Natasha 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.
Comments
Hi Skolnick,
Good to hear from you, and to see that you are in... good shape.
Since you still have these soul-wounds from our email exchanges, I will try to tackle some of the relationship issues that you pesented. Maybe at the end we will all eat that pork of yours after all (the one you were dining last November).
Below are your comments, and I will begin my reply with $$$
On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background.
$$$ You did not need to investigate
$$$ I stopped sending any feedback to anyone that might have any kind of
He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.
$$$ To be a biologist, one needs not be registered at the institution that gives permission for those who work as such. You can be a biologist due to your learning (academic), and due to the official diplomas that you get at institutions recognized by the government. (You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All? What I think is really important is that, when people talk to me, they know that I have specialized information in clinical bacteriology, and also in biology in general. (Just by the way: usually I do not
For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."
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 "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and "sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them."
Posted by aaskolnick on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 09:59 AM
$$$ I already acknowledged and reported this event. It was indeed a bad misundertanding from me.
Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.
$$$ As I said, I no longer believed Skolnick then. Anyway, I sent to him a copy of the message at the very same time, and because of it he was able to correct me promptly, and I was able to correct my mistake so fast that simply no one used that against him. Just fair.
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:
"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."
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:
"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'. Well, to begin with, this is technically untrue, 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. Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." .
The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.
$$$ I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him. What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that
This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:
"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: 'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."
Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:
"If you did it my way, I would have probably guessed not five but seven of them."
Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").
$$$ But Skolnick, Natasha said this BEFORE the test. She was not talking about the past, but about the FUTURE. I will take a look at this passage of the documantary again (for the sixth time now). If this is a mistake from me, it will be corrected (as I always do; the very opposite of what you do). But let
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:
"The content of this text was presented to the three parties involved (i.e. CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated, and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004."
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.
$$$ If I said that feedbacks from him came to me, then they indeed came. Most likely through my ex-friend, who kept contact with Skolnick. So, Skolnick, if your
Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims
$$$ Oh, you should ask the English skeptic Keith Augustine or the Brazilian skeptic Ronaldo Cordeiro how angry I am when I adress them now... As a matter of fact, there were some
He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus."
$$$ I called him so in a public Brazilian skeptic forum. That was a play upon words. Dawkins, in his speech while receiving the prize
and "bastard."
$$$ Skolnick, listen to this: Never again, never, in your whole life, say that I ever called Wiseman a bastard. Right? You know that I protested vehemently against my ex-friend in the past. That was indeed one of the main reasons why I broke with him. Learn that words have not only their connotative meanings. They have their denotative meanings as well. The word bastard has semantic implications that in no way I would ever direct to Wiseman. Be passionate. But be honest.
It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics
$$$ I
<font color="red">"(You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All?"</font>
You're an elementary school English teacher. And you are a hypocrite, a phony, and a prevaricator. And the latter answer explains it all.
You've never earned a terminal degree in biology or in any other scientific field and you've never worked as a biologist a day in your life. If you had earned a Ph.D. in biology, you might have a credible claim as an authority in biology. But you don't. You're an elementary school teacher and you don't even teach science. You "publish" your "scientific" "anlayses" on your freebie web site and you think that makes you a scientist. No, that makes you a phony.
I broke off communicating with you when I realized the game you were playing. When I discovered you were going to "publish" a "scientific" "analysis" of the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina WITHOUT bothering to view the documentary, I thought further communication with you would be hopeless. Your bizarre attempt to explain why not viewing the program would lead you to more truthful conclusions only confirmed how hopeless communicating with you further would be.
I communicate now for the sake of readers. They deserve to know the facts behind your dishonest attacks and your disingenuous claim of scientific authority.
Honest debate requires honest debaters. Trollers like Archangel and Julio, who use deception in their arguments, make their own character the subject of fair debate.
Skolnick has accused people of telling falsehoods that merely had bad math. Even when someone makes a mistake and then admits it, skolnick calls them a liar and dismisses them. He will even use a typo as an excuse not to answer a question or address a point.
It's bad Public Relations, Skolnick. Hostility, cynicism, and ridicule on the part of the skeptics don
The audience that Discovery Channel and others (including csicop) seek to attract and inform, entertain and sell advertising to, is made up of the ordinary people of this world, who saw a lot of bad behavior by the investigators in the Natasha Demkina case. Whether the investigators were right or wrong, they left a bad taste in the mouth of many, many individuals. Bad form. Then, to add insult to injury
<font color="red">"I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him."
</font>
No he didn't. Siquera put quotation marks around a misrepresentation of what Prof. Wiseman said to accuse him of deception!
<font color="red">"What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that
It seems that Archangel is no longer content to speak for his "family" of trolls. He has now appointed himself spokesperson for "the public."
The public does not need Archangel to speak for them. I have faith in the public to see for themselves who the liars are in this thread.
I do speak in agreement with many others. You'd be surprised at the number and identities of those I've been in communications with, and who are viewing this thread with interest. Your communications are very enlightening as to your integrity and professionalism, as well as the group you represent, csicop. And these communications by you are not something you should be proud of. Believe it.
It's clearly my opinion that you do not directly or adequately address questions, and continually attack, insult and ridicule. This not a falsehood, and many, many others have the same opinion of you. Including several comments to that effect on this very thread. Oh, and please check the definition of words, and common usage before you use them. Same goes for the humble quotation mark.
I'm certainly not alone in my negative views of both skolnick and csicop. You're helping drive the reputations of both right into the ground.
Please continue.
As far as I'm concerned, you have been put forth as a representative of csicop by representation from your position with csmmh, a very close association. You have been representing them on this very forum. You defend them, you explain them, you reference them, you speak of your work with them. You clearly have been representing csicop. If I
My understanding is that csicop stopped doing actual investigations, and began using other groups to investigate, such as csmmh. With this relationship and the affiliation of the groups under cfi, it looks very much that csmmh is representing csicop as it
Geez, relax, will ya? Can the overblown, dramatic rhetoric.
Perhaps I'm reading old information:
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
Quote from the site on csicop: "Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP
I'm sure you knew what I meant, but you jumped immediately to the attack.
Represent:
"to bring clearly before the mind"
"to take the place of in some respect"
"to describe as having a specified character or quality"
"to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of"
"Represent" doesn't mean you work for csicop or are a member or have been asked by csicop to be their official spokesperson. There's a broader sense to the utilization of the word "represent" or "representative" of.
I'm sure you "represent" a pile of dog poop to some people. Perhaps even junkyard dog poop.
😊
This statement:
"Even though you were corrected, you continue to..."
Even though you were corrected? Too funny. You sound like an old, frustrated, overbearing, obnoxous nanny talking her 8-year old charges. And getting nowhere.
Chill, baby. You're not talking to a bunch of students in class.
:coolsmile:
This means to me that your definition of both "lies" and "falsehood" is so completely out of whack with reality as to be meaningless.
We can add those words to your list of words to define further, eg. "Diagnose" "Libel" "Represent" and etc...
I may be repeating this, but I think Victor Zammit says it best in his comments about Skolnick on Victor
Falsehood. An untrue statement; a lie. The practice of lying.
You might be using the word to represent just an "untrue statement" or "mistake" or "incorrect information". However, with your tendency to overstate and make inflammatory remarks, I believe your use of falsehood to be an implication of an "intentional falsehood" or at least using the worst possible word without actually saying "lie," but strongly implying "liar".
It appears to me to be at least innuendo when you use it.
Do I have the wrong impression?
❓
Skolnick said:
"Even though you were corrected, you continue to falsely claim that I represent or speak for CSICOP. You also are lying when you say that CSICOP no longer conducts investigations but uses other organizations like CSMMH. I represent CSMMH. We do not conduct investigations for CSICOP or any other organization. You've been informed now several times that the test of Natasha Demkina was a joint operation of CSICOP and CSMMH, yet" ...
My view on this matter is that Skolnick does not really represent Csicop. They are birds of a feather, they flock together (they have layes...), but they do have some differences. Also, I think it is correct to say that the "research" they did was a joint venture (or better: a
Csicop et al have layers, not layes.
Machiavel is the Portuguese version for the name Machiavelli
We can all see who the Internet Troll is. Skolnick's behavior fits that definition perfectly. Not that my own behavior has been stellar, but at least I admit it. Skolnick is in deeeeep denial...
"We can all see who the Internet Troll is."
Yes, at least the readers with a lick of sense can. He's the one who was from the same computer using more than one alias.
I post under my real name, not a bunch of Troll alias like Archangel/Uncle Bob.
Julio did this without calling me a "liar" or accusing me of telling "falsehoods," like you would have done. Thank you Julio!
Take a lesson, skolnick.
Archangel a.k.a. Uncle Bob said:
"We can all see who the Internet Troll is."
Yes, at least the readers with a lick of sense can. He's the one who was posting from the same computer using more than one alias.
I post under my real name, not a bunch of Troll aliases like Archangel/Uncle Bob.
As for using real names, skolnick has a penchant for absolutely vicious, unwarranted and obsessive personal attacks on people. He
Hi Skolnick,
Your comments below, followed by my answers to them, always my comments starting with $$$.
You've never earned a terminal degree in biology or in any other scientific field and you've never worked as a biologist a day in your life. If you had earned a Ph.D. in biology, you might have a credible claim as an authority in biology.
$$$ What the hell is this
The difficulty is your continued use of quotation marks around words that were NOT spoken by others, and your use of these false statements as "straw man" to attack.
$$$ Granted. This quotation stuff may be problematic. I will take a careful look at that in my texts, and add proper corrections or similar stuff. That may take some two weeks, and I will keep this forum informed of it. See how it did not hurt? You point the problem, I correct it. It is that simple. Nothing of that bureaucracy that you have at Csicop or at Csmmh...
$$$ By the way, when will YOU correct those so very many mistakes in your own site about Natasha? Just to refresh your mind, I present a sample below:
1 - The title of your page is a violation of your own protocols:
4 - You wrongly attributed to Natasha claims that were never shown to be hers, and have managed to take in poor Dr. Yale Rose in your tricky game.
$$$ Also, like I said in my joke above, how do you know the
Archangel a.k.a. Uncle Bob, you're a Troll who was caught posting here under more than one screen name. You're outed. So go find another place to Troll.
<b>"What an <font color="red">evil, cruel, obsessive creep</font> Skolnick appears to be. The junkyard dog <font color="red">diatribes</font> are so <font color="red">full of his venom</font> and <font color="red">bilge</font> that <font color="red">it
LOL!
From "More About Trolling"
http://www.searchlores.org/trolls.htm
"3) They sometimes use "socketpuppets", i.e. fake identities that may be used to sustain, or to inflame the troll's position or theory or attack. At times the socket puppets' names are anagrams or similar to the troll name. Thus a troll <u>may engage in artificial conversations with himself</u>. <b>However impersonating multiple people is frowned upon by the more able trolls and is <u>considered the lowest of the possible troll tactics</u>."
Leave it to Archangel to stoop to the lowest tactic of trolls.
Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
By my pointing out the fact that Skolnick has an "insulting manner" while I exhibit the same traits isn't "hypocrisy". Especially when I've admitted to it.
Skolnick needs to review what an
However, if there are others besides skolnick who would like Archangel to quit posting here, please feel free to say so.