At one time, a hypnotist and clairvoyant, known for many fulfilled predictions, Wolf Messing, fell under the "millstones" of the pseudoscientific commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Analyzing the activities of "fighters against pseudoscience", from Soviet times to the present time, I can say that they are the real pseudoscientists who do not use scientific methods in their activities.
How would real scientists, rather than the hired servants of the parasitic system, act when they discover phenomena that science cannot answer from the point of view of an outdated paradigm? We would begin to investigate these phenomena! How do "fighters against pseudoscience" act? They just start crying out that "this cannot be, because it can never be!" and begin to hang labels of "fraud", "charlatanism", "hoaxes" and "pseudoscience" on everything that they are not able to realize because of their narrow outlook and fanatical belief in the inviolability of the dogmas of their Masonic "religion".
But, of course, not all of them are so stupid. There are also "corrupt" ones who simply work off grants from foreign structures and orders for the persecution of psychics or inventors and innovator scientists who dared to approach the areas of "forbidden" knowledge for humanity.
What would real scientists do who are really fighting pseudoscience, charlatans and fraudsters? They would have assembled an expert commission with specialists from various fields and would have given the same psychics the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. But none of the members of the pseudoscientific commission did this, confining themselves to unfounded and in no way scientifically substantiated statements of fact. And this is done only by real pseudoscientists who replace the results of practical experiments, experiments and research with their personal conjectures and fantasies.
In contrast to this their boltological activity, I would like to cite the testimony of a person who, unlike “fighters against pseudoscience,” personally attended the speech of V. For example, here is how V. Simonenkov describes this event in his life on the pages of his book "Myths about the pagan goddess Sophia":
As you can see, V. Simonenkov completely refutes the version of “fighters against pseudoscience” about “decoy ducks”. And if the experience with a coin can be attributed to hypnosis, which science in our time no longer denies, then the experience with paper cannot be explained logically except for the gift of mind reading.
And V. Safonov testifies to the fact that V. Messing really had such a gift on the pages of his books "Ariadne's Thread" and "Untold Reality". He also got into Messing's speech, being an inveterate materialistic dogmatist (unlike a dogmatist, a skeptic does not blindly believe in anything, including scientific dogmas). To check whether V. Messing really possesses the gift of telepathy, he decided to intervene in the course of experiments.
When V. Messing began to look for a place where the thing was hidden in his absence, V. Safonov began to mentally inspire him that it was hidden in a completely different place. Imagine his surprise when Messing stopped, turned to face the audience and looked V. Safonov in the eyes and said: "Young man, do not interfere!" And this is one more eyewitness testimony against the unfounded boltology of "fighters against pseudoscience."
So, at present, the group of Professor K. Korotkov has developed a scientific methodology that allows using impartial instrumental research to clearly identify fraudsters and charlatans among those who call themselves magicians and psychics. It would seem: here it is - finally, scientists have the opportunity, with the help of science, and not with pseudoscientific slogans and labels, to prove and substantiate their conclusions and bring swindlers and charlatans to the surface.
Do you think this technique has interested the members of the pseudoscientific commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences? She doesn't interest them at all. Do you know why? Yes, because, even if in 99 out of 100 subjects she confirms the absence of significant extrasensory abilities, then in 1 she will still confirm. Namely, this, by order of their sponsors, should be avoided in every possible way by “fighters against pseudoscience”. But is it possible to call them "scientists" after that - think for yourself. Personally, I have already expressed my opinion on this matter.