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
Again, it seems, the pseudo-skeptic element have usurped skepticism in order to make proclamations which are simply not true.
Why, when it was evidently NOT the case,was it published that the girl had 'notmal' vision, when nothing of the sort was either measured, recorded or replicated? Why do these people do it? Are they deliberetly being dishonest? The more I look into organised skeptic movement, the more I see this sort of thing replicated. I am reminded of Randi's treatment of the Lulova girl, )who even passed his prepared controls - he just ramped the 'controls' by sticking duct tape over her face ( adults in the room raised concern over her ability to breath) until the girl became upset and started crying). I am reminded of sTarbaby incident ( http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=scepticism&action=display&thread=1097085655 ) when CSICOP founder Rawlins was forced to not present data he had uncovered which supported a hypothesis CSICOP were trying to dubunk. I now see this fellow skolnick resorting to personal attacks against people insead of admitting it was wrong for the publication of 'the girl with normal vision' to go ahead and remain unchallenged or retracted. Why? All this sort of thing does is misinform people. Why would anyone want to do that? Let's be sceptical, but above all, let's be honest.
good luck to you! i can tell yuo from personal experience that they will not discuss anything with you at all, they will, however, play games of sophistry, wave 'lists' and demand you answer them, attack you personaly,and failing that, they will simply ban you on whatever trumped up charge they can muster! they do not do 'dicsussion'. i think you know quite well by now that you are dealing with fanatics, dogmatics and zealots, NOT sceptics. but as i say, good luck to you and best wishes anyway.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=29251
Anarchy was repeatedly warned not to violate copyright law by posting entire copyrighted articles and he was repeatedly warned not to post obscenities. He kept breaking those rules and he was eventually kicked off.
It's obvious why he's chosen the screen name "Lucianarchy."
That's the only honest part of his entire tirade -- as you can see for yourselves:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=29251
Good to see more people around here. I took a brief look at the posts above, and I think we have many good comments in these recent messages. For those who do not know it, I have some texts online analyzing the issue. The main link is below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/criticizingskepticism.htm
And the main link for the "researchers' " point of view is below:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html
Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
________________
"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."
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1372121&postcount=536
Judy, Judy, Judy, why do you lie, lie lie?
"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!" http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
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!". http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/
A warning was clearly given to you by the JREF moderator with more
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 Amazon.com 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.
😊 😊 😊 😊
Julio Siqueira
P.S.: use your Magister Scientiae to teach Troll Larsen about molecules that will grow.
___________________
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.
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.
You
Definitely not me, Skolupine! Wrong again! How does he do it, folks?
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
____________________
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
_______________
i am sure skolnick is proud of the sort of 'skeptics' he has run to.
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."
http://badpsychic.proboards53.com/index.cgi?board=OtherPsychics&action=display&thread=1133368546&page=12
-
-
-
------------BREAKING NEWS---------------
Skolnick got expelled from http://www.amazon.com. His phoney book review can be found no more in the link below:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591020182/sr=1-1/qid=1137164932/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5688544-4080651?%5Fencoding=UTF8
It has been sent to the trash area, where it belongs 😊:-):-)
Julio Siqueira
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
_________________
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.
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?
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.
<font color="red">Oh my god. I didn
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:pCAmqL2ZX3sJ:www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870554768&highlight=Lucianarchy
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.
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.
Quote:
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."
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.
Bullshit."
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.
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.
away with your sophistry. yes or no.
"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."
"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
Better to be safe than sorry.
at least you've put your cards on the table, skolnick. what a legacy you leave.
karma.
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.
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.
Julio
_________
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.
Thanks for the complements.😊