acidic tongue a much-needed rest.
:zip:

Perhaps Julio is so on-target that there's nothing Skolnick can even say. Well, I'm sure there's a typo or two Skolnick could insult..heh..
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Oct 31, 2005  at  06:29 PM
This girl told me that I had a tumor on yes my penis. I was quite taken away. I thought it was just a zit, because I could pop it. So I went to the doctor and he confirmed it. It was a benign toomer, caused by an infection of a hair follicle.

So I guess that means that she saw my hang down.
I mean how did she know that I had something on my p. I had clothes on. She looked me up and down. then said "You have a toomer on your, (then pointed to that dirction.)" I don't know weird.
Posted by Mr. Hangdown  on  Mon Oct 31, 2005  at  11:12 PM
Just want to let everybody here know that any of you can "develop" x-ray vision, just take a 2 day course like the Silva Method and you will see.

The tests to Natasha are flawed only because she was put in a very stressful situation. You need to enter a relaxed state to access information such as "x-ray" vision. This is known as alpha level. Natasha, as a natural psychic don't know techniques to get to alpha at will and the fact that she took very long to make her diagnostics indicate that. She ended up guessing by fustration instead of trusting her instincts.

A natural psychic such as Natasha must be allowed to perform in conditions as close as posible to the ones they are used to, so they can relax and reach the level of mind required to access these "extra" senses we all have.
Posted by V. Perez  on  Tue Nov 01, 2005  at  08:36 PM
S. Perez said:

"Just want to let everybody here know that any of you can "develop" x-ray vision, just take a 2 day course like the Silva Method and you will see."

I think what you have said here is complete nonsense. If you sincerely believe it, however, I think you should apply to win the JREF Challenge. If you are able to show that you have those powers under controlled conditions, you would win one million dollars. That sounds pretty good, right? I respectfully direct you to randi.org where you will find the details about how you can apply for the Challenge. Good luck.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  01:18 AM
Wow, I can't believe I can win a million dollars so easy. For me clarivoydance was a nice side effect from taking the silva method course. I just wanted to increase my concentration and learn to take 10 minute power-naps.
Posted by V. Perez  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  08:07 AM
V. Perez said:

"Wow, I can't believe I can win a million dollars so easy. For me clarivoydance was a nice side effect from taking the silva method course. I just wanted to increase my concentration and learn to take 10 minute power-naps."

So, you WILL be applying for the JREF Challenge? Terrific. Please keep us informed as to the status of your application. Thanks.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  01:54 PM
Of course I am aplying. I am not very clear on the procedure to apply thought. Am I supposed to print and sign that form and attach a letter indicating my "powers"?

Just to prevent missunderstandings I will posting copies of all interchanges between me and JREF to a blog. I will also post all recorded phone conversations. I will post the link when is ready.

Let's see if I've got "powers". This is going to be fun.
Posted by V. Perez  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  02:43 PM
Does any of you know how to contact Natasha Demkina?

Does she have a website/email or regular mail address where to contact her or her agent?

please email me to spectro at gmail

Thanks
Posted by V. Perez  on  Wed Nov 02, 2005  at  02:48 PM
Hi everybody,

I would like to congratulate all of you for the very good messages on this forum. As for Randi's prize, it might be interesting to take a look at the links below:

A scanned copy of a letter from Randi to an applicant:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

The report about this letter:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Randi talks about this issue in his website:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

Radi acknowleges that the content of his letter is veridical, and not a forgery:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=6be76feb66bf37ca048a6f88cd5a021b&threadid=19874&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Randi stresses that what he did was proper...:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
(this last link is the same as the one above, in his website).

Despite these moments of "bad temper", Randi has played an important role in fighting dangerous beliefs. But he has accumulated many sins while fighting this righteous war...

Julio
______________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  04:08 AM
I am posting again the link to the scanned letter. If again it does not work, it can be accessed by the parent link "randi-retreats" in the alternativescience site (link in the previous message)

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

Julio
____________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  04:13 AM
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

Did not work again. The link should be www alternativescience.com, and then randi followed (without space) by the percentage simbol and then followed (without space) by 27s-letter.htm

Julio
___________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  04:17 AM
Julio, I found out the same after just reading through their applicant's log. If a claim has the slightest chance to win the challenge, they twist and bend the protocols to discourage the applicant. If that doesn't work they start insulting to provoke you so they can dismiss your claim.

I think I will be hiring an attorney to make sure my claim is given a fair chance.
Posted by V. Perez  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  09:42 AM
(Part 1 of 3):
Sorry it has taken me so long to comment on Julio Siqueira's scurrilous attacks. I've had much more important things to attend to first. Correcting the false accusations of characters like Siqueira is a job no more gratifying than shoveling sewage up hill. But someone has to do it.

On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background. I spent a great deal of time patiently answering his questions and trying to correct his many misconceptions and false presumptions. I didn't realize that at least some of those errors were deliberate attempts to troll for material that he could misrepresent in a campaign to discredit us. It took me two more weeks to see through his game.

Siqueira claims to be a scientist who is dedicated to exposing the "lies" of leading critics of paranormal claims. However, Siqueira is no scientist. He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.

On Nov. 17, 2004, I began to suspect that Siqueira thinks words can mean anything he wants them to mean when he told me: <font color="red">"Hi Andrew, I said I would have no more questions. But I hope you understand that no more actually means 'lots more.'" </font> Although English is not his native tongue, Siqueira is quite good using word games to create "evidence" to support his "conclusions" that outspoken skeptics are "liars," "scoundrels," "crooks," and worse.

For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, <font color="green">"I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle <u>around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject.</u> Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, <u>she came a foot or so closer."</u></font>

To my astonishment and anger, Siqueira altered my answer and sent the false information to Ms. Demkina's defenders. He deleted any mention about her chair being about two meters from the subjects and, by deceptively selecting words to quote, he claimed that I had said Ms. Demkina <font color="red"><u>"was allowed to come close to the subjects" </u></font> and <font color="red"><u>"sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them." </u></font>
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  10:59 AM
(Part 2 of 3):
Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.

Another example is Siqueria's blatant rewriting of a statement made by Prof. Richard Wiseman. If you listen to the Discovery Channel program, you will hear Dr. Wiseman telling the Russian translator:

<font color="green">"So if she scored these two [conditions] wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct [pointing to the remaining test cards], we would still consider that a success."</font>

Which is obviously a truthful statement. To accuse Dr. Wiseman of deception in his "analysis," Siqueira rewrote the quote, trusting that his readers won't bother to check:

<font color="red"> "'<u>Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'</u>. Well, to begin with, <u>this is technically untrue</u>, for there would actually be three people from which she could swap wrong diagnosis: resected esophagus, removed appendix, and none condition. She could have said that the "none condition" had resected esophagus, that the "resected esophagus" had missing appendix, and that the "missing appendix" had none condition, thus making three misses due to this poor design, due to this lack of direct talk to the claimant, and due to this violation of protocols. <u>Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." </u>. </font>

The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.

Here's another example of his alteration of quoted material in order to accuse others of dishonesty. This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:

<font color="red">"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: <u>'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'</u>. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."</font>

Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:

<font color="green">"If you did it my way, I would <u>have</u> probably <u>guessed</u> not five but seven of them."</font>

Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  11:02 AM
(Part 3 of 3):
The next time the program is broadcast, listen carefully to see how shamefully Siqueira employs misquotations in his campaign to deceive, defame, and vilify.

Another of his many deceptions: At the beginning of one "analysis," Siqueira says:

<font color="red"><u>"The content of this text was presented to</u> the three parties involved (i.e. <u>CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]</u>; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) <u>ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated,</u> and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004." </font>

Email records show that this is also false. I never sent Siqueira "feedback" on his "analysis." I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21, after discovering that he was trolling for comments which he could misquote to use in a malicious and dishonest campaign.

Virtually every word Siqueira has written here and in his so-called analysis is a distortion, a misquotation, or an outright falsehood. If requested, I'll post more examples of his dishonesty.

What's Siqueira's motivation for this deception? Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims -- which he tries to hide while pretending to be a dispassionate "researcher." While addressing me in his email as "Dear Friend," he expressed what he really felt to others -- as in this email to a fellow Brazilian dated November 24, 2004:

<font color="red">"That Skolnick moron, after I peed on him yesterday, admitted that he 'had realized I hadn't watched the show' ... It's not unreasonable [to ask a critic to watch the documentary] for those who are stupid. What must have happened is that [Skolnick] must have got pressure from that Wiseman bastard ... I have already followed [the suggestions of Hyman's 'Proper Criticism']. You and Skolnick can't read. You maybe because you are stupid. Skolnick almost certainly because he's a scoundrel [por canalhice]".</font>

In emails and bulletin board postings, Siqueira has shown utter contempt for leading skeptics. He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus." He says psychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore is "scientifically dishonest." He dismisses James Randi as a "scoundrel" and calls Prof. Richard Wiseman "a big crook" and "bastard." It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics and to expose us as "liars," "scoundrels," "bastards," and "crooks."

By so doing, he has only exposed himself.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Thu Nov 03, 2005  at  11:03 AM
Comments: Page 6 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.