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
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!)
____________________________
YES, QuackNick, the passage that you most kindly made available to us belongs indeed to the work by Discovery Channel.
NO, SillyNick, this passage DOES NOT belong to the documentary at all!
That is why YOU, porcupine, must learn to exchange information, so as not to put yourself on such weak basis like you are now.
As I told you when I requested the video section for the first time (and you only made the AUDIO available after my THIRD request - but the audio suffices), this part that you present now is surely a part that was taken out during the editing process by Discovery Channel itself. Remember that you yourself NEVER saw the actual documentary. Your copy came from Monica Garnsey (program producer), who may have passed to you a prior release version that contains material that was removed afterwards.
I will send an email to you, and to Archangel, with the mpg file 〈audio plus VIDEO!!!〉 of the TRUE documentary, and you will be able to understand how wrong you are on this issue.
Why was it taken out? Who knows? YOU must ask your provider. Most likely either because it was considered irrelevant, or because they found a mistake in the information. For example, they might have discovered that the woman was not a doctor... Yes, mistakes like these do occur. They said, in the documentary (in the Real One), that you are a Medical Doctor. And we know very well that you are not at all a MD. You did not even know that granulomas are macroscopic structures (it was me who had to teach you that; people like me, who have academic training in medical issues, quickly spot the deficiencies in your knowledge in this area).
Now that, after more than one year, you finally showed the
What we have in the pre-edited version of the documentary (the Pepsi-Version, that is, not the Real Thing) is a woman claiming to be a doctor, and saying that she does not know how Natasha can see at the cellular level. The woman
I have already sent the mpg file 〈video plus audio〉 both to Archangel and to MS QuackNick.
Maybe Skolnick will now try to get the true documentary before making unwarrented statements.
(By the way: I wonder what else might be on this non-official pre-release version that he has. Probably even more feedbacks against the "respected academicals"...)
Bye,
Julio
______________
"We still do not know exactly what Natasha's drawing is. Why? Because of the inept investigation by Skolnick, who merely used it to try and ridicule the girl by claiming it was a drawing of a bug."
It is a whole lot easier to delete a section from a sound or video file than it is to manufacture one. I haven't bothered viewing the MPG file Julio Siqueira sent me and I probably won't. Considering how he shamelessly rewrites people's quotes, I suspect he simply deleted the interview of the doctor discussing Natasha's remarkable "diagnosis" of her patient. Here's the sound bite they want you to believe doesn't exist: Doesn't know how Natasha sees on the cell level.
The official video files (with the sections of interest, as commented by me) can be accessed at the new link below:
http://www.geocities.com/natasha_xrayvision_files/
I even changed skolnick's huge wave file into the modern mp3 file type (as I have pointed out elsewhere, these "respected academicals" are very much neandertal-like; they do not have cameras, they do not use modern computer files, etc).
This time, truth is served for free 😊
Julio
___________
Pepsi: huge audio only file.
available here:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/natasha_demkina/cell_level.wav
Real Thing: small audio + video files.
available here:
http://www.geocities.com/natasha_xrayvision_files/
Now, it is up to the rationality to decide between pepsi or the Real Thing.
Julio
___________
"Is there a level too low for you to stoop?"
Lower than talking to you, no. There can be nothing below absolute zero.
Julio
____________
The video sections that I made available include the parts right after the section of interest, and, in it, it is easily seen the headlines "End of Part 1", and, after it, the TV advertisement, which clearly shows that this is indeed the official broadcast version (video and audio are in perfect sync).
And what about the version from Andy QuackNick?
He said he got it from Wiseman..., who we all know was engaged in the deceiving argumentation to swindle Natasha to accept the two alien clinical conditions introduced at the very last moment in the test. And Wiseman also is an expert in fooling people (as I have already said, he even managed to get published, in the journal Psychological Bulletin, a phoney meta-analysis of Ganzfeld experiments on telepathy, for which he has ever since been regarded by many psi researchers as a fraudulent academical. In a word: a Quack).
What can we say about this version that came misteriously from Wiseman to Skolnick? (from Quack to Quack...). Well, we cannot say a thing. We do not know the details of that. But... there is one person that can say a lot about it! And this person is Skolnick himself. So now let
$$$ Your failure to provide us with a copy placed us at a serious disadvantage in defending ourselves against attacks in the news media and on the Internet, where we are being defamed as "unethical," "liars," "cheats," "assassins," "Klu Klux Klan Wizards," "rapists," "terrorists," and more.
&&& ANDREW Kevin Christopher was on a list of 'send tapes to these people' given to the production manager at the end of the production. I was in Jordan at the time on a shoot (I've unfortunately been back and forth five times in last few months). Kevin Christopher sent another tape request in September; I passed the request on to our production manager in London, who is very reliable. Our system obviously failed you there, for which I'm sorry. Richard Wiseman did see an advance copy.
$$$ We finally obtained a copy of the program on our own.
Comment by Julio now: so it is easy to see that the copy that Skolnick managed to get
Comment by Julio now: so, Monica is not perfect. She understood it wrongly about Skolnick
My friend,
I strongly advise you to gather the tiny pieces of respectability that are still left of you, and flee this forum right away.
In a phrase: Go Home!
Your Friend,
Julio Siqueira
MA in Clinical Bacteriology
P.S.: I suggest that you hire the work of someone with "cellular vision" to help you pick up the few pieces of respectability that is left of you on the ground of this forum. I am serious on that.
________________________
The fact remains that the Discovery Channel program interviewed the man's doctor, who says on camera that, although she cannot explain how Natasha sees on the cell level, she trusts Natasha's abilities.
Skolnick, you've been outed as a liar, a cheat and a manipulator of the evidence. Julio has proven himself to be an honest and forthright investigator. You should learn a lesson from him.
Shame on you Skolnick.
You just like to twist and manipulate the facts, then insult and ridicule. Even if what you say is true, it comes nowhere near the level of your own treacherous behavior. Do you believe that my alleged behavior excuses your vicious lies and falsehoods? I think not.
As a comparative character analysis, I think this bears repeating:
<i>Whether or not Archangel is angry, a liar, a hypocrite, or a troll, is beside the point. The real thing to consider here is how the Skolnick attacks, obsessive assaults, misleading remarks, and generally bad behavior patterns bring into focus what happened with Natasha Demkina. Archangel was not involved in her public humiliation; it was at the hands of the man who undeniably and continually uses ridicule and humiliation in his insulting and obsessive attacks on those who do not agree with him. That
😊
And, there it is folks, Skolnick's little "trick." Just like Archangel said, Skolnick likes to: "twist and manipulate the facts, then insult and ridicule."
Instead of addressing the issues, this is what he does, distract by insult and ridicule, just like he did with the so-called "investigation" of Natasha Demkina. Distract, insult, ridicule and never ever address the core problems surrounding the fraudulent and inept investigation.
Skolnick is not here to truly answer questions, but instead to take every opportunity to be mean and petty. Sheer arrogance.
Now that is repugnant.
It is a pitty there is only the three of us in this forum. Let me be very down to the point:
First: Archangel-UncleBob issue. I believe they are two different people. Even the moderator of this forum (Charybdis) said he would accept the postings from these two names if Archangel assured him that they were indeed different personalities. Charybdis said: "It's perfectly valid to share a computer, and we have no problem with it if that's what you're doing.". So, if indeed Archangel was interested in being fraudulent, he would keep on with two names. If that did not happen, it seems indeed true that Uncle Bob was another person, that now no longer is using Archangel
As for the content of the tirade, it's no more honest or accurate. The copy of the program I have <u>is</u> divided in parts. Although I can't tell for sure, it appears the tape was paused and commercials not recorded. And Julio-Archie's assertion that the Discovery Channel program corrected the false claim that I am a medical doctor is false. The program recently broadcasted in the U.S. still has that and other false statements that the producer-director was told about last year.
So I wonder who is saying that he will see me "in court"? Is it Julio or the actual author, Archangel? I really don't think Julio would want to submit his copy of the video to independent laboratory testing.
Just look how Julio/Archie tries to invent ways to erase the evidence that he long claimed does not exist. The Saransk doctor in the Discovery Channel program must not be a doctor after all or if she is a doctor, she must not be the patient's doctor.
Do we need any more evidence that these two trolls will do anything (and I mean anything) to back up their deceitful and malicious accusations?
The whole question of whether I have evidence to support my statement that Natasha claims to see on the cellular level is one of Julio's more outrageous red herrings. Our test did not require Natasha Demkina to see anything too small to be easily seen with the naked eye.
And that's a good way to describe Julio's and Archie's integrity: Too small to be seen with the naked eye. I suspect that even someone with an electron microscope would have to strain.
<i>