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
<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.
"In any case, the whole experiment was not designed to replicate what Natasha actually claims to do, which is diagnose people's current complaints."</font>
Natasha Demkina does not diagnose health problems. She looks at the person from top to bottom and describes the abnormalities she claims to "see." The people then try to match their medical diagnoses to Natasha's usually vague descriptions. Often, it requires highly liberal interpretations. For example, she told British TV doctor Christopher Steele that she "saw" something wrong with his gall bladder and that he had kidney stones and an enlarged liver and pancreas. The frightened nincompoop rushed off to have a battery of invasive and expensive medical tests done on himself -- which found that nothing Natasha told him was true. Yet he still calls Natasha's reading a success because the tests found some enlarged lymph nodes -- which are common at his age and not a health problem. Never mind that Natasha never said he had enlarged lymph nodes. Unfortunately, for many people, the will to believe is much stronger than the power of reason.
The CSMMH-CSICOP test was designed to replicate just what Natasha claims she does. She doesn't "diagnose." She describes what she claims to "see" inside of people. In a number of her more famous readings she described healthy organs or problems -- such as a broken wrist -- that had healed decades before. And that's what we had her try to do.
If there's any doubt about this, Natasha was asked if she could do what our test required, when she was still at home in Russia. She said yes.
Mr. "Guy Lyon Playfair" certainly doesn't live up to his name. His critique is sophistry based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Hyman has recently wrote again about this Natasha issue. His article, which appears in the Skeptical Inquirer Sep/Oct, is available at the link below:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue
As usual, it is an esquisite blend of good things and bad things. I will soon be analyzing this one too.
Julio
_____________
If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
People who lie about their credentials should not be trusted when they lie about others.
Part 1
FEEDBACKS ON SKOLNICK'S COMPLAINTS:
I took a careful look at the points raised by Mr. Skolnick. I want to inform this forum of my present view on them. To make this exposition clearer, all my present paragraphs will begin with $$$:
$$$ Complaint number 1 - Skolnick complained about my deceiving quotation marks when I reported what Wiseman said. According to Skolnick:
Another example is Siqueria's blatant rewriting of a statement made by Prof. Richard Wiseman. If you listen to the Discovery Channel program, you will hear Dr. Wiseman telling the Russian translator:
"So if she scored these two [conditions] wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct [pointing to the remaining test cards], we would still consider that a success."
Which is obviously a truthful statement. To accuse Dr. Wiseman of deception in his "analysis," Siqueira rewrote the quote, trusting that his readers won't bother to check:
"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'.
$$$ Skolnick, consciously or unconsciounally, forgot to include my words RIGHT BEFORE my re-phrasing of Wiseman actual statement. He said that I trusted that my readers wouldn
$$$ Most important: this passage appears in my first critique of the CSICOP test (the one that I first posted in my site). This first critique was presented beforehand ONLY TO THE THREE CSICOP/CSMMH RESEARCHS. None of them bothered to correct this point before. Only three days after it, did I send this first critique to the three parties involved (that is, skeptics + Natasha people + Discovery Channel people). I will post below my emails concerning this.
$$$ First, on November 29, 2004, I sent this email below to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick, and to them only.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:06:05 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
To: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick email, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP/CSMMH Test with Natasha
Dear Sirs,
I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I will soon be posting on the internet about the tests that you made with Natasha Demkina.
This critique is being presented now (November 29, 2004) only to the designers of the test.
In three days from now (on December 2, 2004 - thursday), I will send this text to all interested parties (that is: Natasha's agent, Discovery channel producer, and also to some psi researchers: Brazilian psi researcher Wellington Zangari, and Professor Brian Josephson).
In ten days from then (on December 12, 2004), this critique will be published in my site "Criticando o Ceticismo" ("Criticizing Skepticism").
Thank you very much beforehand for your kind attention, and I hope to hear from you soon. Factual mistakes that you might point out will be corrected. Differing opinions, if you wish, will be posted at the end of this text.
Sincerely,
Julio Siqueira
________________
$$$ After waiting for their answer, I sent on December 2, 2004, the following email:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:54:09 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
To: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick emai, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email, Brazilian ex-friend skeptic email, Monica Garnsey Discovery Channel Producer email, Natasha friend and translator email, Professor Brian Josephson email, Will Stewert Natasha agent email, Wellington Zangari Brazilian psi researcher email, Vitor Moura Brazilian friend and psi researcher email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP experiment on Natasha
Dear Sirs and Mams,
I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I did of the experiment designed and conducted by CSICOP/CSMMH to test Natasha Demkina last May.
It will be posted on the internet in ten days from now (i.e. on December 12, 2004).
My main conclusion is that the experiment was invalid, and that the researchers are misreporting the events, both on internet official sites (CSMMH) and in email exchanges (Skolnick to me).
I had already sent this file to the three researchers involved (Skolnick, Wiseman, Hyman) three days ago. This version of the critique now has some minor changes, that appear in this color.
Any feedbacks from you regarding factual mistakes will be used for correcting the text. And differing oppinions will be added at the end of this text if any of you want to (i.e. any of the parties involved: CSICOP/CSMMH - Discovery Channel - Natasha or representatives).
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerly,
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.
Biologist.
M.A. Clinical Bacteriologist
_________________________________________
$$$ So I hope this clarifies all the issue.
$$$ Complaint number 2 - There is a passage in the Discover Channel documentary where Natasha is saying that if she was allowed to do the test her way, she would probably guess all the conditions correctly. It is right after the passage where Wiseman deceived her into accepting the two alien clinical conditions (missing appendix and resected esophagus - these conditions were beyond what was declared in the protocols and beyond the attested claims from Natasha). I talk about it in my second article, the one entitled
My comments begining with $$$
Julio, I think your time -- and certainly ours -- would be better spent if you first correct all the false and misleading statements you've made.
$$$ I am working on it. But first I must really agree that there is something either misleading or false. I hope my analysis in the previous four-part message will be of help in that.
You can start by removing from all your self-published writings the claim that you are a "biologist," "microbiologist," "clinical microbiologist," etc. You've never worked a single day in any of these professions and you don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
$$$ My intention is not to inflate my curriculum (and I am proud of being a teacher of English, and I am proud of my
<font color="red">"And as for you, you stop saying that I lie when I claimed it until YOU find any piece of law that discredits me on that."</font>
Nice dodge. There is no law against lying about your profession (accept on an application for a government job). I didn't accuse you of breaking any law. I accused you of being a phony and a liar.
You've never worked a single day as a biologist or in any scientific profession. You don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
A barber cuts hair. A brick layer lays bricks. A carpenter builds with wood. A biologist works as a biological scientist. But you wipe the noses of children while trying to teach them the meaning of English words. It's about time you learned their meaning too and stop using the English language in false and misleading ways in order to build yourself up and tear others down.