Funny T-Shirts

Secretly control the TV,
anywhere, any time!

Oops! Posted that baby twice by accident! I thought it got lost in transit...looks like my posting skills are fatally flawed...

Archangel,

"Would you admit it if you were [a hired shill working for Natasha's agent to rationalize her failure to past the test?] I think not." I do think your arguments and false statements are "at the very least inadequate."

You resort to absurd arguments like the one you started with because you have neither facts nor reason to make your case. Your comments are either clearly false or as illogical as the one you start with -- that we are probably guilty because we deny our guilt. This is the logic of the Dark Ages, when they convicted "witches" on the basis of accusation supported by the accused's refusal to admit guilt. It seems to me that the logic of the Dark Ages may appeal to you at least as much as the period's unquestioned belief in the supernatural.

You've made no effort to get your facts straight. There was not two tests or test phases but one. Natasha does not claim to see "auras." Nor does she "diagnose." She says she sees organs, tissues and foreign objects inside of people's bodies down to the cellular level and by doing so, she looks for abnormalities -- including signs of long healed health problems. It appears that you are simply parroting the latest rationalizations being circulated among Natasha's apologists to explain away her failure to demonstrate the supernatural abilities she claims. And no, she did not pass the test. Merely repeating falsehoods do not make them any less false.

You and her other supporters are simply making up claims to explain away her failure, but you fail to back up those claims with anything but misstatements and baseless opinions.

You began your unreasoned tirade by chastising us for setting up a test to "prove Natasha a fake." And you end by chastising us for failing to prove that she's a fake. There are only two things consistent in your arguments: Your belief in Natasha's supernatural claims and your unreasoned hostilitity towards us.

You're a slacker, Skolnick. Your attempt to twist my statements is as ludicrous as is the scientific methodology you purport to utilize. Instead of actually addressing the arguments, you resort to insults and intimidation.

To illustrate this, one merely has to look at my statements and your interpretation of the same. For instance, I questioned whether or not you would admit it if the test were indeed set up to cause failure. This in no way indicates any thought on my part that you are guilty by "dark age" reasoning that because you failed to admit guilt, that you were indeed guilty. Silly, Skolnick. It merely questions if you would actually admit it if you did set up the test for failure. it draws no conclusions of guilt from failing to admit guilt. Nice job getting things off track Skolnick.

What this shows me is that you either purposely misunderstand and twist things or that you don't truly understand what you are reading. Bad for scientific methodology, either way.

One thing that does make me think you are guilty are the unbelievable lengths you go to in your offensive attacks to defend your scientific methodology. That and your methods were flawed. Even your math is flawed.

There were TWO phases of your test. First phase (or section) of the test was with five persons, the second phase was with seven people. Simple. Are you even really Skolnick??

As for what the girl actually sees, I think you are the one who really does not understand what the girl is seeing. I can excuse verbal gaffes from the young lady who does not know English and doesn't know proper medical terminology, but you are a completely different story. You didn't do your homework on many levels. Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake. You merely proved that CSICOP is either inept or just a fake.

My hostility towards CSICOP is completely reasoned, and comes from my own thoughts and observations. I happen to agree with your critics, which doesn't make me a parrot.

I'm not even a supporter of Natasha. I merely would have liked to see a series of fair and reasonable tests that showed whether or not she could do what she claimed. CSICOP failed. Miserably.

Statistically speaking, four of seven is passing the test. No matter what your "higher bar" expectations were, or what your "agreement" of testing conditions was. Plus, I think you cheated by setting up a hostile and uncomfortable environment and changing the rules at the last minute.

Your attacks on my comments are actually pretty funny. Dark ages and all that. The twisting of my words is nice, too. I never said she saw auras; I said it might be something like that. Seeing some type of energy that she translates into an image of internal activities of the body. The girl may not even know what cellular means. You didn't bother to truly research all that, did you?

Continued below

Skolnick, I really enjoyed your attacks on word utilization, for instance the word “diagnose”. I use it in the sense “to recognize (as a disease) by signs” and the word “disease” in that definition as a “condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning” This IS what she claims to be able to do. You’re not a professor of English, obviously. This makes me wonder if she failed part of the test because she used the word “headache” instead of “migraine”. Very humorous.

You are insulting and demeaning. From your frequent use of the word "silly" and the comments on Russians who might think the appendix grows back. You reap what you sow.

Congratulations.

Everyone reading this should check this out this site, it starts to detail the flaws and distortions Mr. Skolnick and his lovely team inflicted on this experiment...Skolnick, now you can mention the word parrot, if you like...heh...

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina

On reflection, maybe I did say that I thought she saw auras. However. The real point I was trying to make was that she is young, uneducated and inexperienced. So, she may not have the proper tools to describe what she is seeing. To make sure of this would require research and detailed questioning of Natasha. CSICOP didn't do this properly. Instead of addressing that lack of preparation and investigation, we merely get the "Attack-of-the-insulting-Skolnick". A dark-ages b-movie. Heh....

This is hilarious. I just can't stop laughing at the way you took my words and twisted them. I like the "hired shill" part. I tell you, if they did hire me to rationalize her failure, I wouldn't be doing here on this forum. I'd be on The Learning Channel doing a show that debunks your pathetic tests, and I'd have a spot on CNN where I'd really set up a smackdown of CSICOP's inept and obviously biased "investigation". Yeah, get me professionally involved.

Right now I'm just a viewer that didn't think your methods or motivations were good.

Natasha may be fake or delusional, but you guys are a joke. I'm not certain when this first aired in the USA, but I just saw the show last night. When I first saw the title, I thought it was a b-movie from the '50s or something. Then when I saw it, I was appalled by the lack of professionalism on the part of the CSICOP members. Outrageous.

Archangel, I haven't twisted your words. That's the way they come out of your fingers. Merely repeating falsehoods, as you continue to do, will never make them any truer, nor will twisting the facts into even bigger knots make them easier to swallow. Anyone comparing your comments with the facts on record should see the kind of game you're playing. Like your criticizing us for not testing to see whether Natasha sees "auras," and then denying you said she may be seeing "auras." You demonstrate absolutely no respect for the truth.

A review of the written test protocols will show that your claim that the test had "two phases" is false:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/demkina.protocols.doc

There was only one test which consisted of one phase. The demonstration Natasha performed the day before the test was not part of our test. The fact that you would repeat the falsehood instead of admitting error hardly serves your credibility.

Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake."

Only badly misinformed or dishonest people have been making this accusation. From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything. It was a fact-gathering test to see if further study would be warranted. That you would keep repeating such demonstratable falsehoods incicates you have no interest in fair or honest discourse.

The rest of your baseless accusations have been answered here repeatedly. That you would simply ignore the answers is not surprising.

"There was only one test which consisted of one phase. "

I see. The first part with the five individuals, which I and many others took to be part of your test wasn't part of the test at all.

That's disappointing because I thought it was a far more legitimate test than the one performed with the seven individuals. It just makes CSICOP even less credible.

Plus, the documentary made it seem like it was part of the test. Which, I would think is a valid assumption based on the fact that you flew her to NYC to test her...then the first element isn't part of the test?

And. You did twist my words. In no way did I claim you were guilty because you failed to admit guilt. Dark ages, not..

[Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake." ]

It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie.

I guess you've been attacked so much on so many sides that your defensive posture is automatic and goes right towards the theory that everyone is a hired shill or some nonsense like that.

"From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything."

If you made it clear, then I wouldn't be questioning you on it. But, just saying something doesn't make it true. It appears to me that you designed the test to prove she was a fake - whether she was fake or real.

That's what it looked like. To me.

Deal with it.

My point to these posts is to let you know that in my eyes, the eyes of a television viewer who had just viewed "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes" and who had no preconceptions or bias one way or another about either Natasha or CSICOP, the analysis performed by CSICOP was lacking and unconvincing.

The events on the show made CSICOP look like they were either inept or so one-sided that they concocted an unfair test that was meant to disprove any claimed ability by Natasha, whether she had the ability or not.

My opinion has been further reinforced by my reading other opinions on the web, both for and against CSICOP.

I am adding my voice to those who have expressed disbelief in CSICOP's methods, conclusions and excuses. I'm adding my opinion that CSICOP is completely biased and did a hack job on the girl with the x-ray eyes.

CSICOP members are insulting and hostile towards anyone who questions thier validity and methods.

I have no hidden agenda, nor am I some superstitious clod from the dark ages. I just see a bunch of old men who formed a group called CSICOP that appears to have no true scientific validity or agenda, and even when they admit to their mistakes, they cannot see the impact of those mistakes or the appearance their group makes in the public eye.

This whether or not Natasha eyes are x-ray or normal.

Obviously, any true discussion around the scientific or social merits of the CSICOP investigation is impossible.

Ooo, maybe we can have a heated discussion on my utilixation of the word "impossible" in that paragraph...or the use of the word paragrapsh...maybe it was only a sentence. How foolish am I? Sheesh.

By golly, you do like the word "parrot" though, don't you? I just love that....

Wanna cracker?

Anyone comparing your comments with the facts on record should see the kind of game you're playing. Like your criticizing us for not testing to see whether Natasha sees "auras," and then denying you said she may be seeing "auras." You demonstrate absolutely no respect for the truth.

Ok, I admitted that I was wrong and said she was seeing Auras, now why don't you address the core of my comment, which was the lack of investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description. Instead of addressing that question, you merely attacked my use and definition of "Aura".

I don't think you know what she thought or claimed she was seeing.

And if you did investigate it...it certainly didn't come across that way.

Anyway, I'm done here. I've said my piece on this and will be awaiting the next appearance of CSICOP in the anals of lousy science.

Archangel repeats, [Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake." ]

"It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie."

Archangel, your lie here is by innuendo. Your statement dishonestly implies that we attempted to prove that Natasha is a fake. You've been told that this is false more than once. The written test rules and our published reports make it clear that a) our test was not designed to "prove" anything; and b) we never claimed Natasha is "a fake." Your persistance in posting these falsehoods disguised as "opinion" is only more evidence of your dishonesty.

Another falsehood you're now repeating is that we did not investigate Natasha's claims. You appear to just make things up (like your claim that she reads "auras"), but that's not how we conduct an investigation. The record shows we had researched published reports and also asked Natasha what she claims to be able to do. Furthermore, we submitted the exact test design to Natasha for her approval a week before she came to the United States to be tested and we received it. If we were not testing what Natasha claims to be able to do, she would have agreed to come and be tested by us.

Like all careful researchers, we built a public record trail. Like many of our critics, Archangel has nothing to respond with but innuendos, falsehoods, and appeals to the expertise of his own opinion.

Sorry to disappoint Archangel, but CSICOP will not likely join him "in the anals of lousy science." I doubt there's a more fitting place to put his comments and opinions.

"in the anals of lousy science."
You thought that was a typo? Nope. Purely intentional. Just like your anal-ysis of Natasha and your parroted responses. You merely show yourself to be the hack that you are.

I have to personally laugh at your persistence that I'm "lying" and telling "falsehoods" by presenting my opinion. I'm not saying anything by innuendo - I'm OUT AND OUT SAYING DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY THAT IN MY HONEST OPINION, I BELIEVE CSICOP INTENTIONALLY SET UP THE TEST IN A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO PROVE NATASHA IS A FAKE. No innuendo, it's my direct opinion. Not a falsehood, 'cause I'm not lying, you dope. You may not agree with it, and it may not even be true, but because it's my real opinion, it's not a falsehood. Your consistent comment that you've already addressed this and said it's true has done nothing to prove that it is true. A falsehood is not something that's merely incorrect or wrong, it's a lie. I'm not lying or telling a falsehood when I say that it appears to me that CSICOP was doing their best to make this girl fail. My 12 year old niece could set up a better test than did CSICOP.

I think YOU are the liar when you claim that you weren't trying to prove her fake.

Further, you performed a very superficial investigation into Natasha's claims, any reputable scientist would throw your methodology and conclusions out the window.

Why would a reputable scientist be jousting with people on this forum? Makes no sense. Either you're not Skolnick or you're the hack I believe you to be.

Anyway, you appear to be just a troll. I've gotta stop feeding the troll.

Although I rarely address internet Trolls, let me add to Archangel's comment:
[lack of a "proper and in-depth" investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description.]

Researching "published reports" and the superficial questioning of Natasha performed was not a correct or complete methodology for any scientific investigation.

It does not appear that any true or proper in-depth direct questioning of the subject was performed by CSICOP to either design the test, or to find out the details about what Natasha was claiming to see. In reality, CSICOP mainly relied on hearsay and information from a third party, Monica Garnsey. From the documentary, I am quite unsure as to why the researchers didn't understand why the subject couldn't see through a cloth hanging in front of the subjects. This is only one example. What does it mean when she uses the word "concentrate" what does it mean when she says she sees a the cellular level? Did she even say that to them, I didn’t see it in the documentary. What is she seeing when she says she gets a snapshot internal image that is “colorful”? Archangel may be right about her seeing auras, but we don't know that because CSICOP did a half-baked job.

If the test was meant to look for x-ray vision, why not use a Geiger counter? She would have to be generating or receiving x-rays, eh?

Joking aside, and in essence, the researchers failed to fully take into account the available data about Natasha's vision, both its scope and its limitations.

It was apparent that the questions asked by CSICOP were merely to the point of finding fault and something they could ridicule.

CSICOP effectively called Natasha a fake, even to the point of making fun of her, so I don't know why you would claim that “b) we never claimed Natasha is "a fake."” Clearly, that was the implied message, or "innuendo" from the laughing dogs of CSICOP.

"we submitted the exact test design to Natasha for her approval a week before she came to the United States to be tested and we received it"

Perhaps. But then you changed it when she got there. You cheated and manipulated her. Very shameful to watch how you treated her. I'm ashamed that you did this under the auspices of the United States and New York City. But I digress. Changing the test to include things that Natasha clearly stated were beyond her ability, such as the missing appendix and the resected esophagus were reprehensible. Leaving these two items in completely invalidates the test as well as the professionalism of the researchers.

"If we were not testing what Natasha claims to be able to do, she would have agreed to come and be tested by us."

It is not the subject's responsibility to make sure the researchers are testing the proper things; it's the complete and total responsibility of the researchers. Being able to bully or “fast talk” a test subject into an agreement does not in any way mitigate the responsibility of the researchers, and it's shameful besides. Just because she "agreed" to it, doesn't make you right.

CSICOP did not test what Natasha claimed she could do.

Clearly, there has been a lack of true scientific protocol and even civilized behavior on the part of CSICOP. (CSICOP insulted the girl, those who refute CSICOP’s claims and even Russians in general). This poorly constructed event has caused at least one of their members enough professional discomfort to be much more cautious because the failures seriously called into account his credentials as a scientist, very concerning to the University at which he is currently employed. I will enjoy following up with University boards on this very issue.

I like the "anals of lousy science" This is exactly where CSICOP has placed themselves. Both in the minds of the general public and true professionals.

A very clear and helpful analysis has been performed by Prof Brian Josephson at
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

I don't usually stoop to name calling, but I have to admit that this skolnick character fits the description to an absolute T.

A Troll:
Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The more attention the troll's activities draw from users, the more persistent the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Interestingly enough, this "troll-like" behavior seems to apply to the entire CSICOP contingent that appeared on "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes"

Facinating.

One point to add to my earlier remark:

?the researchers failed to fully take into account the available data about Natasha's vision, both its scope and its limitations."

Scope, limitations and functionality. And the understanding thereof.

"Uncle Bob" appears to be the author of an online "study," which contains virtually all the same false and defamatory remarks. Like that author, "Uncle Bob" makes things up -- like his claim that we "cheated" Natasha, that we "insulted" and "made fun of her," and that we "changed the test when she got there." He even had the to post his "study" with the claim that I had reviewed it and that he incorporated my suggested changes. And like him, "Uncle Bob" is a shameless liar. And the most shameless of his lies is his claim that my colleague is now in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct. "Uncle Bob" appears to think that because he's is Brazil, he cannot be sued for libel.

Troll! Yes, askolnick! Thank you for proving that you are indeed an Internet Troll! This is exactly the behavior we defined earlier! It matches almost all the Troll qualities, except for humor. You provided a completely predictable response! I knew Archangel wouldn't steer me wrong. This is actually marvelous, because I've had no direct dealings with a true Troll before. What fun! Troll!

Additionally, this illustrates the true depth of the research and analytical skills of askolnick, which clearly and undeniably shows that askolnick has no investigative or analytical skills, and has absolutely no feel or talent for making a conclusion from the facts given. Exactly the same poor showing as in the case of Natasha.

This is a truly remarkable showcase of the half-baked investigative skills of this man.

Wrong person, wrong target, wrong country, wrong conclusion and someone else's study. Truly powerful investigative skills! Hah!

I'd take credit for it if I wrote it, because I completely and totally agree with everything it states.

I was very curious to see how Trollish your response would be, and I'm not at all disappointed.

Thanks for the excellent laugh. Troll.

Oh, and obviously everyone should read the article I posted earlier, it must hit home like a ton of bricks to Mr. Trollnick.

Gee, I kinda like feeding the Troll.