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
You said:
"I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an
You remind me of a televangelist faith healer who was so addicted to telling falsehoods that he always added or subtracted at 15 minutes whenever someone asked him for the time. In my many years of being an investigative journalist, I've met few scoundrels who have been so adverse to telling the truth as you.
Humpty! You're still here! We thought you'd left for Toronto already, so you could climb up on your wall!
Skolnick, you're so funny. Do you think anyone believes that Julio is "lying" or even "wrong" about your being in Toronto? You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the "depth" of your "analytical" skills.
Julio pokes fun at you and you go ballistic with wild accusations. You seem quite crazy, there dude.
I am still laughing out loud at that comment! It is sooooo <a href="http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm">
<font color="red">"You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the 'depth' of your 'analytical' skills."</font>
Let's see, today is Monday, November 21, and I posted that I am invited to speak at the University of Toronto on Friday, November 25. Can't get less "vague" than that. So much for Tweedledum as a Sack of Doorknobs' analytical skills. This clown couldn't follow a train of thought if he were tied to the caboose.
Not only mad, but wrong again! What I said was that your "trip" was vague, not your speaking date, meaing that your entire trip itinerary was vague.
Here's that train of thought for you, Humpty
1. You were invited to speak on the 25th of November.
2. You did not indicate your arrival date into Toronto. For all we know, you might spend a week or more on location preparing for your little presentation.
3. Even saying the "25th" is vague.
3a. What time of day is the presentation
3b. What is the exact location of the presentation ("University of Toronto" is vague.
That's part of what I mean by "vague". Therefore it's "silly" for you to make your strong, overblown statements. This propensity of yours to take "vague" information and act like it's factual and definitive is part of what got you in trouble with the entire "investigation" of Natasha Demkina. You were "vague" with that too.
Can you say "Arrival Date"? Can you define
Gosh, I've already answered that for you by accurately comparing you to "Humpty Dumpty." Definite lack of common sense, especially when you're in "attack" mode.
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things, he likes things vague - like Natasha's "bug" drawing. Skolnick left that pretty vague, didn't he? And, once again, we Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things. Skolnick likes to keep things vague, for example, Natasha's "bug" drawing was left pretty vague by Skolnick - gave him the opportunity to twist it into something it wasn't.
And, once again, we see Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
I will be speaking at 7:00 p.m. Friday, Nov. 25, at the University of Toronto's Earth Sciences Auditorium, 33 Willcocks Street. For more information, contact the Toronto Secular Alliance.
I haven't defamed you at all, I've been telling the truth and bringing your falsehoods to the surface. It is you that has defamed Julio and others.
I would enjoy taking you to task in person, though I doubt you would be any more successful in dealing with me there than you have here, where you have sorely lost time and time again.
What difference would my real name mean to you? Would I get my own insulting junkyard dog web pages? That would be cool! The "Archangel Archives" by Humpty Dumpty Skolnick...what a riot!! LOL!
This a completely false and misleading argument on Skolnicks part, because he should just answer them here, in this forum. Instead, he just attacks, misdirects, insults and uses character assassination in order to avoid answering the hard questions. Yet he implies that he would answer them properly in person. Ridiculous.
Its fakery and fraud at its finest, something Skolnick excels at.
Julio said it well:
"Unfortunately he is not going to talk about, or even admit, any of the so very many flaws in their test, or his unethical procedures thereafter."
The only "flaws" Skolnick will point out are the ones that don't shine a true light on the exam, and distract from the really core problems of the investigation, for example he'll just point out things like the "text messaging" they allowed, as if this gave Natasha some advantage. Ridiculous.
I don't ever expect Skolnick to admit to the real flaws and motivations of the csicop-csmmh investigation into Natasha Demkina, because if he admitted the truth, he'd be out of a job and be completely without any professional credibility. Not that he has much now. Some truly reputable scientists have distanced themselves from this inept investigator.
I would suggest that anyone attending the Toronto presentation review Prof. Josephson and Julio's website critiques before going. Most of the real flaws and hidden motives are detailed on those sites.
Give Humpty hell, eh!
🧛
Yes, the test conditions were complete crap, and anyone with an ounce of honesty can see it. For example, what controls were used, such as others attempting to make the diagnoses by sight alone, and what was the correct response rate from those control testers?
Not to mention insisting that the girl do things WHICH SHE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE ABLE TO DO.
I used to respect your organization, until I saw this. This wasn't science, it was a legal charade (why else have the girl sign a CONTRACT saying that if she failed to identify 5 or more, that she had "failed"???) Statistical significance is NOT determined by contract AND YOU KNOW IT.
Center for inquiry my ass... you people have become the center for fraud.
</font>
Mr. Kulkis,
What I don't understand is why you would make these and other angry allegations without making any attempt to find out the facts? Not a word of what you say is accurate.
Natasha Demkina signed no contract with us. That charge is a clear fabrication.
We were asked to test Ms. Demkina by the producer-director of the program. We drew up the test design and rules and submitted them to the producer-director who provided them to Ms. Demkina, her mother, and her British agent. They agreed to the test design and rules and then came to the U.S. to be tested by us. There was no signed contract. There was only a verbal agreement to do the test as described.
Were you knowledgeable about statistics and experimental design, you would know that Bayesian analysis is a tried and true way of choosing an appropriate level for statistical significance in experiments. The level we decided to use is the same that the noted pioneer of psi research, J.B. Rhine, used in many of his ESP studies. The charges that we cheated by raising the P value we used is based on either ignorance, malicious dishonesty, or both.
The test design did not include "controls" trying to match the target medical conditions to the correct subject. (Richard Wiseman made informal guesses to himself, but that hardly constitutes a control and was not part of the test. Prof. Wiseman is a psychologist with no education or practice in recognizing signs and symptoms of medical problems. I would have been a much better "control," considering my long career as a medical journalist, but including such a "control" in the test would only produce meaningless results. It would be like comparing one astrologer or palm reader against another. The fact that one does better than another is meaningless.)
Everything our test required of Natasha was consistent with the claims she has publicly made. She claims to see bone fractures that healed more than 30 years before. We asked her to find the person who was missing a large section of skull. She claims to be able to see small surgically implanted screws. We asked her to find a large metal plate beneath the scalp of a subject. (In fact, the plate could be felt and even seen up close, yet she did not find it after 4 hours of study.) She claims to see every kind of organ and tissue inside of people's bodies, both normal and abnormal. We asked her to examine the area where the small intestine joins the large intestine in each of the seven subjects and then tell us which person did not have an appendix that is normally there. A strong clue would have been the surgical scars at and above the site. We asked her to examine the area of the esophagus above the stomach in the seven subjects and tell us which person had scar tissue where a section of the esophagus was removed and the two remaining ends sewn together. These would have been very easy challenges for someone who has the abilities that Natasha claims.
In your previous angry email, you claimed that Natasha identified a man as having had an appendectomy which he in fact did. I'm not sure where you got that, because not even Victor Zammit includes that claim in his long list of falsehoods and insults. If you saw the Discovery Channel program, you should know that Ms. Demkina wrongly identified the woman who had part of her esophagus removed as the subject without an appendix. Likewise, your claim that we committed "fraud" to "avoid paying out the $1M reward for anyone who demonstrates abnormal abilities," is false. We never offered such an award. You're confusing our organization with a different organization.
Your intemperate comments do not in any way support your views as reasonable. Neither do the facts. You should sit down and calm yourself. When you're calmer, find out what the facts are before publicly making more baseless and disparaging statements.
Best wishes,
Andrew A. Skolnick
"Your intemperate comments do not in any way support your views as reasonable."
Hah! This from one of the most egregiously intemperate commentators of all, Skolnick himself! Andrew, you're a poster child for "intemperate comments."
The link Skolnick provided didn't work for me; try this one for Aaron's commentary.
There are several incorrect statements and falsehoods in Skolnicks sophistic commentary on Aaron
Skolnick's postings keep getting weaker and weaker. Unimaginable. Anyway, I commited a serious mistake of... wishing him gone before his time. But, since fate is such an inevitable seeker, we will be spared of him tomorrow.
😊 😊 😊
Julio Siqueira
(Skolnick, you are such a porcupine! Most likely I am not going to post much in this forum; and Archangel will likely leave you talking to yourself too... I tell you man: Are You Gonna Miss Us! 😊 😊 😊 )
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Julio, you really are deluded."
LOL! Are you nuts, Skolnick? Or have you had too much wine for Thanksgiving dinner? Hah!
Skolnick, Julio is so right, your posts are getting weaker and weaker. It's unimaginable how far off the mark your comments are. You missed the point of Julio's post entirely! Absolutely none of what you said in your last post makes sense. Your post just comes off as a desperate attempt to ridicule and insult...and on top of it, you take Julio's humorous jabs at you seriously...you are indeed a short-sighted porcupine! Do you have any sense of humor at all, or is it all wrapped up in insulting behaviors? Did you even understand what Julio was saying and what he was implying in a very humorous manner? Julio is far better than you are, and he pokes you full of holes.
Your response and "analysis" of Aaron Kulkis' email and article is so full of holes and twisted logic that it's unbelievable to think it was put together by a so-called "published professional." Julio is right on the money, you are unbelievably weak!
You have a classic Porcupine Personality
<i>
Excellent post!
I would just like to add: "Mating habits of this creature are rather bizarre (and Afro-American Athlets can tell how much so...)"
😊 😊 😊
Julio
_____________
Hey man! Cool down. We cannot be blamed if you had a bad day in Toronto 😊. Seems like you heard of Professor Josephson, of me, and of Archangel there... (a nightmare, isn't it; just like insect plagues. Cannot get rid of them 😊 ).
"this is the second time you've made references to crude, racist stereotypes"
Oh, Boy, it is not the "second" time. I think it is already the fourth! And it is not racist, but sexual... After all, it was YOU who brought those new revelations about what could be hidden under the subjects shirts... and how to unveil the mistery.
Do not be so bad humored. Besides, I told you once that my wife and kids are black (Afro-Brazilians), just like some of my ancestors. But you keep believing that everything that I say is only lies, and etc...
But please, tell us how was your talk at Toronto. I am dying to know it!
Best Regards,
Julio, the Afro Lover!
_________________
By your unusually very brief last posting (barely two meager lines...), I can tell that you got down after your talk at Toronto. Archangel warned me that some people would be raising issues about the flaws in your test at the talk, so we already expected that you would be like this. Please do not take these things personally. As I said, your test was not a failure. It just had flaws and must be presented in the proper way.
Best Regards,
Julio
____________
I was a bit disappointed that no rabid crackpot showed up, although I know that most rabid crackpots are bold and brave only when they can hide behind an anonymous screen name.
Another point of satisfaction: I am invited and paid to speak and to write. The trolls who haunt this and other web sites donate their "services." You really do get what you pay for. :cheese:
Skolnick tries to twist what Julio said into a "racist" remark, when he knows this isn't what Julio meant. This is either another example of Skolnick's poor analytical skills or a potent example of how Skolnick twists a thing into something it's not in the most egregious manner possible - or both. I think it's both. Skolnick does not fully understand what Julio meant, nor does he bother to "investigate" because he knows that he can twist Julio's statements into something that he believes will make Julio look bad, and then ridicule him.
Gee. Sounds like exactly like what Skolnick did to Natasha Demkina. Twist and ridicule, after a pitiful "investigation." With Natasha's "Bug" drawing as the most visible example of this behavior.
Admittedly, in the somewhat overcharged and "politically correct" atmosphere of the United States, we carefully steer clear from any statements that might appear to be racially motivated, but it's obvious that Julio was not being in any way "racist," but instead poking fun at Skolnick.
"As for how my talk at the University of Toronto went, it was very well received.."
Well, surprise, surprise. Not! This was a carefully selected audience by a group that wants to set up a Toronto-based CFI "Center For Investigation" branch. CFI includes two "affiliates," csicop and csmmh. Certainly no bias there... LOL!
This is just as I predicted in my earlier post:
<i>"Check out the Toronto Secular Alliance site, it
"Writer Michael Crichton observed this tendency of the debunkers and wrote:
If you do not like the colored young gentleman, you can have one of the white guys instead. But just do not complain afterwards if they indeed have the ailments that they said they had (unlikely, but who knows... maybe they have those ailments indeed; and maybe the healthy guy is filled with scars under his skirt; as they say "you get what you pay for" 😊 😊 😊).
And you confirmed my old suspicion. You are in for the money. That is why you lie, and that is why you have sold your ideals of youth (remember?: the civil rights movements and etc). Poor old man... Fattened by the old rust of corruption. Well, as your "Queens" would have it: another one bites the dust...
Anyway, even though I know you are going to miss deeply my absence, I will not be in this forum for much longer. Perhaps I will be around just for the next three days. My work is almost done.
As a almost final improvement, I included Dr. Rosen's comments and his email concerning Natasha. Skolnick can read these at the two links below. Get updated, sad old fat man...
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/dr-yale-rosen-replies.htm
Bye for now,
Julio
----------------------
I said under his skirt, but I meant under his shirt.
Corrected just in time!
Julio
______________
"Another point of satisfaction: I am invited and paid to speak and to write. The trolls who haunt this and other web sites donate their "services." You really do get what you pay for"
LOL!
First Skolnick accuses Archangel of being a "Paid Shill" then he goes in the opposite direction by saying that Archangel "donates" his "services." Skolnick contradicts even himself with his laughable and obviously desperate, reaching attempts to insult, defame, and assassinate the character of those that dare to disagree with him.
And, finally, we have one of the real reasons Skolnick pursues his fatally flawed assault on Natasha Demkina: MONEY. Skolnick sells his soul for cash.
Skolnick, with his haughty eyes, lying tongue, and wicked plots; acting as a deceitful witness that uttereth lies and sows discord among brethren.
There is nowhere in the documentary a doctor saying that Natasha can see at the cellular level.
It seems that Skolnick's lies will never end. I must borrow my ex-friend's words (Kentaro Mori) and say it myself now:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Bye for now.
Julio
P.S.: I am working on an updated and abridged version of the exposee of this phoney test by CSICOP. Skolnick's most prominent lies in this forum will be included as a proof of these researcher's utter unreliability. The more I see the documentary, the more I get disguted about these irresponsible guys. As to Natasha's power itself, as I always said: I cannot tell.
__________________
I think that one very good thing that the two of us have managed to do in this forum is to prove beyond any doubt the unreliability of Skolnick, and also of his "fellows" in the test of Natasha.
They violated their own rules and their own protocols in many ways. They violated rule number 2 (no subject will have the same condition; and they also introduced two conditions well beyond the examples listed), they violated rule number 13 by swindling Natasha into accepting the two alien conditions (removed appendix and circular scar on the esophagus) using deceiving reasoning, and also by trying to cast her mother out of the test room. They violated rule number 23 by not having any proof whatsoever of the subjects alleged medical conditions. And they violated rule number 25 by their unethical comments about Natasha even at the very documentary itself!
Now, do any of you know of a "scientific test" that might be considered valid when the researchers themselves were responsible for the violation of about A FOURTH of their own protocols???
This was not a test. This was a JOKE.
Now, Skolnick says (claims...) that he publishes in respected journals. Besides Jama, where HE was the editor, I do not believe he publishes much. Anyway, I challenge him to try to publish this phoney scientific test of theirs in any scientific journal. The only journal that accepted was Skeptical Inquirer, which, sadly enough, is indexed at ISI. I think ISI should cast out of its files this "scientific publication"...
But, science is not only about truth. It is about money too, and about political influence... And this is what Skolnick really likes.
Bye, Julio.
_________________
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/conditions.html
That can indeed be called a rape of the objectivity of scientific investigation!
The rest of his tirade is no more accurate or truthful, but I trust most readers will see his rant for what it is.
And, it's really a moot point.
Skolnick, instead of jumping on the missing word "associate," you should answer Julio's core questions:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/conditions.html
Julio said:
"The three investigators saw fit to ignore the inconvenient statistics of the outcome, and to talk instead as if the outcome of the test had refuted Natasha's claims, which it clearly did not. Doing so was not only unscientific but, under the circumstances, unethical."
Note the word "unethical" as it applies to Skolnick and his cronies.
Skolnick "..attempts to assassinate his [Julio's] character, even stooping so low as to falsely accuse Julio of being a racist.
<font color="red">"Ok, I have just seen the documentary again, and, once more, Skolnick has lied to us. There is nowhere in the documentary a doctor saying that Natasha can see at the cellular level. It seems that Skolnick's lies will never end. I must borrow my ex-friend's words (Kentaro Mori) and say it myself now: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Bye for now. Julio
P.S.: I am working on an updated and abridged version of the exposee of this phoney test by CSICOP. Skolnick's most prominent lies in this forum will be included as a proof of these researcher's utter unreliability. The more I see the documentary, the more I get disguted about these irresponsible guys."</font>
Enough certainly is enough. I hope every one else is as fed up with the shameless lies from Tweedledee and Tweedledum as I am. To see just how shameless they are, click this link to listen to the part of the Discovery Channel program where the patient's doctor says, "I cannot explain how Natasha sees at the cell level." Let's hope these two trolls will now slink back under the bridges from whence they crawled.
"I was NOT the editor of JAMA. The editor was Dr. George Lundberg. I was an associate editor."
Oops, he was not the King, but only one of the top Ministers...
Come on, Skolnick. Show some honor!
Julio
___________
You asked to Andrew Quacknick:
"Which respected scientific journal(s) have you published the Natasha Demkina case in?"
Skolnick's written articles are confined almost strictly to Jama, where he worked as editor (King or friend of the king). In my country we call this "traffic of influence". Here at this forum, if based on this Skolnick attempts to inflate his mastery of science issues, we can safely call it quackery.
Bye, Julio
____________
Quacknick said: "To see just how shameless they are, click this link to listen to the part of the Discovery Channel program where the patient's doctor says, "I cannot explain how Natasha sees at the cell level."
You see? Only now, after I asked it for the THIRD TIME, does he present this "evidence".
I have already downloaded it and heard it, Quacknick. I will comment on it in some minutes.
Bye for now,
Julio
P.S.: (and you call this evidence... How could such a man stay in Jama for so long!)
____________________________