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.


Posted on Tue Feb 03, 2004

More content from the Hoax Museum:


No, Judy. You're the sick one. You've spent decades of your life as an apologist for a crackpot cult, lying, cheating, and obfuscating, hour after hour, day after day. What a terrible, sorry life you wasted.
Posted by askolnick  on  Tue Jan 10, 2006  at  08:13 PM
in the field of psychology, we often refer to the term of 'projection'. i'll leave the educated reader to spot examples ...
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  01:37 AM
In response to Archangel's latest false and angry rant, here's what the administrator on the JREF forum says:

"As Admin. I posted a proactive cautionary comment to both askolnick and Julio Siqueira, neither of which so far have been judged to be in breach of their Membership Agreement. To state that either of them (at this point) has broken their Membership Agreement is incorrect."

Judy, Judy, Judy, why do you lie, lie lie?
Posted by askolnick  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  05:55 AM
here it is:

"And now some concluding comments. The fact that Wiseman's main reaction to the critique of his work on my web pages was to suggest that, since it has not been refereed, it "does not carry much weight", may suggest to some (a) that there is little he can find to say in defence of his position, and (b) the name of the game is indeed propaganda (action directed primarily at putting the other side in a bad light), as opposed to proper science. Admittedly, these web pages here are also propaganda, but I hope that the science and the logic are sounder.

In an email, Wiseman explained that he thought it important that the public should understand about peer-review. I equally think (as noted) that it is important that people understand CSICOP better. Seeing how Wiseman chooses to respond to my critique may help them do this.

Notice the comment "I don't see how you could argue there's something wrong with having to get five out of seven when she agrees with the target in advance." I have already indicated on the web page what is wrong with this, thus: 'real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying "this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!" '. How pleasant just to be able to ignore such arguments, on the basis of an assertion to the effect that the web page they were brought up on had not been subjected to peer-review!"
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  09:45 AM
"Many viewers of a recent Discovery Channel programme, previewed in a Guardian article, where the claims of Natasha Demkina, a 17-year-old Russian girl who says she is able to "look deep inside people's bodies, watch their organs at work and spot when things are going wrong", were investigated, ended up with a strong impression that the main test in the investigation had been deliberately set up with a view to ensuring that she would fail it. The test involved her being given a set of seven cards, with a medical condition indicated on each. Medical subjects with these seven conditions (one of which was 'no condition'), each bearing an identifying number, stood in a row and Natasha had to mark each card with the number of the person whom she thought had the condition indicated on the card. Despite the difficulties associated with the rigorous and unfamiliar conditions imposed by the experimenters, she identified four of the seven correctly. A fairly straightforward calculation shows that the odds of getting 4 hits or more out of 7 by chance are more than 50 to 1 against. Surely a case for celebrating Natasha's success?

Well, no, actually. The experimental protocol, to which Natasha and her agent had been asked to agree, rather curiously states:

"If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities."

Accordingly, it was announced that Natasha had 'failed the test'. In the article about the programme in the Guardian, Richard Wiseman, one of the investigators, emphasised this conclusion, declaring "a failure is a failure".

(added November 11th., 2004) The investigators' own account is now available on the web: observe that the 50 to 1 statistic does not feature anywhere in it. The fact that "everyone [had] agreed to the written protocols" (including the above italicised condition) is given as sufficient justification for asserting "[the] test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case". I think not: real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying "this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!".
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  09:49 AM
Sophistry will get you nowhere with me, Skolnick.

A warning was clearly given to you by the JREF moderator with more
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  10:15 AM
At least I never got blocked for violating Wiki rules as you did. LOL!
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  10:26 AM
Archangel rants, "Further, Skolnick
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  11:15 AM
Hi Everybody,

Posting from far far away...

Skolnick said:

"What professional credentials? I never attacked Siqueira's professional credentials. As far as I know, he's an excellent elementary school English teacher. You never, ever speak the truth."

Archangel, Skolnick repeatedly said lies and offenses about my professional credentials (here, at Wikipedia, at and at JREF). Even though he now admits that I am a good English teacher (in his own words, an "excellent" one) after I pointed out several of his incredibly silly mistakes in the English language at James Randi's forum (that would be acceptable to anyone but to those that claim to be journalists...; so far as we have been able to attest, Skolnick is only a supreb photographer and nothing more than that, which is a nice and honest thing to be), he still keeps saying lies and offenses regarding my other professional credentials, that is, my professional specialization as a biologist and as a clinical bacteriologist.

Believe it or not, he didn't even know (ex-JAMA-associate-editor...) that every clinical bacteriologist is a microbiologist, and that every microbiologist is a biologist, so he expressed his "amazement" at the fact that I call myself a biologist and a microbiologist and a clinical bacteriologist. The man thought these three categories belonged to three different graduation courses (Mama Mia)!!!

Perhaps we should start to be just a little more understanding towards Skolnick, because it seems that not all of his offenses come out of malice, but rather out of ignorance.

And he has shown us some wonders that we must cherish. Like the extremely rare phenomenon (rarest than comet Halley's appearance) of a top skeptic being reprimended at James Randi's forum... That one goes to the History of the Gretest Fiascos of the Skeptic Movement.

Thank you so very much, MS Skolnick, for Making Our Days Simply Unforgettable.
grin grin grin grin

Julio Siqueira
P.S.: use your Magister Scientiae to teach Troll Larsen about molecules that will grow.
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  01:34 PM
Here we go again. Siqueira, you haven't a clue (nor an honest bone in your body). I said that as far as I know you're an excellent elementary school English teacher. I would never say that your command of English is anything better than pathetic. I'm sure you're quite capable of reading your school's teaching assignment book and teaching the little kiddies in Brazil how to say, "See Dick Run! See Jane chase her dog Spot!" However, your own English reading and writing abilities are terrible.

For example, you keep referring to your "professional" credentials as a "biologist" and "clinical bacteriologist." If you had a clue what these words mean, I doubt you would utter them -- unless of course if you're a totally shameless liar.

"Professional" describes activities that are done to make money or earn a living, as opposed to "amateur" activities. You have no "professional" standing in science. You've never held a job in any field of science.

You claim to have some academic credentials in science. If true, that's not a professional credential. I think we all know insurance agents or businessmen who earned a masters degree in subjects like English Poetry or French History. Unlike you, they don't lie about their profession. They don't claim to be professional poets or historians. They have something you don't: Honesty.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  02:42 PM
Skolnick, you've got to be the worst "investigator" on the face of the planet. I have never been banned from Wikipedia and I'm certainly not posting as "Lumiere" as you incorrectly assume on JREF. I also have no interest in TM.

I am so tempted to leave you with your mistaken identity identification, which is another in a long line of them. It would be fascinating to see if you started treating Lumiere on Wikipedia as if he were me. With your lack of emotional control, I can only imagine the escalating arguments you would engage in over there.

Your analytical skills are just pathetic. Stick to insults and misleading remarks, at least you have some talent with those.

Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  02:47 PM
Ah, now I understand the weird "Judy" reference from Skolnick. Skolnick believes that "Lumiere" is a female named Judy that he has had a long "bitter" relationship with. LOL!

Definitely not me, Skolupine! Wrong again! How does he do it, folks?
Posted by Archangel  on  Wed Jan 11, 2006  at  02:53 PM
According to Webster's dictionary, biologist is anyone who specializes in biology, and we can extend this linguistic use to microbiologist and to clinical bacteriologist as well. The specilization as a biologist and as a microbiologist is not an amateur specialization. It is a professional specialization, and as a consequence it is a professional credential. Skolnick confuses professional credential with career history... What a Decaying buch of neurons he's got... Once I had an amateur graduation in the English language. It was a University level course (graduation course), but with it I could not work. It did not give any professional specialization (any professional credential).

Skolnick not only is a failure in his understanding of the meaning of English words. Topmost, he seems to be a man that never fought for the job positions that he got. He does not understand how the real professional world works. He is the boy in the bubble. Most likelly, he always got all his professional positions as free gifts from relatives and friends. And I bet is is quite a big apple polisher: very brave when afar and when above, but totally submissive when below...

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Jan 12, 2006  at  06:41 AM
I have just posted to the JREF moderator the following message:

Hello Darat,

I have been refraining from reading Skolnick's posts for obvious reasons; therefore, only some minutes ago did I come to see the following piece, followed by your swift reply:

"Siqueira likes to attack and abuse people. Let's say that sometime in the future, he abuses his children. And just imagine that in some deranged state he puts his bad fingers on them. No, I do not believe that Siqueira would do such a terrible deed. But people sometimes surprises us. Both for the good, and for the bad (and what Siquieria did at the Museum of Hoaxes and Wikipedia sites was very inappropriate, to put it mildly)."

askolnick - please read your Membership Agreement you are in danger of doing nothing more then continuing a personal feud you have with another Member.

When we are brutally hit by the unthinkable, it is recomforting to see that we are indeed in a serious forum with rationally balanced moderators, where at least the family of the forum members will not be offended without due corrective measures.

Thank you enormously.

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Thu Jan 12, 2006  at  07:21 AM
julio, they allowed larsen to publish the work contact details of a woman in my family on their forum. i protested, of course. darat refused to even reply to my protests. she was eventually contacted at work by some of these fanatics and the darat eventually had to shut the embarrasment off by banning me and hope things would be forgotten. there are plenty of jref members still there who know about this and the terrorist tactics they used caused a rift in the forum which exists until this day, i can email or pm you the links where you will see the proof of this disgraceful internet terrorism, but sincerely hope you don't go down the same path as i did, hence my interest in your discussions over there. these fanatics do not discuss. they will go to whatever lengths it takes to censor any voice which debunks their cult or the information they want to censor.

i am sure skolnick is proud of the sort of 'skeptics' he has run to.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Thu Jan 12, 2006  at  11:16 AM
in fact, it has just occured to me, some of these 'skeptic' fanatics will do whatever they can to stop and control some information and the more extreme their beliefs about that information, the more extreme some of them are prepared to go in order to control it.

i just wrote this on another forum i am involved with, and it made me think about the similarities in pseudo-skepticism, ranging from clear inherent bias flaws with randi's challenge, to personal attack (skolnick) and internet terrorism (claus Larsen), when you genuinely have to fear for the personal safety of loved ones.

about the jref 1m$ challenge "[...]adjudication and arbitration has be be present throughout the whole process of the challenge - from application onwards, the test comes alongway down the line. and the fact that not even one single test has gone ahead supports the bias hypothesis about impartiality at the early stages of the challenge.

and it is to the jref's shame that no one with any psi proof will take the challenge seriously, as all it does is raise serious, rational doubts about the agenda of some professional skeptics.

don't get me wrong, and i've said it before, randi is the greatest show man ever. the greatest. but he is no true skeptic and imo only damages the public perception of skepticism in general. in the long run, which is worse, i believe such coa*se skepticism actually hinders the true progression of science, rather than advance it. and that is a shame."
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Thu Jan 12, 2006  at  12:35 PM
Oh my god. I didn
Posted by Archangel  on  Thu Jan 12, 2006  at  05:17 PM
------------BREAKING NEWS---------------

Skolnick got expelled from His phoney book review can be found no more in the link below:

It has been sent to the trash area, where it belongs gringrin:-)

Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Fri Jan 13, 2006  at  08:11 AM

Dear Everybody,

In the James Randi forum (JREF), the member BillC has recently posted a piece of information that, to my eyes, seem like the first preliminar evidence of some sort of fraudulent conduct from the part of Natasha Demkina. He found a site which seems to be her official site in Russia, in the Russian language. There, they detail her claims, and indeed say that she has many special powers of vision, including cellular level vision, the ability to see biochemical processes and physiological ones, etc. This is particularly suspicious (to me - IMHO) especially because these extended and detailed powers WERE NOT mentioned by the Discovery Channel producer (Monica Garnsey) to the researchers back in the beginning of 2004 (when they were designing the test). The impression that I got is that, to a more demanding audience (i.e. the Discovery Channel personnel), Natasha made her claims more "humble"...

These things have to be checked with care. But I cannot help saying that the impression that I got from this report was not a good one.

Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Sat Jan 14, 2006  at  07:18 AM
Yet more of Siqueira's lies. I told the jackal shortly after the Discovery Channel program was broadcast that Natasha claims to see on cellular and molecular level. He denied she ever claimed this. He insisted that she can only see details no smaller than 2 cm. (a "fact" that he simply pulled from his blow hole). I told him that we had ample evidence that she claims to see on the cellular and molecular level. When I cited some of that evidence, he dishonestly dismissed it. I provided the liar with no more information when I saw how he twisted and misquoted anything I told him.

For more than a year, he's been accusing me of lying about Natasha's claims. Just look through this forum and see how many times he called me a liar for saying that we know what Natasha claims to be able to do.

Now, he happears to be backtracking. Could there be hope that Siqueira is turning from the Dark Side?

Nope. He just got a serioius group ass-kicking over on the JREF forum about this lie and his other mendacious conduct. So he's now pretending that Natasha only recently began claim that she can on the cellular and molecular level. The Everlying Bunny just keeps going, and going, and going...

As all the records show, he was told the truth well over a year ago, but he didn't accept it because it didn't fit his dishonest agenda, which is to discredit skeptical investigators.

Siqueira, if you keep posting your dishonest nonsense on the JREF forum, they will make Everlying Bunny stew out of you. Your main tactic is to wear out a skeptic with your inexhaustable willingness to post lie after lie. On the JREF forum, there are many skeptics who are willing to share the duty of exposing your outrageous deceits. You're not going to like their stew pot.
Posted by askolnick  on  Sat Jan 14, 2006  at  04:53 PM
skolnick, julio is one of the few honest skeptics there. at least he acknowledges and moves on, everything i've seen from you is nothing more that bitter intransigence. the fact that you called for a 'show of hands' and didn't even get one is quite telling, if not rather pathetic.

now, i have a question for you, what do you think of the jref publishing on behalf of claus larsen the contact details of a woman in my family in order to intimidate and cause alarm and distress for her personal safety?
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  05:27 AM
I'd need to see proof of that accusation before I would give it a single thought. So far, every word out of you has been a baseless accusation or a baldfaced lie.

I especially find eye-popping your claim that Julio Siqueira is one of the few honest skeptics. He's not a skeptic and he's certainly not honest. His lies have been exposed innumerable times here and in other forums. And so have yours.
Posted by askolnick  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  07:54 AM
The Everlying Bunnies Julio and Judy are at it again:

<font color="red">Oh my god. I didn
Posted by askolnick  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  08:12 AM
skolnick; look at luke t's post, 2nd on page. the jref have written over the links on that page with other threads, presumablty to bury the evidence. thank goodness google has a cache. if you're a jref forum member, you can search using that cache key words. - the woman larsen was terrorising has now moved:
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  09:16 AM
skolnick, i've looked at your link there, julio does not associate anyone with child abuse. so why did you?
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  09:18 AM
"Most people who fall for Claus Larsen's lies and deception don't even realise that I have respect for much of what Randi does. He is one of the greatest showmen, ever, and the JREF an excellent resource for attracting young and old with enquiring minds to the examination of both positive parapsychology and the commercial side, of scams, cons and deceptions.

This forum is the responsibility of a registered charity. It is registered as being an 'educational resource'.

Claus Larsen's recent behaviour is clearly abhorrent to anyone with any sense of decency.

There is no way that any one of sound mind would agree that the behaviour of Claus Larsen, by posting those details, is in any shape or form an appropriate or relevant behaviour to be published in a forum registered under the current status.

The internet is fantastic. But as in any aspect of human society, there are boundaries set by common human decency, and some by law. This JREF fourm has a clearly defined use and attracts people for those clearly defined reasons. People read the guidelines and join by agreeing to them. Not only do the members enter a contract to refrain from certain behaviours, the admin of the forum also have a duty to not subject their members to those behaviours by the misapplication of their powers.

The recent statement py Randi, and the subsequent changes in guidelines and rules have been made a mockery of by Claus Larsen and the administrator(s) of this forum.

There is no doubt that people are leaving because of Claus Larsen's uncivil behaviour. No doubt, anyone new reading the recent sinister and vile behaviour of Claus Larsen would be too scared or stupid to choose to begin a dialogue, or even express an opinion on their beliefs should they be different to Claus Larsen's.

How soon will it be before such behaviour empties the forum like a pervert empties a swimming pool?

And how long will it be until that sort of behaviour mentioned above brings the attention of other agencies, educational, media onto the JREF for having these things going on on their website?"

enjoy your swim, skolnick.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  09:23 AM
"In the context of the thread, it's pretty apparent that Claus put those significant place names in grey type purposely as if to say, "Psst! I know where you go, Lucianarchy. I know where you and your family are in real life!"

The various threads (and Claus's non-responses to a variety of good questions) show there wasn't any guesswork or fishing involved. He had one purpose: intimidation and harrassment that would be obvious to Lucian, but he could explain away as "off topic curiosity" to anyone else. He refuses to answer the clear-cut questions he's been asked--questions about why he posted this and how, exactly, he obtained the personal information.

I'm just curious about how one would go about determining with reasonable certainty the actual identity of a poster without IP addresses and ISP assistance.

Claus has said that he has Lucian's IP address, and has apparently had it for quite a while. I'm sure he found out Lucian's full name, and used it to research additional information about his real life.

When someone says "I'll be wherever you are" (supposedly meaning "on the Internet") and then adds that you should be worried or scared about that...well, its no wonder Lucianarchy would be upset to have the added bit, private information that seems to say, "Guess what? I don't like you and I also know where you or your family members live and work."

And Girl6 showed someone could use the information Claus posted to find out personal things about Lucianarchy through a web search. That makes it even worse."
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  09:46 AM
"Lucianarchy is a hardcore believer in just about everything paranormal. And damned proud of it. Very fervent, and a long time member of the JREF forum.

Claus has been pursuing Luci in his usual style. And the usual punches have been thrown back and forth, with Luci resorting to histrionics and Claus resorting to repetitive doggedness.

Luci started a topic to "warn" other believers that Claus was trying to censor him. During the topic, Claus started dropping odd little words/phrases in very light text that had nothing to do with the conversation.

Luci has stated these are pieces of personal data relating to the location of a relative of Luci's. Claus has been very coy and said he has not posted any personal data that is not publicly available.

It is up to the individual to believe whether or not Claus knew this information was not Luci's personal information. But Claus would like us all to believe he did not know it was connnected to Luci in any way at all, which is total bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Why post it during a converstaion with Luci then? And for those of us who know where the information came from,it is obvious it is connected to Lucianarchy. The only question that remains is if Claus mistakenly thought it was Luci him/herself or a friend/relative of Luci's.

Whatever the case, a completely innocent third party's personal data has been posted on JREF by Claus. In the face of this, Claus bats his eyes and asks us to tell everyone whose information it is. He also says he did not post any personal information. That Luci is the one who did by laying claim to the data he (Claus) posted.


what do you think these people are talking about skolnick?

sorry for the temporary derailment, but skolnick wants to know what sort of 'skepticism' he is involved with.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  09:49 AM
Lucianarchy, I went to that URL and all I saw were the same kind of angry accusations that you are posting here. I saw no evidence of Claus' wrong doing.

I repeat: I won't consider your accusation until you document it. The fact that you would describe Julio Siqueira, who has been exposed as a liar here and in other forums, as one of this forum's most honest skeptics, shows that you have little respect for truth.
Posted by askolnick  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  10:47 AM
are you seriously saying that you, andrew skolnick, after being provided with the above evidence, can see no evidence of wrong doing by claus lasen on the jref forum?

away with your sophistry. yes or no.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  11:02 AM
Comments: Page 23 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 21 22 23 24 > 
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.