About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.

The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.

Web Hoax Museum

Part 1

CORRECTING SOME ADITIONAL "MISTAKES" FROM A "ASKOLNICK"

I am not going to check everything that askolnick said in his very many postings. I took a look at the now sixteen pages of this thread about Natasha Demkina, and I want to comment now only on a few "problems" with two postings from askolnick. Sometime later, perhaps even today, I will begin to summarize the top problems in Csicop's (and appendixes') investigation on Natasha.

First Message (my comments will begin with ###):

Posted by askolnick on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:44 PM
"Uncle Bob" appears to be the author of an online "study," which contains virtually all the same false and defamatory remarks.

### Please, askolnick, point out a single false or defamatory remark and it will be immediately corrected.

Like that author, "Uncle Bob" makes things up

### Again, anything that you prove that I made up will be immediately corrected, with the due apologies.

-- like his claim that we "cheated" Natasha,

### Quote exactly what I said, so that we can begin the reviewing process right now.

Part 2

that we "insulted" and "made fun of her,"

### Again, quote me. Let's get started.

and that we "changed the test when she got there."

### Quote me! But I did say, and I did prove, that you violeted your own protocols in very many ways (this is even worse than changing the test). The very title of your page about Natasha in your CSMMH site is a violation of the protocols. It reads: "The Girl with Very Normal Eyes". You claimed in the protocols that your test could not yield this kind of conclusion. And yet you have come to this conclusion and insist upon spreading this all over the world.

He even had the to post his "study" with the claim that I had reviewed

### Did I say it? Where? Quote me!

it and that he incorporated my suggested changes.

### Yes I did incorporate. But not your "suggested changes". I never said that. I incorporated your feedbacks. Quote me, please. Do not hallucinate over what I said. In fact I got to see problems in Natasha's alledged powers in part due to your description of how things happened.

And like him, "Uncle Bob" is a shameless liar.

### If I am a liar, show a single lie in what I said. I am challenging you. The least that I garantee is that it will be immediately corrected with due apologies. As to the mistakes and distortions that the four of you (Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell, Skolnick) have committed in the Natasha Issue that I, and others, have pointed out to you, none have been corrected. And, as it seems, none will...

Part 3


And the most shameless of his lies is his claim that my colleague is now in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct.

### I believe you may be referring to something "Uncle Bob" said. If not, I do not know what you are talking about. I do not know of any colleague of yours that might be 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.

### Someone warned you that you can check with the forum owner if the IP of Uncle Bob is a Brazilian one. Do that please. And check mine too. Anyway, anyone anywhere can be sued for libel (both my parents are lawyers; my mother now deceased, actually). The only pre-requisite for this suing is the libel itself. Show the libel then. It is a challenge from me. And a demand!

Second Message (again, my comments start with ###)

Posted by askolnick on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:46 AM
Charybdis, my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira. Siqueira claims to be a "microbiologist," although he admitted in an email that he never worked as a biologist.

### I have already commented on that. Unfortunately I live in a country where job positions are not easy to find. I presently (from 1999) work as an English teacher in primary public schools in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Such is life...

A year ago, Siqueria trolled for answers to questions about our test. He then distorted and rewrote our "quotes"

### Show a single instance of distortion or of rewriting of your quotes. Show yourself...

and disseminated them in a crude attempt to discredit us.

### Do you mean to say that I "raped the objectivity of scientific method?"... . My God! Never thought you would plagiarize Victor Zammit...
http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/Nov2004.html

Part 4

He eventually posted a collection of libelous statements on his web site,

### Show a single libel then...

which he calls a scientific "study." He even had audacity to claim that I had reviewed a final draft 10 days before he published his "study"

### Oh God, where the hell did I say that? What I said is that I sent it to all of you. I can't even know if you received it. I do not have a crystal ball of divination.

and that he had included my "feedback" in the final "publication."

### The feedbacks that came along the way were incorporated. Of course I did not incorporate the lies that you told me (that Natasha could spot molecules from afar, for example...).

None of this is true. Long before that, I completely stopped all communications with him upon discovering

### He "discovered" it because I myself sent the email to him at the very same time that I sent it to Natasha's fellows and to Discovery Channel's fellows... He should at least give me the due credit for this "brilliant discovery of his"...

that he was reworking our quotes and disseminating them in an attempt to discredit us. Julio Siqueira is to truth as a uremic dog is to a fire hydrant. You can read his libelous document here and see for yourself why I think he and "Archangel" are one and the same:

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

### Well, at least he directed people to my link. That is why I say that Skolnick is not completely a lost case. Let's have some faith, guys. He only needs a helping hand

Best Regards for everybody!

Julio Siqueira
________________

I'm not Archangel and Unclebob either...
But I do know that you're a troll, Andrew.

Julio, thanks for joining this board and posting an excellent rebuttal to all the misstatements and distortions posted by Skolnick. You bring up truly excellent points, each of which needs to be addressed by Skolnick. But where has he gone?

We have been anxiously awaiting a response from Skolnick to your commentary, but all we hear so far is a vast silence.

The man that Skolnick so crudely insulted is here on the boards, putting forth a calm and civilized discourse on the flaws of the csicop testing of Natasha and the distortions and accusations made by Skolnick on this very board, but where is the cowardly Skolnick?

Vanished.

Perhaps he is giving his acidic tongue a much-needed rest.


Perhaps Julio is so on-target that there's nothing Skolnick can even say. Well, I'm sure there's a typo or two Skolnick could insult..heh..

This girl told me that I had a tumor on yes my penis. I was quite taken away. I thought it was just a zit, because I could pop it. So I went to the doctor and he confirmed it. It was a benign toomer, caused by an infection of a hair follicle.

So I guess that means that she saw my hang down.
I mean how did she know that I had something on my p. I had clothes on. She looked me up and down. then said "You have a toomer on your, (then pointed to that dirction.)" I don't know weird.

Just want to let everybody here know that any of you can "develop" x-ray vision, just take a 2 day course like the Silva Method and you will see.

The tests to Natasha are flawed only because she was put in a very stressful situation. You need to enter a relaxed state to access information such as "x-ray" vision. This is known as alpha level. Natasha, as a natural psychic don't know techniques to get to alpha at will and the fact that she took very long to make her diagnostics indicate that. She ended up guessing by fustration instead of trusting her instincts.

A natural psychic such as Natasha must be allowed to perform in conditions as close as posible to the ones they are used to, so they can relax and reach the level of mind required to access these "extra" senses we all have.

S. Perez said:

"Just want to let everybody here know that any of you can "develop" x-ray vision, just take a 2 day course like the Silva Method and you will see."

I think what you have said here is complete nonsense. If you sincerely believe it, however, I think you should apply to win the JREF Challenge. If you are able to show that you have those powers under controlled conditions, you would win one million dollars. That sounds pretty good, right? I respectfully direct you to randi.org where you will find the details about how you can apply for the Challenge. Good luck.

Wow, I can't believe I can win a million dollars so easy. For me clarivoydance was a nice side effect from taking the silva method course. I just wanted to increase my concentration and learn to take 10 minute power-naps.

V. Perez said:

"Wow, I can't believe I can win a million dollars so easy. For me clarivoydance was a nice side effect from taking the silva method course. I just wanted to increase my concentration and learn to take 10 minute power-naps."

So, you WILL be applying for the JREF Challenge? Terrific. Please keep us informed as to the status of your application. Thanks.

Of course I am aplying. I am not very clear on the procedure to apply thought. Am I supposed to print and sign that form and attach a letter indicating my "powers"?

Just to prevent missunderstandings I will posting copies of all interchanges between me and JREF to a blog. I will also post all recorded phone conversations. I will post the link when is ready.

Let's see if I've got "powers". This is going to be fun.

Does any of you know how to contact Natasha Demkina?

Does she have a website/email or regular mail address where to contact her or her agent?

please email me to spectro at gmail

Thanks

Hi everybody,

I would like to congratulate all of you for the very good messages on this forum. As for Randi's prize, it might be interesting to take a look at the links below:

A scanned copy of a letter from Randi to an applicant:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

The report about this letter:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

Randi talks about this issue in his website:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

Radi acknowleges that the content of his letter is veridical, and not a forgery:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=6be76feb66bf37ca048a6f88cd5a021b&threadid=19874&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Randi stresses that what he did was proper...:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
(this last link is the same as the one above, in his website).

Despite these moments of "bad temper", Randi has played an important role in fighting dangerous beliefs. But he has accumulated many sins while fighting this righteous war...

Julio
______________

I am posting again the link to the scanned letter. If again it does not work, it can be accessed by the parent link "randi-retreats" in the alternativescience site (link in the previous message)

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

Julio
____________

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

Did not work again. The link should be www alternativescience.com, and then randi followed (without space) by the percentage simbol and then followed (without space) by 27s-letter.htm

Julio
___________

Julio, I found out the same after just reading through their applicant's log. If a claim has the slightest chance to win the challenge, they twist and bend the protocols to discourage the applicant. If that doesn't work they start insulting to provoke you so they can dismiss your claim.

I think I will be hiring an attorney to make sure my claim is given a fair chance.

(Part 1 of 3):
Sorry it has taken me so long to comment on Julio Siqueira's scurrilous attacks. I've had much more important things to attend to first. Correcting the false accusations of characters like Siqueira is a job no more gratifying than shoveling sewage up hill. But someone has to do it.

On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background. I spent a great deal of time patiently answering his questions and trying to correct his many misconceptions and false presumptions. I didn't realize that at least some of those errors were deliberate attempts to troll for material that he could misrepresent in a campaign to discredit us. It took me two more weeks to see through his game.

Siqueira claims to be a scientist who is dedicated to exposing the "lies" of leading critics of paranormal claims. However, Siqueira is no scientist. He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.

On Nov. 17, 2004, I began to suspect that Siqueira thinks words can mean anything he wants them to mean when he told me: "Hi Andrew, I said I would have no more questions. But I hope you understand that no more actually means 'lots more.'" Although English is not his native tongue, Siqueira is quite good using word games to create "evidence" to support his "conclusions" that outspoken skeptics are "liars," "scoundrels," "crooks," and worse.

For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."

To my astonishment and anger, Siqueira altered my answer and sent the false information to Ms. Demkina's defenders. He deleted any mention about her chair being about two meters from the subjects and, by deceptively selecting words to quote, he claimed that I had said Ms. Demkina "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and "sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them."

(Part 2 of 3):
Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.

Another example is Siqueria's blatant rewriting of a statement made by Prof. Richard Wiseman. If you listen to the Discovery Channel program, you will hear Dr. Wiseman telling the Russian translator:

"So if she scored these two [conditions] wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct [pointing to the remaining test cards], we would still consider that a success."

Which is obviously a truthful statement. To accuse Dr. Wiseman of deception in his "analysis," Siqueira rewrote the quote, trusting that his readers won't bother to check:

"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'. Well, to begin with, this is technically untrue, for there would actually be three people from which she could swap wrong diagnosis: resected esophagus, removed appendix, and none condition. She could have said that the "none condition" had resected esophagus, that the "resected esophagus" had missing appendix, and that the "missing appendix" had none condition, thus making three misses due to this poor design, due to this lack of direct talk to the claimant, and due to this violation of protocols. Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." .

The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.

Here's another example of his alteration of quoted material in order to accuse others of dishonesty. This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:

"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: 'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."

Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:

"If you did it my way, I would have probably guessed not five but seven of them."

Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").

(Part 3 of 3):
The next time the program is broadcast, listen carefully to see how shamefully Siqueira employs misquotations in his campaign to deceive, defame, and vilify.

Another of his many deceptions: At the beginning of one "analysis," Siqueira says:

"The content of this text was presented to the three parties involved (i.e. CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated, and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004."

Email records show that this is also false. I never sent Siqueira "feedback" on his "analysis." I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21, after discovering that he was trolling for comments which he could misquote to use in a malicious and dishonest campaign.

Virtually every word Siqueira has written here and in his so-called analysis is a distortion, a misquotation, or an outright falsehood. If requested, I'll post more examples of his dishonesty.

What's Siqueira's motivation for this deception? Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims -- which he tries to hide while pretending to be a dispassionate "researcher." While addressing me in his email as "Dear Friend," he expressed what he really felt to others -- as in this email to a fellow Brazilian dated November 24, 2004:

"That Skolnick moron, after I peed on him yesterday, admitted that he 'had realized I hadn't watched the show' ... It's not unreasonable [to ask a critic to watch the documentary] for those who are stupid. What must have happened is that [Skolnick] must have got pressure from that Wiseman bastard ... I have already followed [the suggestions of Hyman's 'Proper Criticism']. You and Skolnick can't read. You maybe because you are stupid. Skolnick almost certainly because he's a scoundrel [por canalhice]".

In emails and bulletin board postings, Siqueira has shown utter contempt for leading skeptics. He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus." He says psychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore is "scientifically dishonest." He dismisses James Randi as a "scoundrel" and calls Prof. Richard Wiseman "a big crook" and "bastard." It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics and to expose us as "liars," "scoundrels," "bastards," and "crooks."

By so doing, he has only exposed himself.