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
"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>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/health/psychology/01case.html?ex=1133586000&en=e287f4a5d4a24bc7&ei=5070
Here's a section of the article titled:
<font color="blue">"Speaking in the Third Person, Removed from Reality"</a>
"So tell me what's going on," I [Dr. Ablow] said.
[...] "I'm kind of like the quiet guy who goes to the gym, you know, keeps to himself, maybe hooks up with a girl here and there, but doesn't make a big deal of it. He's, like, sort of on the outside looking in, never letting anything get him too down."
Mark's lapse into the third person - "He's ... on the outside, looking in" - helped me realize what had disturbed me about him from the start.
He seemed fake, as if playing a role. He showed no anxiety or sadness or anger. He spoke in clich
This will be the last time ever I will be talking to you. I will only post one more message on this forum, summarizing this issue of Natasha and of your sloppy test on her. This next message (after this one I am writing now) will be my last message on this forum. For the benefit of our honest readers, I will comment on your feeble utterances below:
Skolnick:
Skolnick:
Skolnick:
Well, it has been a pleasure to be here at the forum Museum of Hoaxes. I would like to thank Charybdis and the other guys who keep this forum for their openness towards differing points of view. And I must say that it was a great pleasure and a true reward to meet Archangel, whose honesty is touching indeed.
We have managed to bust Skolnick severely. Even those who he summoned from far far away (i.e. the other side of the planet), could not help him, and ended up leaving him alone with his silly and utter dangerous lies.
From the very beginning of my contacts with Skolnick, I have warned him that this issue involving Natasha is a most serious one. Public Health is involved. Lives of people are involved. It is not an issue where we can allow ourselves to put our own private interests (either money interests, or career interests, or pride interests) above the public interest. And what is the public interest in this issue, and how CSICOP, and especially CSMMH, must have tried to meet it?
First, they should have tried to test Natasha as well as they could. This, they seem to have done, or almost to have done. Second, they should have reported the test, in its strengths and weaknesses, as well as they could. Here, they failed miserably... The third aspect that they could have addressed is to try to talk directly to Natasha and to educate her about her own powers and about her practice as an informal diagnostic therapist. This, again, they failed miserably.
Supposing that Natasha is indeed honest (as was the impression of all of the Discovery Channel personnel, according to the program producer/director Monica Garnsey; and as was also the impression of Wiseman himself, according to what he said in the documentary), and supposing that she does not have some problematic mental impairment (like some sort of schizophrenia or psicosis that may render her learning of moral issues problematic), it would be highly beneficial to the public health if these skeptics (especially Andrew Skolnick) had talked to her a little about all that. Warn her about how much even highly sensitive and esquisite devices (like PET scans or CAT and fMRI cans, or ELISA-Western Blot essays) can yield dangerous false negatives and false positives too. And so, her ability, even if true, most likely is subject to these very same limitations.
In a phrase: it would be highly beneficial to publich health if Natasha (assuming that she is honest and mentally healthy) would feel at the end that she was dealt with in a fair way, and that the people testing her were also interested in her as a human being and as a person who interacts with needed populations. The impression that, instead, she came out with was that she interacted with a bunch of thieves. And that is pretty close to what actually happended, sadly enough (And Skolnick
Does Natasha have any power? Personally I doubt it. That is, my bet is that she doesn
A fellow student and I have chosen to use your experiment with Natasha Demkina for a probability class project due next week. It is an interesting study. I would like to say that given the restrictions (time especially) on your team in creating and organizing many of the experiment logistics, I think CSICOP did a good job in debunking her extraordinary claims. Natasha may have a non-paranormal gift that I hope she can use to serve her community or country well in the future, but like many of the skeptics I've seen on this forum, I believe her hardcore supporters underestimate her talents (and people's in general) in gleaning information from the smallest clues - the majority of it body language.
I respect that you are defending your research and the scientific process, but without having the stomach to peruse all 29 pages in this thread, I am surprised to see that you are still involved in vitriolic exchanges almost a year after the initial post with those who wish to belittle the experiement, you, and/or your organization. Their numbers will be never-ending. On the other hand, there are those essentially in your camp who may question elements of the experiment in the spirit of the scientific method (or dwell on third order decimal places in probabilistic matching calculations), that would (and have) actively defend(ed) your work without you. Maybe its been suggested in an earlier post, but as a recent observer, please consider that I can't see your entertaining of this perpetual state of seige as doing any favors for your reputation, equanimity, or your state of health.
As I do not frequent this site, please don't feel obliged to reply. I wish you and your organization the continued best in working towards a rational world.
Russ
Nobel Laureate Prof. Brian Josephson:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/
Julio Siqueira
Skolnick said:
<i>
Sorry Charybdis, but I could not stay away for far too long. I am back. This time to try and marry Skolnick once and for all. That is the only way for me to keep an eye on his neverending lies and etc.
Skolnick hides himself under the ip 64.65.247.81 in the Wikipedia, where he is trying, like a dog with rabies, to prevent me from showing the other side of the story of their phoney test on Natasha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina
No way, QuackNick... And remember: you are no MS, your "comission" is no a true Comission, and your test on Natasha was no scientific test.
Hi Archangel, good to be back. Do not worry about Russel, for he will not be back. In fact, he is Skolnick himself, using a nickname. Never thought you would get to this point, Skolnick...
Best Regards,
Julio Boomerang
____________
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Skolnick should not just be reverting or deleting what Julio put there. Julio is presenting a completely valid opposite point of view and critique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
That really fits my "projection" theory. Skolnick accuses others of that which he himself would do.
Sneaky rat-bastard. Shame on you Skolnick!
I think I have caught hacker-like activity on the Natasha Demkina entry in the Wikipedia that is highly suggestive of having been performed by Skolnick. I am going to let the mediators there know of my information on this matter in a few hours.
Best Regards,
Julio
_________________
IMPORTANT NEWS CONCERNING NATASHA ISSUE:
Skolnick and I have moved our fighting arena to wikipedia, where you can follow our exchange of viewpoints in the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina
Julio Siqueira
It's repulsive.
Poor Natasha, having put herself in that lying shark's hands to become his target for manipulation and ridicule.
And worst of all, Skolnick thinks he's one of the "good guys" and acts like he's done something positive, when all he has done is to destroy.
Gosh!!! Mr. Porcupine (Skolnick) managed to get both of us (He and I) kicked out of Wikipedia with his intolerable bad temper... Just read the reaction of the moderator (who had been quite helpful until yesterday) after Porcupine's rude complaints against him:
Withdrawing from resolution process:
This article, and the resultant name-calling on the Talk page, is a prime example of why Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have been followed in the first place. Given that Andrew Skolnick and Julio Siqueira are closely connected to the subject matter, neither should have been, or be, permitted to directly edit this article. No one wants to suppress the views of primary sources of information, so they should be encouraged to post recommended changes on the Talk pages; however, the best way to ensure that articles contain valid and accurate information is for impartial editors to do the editing. I'm done here. Edwardian 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) edited 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Julio Siqueira Withdraws from Editing"
And contrary to his claim that the moderator withdrew, he, another moderator, and I are continuing to clean up Wikipedia's Natasha Demkina entry.
Skolnick, you also threatened to "withdraw" from the Wikipedia process, twice. Just like you did in this forum, but you never withdraw, you just keep spouting your lies and misleading remarks.
Keith, the Wikipedia mediator, believes the truth to be somewhere between what Skolnick claims and what Julio has said. This in no way means that Skolnick is "cleaning up" the Natasha Demkina entry.
Here's what Keith had to say:
"I've partially rewritten the article, taking into consideration the content added by both Skolnick and Siquiera, based on long-scale diffs. I did not integrate any external information. I did make some rewords that were inferred from combinations of details among the edits. I took pains to remove POV, biased, or even content that showed bias in tone, focus, or reinforcement.
Remember I said at the beginning that I was not taking any side in the matter. What insights I have gained on this topic from this process remain my own. To be honest, it was somewhere in between the positions of the two disputants here.
I would ask that both of you contribute your concerns about the current version to the Talk page, and refrain from editing the main page from now on. This request has less to do with the fact that you are primary sources (or at least closely involved with the topic) but the fact that you are disputants over its content, and it is best to bring your disputes to the side, rather than take the conflict out on the main article.
I am going to update my request for protection to the version I just wrote.
Regards, Keith D. Tyler
BREAKING NEWS: SKOLNICK DISCOVERS HIS TRUE TALENT: HACKER ACTIVITY...
Believe it or not, Skolnick decided to change the entry "Natasha Demkina" _against_ the recomendations of the mediator Edwardian of the Wikipedia. As a consequence of Skolnick's unthinkable hacker activity, Keith decided that the entry should be blocked, as a way to hold back this rabis infected pitbull of pseudoskepticism. 😊.
The man simply did 29 (!!!) changes after Edwardian recomendation to the contrary of it...
Take a look at the link below, to see the unthinkable with your own eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&action=history
Julio Siqueira
Skolnick, I think you understood wrong what I said. I did not say that I would quit commenting on the entry, or that I would quit Wikipedia. I merely said I would quit editing the entry "Natasha Demkina" directly (myself), following Edwardian's strong recomendation.
Get your sigh back, baby. You and I are gonna get married 😊:-):-)
See you soon and often, Ms Skolnick.
(see how I ended up accepting your "MS" title 😉)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina
Skolnick said:
"I am taking off my Wiki "editor" hat and am picking up my reporter's hat. I'm going to suggest to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer that I write an article on my Wiki experiences as a follow up of the Natasha Demkina articles. I will be kind to you and Edwardian. The problems as I see them are not of your doing."
The man has GALL! What a terrorist!!
Fortunately, the Wikipedia mediator was not put off by Skolnick's threats and saw right through Skolnick's transparent attempts to lie, manipulate the facts, ridicule and threaten the moderator. Skolnick used those same tactics against a poor seventeen year old Russian girl who shined with honesty and managed to cause her a lot of harm, but he's not having the same success against the real world.
Skolnick, you are a bastard liar and manipulator!
Give him hell, Keith!!
-
BREAKING NEW: SKOLNICK DEFEATED AT WIKIPEDIA, AT LAST:
Yes, Archangel, Skolnick got defeated at wikipedia, as we can see from his desperate letter (blackmail...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Letter_from_Mr._Skolnick.
What he does not seem to understand is that he was not defeated by Keith or by Edwardian or by Julio or by Archangel: he was defeated by himself...
The War is Over. The Allies Have Won! It is time to Party.
😊:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Julio Siqueira well understands this. He yelled like a stuck pig when Kentaro Mori sent me one of Siqueira's emails -- even though he had previously given Mori permission to quote from his emails.
When you disseminate someone's email without permission, you invite protests that are deserved. (As noted, Mori had Siqueira's permission -- yet he still howled a bitter protest).