The Girl With X-Ray Eyes
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.Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Feb 03, 2004 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 710
Category: Health/Medicine
Category: Health/Medicine
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 25 of 36 pages « First < 23 24 25 26 27 > Last »
Part 5
Skolnick continues, unscientifically (anwering Jon):
“So you are right that the study by itself settles nothing. However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more ‘supernatural’ is going on than simple ‘cold reading.”’
Jon, just try and ask Skolnick what is this “a lot of other evidence” that he talks about... You will see that it spells: “NOTHING”. I will even add this quote from Skolnick to my pages on this matter. This man is clearly on the verge of hallucination. As I have said many times, their test is not negligible. Its feedbacks do have value, and must be taken into any attempt to understand the Natasha Phenomenon. For example, I now (after having seen the documentary, almost a year ago) am confident that Natasha indeed uses cold reading. What I am not confident is that she uses ONLY cold reading. And topmost, I am confident that her phenomenon really deserves further better studies, much more because of social reasons (public health issues, and the possibility that she is indeed doing harm to some people, which is something that is going to shock her enormously later on if she herself discovers this to be the case) than for purely “scientific” reasons.
Archangel said:
“Your last post is priceless, skolnick. It’s unbelievable that you have the unmitigated gall to put charges of misrepresentation on the shoulders of the Discovery Channel. That’s a colossal load of absolute crap. You, Wiseman and Hyman all misrepresented the test yourselves, and you continue to do so.”
It was bad indeed that the documantary said their study (i.e. CSICOP’s test) would be a definite one. However, weirdly enough, that was precisely the way the researchers treated the whole thing from then on... So, instead of really being a serious mistake from the part of the documentary, it ended up being a precognition! Maybe the paranormal exists after all
Best Regards to all,
Julio Siqueira
___________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Skolnick continues, unscientifically (anwering Jon):
“So you are right that the study by itself settles nothing. However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more ‘supernatural’ is going on than simple ‘cold reading.”’
Jon, just try and ask Skolnick what is this “a lot of other evidence” that he talks about... You will see that it spells: “NOTHING”. I will even add this quote from Skolnick to my pages on this matter. This man is clearly on the verge of hallucination. As I have said many times, their test is not negligible. Its feedbacks do have value, and must be taken into any attempt to understand the Natasha Phenomenon. For example, I now (after having seen the documentary, almost a year ago) am confident that Natasha indeed uses cold reading. What I am not confident is that she uses ONLY cold reading. And topmost, I am confident that her phenomenon really deserves further better studies, much more because of social reasons (public health issues, and the possibility that she is indeed doing harm to some people, which is something that is going to shock her enormously later on if she herself discovers this to be the case) than for purely “scientific” reasons.
Archangel said:
“Your last post is priceless, skolnick. It’s unbelievable that you have the unmitigated gall to put charges of misrepresentation on the shoulders of the Discovery Channel. That’s a colossal load of absolute crap. You, Wiseman and Hyman all misrepresented the test yourselves, and you continue to do so.”
It was bad indeed that the documantary said their study (i.e. CSICOP’s test) would be a definite one. However, weirdly enough, that was precisely the way the researchers treated the whole thing from then on... So, instead of really being a serious mistake from the part of the documentary, it ended up being a precognition! Maybe the paranormal exists after all
Best Regards to all,
Julio Siqueira
___________________
Hi Archangel,
Good posts from you.
I think it would be nice if CSICOP/CSMMH could do some more tests with Natasha. They would have to clear a bit the relationship wounds, and I would strongly advise the venture to be a joint venture with people like Dean Radin and Stanley Krippner, etc. But there is indeed a social need out there for it.
Their decision, by itself, is not an unreasonable one. The cutoff value of five is, I think, acceptable. What is unacceptable is the so many violations of protocol from their part, especially rule 25...
It turns out that the jury is still out as to Natasha's power or quackery. However, the verdict has already been issued concerning CSICOP's (and appendixess) honesty...
By Julio
________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 10:39 AM
Good posts from you.
I think it would be nice if CSICOP/CSMMH could do some more tests with Natasha. They would have to clear a bit the relationship wounds, and I would strongly advise the venture to be a joint venture with people like Dean Radin and Stanley Krippner, etc. But there is indeed a social need out there for it.
Their decision, by itself, is not an unreasonable one. The cutoff value of five is, I think, acceptable. What is unacceptable is the so many violations of protocol from their part, especially rule 25...
It turns out that the jury is still out as to Natasha's power or quackery. However, the verdict has already been issued concerning CSICOP's (and appendixess) honesty...
By Julio
________________
Wow. Thank you, Julio for the fine postings, and for the compliments.
I can't tell you how great it was and how good it made me feel to read your statement Yes, Archangel, YOU speak like a scientist.
Thank you!
And, like I said earlier, you are very good at getting to the core details and addressing the issues, thanks for developing and detailing the issues with skolnick's misrepresentations that I was trying to point out. Good work, as always!
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 11:47 AM
I can't tell you how great it was and how good it made me feel to read your statement Yes, Archangel, YOU speak like a scientist.
Thank you!
And, like I said earlier, you are very good at getting to the core details and addressing the issues, thanks for developing and detailing the issues with skolnick's misrepresentations that I was trying to point out. Good work, as always!
And just to point out one of Skolnick's little misleading tricks. He will address in fulsome detail a small but true side issue mistake, like the one I made about the test rules. But, he will ignore and not address the core and truly relevant problems identified by myself and others (notably Julio).
It’s actually an interesting ploy skolnick uses. I wrote about twenty-five or so valid criticisms of skolnick’s statements and made a single mistake which had nothing to do with the other twenty-four points, but Skolnick took that one mistake and made it seem like all the other points I made were invalid as well, all without addressing those other points at all. A clever trick, one he used with Natasha. If skolnick used this same method on his “investigation” of Natasha, he would have to throw out all of his arguments as well as the results and conclusions drawn from the testing and analysis. Using his own “trick,” he wouldn’t be able to defend or explain any aspect of his Natasha Demkina investigation.
Additionally and falsely, skolnick claims not to address most issues because he doesn't reply to the "dishonest". But I'm sure that everyone sees that that this isn't true at all, he just uses that as an excuse not to truly address those things that would show that Skolnick, csicop and csmmh are either liars or inept - or both.
I would like to see Skolnick truly address each one of Julio's observations on the flaws and inconsistencies of the Natasha Demkina testing, analysis and conclusions by skolnick/hyman/wiseman. But you will never see a thorough answer by skolnick because an honest answer would probably ruin skolnick's career and reputation. Early retirement.
Skolnick did a half-assed job with the Demkina testing because he felt he could use ridicule, innuendo and insults to fill in the gaps. He's beginning to find out that this wasn't enough for the American Public. But, he just makes them all "Natasha supporters." I find it interesting that anyone who questions the methods and motivations of csicop-csmmh is merely dismissed as "close-minded" or a "Natasha supporter" - not to mention subject to insulting attacks. That attitude is, to say the very least, well, "close-minded."
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 11:52 AM
It’s actually an interesting ploy skolnick uses. I wrote about twenty-five or so valid criticisms of skolnick’s statements and made a single mistake which had nothing to do with the other twenty-four points, but Skolnick took that one mistake and made it seem like all the other points I made were invalid as well, all without addressing those other points at all. A clever trick, one he used with Natasha. If skolnick used this same method on his “investigation” of Natasha, he would have to throw out all of his arguments as well as the results and conclusions drawn from the testing and analysis. Using his own “trick,” he wouldn’t be able to defend or explain any aspect of his Natasha Demkina investigation.
Additionally and falsely, skolnick claims not to address most issues because he doesn't reply to the "dishonest". But I'm sure that everyone sees that that this isn't true at all, he just uses that as an excuse not to truly address those things that would show that Skolnick, csicop and csmmh are either liars or inept - or both.
I would like to see Skolnick truly address each one of Julio's observations on the flaws and inconsistencies of the Natasha Demkina testing, analysis and conclusions by skolnick/hyman/wiseman. But you will never see a thorough answer by skolnick because an honest answer would probably ruin skolnick's career and reputation. Early retirement.
Skolnick did a half-assed job with the Demkina testing because he felt he could use ridicule, innuendo and insults to fill in the gaps. He's beginning to find out that this wasn't enough for the American Public. But, he just makes them all "Natasha supporters." I find it interesting that anyone who questions the methods and motivations of csicop-csmmh is merely dismissed as "close-minded" or a "Natasha supporter" - not to mention subject to insulting attacks. That attitude is, to say the very least, well, "close-minded."
Concerning the message from Kentaro Mori,
“First, contrary to what you claim, I answered all the questions you made to me about the Japanese TV show. Find one question you made me about the show and I didn't answer, otherwise, acknowledge you lied.”
The impression that I have, after trying to locate those emails, is that: first, you sent an email to me about that on May 17, 2005. Second, I sent a reply to you (a copy of which I no longer have) on May 23, 2005 (I got this date from your following email). And Finally, you sent a reply on May 25, 2005. What I said to you then was “If this is a documentary that came out AFTER the one done by Discovery Channel, and if it adds information to the case, then I am interested in it.”. And what I said to you here now (in the last days) was:
1- “But you have to describe the program better, which so far you have not done (since last May, when you first reported to me this TV show). It seems that skeptics do not like to do homeworks...”
2- “I asked you about it last May and you did not give these feedbacks (i.e. the diagnosis of liver cancer using only the photo). No that you gave them (I made a mistake. The correct phrase is: ‘Now that you gave them.’), I can talk about them. And I will. (of course I could not have seen this documentary, since I am not in Japan). In my next message.”
3- “If you had told me this last May, of course I would have commented on it.”
Now you tell me, you little rot-MacSushi eater: where the hell did I say that you had not answered a question that I adressed you?
“Second. Contrary to what you claim, you certainly could have seen the Japanese TV show, even though you're not in Japan. Do you know why? Because I have warned you about it. Did you try to watch this show? I don't know. I do know you never asked me if I could help you to have access to this show. You didn't even ask me if I recorded it. Which I did. Acknowledge you lied, and could have seen the Japanese TV show if you just tried to, because I have warned you about it months ago”
Mori, sorry for being so... direct (and blunt), but try and understand something: I do not want to talk to you. I don’t want to ask you anything, or talk to you about anything. Not BEFORE you undo the terrible thing that you have done. My desire was not to have even answered that email from you last May, since I warned you that I would not be taking your emails until you undid your misdoings (and I must add that you did not betray me only once: you did it three times... You St. Peter reincarnated). In my answer (last May) I clearly said that I was interested in further relevant information. You sent another email and I did not reply. I thought that was all the relevant information that you had to give. If it was not, I will take the new information that you bring now.
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 12:15 PM
“First, contrary to what you claim, I answered all the questions you made to me about the Japanese TV show. Find one question you made me about the show and I didn't answer, otherwise, acknowledge you lied.”
The impression that I have, after trying to locate those emails, is that: first, you sent an email to me about that on May 17, 2005. Second, I sent a reply to you (a copy of which I no longer have) on May 23, 2005 (I got this date from your following email). And Finally, you sent a reply on May 25, 2005. What I said to you then was “If this is a documentary that came out AFTER the one done by Discovery Channel, and if it adds information to the case, then I am interested in it.”. And what I said to you here now (in the last days) was:
1- “But you have to describe the program better, which so far you have not done (since last May, when you first reported to me this TV show). It seems that skeptics do not like to do homeworks...”
2- “I asked you about it last May and you did not give these feedbacks (i.e. the diagnosis of liver cancer using only the photo). No that you gave them (I made a mistake. The correct phrase is: ‘Now that you gave them.’), I can talk about them. And I will. (of course I could not have seen this documentary, since I am not in Japan). In my next message.”
3- “If you had told me this last May, of course I would have commented on it.”
Now you tell me, you little rot-MacSushi eater: where the hell did I say that you had not answered a question that I adressed you?
“Second. Contrary to what you claim, you certainly could have seen the Japanese TV show, even though you're not in Japan. Do you know why? Because I have warned you about it. Did you try to watch this show? I don't know. I do know you never asked me if I could help you to have access to this show. You didn't even ask me if I recorded it. Which I did. Acknowledge you lied, and could have seen the Japanese TV show if you just tried to, because I have warned you about it months ago”
Mori, sorry for being so... direct (and blunt), but try and understand something: I do not want to talk to you. I don’t want to ask you anything, or talk to you about anything. Not BEFORE you undo the terrible thing that you have done. My desire was not to have even answered that email from you last May, since I warned you that I would not be taking your emails until you undid your misdoings (and I must add that you did not betray me only once: you did it three times... You St. Peter reincarnated). In my answer (last May) I clearly said that I was interested in further relevant information. You sent another email and I did not reply. I thought that was all the relevant information that you had to give. If it was not, I will take the new information that you bring now.
Part 2
“I once again made clear it was a Japanese TV show. You finally understood, but you never asked me again about it. Acknowledge you lie when you say you would ‘of course’ comment on it, because you didn't.”
Of course I would comment on the ability to diagnose liver cancer from a photo of a japanese man (who, by the way, look all alike, which makes the feat ever so more supernatural). That is what I said. Got it?
“I suspect your reply to these simple facts may take the approach of accusing me of not helping you. Just like you accused me of not doing my homework just because I haven't told you everything that happened in the Japanese TV show. Even though you did not ask me.”
I do not want you to help me, even though I have the highest regards for your work as a skeptic (in you expertice field: ufology). And I don’t want it because of personal relationship matters. But if, nevertheless, you “help me” (that is, bring in some information regarding Natasha), of course it will be dealt with. I have already commented on the feedback you brought to us. What more do you want?
“You see, out of the blue, and after you have insulted me numerous times, to several people, I thought you would find very important to know about Natasha's latest claim. So, I emailed you about it.”
Yes, I valued that. But I would value a million times more if you told me, even only privately, “I am sorry, Julio, for saying that your offences to skeptics paralleled those comparisons of them to KKK members; sorry, Julio, for saying that you called Wiseman a Bastard (which implies an offense to his progenitors, illegitimate birth, when actually your offenses are restricted to the individual, and even so in a non-strawman manner, and you even acknowledge the value of these guys as human beings and even as scientists - and you offended him in our private emails, not in public); sorry, Julio, for saying that you called Natasha a quack (when, instead, the humorous remark you did in our private emails was using a term that did not imply necessarily conscious fraudulent conduct from her part); sorry, Julio for saying that you were not a serious person just because you were criticizing nasty Richard Dawkins; and sorry, Julio, for mocking you at your back the first time that you were bitterly ridiculed and unfairly expelled from our skeptic forum (SBCR).
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 12:15 PM
“I once again made clear it was a Japanese TV show. You finally understood, but you never asked me again about it. Acknowledge you lie when you say you would ‘of course’ comment on it, because you didn't.”
Of course I would comment on the ability to diagnose liver cancer from a photo of a japanese man (who, by the way, look all alike
, which makes the feat ever so more supernatural). That is what I said. Got it?“I suspect your reply to these simple facts may take the approach of accusing me of not helping you. Just like you accused me of not doing my homework just because I haven't told you everything that happened in the Japanese TV show. Even though you did not ask me.”
I do not want you to help me, even though I have the highest regards for your work as a skeptic (in you expertice field: ufology). And I don’t want it because of personal relationship matters. But if, nevertheless, you “help me” (that is, bring in some information regarding Natasha), of course it will be dealt with. I have already commented on the feedback you brought to us. What more do you want?
“You see, out of the blue, and after you have insulted me numerous times, to several people, I thought you would find very important to know about Natasha's latest claim. So, I emailed you about it.”
Yes, I valued that. But I would value a million times more if you told me, even only privately, “I am sorry, Julio, for saying that your offences to skeptics paralleled those comparisons of them to KKK members; sorry, Julio, for saying that you called Wiseman a Bastard (which implies an offense to his progenitors, illegitimate birth, when actually your offenses are restricted to the individual, and even so in a non-strawman manner, and you even acknowledge the value of these guys as human beings and even as scientists - and you offended him in our private emails, not in public); sorry, Julio, for saying that you called Natasha a quack (when, instead, the humorous remark you did in our private emails was using a term that did not imply necessarily conscious fraudulent conduct from her part); sorry, Julio for saying that you were not a serious person just because you were criticizing nasty Richard Dawkins; and sorry, Julio, for mocking you at your back the first time that you were bitterly ridiculed and unfairly expelled from our skeptic forum (SBCR).
Part 3
“Of course, I could, from my part, once again try to direct things up towards a productive end and say that I could help you to watch the show. But enough is enough. If you didn't specifically ask me for help to see this show, I wouldn't do it. You didn't. You didn't even ask me about the specifics of the events I described.”
Bring the information that you consider relevant, and I will comment on it. I have already done it with the previous one. Wanna continue talking about that piece of information? Ok. We can go on. Don’t want it? Fine.
“So, you're indeed telling the truth when you acknowledge your aim is to attack CSMMH-CSICOP. And that's it.”
Yes, I am telling the truth. I try to do it most of the times, even though I know how to lie when necessary
Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
P.S.: leave the dark side of the force, and get back to true skepticism, Darth Kentaro Vader San!
As to Skolnick Sama (yes, Sama!), maybe there is still time for salvation for him too. Just take a look at the link below, and see what awsome beauty this man has managed to gather:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/
I bet there is plenty of such beauty all over his life too... (check his resume, and awards, for that!)
__________________________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 12:16 PM
“Of course, I could, from my part, once again try to direct things up towards a productive end and say that I could help you to watch the show. But enough is enough. If you didn't specifically ask me for help to see this show, I wouldn't do it. You didn't. You didn't even ask me about the specifics of the events I described.”
Bring the information that you consider relevant, and I will comment on it. I have already done it with the previous one. Wanna continue talking about that piece of information? Ok. We can go on. Don’t want it? Fine.
“So, you're indeed telling the truth when you acknowledge your aim is to attack CSMMH-CSICOP. And that's it.”
Yes, I am telling the truth. I try to do it most of the times, even though I know how to lie when necessary
Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
P.S.: leave the dark side of the force, and get back to true skepticism, Darth Kentaro Vader San!
As to Skolnick Sama (yes, Sama!), maybe there is still time for salvation for him too. Just take a look at the link below, and see what awsome beauty this man has managed to gather:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/
I bet there is plenty of such beauty all over his life too... (check his resume, and awards, for that!)
__________________________________
Skolnick said:
"Because of the disreputable effort to rewrite the history of CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program"
That's not what happened at all, there was nothing "disreputable" about it, it was a simple mistake on my part.
The real disreputable effort to rewrite the history of the tests is actually your doing when you try to use the test results as part of the basis to make a claim that you have enough "evidence" to show that Natasha has no supernatural powers. The test itself was inconclusive, and the other "evidence" you claim to have doesn't add any further proof for you to be able to make statements about Natasha having no powers and having "normal eyes.”
That is the real point I was making. My one error about the circumstances of further testing according to csicop rules doesn't negate that point, nor does it rise to the level of being "disreputable." That's just a bunch of your overblown rhetoric again, distracting from where the real disreputable actions have taken place - in your false and misleading statements.
You have no scientific basis whatsoever to conclude that Natasha has no powers and is some type of fake. Your comments claiming that you have enough evidence to support this conclusion is where the really disreputable acts lie. Then you have the gall to lay blame at the feet of the Discovery Channel, for saying that your study would be a definitive one. And as Julio points out, you weirdly and falsely treated the whole thing as “definitive” from that point on... So, instead of it really being a serious mistake from the part of the documentary, it ends up actually reflecting your final conclusions, that Natasha has “normal eyes.”
This all is beside the fact that the test itself was poorly designed and did not properly test for what Natasha claimed she could do. You did bad work all the way around, and then you use ridicule to fill the gaps! Ridiculous and unconvincing. Which is exactly why you can’t admit to it, that sort of “bad science” showing in public and on television would end your career and ruin your reputation…so you just continue attacking and trying to ridicule those who find the faults in your work – or finding reasons to ignore them altogether.
I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an “investigation” by csicop-csmmh. I think these CFI groups are only out to disprove the paranormal and would go to any lengths to hide or destroy any evidence of the paranormal, using ridicule and disinformation as regular tools of the trade.
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 02:47 PM
"Because of the disreputable effort to rewrite the history of CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program"
That's not what happened at all, there was nothing "disreputable" about it, it was a simple mistake on my part.
The real disreputable effort to rewrite the history of the tests is actually your doing when you try to use the test results as part of the basis to make a claim that you have enough "evidence" to show that Natasha has no supernatural powers. The test itself was inconclusive, and the other "evidence" you claim to have doesn't add any further proof for you to be able to make statements about Natasha having no powers and having "normal eyes.”
That is the real point I was making. My one error about the circumstances of further testing according to csicop rules doesn't negate that point, nor does it rise to the level of being "disreputable." That's just a bunch of your overblown rhetoric again, distracting from where the real disreputable actions have taken place - in your false and misleading statements.
You have no scientific basis whatsoever to conclude that Natasha has no powers and is some type of fake. Your comments claiming that you have enough evidence to support this conclusion is where the really disreputable acts lie. Then you have the gall to lay blame at the feet of the Discovery Channel, for saying that your study would be a definitive one. And as Julio points out, you weirdly and falsely treated the whole thing as “definitive” from that point on... So, instead of it really being a serious mistake from the part of the documentary, it ends up actually reflecting your final conclusions, that Natasha has “normal eyes.”
This all is beside the fact that the test itself was poorly designed and did not properly test for what Natasha claimed she could do. You did bad work all the way around, and then you use ridicule to fill the gaps! Ridiculous and unconvincing. Which is exactly why you can’t admit to it, that sort of “bad science” showing in public and on television would end your career and ruin your reputation…so you just continue attacking and trying to ridicule those who find the faults in your work – or finding reasons to ignore them altogether.
I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an “investigation” by csicop-csmmh. I think these CFI groups are only out to disprove the paranormal and would go to any lengths to hide or destroy any evidence of the paranormal, using ridicule and disinformation as regular tools of the trade.
I hope that Jon and anyone else reading this thread will check out Julio Siqueira’s website that details and debunks the CSICOP-CSMMH “investigation” into Natasha Demkina:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina
Prof Brian Josephson’s website is mentioned there as well:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/
Prof. Josephson won a Nobel Prize, but that hasn't kept Skolnick from rudely and aggressively insulting and demeaning the man. For shame.
The work of Skolnick, Hyman and Wiseman is seriously flawed. This does not mean that Natasha Demkina can do what she says, but the investigation shown on the Discovery Channel certainly does not prove that she cannot do what she claims.
The only thing the “investigation” shows is that one shouldn’t let CSICOP-CSMMH test to even see if one can tie a shoelace or not. Heh….
All humor aside, I believe CSICOP/CSMMH to be sorely lacking in their investigative skills, test preparation, and high-quality scientific analytical abilities. To fill the gaps in their investigation, they utilize ridicule, insults and misleading information. In doing this, they embarrass not only themselves but the entire scientific community.
Check out the level of Mr. Skolnick’s professional ridicule at his lovely and obsessive website:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/
Heck, just read back through the posts on this very forum and tell me what you think of Skolnick’s attacks and character assassination of Julio. I’d be embarrassed if I were Andrew Skolnick. I'd certainly be embarrassed to have worked with him.
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 08:11 PM
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina
Prof Brian Josephson’s website is mentioned there as well:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/
Prof. Josephson won a Nobel Prize, but that hasn't kept Skolnick from rudely and aggressively insulting and demeaning the man. For shame.
The work of Skolnick, Hyman and Wiseman is seriously flawed. This does not mean that Natasha Demkina can do what she says, but the investigation shown on the Discovery Channel certainly does not prove that she cannot do what she claims.
The only thing the “investigation” shows is that one shouldn’t let CSICOP-CSMMH test to even see if one can tie a shoelace or not. Heh….
All humor aside, I believe CSICOP/CSMMH to be sorely lacking in their investigative skills, test preparation, and high-quality scientific analytical abilities. To fill the gaps in their investigation, they utilize ridicule, insults and misleading information. In doing this, they embarrass not only themselves but the entire scientific community.
Check out the level of Mr. Skolnick’s professional ridicule at his lovely and obsessive website:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/
Heck, just read back through the posts on this very forum and tell me what you think of Skolnick’s attacks and character assassination of Julio. I’d be embarrassed if I were Andrew Skolnick. I'd certainly be embarrassed to have worked with him.
I just read this site for the first time. Very, very interesting. Thank you Professor Josephson for providing the link on your site!
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 08:20 PM
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm
Another "wow" for Prof. Josephson’s site. This quote from it hits on the exact point I was trying to make about the "inconclusive" test being unfairly and unjustly turned into "evidence" that Natasha couldn't do what she claimed:
"..a highly publicised test is carried out in a way that is unlikely to succeed, and the fact that it does not succeed is trumpeted loudly as if it were a highly significant result: a show dressed up to look like science.
It seems to me that the only correct conclusion to have come to in regard to the test is that it was inconclusive; no viewer of any intelligence would have felt that the fact that Natasha did not achieve 5 hits ('the score that the experimenters had set'), under the conditions obtaining at the test, meant much at all.
The three investigators saw fit to ignore the inconvenient statistics of the outcome, and to talk instead as if the outcome of the test had refuted Natasha's claims, which it clearly did not. Doing so was not only unscientific but, under the circumstances, unethical."
Thank you Brian, for the excellent information. Everyone should read your site.
Skolnick, you should just pack up your trumpet and go home.
Posted by Archangel on Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 08:29 PM
"..a highly publicised test is carried out in a way that is unlikely to succeed, and the fact that it does not succeed is trumpeted loudly as if it were a highly significant result: a show dressed up to look like science.
It seems to me that the only correct conclusion to have come to in regard to the test is that it was inconclusive; no viewer of any intelligence would have felt that the fact that Natasha did not achieve 5 hits ('the score that the experimenters had set'), under the conditions obtaining at the test, meant much at all.
The three investigators saw fit to ignore the inconvenient statistics of the outcome, and to talk instead as if the outcome of the test had refuted Natasha's claims, which it clearly did not. Doing so was not only unscientific but, under the circumstances, unethical."
Thank you Brian, for the excellent information. Everyone should read your site.
Skolnick, you should just pack up your trumpet and go home.
Hi Archangel,
You said:
"I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an “investigation” by csicop-csmmh. I think these CFI groups are only out to disprove the paranormal and would go to any lengths to hide or destroy any evidence of the paranormal, using ridicule and disinformation as regular tools of the trade."
Yes, unfortunately you are right. These guys are not kids. They are many decades old adults. They know what they are doing pretty well. There is nothing unconscious or accidental about that. It is deliberate fraud from their part.
But the unlikely is not impossible, and maybe they could... change. Not so likely as Santa Klaus dropping in on Xmas, but nevertheless possible
Now, at least for today we are going to be spared Chicknick Quacknick and his MS (Multiple Sclerosis degree ). He is out to Toronto, as he told us, where he is, once more, show to a large audience (few tens of people) his ability to strech his wooden nose.
By the kind of posts he delivers when he gets back, we will be able to infer how successful he was in cheating the poor Canadian folk...
Bye,
Julio
____________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:04 AM
You said:
"I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an “investigation” by csicop-csmmh. I think these CFI groups are only out to disprove the paranormal and would go to any lengths to hide or destroy any evidence of the paranormal, using ridicule and disinformation as regular tools of the trade."
Yes, unfortunately you are right. These guys are not kids. They are many decades old adults. They know what they are doing pretty well. There is nothing unconscious or accidental about that. It is deliberate fraud from their part.
But the unlikely is not impossible, and maybe they could... change. Not so likely as Santa Klaus dropping in on Xmas, but nevertheless possible
Now, at least for today we are going to be spared Chicknick Quacknick and his MS (Multiple Sclerosis degree
). He is out to Toronto, as he told us, where he is, once more, show to a large audience (few tens of people) his ability to strech his wooden nose.By the kind of posts he delivers when he gets back, we will be able to infer how successful he was in cheating the poor Canadian folk...
Bye,
Julio
____________
Julio, you even get your lies wrong. I'm not in Toronto. I never said I would be in Toronto today.
You remind me of a televangelist faith healer who was so addicted to telling falsehoods that he always added or subtracted at 15 minutes whenever someone asked him for the time. In my many years of being an investigative journalist, I've met few scoundrels who have been so adverse to telling the truth as you.
Posted by aaskolnick on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:05 AM
You remind me of a televangelist faith healer who was so addicted to telling falsehoods that he always added or subtracted at 15 minutes whenever someone asked him for the time. In my many years of being an investigative journalist, I've met few scoundrels who have been so adverse to telling the truth as you.
Skolnick says: "Julio, you even get your lies wrong. I'm not in Toronto. I never said I would be in Toronto today."
Humpty! You're still here! We thought you'd left for Toronto already, so you could climb up on your wall!
Skolnick, you're so funny. Do you think anyone believes that Julio is "lying" or even "wrong" about your being in Toronto? You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the "depth" of your "analytical" skills.
Julio pokes fun at you and you go ballistic with wild accusations. You seem quite crazy, there dude.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:58 AM
Humpty! You're still here! We thought you'd left for Toronto already, so you could climb up on your wall!
Skolnick, you're so funny. Do you think anyone believes that Julio is "lying" or even "wrong" about your being in Toronto? You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the "depth" of your "analytical" skills.
Julio pokes fun at you and you go ballistic with wild accusations. You seem quite crazy, there dude.
"Julio, you even get your lies wrong. I'm not in Toronto. I never said I would be in Toronto today."
I am still laughing out loud at that comment! It is sooooo ”Humpty Dumpty”!! Do you read Humpty for inspiration, or are you just naturally that way? LOL!
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:15 AM
I am still laughing out loud at that comment! It is sooooo ”Humpty Dumpty”!! Do you read Humpty for inspiration, or are you just naturally that way? LOL!
As expected, Tweedledum comes to Tweedledee's defense:
"You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the 'depth' of your 'analytical' skills."
Let's see, today is Monday, November 21, and I posted that I am invited to speak at the University of Toronto on Friday, November 25. Can't get less "vague" than that. So much for Tweedledum as a Sack of Doorknobs' analytical skills. This clown couldn't follow a train of thought if he were tied to the caboose.
Posted by aaskolnick on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 08:43 AM
"You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the 'depth' of your 'analytical' skills."
Let's see, today is Monday, November 21, and I posted that I am invited to speak at the University of Toronto on Friday, November 25. Can't get less "vague" than that. So much for Tweedledum as a Sack of Doorknobs' analytical skills. This clown couldn't follow a train of thought if he were tied to the caboose.
Oh! Look! Humpty's mad! LOL!
Not only mad, but wrong again! What I said was that your "trip" was vague, not your speaking date, meaing that your entire trip itinerary was vague.
Here's that train of thought for you, Humpty
1. You were invited to speak on the 25th of November.
2. You did not indicate your arrival date into Toronto. For all we know, you might spend a week or more on location preparing for your little presentation.
3. Even saying the "25th" is vague.
3a. What time of day is the presentation
3b. What is the exact location of the presentation ("University of Toronto" is vague.
That's part of what I mean by "vague". Therefore it's "silly" for you to make your strong, overblown statements. This propensity of yours to take "vague" information and act like it's factual and definitive is part of what got you in trouble with the entire "investigation" of Natasha Demkina. You were "vague" with that too.
Can you say "Arrival Date"? Can you define “trip”? How do those differ from “Speaking Date”? Come on, you can do it!
So, yeah, you can get “less vague” than that. Dummy.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 09:43 AM
Not only mad, but wrong again! What I said was that your "trip" was vague, not your speaking date, meaing that your entire trip itinerary was vague.
Here's that train of thought for you, Humpty
1. You were invited to speak on the 25th of November.
2. You did not indicate your arrival date into Toronto. For all we know, you might spend a week or more on location preparing for your little presentation.
3. Even saying the "25th" is vague.
3a. What time of day is the presentation
3b. What is the exact location of the presentation ("University of Toronto" is vague.
That's part of what I mean by "vague". Therefore it's "silly" for you to make your strong, overblown statements. This propensity of yours to take "vague" information and act like it's factual and definitive is part of what got you in trouble with the entire "investigation" of Natasha Demkina. You were "vague" with that too.
Can you say "Arrival Date"? Can you define “trip”? How do those differ from “Speaking Date”? Come on, you can do it!
So, yeah, you can get “less vague” than that. Dummy.
And you know what else? Julio was just poking fun at you! He was't truly trying to detail your travel arrangements. Do you have any common sense at all?
Gosh, I've already answered that for you by accurately comparing you to "Humpty Dumpty." Definite lack of common sense, especially when you're in "attack" mode.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 09:46 AM
Gosh, I've already answered that for you by accurately comparing you to "Humpty Dumpty." Definite lack of common sense, especially when you're in "attack" mode.
Skolnick said: "I never said I would be in Toronto today."
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things, he likes things vague - like Natasha's "bug" drawing. Skolnick left that pretty vague, didn't he? And, once again, we Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:17 AM
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things, he likes things vague - like Natasha's "bug" drawing. Skolnick left that pretty vague, didn't he? And, once again, we Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
Skolnick said: "I never said I would be in Toronto today."
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things. Skolnick likes to keep things vague, for example, Natasha's "bug" drawing was left pretty vague by Skolnick - gave him the opportunity to twist it into something it wasn't.
And, once again, we see Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:20 AM
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things. Skolnick likes to keep things vague, for example, Natasha's "bug" drawing was left pretty vague by Skolnick - gave him the opportunity to twist it into something it wasn't.
And, once again, we see Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
Page 25 of 36 pages « First < 23 24 25 26 27 > Last »
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.