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

Skolnick, you are such a liar. I never complained about Kentaro Mori because he revealed private emails from me. I complained against him because he, just like you, said lies about me: he said that I had called Wiseman a "bastard" (just like you did at Wikipedia). I never called Wiseman a bastard, and I never will.

Best Regads,
Julio
_________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Wed Dec 14, 2005  at  03:01 PM
You did a great job, Keith. Very fair and even-handed. I applaud your involvement in the process, and your ability to bring a neutral point of view to the Wikipedia entry on Natasha Demkina.

I think you did absolutely the right thing by posting Skolnick's email to you. As you rightly point out, it was necessary to maintain the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I think it was wrong of Skolnick to cheat by trying to get around the system, and then to threaten Wikipedia on top of it. It's just low behavior on Skolnick's part. That type of poor behavior by Skolnick is reflected on this forum, in Skolnick's Junkyard Dog Website, and his unfair representation of the investigation into Natasha Demkina.

And once again, Humpty Dumpty Skolnick strikes. You aren
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 14, 2005  at  04:25 PM
You know, every time Skolupine refers to me as "Archie" I immediately equate him to one of the "heads" Meathead or Jughead. Sometimes even Edith, a definite dingbat who needs to be stifled.

What a maroon.

LOL!
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 14, 2005  at  04:41 PM
Anyone who reads Skolnick's email to Keith will agree that its contents were very hostile and inconsiderate. Skolnick must realize that when he is hostile to others, he is inviting their hostility towards himself. Expecting others to receive his hostile, insulting and inconsiderate comments without taking offense is utterly ridiculous. Then he has the nerve to whine out his accusations.

I thought Keith was very even handed in dealing with Skolnick's clearly threatening, hostile and insulting email. I don't know what Skolnick thought he was going to accomplish by sending it, but all he did was confirm the worst about himself.

Skolnick proves his "porcupine personality" with his bristling hostility towards others, his arrogant insulting manner, and his attempts to manipulate and twist the facts to fit his views.

I think this is the real reason Skolnick was upset about his email being posted on Wikipedia. It exposes him for the abusive, manipulative and threatening skunk that he is.

He
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 14, 2005  at  05:10 PM
Hi guys,

News on Natasha Files. Link below:
http://www.geocities.com/natasha_xrayvision_files/

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Dec 15, 2005  at  05:51 AM
Here we go again:

<font color="red">"Skolnick, you are such a liar. I never complained about Kentaro Mori because he revealed private emails from me."<b></font>

Not surprising in the least, Julio Siqueira is lying through his teeth. Siqueira became enraged when Kentaro Mori warned me of Siqueira's actual intentions, by passing on to me Siqueira's boast of how he "peed on that moron Skolnick." Ever since Mori shared that email, Siqueria has been denouncing Mori as "Judas Iscariot." For example:


Siqueria's email to Skolnick on Dec. 3, 2004:

<font color="red"><b>"First, these were private emails that I was exchanging with Brazilian Judas Iscariot. Second, he had by then made me so upset that I was completely out of my mind and willing to bite even Jesus Christ if he came across me."
</font>


Siqueria's email to Skolnick on Dec. 4, 2004:

<font color="red">So if Iscariot insists on sending you these inproper emails, and if you happen to have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me on that. And, specifically to Mr. Skolnick: please don't trust those that have already proved to be untrustable... Talk directly to me instead.</font>

As to Mori's right to forward Sequeira's emails, it appears that he had Sequira's permission:

Siqueria emailed Mori and three other recipients on Nov. 21, 2003, the following permission:<font color="red">

"Of course I give you all the right to publicize whatever I have ever told you. My emails have always been considered by me as 'public domain'."</font>


He obviously regrets that now, because those emails clearly document his malicious agenda and his reliance on lies and distortions -- such as his latest claim that he never complained over Mori's passing on his emails.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Thu Dec 15, 2005  at  09:09 AM
whoops! I left off one other comment, which Siqueria emailed me on Dec. 4, 2004 expressing his outrage over Mori "revealing" his emails:

<font color="red">"I don't know exactly why he insists on keeping revealing private stuff to the world, especially to a world that is not to benefit from it in any way, nor is it interested in it to any extent... - maybe it is time I revealed HIS private emails to me to the world too..."</font>

To judge Julio Siqueira's integrity, compare that with what he says now:

<font color="red">"Skolnick, you are such a liar. I never complained about Kentaro Mori because he revealed private emails from me."</font>
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Thu Dec 15, 2005  at  10:24 AM
Skolnick, you've been proven to be a liar and a manipulator of the truth. You use ridicule and deception to try and prove your points and to discredit your critics.

This is now what you're doing with Julio and Mori's comments. You have failed to show any problems with the integrity of Julio and you have failed to show that Julio has ever lied or manipulated facts. None of what you
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Dec 15, 2005  at  04:58 PM
Julio lies when he says I distorted his messages to me. He lies when he says he never complained about my forwarding of said emails.

But he'll try to seem as if when he wrote he had "peed" on Skolnick, he meant something else -- or that he was justified, or that it was just an emotional lapse. That when he complained about me forwarding those comments, he wasn't complaining about the forwarding, but about the translation. That's because when he insulted numerous people, he actually meant something else.

For instance, when he said initially that Natasha seemed like a quack ["curandeira" is the exact word he used, anyone can look up the translation of it], he actually meant folk healer. Quack or folk healer, "curandeirismo" is defined as a crime in Brazilian law, and Julio knew that.

But he actually meant something else, because Julio disagrees with said Brazilian law, and went to great lengths to explain why.

When he called Wiseman a "calhorda", he didn't mean "bastard", the usual translation for that name calling; because he didn't want to offend Wiseman's family. He only wanted to offend Richard Wiseman, which is very, very different.

It's impossible to argue with Julio. You never know what he actually means. I gave up on that many months ago. I hope you're not that way, Archangel. But if you are, please, just ignore me and don't call me a liar.

Meanwhile, everyone keep ignoring that Natasha claims to diagnose people through a photo of one's face. Everyone except those that do their homework, or in other words, investigate things.

Are they the believers and supporters? In this case, surprisingly (?), not.
Posted by Kentaro Mori  on  Fri Dec 16, 2005  at  06:52 AM
Hi Skolnick,

I will answer you first, then chop to pieces once more our Sushi Skeptic. grin

Skolnick, you said of me that: "He obviously regrets that now" (i.e. the fact that I told Mori that he could consider my emails public domain) "because those emails clearly document his malicious agenda and his reliance on lies and distortions -- such as his latest claim that he never complained over Mori's passing on his emails."

No, Skolnick, I do not regret that. That is not something for me to regret or not. It is a point of honor in my personality. I consider, and always will consider, the emails I send to someone as a material that the person can use at his or her own discretion. Mori knew that already, even before we got to talk to you.

And then you quote me when I said: "I don't know exactly why he insists on keeping revealing private stuff to the world, especially to a world that is not to benefit from it in any way, nor is it interested in it to any extent... - maybe it is time I revealed HIS private emails to me to the world too..."

I told you and Mori about the problem of making public something that was meant to be private. Again: YES, I give permission for that. But NO, I do not approve of it always, especially because you lose the context where the thing was said. But anyway, that was the least problematic aspect of Mori's childish behaviour at that time (which unfortunatelly he still sticks to, as we can see from his message now, which I will wipe out in a few minutes).

As to your behaviour at Wikipedia, how pathetic, MS Skolnick. You could have asked the discussion about Natasha Demkina to be held in private emails, not in the talk page. They have that provision at Wikipedia. Instead, you decided to go against Edwardian's strong recommendation, and you changed the entry 29 times (What a lunatic; and he complains when I direct him to a psychiatrist...), removed again my MA credentials, and ended up deciding to blackmail Wikipedia, threatening to defame them at your Backyard "scientific journal" (Skeptical Inquirer...) and adding lies that we only got to see because of the brave decision from Keith to post it on the talk page. No one was interested in having private talks with you (just imagine, such a porcupine...). You agreed to an open discussion, sent an email without asking it to be private, and then threats to sue Wikipedia (or something similar to it) for revealing it. What a coward...

Ok, ChickNick, enough of you for now. Let me turn to the other side of the planet now grin

Bye,
Julio
____________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Dec 16, 2005  at  04:52 PM
Hi Sushi Boy. Never gonna grow up, are you?,

Sushi Boy said: "Julio lies when he says I distorted his messages to me. He lies when he says he never complained about my forwarding of said emails.".

No, you did not distort anything, Candid Sushi Boy. Just take a look at what you said of me to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick on November 20, 2004: ..."making not few excesses, some of which are almost as bad as Zammit's comparison of the investigators to a certain racist group and his priceless reference to a sexual assault on the scientific method.". Yes, Mori, you are right. You did not exagerate here, not a little. I have indeed, several times, compared skeptics to KKK members, or to something very close to it. But where the hell is this comparison of mine? Is it on any email that you have or that you know of? Did anyone tell this to you? Who? Please, let us know, because no one, me included, knows where the hell this brute comparison is. But, as you insist to believe, you did not distort a thing...

Sushi Boy said: "But he'll try to seem as if when he wrote he had 'peed' on Skolnick, he meant something else".

Oh, you now believe that I actually peed on him, wetting his shoes? Of course I meant something else. I meant to dress him down, to scold him. (I think they also say in English to "shit on someone").

Sushi Boy said: "That when he complained about me forwarding those comments, he wasn't complaining about the forwarding, but about the translation.".

Each situation is slightly different from the other. It is always like this in life (you should know it by now). In this particular case of the "peeing", I would prefer if you had translated the whole message to Skolnick. That would give him the full context and so you would have fulfilled your duty on this matter. But you decided to take the lazy and irresponsible way instead...

Sushi Boy said: "That's because when he insulted numerous people, he actually meant something else.".

Not quite, Mori. What happens is that when I insult someone, I insult someone with a certain word in a certain context, etc. What would you think if I get a passage here on this forum where Skolnick has said that, say (just a hypothetical example, ok?), that Zammit is a scoundrel, and I present in a Brazilian forum the information that Skolnick said Zammit is a "filho da puta"? Wow, "filho da puta" is the Portuguese perfect equivalent for "son of a bitch". You think it is just ok to do that. I think it is not advisable.
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Dec 16, 2005  at  06:00 PM
Part 2:
Sushi Boy said: "For instance, when he said initially that Natasha seemed like a quack ["curandeira" is the exact word he used, anyone can look up the translation of it], he actually meant folk healer. Quack or folk healer, "curandeirismo" is defined as a crime in Brazilian law, and Julio knew that."

This is a perfect example. See why. First, I said that in private email between you and our common friend Vitor Moura. He was trying to lure the two of us into this debate about Demkina and the CSICOP test. I used that word in a moment when I wanted to make fun of a situation, I said I wasn't interested in that russian curandeira, or something like it. Curandeira is a healer (female). I just looked up again the meaning of curandeira in two main Brazilian dictionaries of Portuguese (Aurelio and Houaiss). There is just no mentioning whatsoever to fraudulent conduct as being part of the definition for Curandeira. Yet, fraudulent conduct is the core feature of the definition of a quack. Curandeira is a term that both in its denotative meaning (literal meaning) and in its connotative meaning (figurative meaning) has no connection to fraud.

Sushi Boy said: "But he actually meant something else, because Julio disagrees with said Brazilian law, and went to great lengths to explain why.".

According to the law, Mahatma Gandi should be sent to prison. It is not only I that disagrees with this law about curandeira. Most judges in Brazil, and you are fully aware of it, do not take this law seriously. Many times it is highly problematic, and people end up dying indeed for mistreatment. Some other times, it is just harmless, or even accepted. Our Brazilian equivalent to the Discovery Channel, which is the Globo Reporter, many times portray indians and their curandeira. No crime in that.

Sushi Boy said: "When he called Wiseman a 'calhorda', he didn't mean 'bastard', the usual translation for that name calling; because he didn't want to offend Wiseman's family. He only wanted to offend Richard Wiseman, which is very, very different.".

Maybe it is not different to you, who seem to have come from a parent-less egg. But to me, who love my parents and my family, it does make a great difference. I know that in English the denotative meaning of Bastard has greatly been hidden by the connotative meaning. But it has not removed it altogether. So, please, quote me correctly, or shut up entirely.

Sushi Boy said: "It's impossible to argue with Julio. You never know what he actually means. I gave up on that many months ago. I hope you're not that way, Archangel. But if you are, please, just ignore me and don't call me a liar.".

It is impossible to argue with me simply because you dread to use a single and candid word: "sorry"...
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Dec 16, 2005  at  06:00 PM
Part 3:
Mori said: "Meanwhile, everyone keep ignoring that Natasha claims to diagnose people through a photo of one's face. Everyone except those that do their homework, or in other words, investigate things."

Mori, I just found out something. As a matter of fact, Skolnick and friends knew of this ability from Natasha before they did their test with her. It is fully reported by Monica Garnsey in that email that she sent to them sometime before the test. Strangely, Skolnick took out that part from the email he sent to us, regarding this matter, back in November 2004 or December. However, in the published article in May in the Skeptical Inquirer, Hyman cites that sections and adds some lines where Monica says that Natasha claims to be able to diagnose from photos. Once more, Skolnick (who you decided to elect as your own personal Santa Claus...), has either lied to us or hidden intersting information from us. It seems that Monica's report is not fully presented in the article too. They input the mark ... (three dots), meaning that some parts of her email was removed. I just wonder what they are still hiding from us...

And Archangel, besides my private fights with Mori, I must stress that there is a huge difference between Mori and Skolnick. Skolnick is a zero. Mori, on the contrary, has many virtues. We from Brazil who have had contact with him in skeptic forums and in psi forums have no doubt that he is indeed an authority in his area of expertice, which is ufology from a skeptic perspective. Once he confronted in his forum a man that is considered the strongest supporter of the E.T. interpretation of the Ufo phenomena in Brazil. To all of us in the forum, it clearly seemed that the man simply fled... I myself do not have expertice in this area. But the indirect evidence strongly and clearly attest that Mori and his works in this area are indeed of the highest quality. That is the reason why I just cannot (try as I might...) take out the reference in my webpage to his... Also, he is a superb forum moderator (he has a forum named Ceticismo Aberto - Open Skepticism). It is a pitty that we clashed. But... such is life.

Best Regards,
Julio
________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Dec 16, 2005  at  06:01 PM
</b></b></b></b>I think I just figured out why all of our posts have been appearing in bold (including the "posted by xxx on" and the "Page xx of xx"
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  01:18 AM
Yup. It's Skolnick's fault.

He left bolding on and it affected this page until I put in multiple un-bolds. This is the second time Skolnick has been that sloppy.

"Whoops!" is right, Skolupine.

He did the same thing back on Page 19 of this forum.
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  01:26 AM
As I wrote, I gave up arguing with Julio Siqueira many months ago.
I do not appreciate being called "Sushi Boy" by someone I always called by the proper name. But Siqueira has already called me many worse things, so I'm just mentioning it. I hope he doesn't write a long comment about why I shouldn't be annoyed by such a kind treatment.
I now acknowledge I shouldn't have joined here. And I just gave up on the idea of trying to contribute something on the Wikipedia clash over Demkina's entry.
Archangel, you called me a liar without doing any effort to know what I had to say. You seem to ignore what I wrote you on the issue. Well, just more wasted time.
Meanwhile, a Russian quack is risking people's lives with plainly stupid claims. And I acknowledge fully what I just wrote.
Posted by Kentaro Mori  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  06:35 AM
"As I wrote, I gave up arguing with Julio Siqueira many months ago."

No, Mori, unfortunatelly you did not. You decided instead to keep sending emails to me AFTER I told you that I would not answer you unless you sent an email to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick saying that I never made any comparison of skeptics to KKK or equivalents (and not even to something close to it), that I never called Wiseman a bastard, and that I never said Natasha was a quack. You bring news that are no news whatsoever (Natasha diagnosing from photos - Skolnick already knew it back in March 2004!!!). You refuse to say what you have to say (I am sorry, Julio). And you want to be called by your name, a name that you yourself have dishonored.

But yes, I called you by your name when:

1- You laghed at my back and mocked my site, in the middle of 2002, right after I alone was banned from a skeptic forum that you belonged (and only I was banned; those who offended me were not even warned against their offences by the moderator). Despite this, I received your emails with attention and with respect when you started to complain against my anti-skeptic site in Portuguese. I ended up softening enormously my tone at my site, agreeing to your reasoning and suggestions.

2- I called you by name too when you, back close to the end of 2003, said at your forum that I am not a serious person, even though you know that I have a meticulous critique of my own faith (Kardecist Spiritism) in my site. This time, too, my antispkeptic site had underwent a further softening of the tone, towards a more rational treatment of the subject of skeptics' mistakes.

3- I still called you by name right after you betrayed me for the third time, when you said that I had in the past compared skeptics to something almost as bad as KKK murders. This time, too, my anti-skeptic site had underwent its third and last change, to the point of becoming now a socio-anthropological analisis of the skeptic movement, almost devoid of any emotionally acid comment.

Now you want your name back... Sometimes we receive things for free in life, Mori. But sometimes, especially after we fail in our duties, things are taken from us until we prove ourselves honorable enough to deserve them back. Want your name back, Sushi Baby? Undo what you did. Honor your duties. Show your worth.

As to the "Quack Natasha" (as you now acknowledge as your own words, and not mine), prove that she is so, and I will be the first to acknowledge this in my website. My sources to believe that she is honest are the combination of Monica Garnsey's and Richard Wiseman's comments about her. Plus what I saw at the documentary myself. But I am still searching for the true answer. Bring some true feedback and, as always, it will be incorporated by me. So far, all that you have done is quackery...
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  12:30 PM
Kentaro Mori said:
"Archangel, you called me a liar"

I don't believe I did. Can you point out where I called you a liar? I've had no reason to call you a liar.

You and Julio were once pretty good friends, it's a shame to see you two fighting and insulting each other like this. It appears as though Julio is merely awaiting an apology from you. Perhaps if you both apologize to each other and shake hands (in virtual reality), then you two might be able to become friends again. I don't know how deeply the hurts and animosity go, but I thought I'd toss this idea out to the two of you.

I haven't ignored what you wrote Kentaro Mori, I just haven't yet had the chance to respond. Why do you give up on the idea of contributing to Wikipedia? The Wikians seem to be a pretty reasonable group, working honestly on the issues presented.

Kentaro Mori said:
"Meanwhile, a Russian quack is risking people's lives with plainly stupid claims."

If Skolnick-Hyman-Wiseman had done a good job, we'd know the truth about that, wouldn't we? There would still be die-hard supporters, of course, but a convincing series of tests, a solid analysis and conclusion would have been far more convincing than the hack job performed by csicop-csmmh. How do you come to the conclusion that Natasha is a quack? The only proven quack I've seen around here is Skolnick.

cheese
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  01:30 PM
Kentaro Mori, if you're referring to this line:

<i>"The snippets you posted prove exactly what Julio said he was upset about, that Mori
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  02:14 PM
Just to give a little more detail, Kentaro Mori, I am definitely not impossible to argue with, if you read through this forum you can see that I admit it when I
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  11:28 PM
Mori, you claim that Julio is a liar, but present no evidence of that. I can
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  11:30 PM
I understand your focus on the fact that Natasha claimed to diagnose from photos, that seems to be a difficult thing to swallow, and doesn
Posted by Archangel  on  Mon Dec 19, 2005  at  11:32 PM
Fortunately or not, Julio did not try to argue that I shouldn't be offended by being called Sushi Boy. Instead, he tried to explain why that treatment is indeed offensive, but fully justifiable. Ho-hum, fine. I like to summarize things, and hope the nonsense of it speaks for itself.
Archangel, so a misunderstanding apparently happened. It happens, no problem. Sorry for my impatience.
Both you and Julio concede Natasha's alleged powers are not proven, if not very dubious. At the same time, you are enraged critics of the only skeptical evaluation of her. This is not by itself absurd or contradictory, but you are obviously on dangerous ground, and personally I don't think you're doing very fine. I'm not doing much either, actually, I did nothing, but that's because I think the issue is too silly and there is already too much time wasted on it.
Do you want to become enraged, then ask how can Natasha complain about the conditions on the CSICOP-CSMMH test when she claims to diagnose people just by looking at a small photo.
Posted by Kentaro Mori  on  Tue Dec 20, 2005  at  05:29 AM
Now I see where you're going with the whole "diagnosis from a photo" thing, you're saying that if she can do something like that, then what was the problem when she was in the same room with the subjects? It has to be simpler in person than from a photo! Right?

That
Posted by Archangel  on  Tue Dec 20, 2005  at  04:00 PM
As for the rest of your post, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But to claim that I'm on some type of "dangerous ground" is going a bit far. I believe I'm on solid ground with my criticism of the "only skeptical evaluation" of Natasha. CSICOP-CSMMH did a lousy job, bad enough to give that entire field of scientific investigation a black eye. Enraging? Nah. Frustrating, irritating and disappointing? Yeah!

And if you think any of this is either allowing or encouraging Natasha to continue examining people, that
Posted by Archangel  on  Tue Dec 20, 2005  at  04:12 PM
To me, the fact that Natasha claims to be able to diagnose from photos proves that what she has (if she indeed has anything) is just no "X-Ray-like vision" at all. This is the one thing I have been telling both Mori and Skolnick for over a year: this little piece of information would make me highly aware of the need (the must!) to better investigate her actual claims if I were one of the researchers. That is why I say these crackpots that call themselves "skeptics" (Wiseman-Hyman-Skolnick) do not have a biological or medical outlook (and insights) on the matter, Skolnick included (our MS... - fortunatelly we here at MOH know what this "MS" truly stands for wink ).

Mori's and Skolnick's flawed and unsophisticated reasoning is this: "if someone can do more, this someone can do less too.". That is not how things work in biology. Just because a bee can do "more" (see ultraviolet), it does not mean that it can do "less" (see infrared). Perceptions have a logic and mechanics. (but not Mori or Skolnick).

Natasha also said that she cannot see into herself. Why so, if she, as Skolnick and Hyman believe, claims to possess true X-Ray vision?

Also, those who believe that in order to be a skeptic all you have to do is to call yourself as such (and create backyard institutions, like CSICOP/CSMMH) are the same ones who are likelly to wait for Santa Claus arrival at Xmas. Actually, "The only skeptical evaluation of Natasha" is yet to be performed. Crook evaluation do not qualify as "skeptical".

Julio
_______________
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Wed Dec 21, 2005  at  11:33 AM
Archangel, it was also proposed on the CSICOP-CSMMH test that the subjects should have been behind cloths. Natasha refused this condition. She claims to be able to see inside the bodies of clothed people, but she refused to diagnose people behind a plain sheet of cloth.

Natasha claims to be able to diagnose people just by looking at a small photo -- that doesn't even include the diagnosed part of the body -- but she complained about how it was difficult to see target conditions given a clear drawing and the living subjects in front of her for many hours. And she failed.

Maybe those things can be explained by some elaborate ad hoc excuses, but fact is, they are not. One simple explanation, though, is that this is all because she is a Russian quack.

All we know about Natasha comes from the media, there's no serious "scientific" interest on her. As I wrote, it's just too silly. Even the CSICOP-CSMMH test was conducted because a TV show asked for it, and from all I know this is responsible for much of its problems.
Posted by Kentaro Mori  on  Wed Dec 21, 2005  at  12:55 PM
Excellent post, Julio! Great analogy with Bee-Vision vis-
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 21, 2005  at  03:43 PM
Mori said:
Archangel, it was also proposed on the CSICOP-CSMMH test that the subjects should have been behind cloths. Natasha refused this condition. She claims to be able to see inside the bodies of clothed people, but she refused to diagnose people behind a plain sheet of cloth.

First, I believe you are missing out on my earlier point that we don
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 21, 2005  at  04:08 PM
Mori said:
All we know about Natasha comes from the media, there's no serious "scientific" interest on her. As I wrote, it's just too silly. Even the CSICOP-CSMMH test was conducted because a TV show asked for it, and from all I know this is responsible for much of its problems.

You are so right! I completely agree: CSICOP-CSMMH has not conducted themselves as a serious scientific group and they didn
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Dec 21, 2005  at  04:16 PM
Comments: Page 21 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.