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


In fact, what I read at that URL seems to show that the threatening conduct was yours:

"Go **** yourself you sick bastard."

"I will take every means available to me to stop them dead in their tracks and make that person immediately accountable for their actions."
Posted by askolnick  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  11:03 AM
Posted by Archangel  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:16 PM
Skolnick said:
"Let's apply Julio Siqueira shameless tactic against him and see if he thinks it's fair:

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).

Is there any argument that is too sleazy for Siqueira to use? I now doubt it."

Well, there
Posted by Archangel  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:16 PM
Posted by Archangel  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:24 PM
Darat, I don't know if you read this forum, but I would seriously consider removing Skolnick's remarks about child abuse from your site. CDA 230 might protect you if there is any legal action ever taken, but I wouldn't take the chance where allegations or even intimation of Child Abuse is involved.

Better to be safe than sorry.
Posted by Archangel  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:28 PM
skolnick, you are one hell of adispicable creep. not only did you refuse to answer a simple 'yes' 'no' question, you posted my response to what claus larsen did to an innocent woman in my family, but for some reason, you HIGHLIGHTED one word. yes i was furious when i discovered what was (is) really going on, as would anyone else. but why did you highlight / emphasise one word?

at least you've put your cards on the table, skolnick. what a legacy you leave.

Posted by lucianarchy  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:41 PM
Just as I thought. Skolnick is the one who highlighted the word "dead", which completely changes the meaning of what lucianarcy wrote.

You are despicable, Skolnick. A proven liar and cheater. Shame on you.

How Skolnick can defend the illegal and depraved act of posting a female relative of lucianarcy's personal contact information which led to harassment of that innocent person is well beyond me. How terrible. What kind of man does that?

I guess the same kind of man that misleads and ridicules a poor seventeen year old Russian girl like Natasha.

How awful.
Posted by Archangel  on  Sun Jan 15, 2006  at  12:58 PM
Hi Skolnick,

You said:

"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."

The problem is that you simply never, NEVER, provided any evidence whatsoever for this statement of yours above. BillC, on the other hand, provided a piece of evidence that, to my eyes, seems worthy of trust. That is why HIS contribution is brilliant. Whereas YOUR contributions (or better, babblings...) were sloppy, to put it mildly.

As to child abuse, you had just no right to coin those unthinkable phrases of yours. You may think that they were cute, but they were actually hideous. The only occasion that I mentioned your private family life, in the Museum of Hoaxes, I said it in a very respectful way. I said that there is awesome beauty in your website, and that I bet there was very much of this beauty elsewhere in your life.

Posted by Julio Siqueira  on  Mon Jan 16, 2006  at  06:11 AM
andrew skolnick,

where are now?

holed up at the jref?

thankfully, future programme researchers will now be able to research your name and find out what a disgracefull charlatan you are.

i am sure csicop will be forever in your debt for your involvement in the 'the girl with x-ray eyes'.!!

in terms of your 'scientific methods', the words 'brewery', 'piss-up', 'organise' and 'couldn't' spring to mind.

this expose is a text-book example for all students of science and skepticism to study.

what a legacy you leave this life, skolnick.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  11:27 AM
Lucianarchy, you just don't understand: The measure of a skeptical researcher's contributions to society can be measured by the number of kooks and cranks who curse his name.

Thanks for the complements.grin
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  02:47 PM
Where o' where has Julio run? He beat a hasty retreat when his last series of posts angered just about everybody in the JREF forum (except of course his dedicated Vitor sockpuppet). In case he went to ground before seeing the latest warning from the forum's administrator, I'm posting it here:

"Julio Siqueira - I have cautioned you previously, this is now a warning. Continuing to concentrate on your personal issues with other members will result in further sanctions which may include suspension or banning."
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  03:16 PM
I have to ask that you keep your debate to the JREF, rather than carry it on here. This is an old thread on a forum which has been shut down for all but responses.

The JREF thread has actual responses from people other than the few of you.

Basically, we're tired of you using up the 'recent comments' section due to your arguments.
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  03:19 PM
And this is your concern, why?
Posted by askolnick  on  Tue Jan 17, 2006  at  05:51 PM
Because I'm a mod?
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Wed Jan 18, 2006  at  02:01 AM
It would have been good if you had stated that.
Posted by aaskolnick  on  Wed Jan 18, 2006  at  07:49 AM
with respect, boo. this story is running because it now seems that one of the team who 'tested' the girl, andrew skolnick, has been shown to be a hoaxer himself, so the whole debate is now wide open. when this expose ocurred, a skolnick went over to the jref forum and tried to recruit 'help'and tried to denegrate the MOH in the process. i will not be involved with any 'jref' debate from now, boo. i apreciate that that is off topic. but please allow this thread to continue as it is dealing with a very pertinent subject for the MOH. peace and best wishes.
Posted by lucianarchy  on  Wed Jan 18, 2006  at  08:02 AM
My apologies, aaskolnick, I forgot that the status didn't show up on the old forum.
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Wed Jan 18, 2006  at  08:11 AM
This topic has long since ceased being a discussion and has devolved into constant name calling and insults. Therefore, it will be closed to further posts.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Jan 18, 2006  at  09:29 AM
Comments: Page 24 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.