PDA

View Full Version : Vision From Feeling


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11

Ashles
5th February 2009, 03:47 AM
I started replying point by point, but there was just too much repetition. Here's the thing: There is a huge difference between these two statements.

1) The skeptics could not devise a satisfactory protocol to test my abilities.
2) The skeptics designed a protocol to prove I had no abilities. I took the test, and the brilliant skeptic, Ashles, and I concluded that my abilities could not be falsified.
I want no part of #2.
But what can we possibly do that prevents her from claiming 2) anyway? She has already done that.
If she does that I will do what you did and insist she alter such a statement to reflect reality, which is that this study will no more "fail to falsify" the ability than sitting at home watching TV "fails to falsify" the ability.

Not one of us needs Anita to do any survey, study or test. She needs it, not us. I'd like to see her do a bunch of readings, but I'm not going to pretend that the results have meanings they clearly do not.
Who is?
If the study is going to go ahead it will go ahead.

I also don't like the message that it sends, which is that the rigors of critical thinking should bow to the whims of delusional/fraudulent/naive believers in the repeatedly unproven.
Who does it send such a message to?

Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?

Her claim is 100% Apparent Accuracy™ with no false positives out of 100 people. We started out saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now you're saying that falsifying extraordinary claims requires sucking at something really, really bad.
Usually in these cases that is exactly what it ends up requiring. Not to skeptics, but to the claimant themselves (or anyone who believes in the claimant). Did you see the man who could read babies minds?

Oh, and we're not even gonna do the math to even get a rough idea if our definition of "really, really bad" even has any basis in reality. Ironic, huh?
It's a fairly simple calculation. Anita has claimed success in instances where she has detected something of 100%.
I am suggesting a failure rate of 16.7% or below. Compared to her own claim this is a massively lower position.

This study is not anything like a genuine scientific attempt to discover a perfomance higher than chance.
As discussed this would mainly be because I don't (and I don't know if anyone else could) work out what would be results obtained from chance in the first place.
As you know I am trying to run a rule of thumb version that might yield some interesting answers, or it might not.

You and Anita can agree on whatever you want. You gotta get the FACT skeptics on board if you expect them to help, and Godofpie already indicated that his group doesn't want to be involved in something that is useless. Remember, once she reads them, they cannot be read again.
You know as well as I do that in the event of a proper test Anita would problably reject skeptics anyway.
Anyway if Godofpie rejects her study I am all for that. But I don't think it would change Anita's intentions in any way. She would probably proceed with the study with Uni friends instead.
I'm only working on the asumption the study will go ahead no matter what.

As for the scale, she needs to drop it. If she wants to record it for her own information, then so be it. When I analyze it, I'll say No means No and any number in extent means Yes. Period. The stuff you propose is, quite frankly, silly.
Well I guess we will have to disagree on that one.
And how does it help in any way to analyse the results in a way that was not pre-agreed? We have already seen how that work. You will have another exciting couple of pages that resemble the Wayne's shoulder dicussion.
What would that achieve? You think she failed certain answers, she thinks she didn't. And that would move us on fro where we currently are... how exactly?

The scale absolutely should go as I have said over and over and everyone else has. Anita isn't shifting on it. I think everyone has their opinions on why that would be.
So we could all simply turn our back completely on the study and ignore Anita from hereonin (which doesn't look likely) or we can try and get something useful from it.
I have simply converted the scale into a Hit and Miss (and indeterminate) format. If it is agreed we have a level of possible Miss agreed by Anita. This will be new.

Do you not think we could get anything useful from instances where Anita claims a perception at a level she agres is significant, yet it is incorrect?

I'm still not clear what your counter proposal is. Simply say no to Anita and hope she listens and ditches the study completely? Is that likely?
What do you want? Anita to suddenly say "Oh hang on this study isn't a sensible way to analyse my ability, I hadn't realised until you pointed that out for the 68th time!"
It's not a sensible way to test the ability. We all know that. Anita knows we know that. Anita knows why we all know that. And we are pretty sure we know why Anita is proceeding anyway.
What do you suggest? If you have a plan to force Anita to run a decent and sensible test I am right behind it.

There are a few items I will not count at all (smoking and exercise). Others are too vague to be useful (right arm could mean triceps, biceps, forearm, elbow, and possibly deltoids depending on who you talk to).

She needs the test. She needs the cooperation of FACT. And yet she is dictating the terms? Meh.
I am unclear as to FACT's current position. I thought they were agreeing in principle to the study as it stands?

Look Unca I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I don't see how simply ignoring the study achieves anything.

I don't represent this thread or anything. Nobody has to take my suggestions on board.
I'm just working on the current assumptions that this study will in some form go ahead, and if we don't add anything to it it will simply end up generating a random mass of data that Anita will only then formulate the method and goals by which she wants to actually analyse it.
And I'm pretty sure I can guess how that would end up.

LONGTABBER PE
5th February 2009, 03:51 AM
Well, that's your opinion. :D Seriously, though, I'm going to argue and challenge you on this, but it's just my opinion. I'm genuinely interested in learning from your experience.


The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.


Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?


I don't even think he was slick. He also produced a movie about Bigfoot narrated with "circus-like prose" a full year before the famous PGF. It was a for-profit movie marketed to Bigfoot believers. I don't like this comparison because it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible.

>>>I'm going to argue and challenge you on this, but it's just my opinion. I'm genuinely interested in learning from your experience.

Thats cool. I'll be glad to explain any position I hold.

>>>The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.

Negative publicity sells. I remember reading in Flair's book that people paid a lot of money because they wanted to see him get beat up all the time. Right now, we dont know for sure who her target audience is.

>>>Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?

I think she is intelligent enough to realize she needs a Beta test and thats what she is using these groups and this board for. She has been shown the "right" way and been shown the "wrong" way and had her flaws pointed out. Thanks to the efforts of all, she now knows what will and what wont and what to look out for and how to sidestep. All with her letting everyone else do the work for her responding to her stimuli just lika Pavlov's dog.

>>>it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible

I see her "selling" her woo art and comments regarding the legality of practicing her gift and claims that she would never profit from it. ( that last claim is a dead giveaway that thats what they are up to because when a person has to "tell" you about how ethical they are- you better watch out) I expect to see profit come in eventually.

Heres the thing about the rest. I'm not big on the psychic stuff but all the kings skeptics and all the kings men havent dented their scams. Busting Miss Cleo didnt shut down the telephone psychic industry. Outlawing porn didnt shut down 900 numbers.Exposing frauds doesnt matter because the "target audience" is woo-istic and will simply shake off the exposure as a carefully crafted government conspiracy to keep us "enslaved".

The skeptic ( doing what skepics do) is nothing more than another tool in her box.

Ashles
5th February 2009, 03:52 AM
Like her refusal to acknowledge her dismal failure in her encounter with Wayne and her claim that there was no inaccuracy whatsoever? Yeah, it's possible that she might believe her lack of complete failure is tantamount to supporting the idea that she can do wondrous and magical things. It's possible that someone who hasn't been paying attention to this thread might italicize "possible" and "might".
I think you missed the intent behind my italics. My point was that Anita can pretty much take anything about this thread, the study, the FACT meeting etc. and attempt to spin it in her own favour. And already has.

But that shouldn't mean we become paralysed by inaction (because we are concerned how Anita might misrepresent our suggestions) while Anita goes ahead with whatever badly designed study she wants and then claims whatever she likes anyway.

I'm suggesting we add our suggestions and thoughts into the mix anyway and if Anita misrepresents them, well we deal with that afterwards.

I'm pretty sure I have been paying fairly good attention to this thread.

Jonquill
5th February 2009, 04:07 AM
I see Anita hasn't posted for a couple of days, busy doing homework maybe, but seems to be since godofpie posted the email from Dr Carlson saying she got her test with Wayne wrong.

Ashles
5th February 2009, 04:07 AM
Anyway I think it's all moot - looks like Anita has left this forum anyway.

BTW on her site it looks like version 3 of the form is on its way.

I realy am trying my best to remain patient with this claim. I understand why some people have become frustrated and snippy with Anita (I have certainly posted a few posts like that myself in this thread).
It is getting very difficult when simply no progress is being made.

I am waiting to see what, if anythng, happens with the study before detailing my opinion on Anita's motivations.

Belz...
5th February 2009, 05:16 AM
Okay Unca, from the point of view of the Hit:Miss falsification analysis I agree that any ailment suffered more one month prior to testing should also be ignored. Also in any instance where the volunteer has not specified a time frame the answer should be ignored.

Hey, Ashles. Happy birthday.

Locknar
5th February 2009, 05:33 AM
The scale absolutely should go as I have said over and over and everyone else has. Anita isn't shifting on it.I would have agree with UncaYimmy.

EHocking
5th February 2009, 05:41 AM
Anyway I think it's all moot - looks like Anita has left this forum anyway..So it's unlikely that we're going to get any guesses on the pill test that was sent to her, what, a month ago?

btw. Happy Birthday.

Locknar
5th February 2009, 05:49 AM
So it's unlikely that we're going to get any guesses on the pill test that was sent to her, what, a month ago?

Given that Vff has stated that using her Vibrational Algebra TM she can determine the effects of chemicals/compounds, and has thus far produced ZERO results this can be ruled a failure.

EHocking
5th February 2009, 05:53 AM
Given that Vff has stated that using her Vibrational Algebra TM she can determine the effects of chemicals/compounds, and has thus far produced ZERO results this can be ruled a failure.Not by vff rationalisation.

She'll say (as she's done for missed medical complaints failures) that if she hasn't attempted it she can't say she can't do it.

Ashles
5th February 2009, 05:55 AM
So it's unlikely that we're going to get any guesses on the pill test that was sent to her, what, a month ago?
And then, for those with excellent long-term memories, there was the mall survey... 'eventually' is turning out to be a long time.

btw. Happy Birthday.
Thanks. :)

Hey, Ashles. Happy birthday.
Thank you too. :)

Locknar
5th February 2009, 06:06 AM
Not by vff rationalisation.

She'll say (as she's done for missed medical complaints failures) that if she hasn't attempted it she can't say she can't do it.Kinda.... She did say she had spent two hours on this, but needed more time. This from the person that has stated they can "see"/"sense" ice cream as it is being eaten?

ETA: I guess this means that the Vibrational Algebra TM only works on known (to her) substances. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to what she has previously stated.

Belz...
5th February 2009, 08:01 AM
Thank you too. :)

"Too" ? Hey, I said it first! ;)

EHocking
5th February 2009, 11:22 AM
Kinda.... She did say she had spent two hours on this, but needed more time.Riiiggghhttt.. . . . and a sample of the uncrushed pills as "reference". Odd, that. Her claim was that she could discern from "vibrations" what effect a drug would have on the human body..... when it was in pill form and she knew the name of the drug, I guess.This from the person that has stated they can "see"/"sense" ice cream as it is being eaten?From behind, in a dark room, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard"....
ETA: I guess this means that the Vibrational Algebra TM only works on known (to her) substances. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to what she has previously stated.Surely not!?

desertgal
5th February 2009, 02:54 PM
Happy Birthday, Ashles. :)

@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.

You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.

I came to this site only recently, entirely due to RSL, and, I readily admit that I am skeptical, but I am not an 'experienced' skeptic when it comes to examining such claims.

I do tend to try and decipher what motivates the claim first-i.e. attention seeking, the woo economy, etc. It seems to me that, often, certain motivations will 'explain' the claim even before one begins to examine the claim itself.

Out of curiosity, is this an unfair or incorrect way to approach a paranormal claim?

My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.

I can agree with this. Many of her anecdotes jibe with this. Even her 'reading' of Wayne - 'sensing' an Adam's apple in a male subject, to me, has absolutely nothing to do with her alleged extrasensory ability or perceptions.

skeen
5th February 2009, 03:06 PM
Anita's description of her abilities (in the context of claims that she is delusional, or having hallucinations) correlates exactly to imagination, or "making stuff up". While possibly contradictory to earlier statements, she has repeatedly said that her "perceptions" don't enter into the real world.

In other words, they're in her mind. In her imagination. It's possible that she has trouble separating imagination from the real world, but I don't believe that's the case at all. Clearly this is a person who just wants to be special. Why else would she clearly make up this nonsense about vibrational algebra?

We have to take these claims in the context of her other claims: ghosts and spirits, crystals, vibrations and quantum jargon, etc. etc. This has nothing to do with science. This is why I wonder why she even brings science into the matter at all; when she claims to be a star-person, and claims that she can see and communicate with ghosts, what's the point?

Whether she's lying or not about her experiences, she has mental issues. To lie to this extent, to seek this much attention, is clearly a sign of mental disorder. One thing we do know for sure, is that she does not have these abilities. So I don't tip toe around my belief that there's something wrong upstairs; this much is apparent to everyone anyway.

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 03:08 PM
But what can we possibly do that prevents her from claiming 2) anyway? She has already done that.
Nothing.

If she makes this claim when it's untrue, we can say with all honesty that it's
a lie. If she says this when it is true, then any counterargument will sound just like she sounded when she interpreted the Wayne reading.

If the study is going to go ahead it will go ahead.
If she does it in a public place, which looks unlikely, she will need four volunteers. If they don't support the study, she'll have to work hard to find other people. If she does it at a FACT meeting, then they have to agree with it.

She needs the test/study. She can't do it without assistance. Nobody has to agree to assist if they believe the results are useful.

Who does it send such a message to?
Several people have posted in this thread about how educational it has been for them. I've gotten a PM or two to that effect. I know *I* have learned things.

On the downside any lurking woo believers present or future will see that if you just dig in your heels, the skeptics will capitulate and abandon the very way of thinking that makes them skeptics.

I will not willingly and knowingly abandon the rigor I had when I started.

Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?
Yes, because you and Anita will have found a way to utilize it to create a falsification scenario. How many paranormal "studies" have we seen where we roll our eyes and say, "That protocol stinks!" It seems legitimate because paranormal "scientists" use it. If skeptics assign it a value, it gives it credence.

It's a fairly simple calculation. Anita has claimed success in instances where she has detected something of 100%.
I am suggesting a failure rate of 16.7% or below. Compared to her own claim this is a massively lower position.
You're repeating the obvious as if it strengthens your argument. It does not. You haven't even provided a basis that 16.7% means anything in any way.

I apologize in advance if I am insulting your intelligence. It's not my intention, but I believe you may have a flaw in your logic about the numbers. I trust others to correct me where I'm wrong because I'm not an expert.

Here's the thing: Performing significantly below the level of chance is just as unlikely as performing significantly above chance. Furthermore, without careful analysis, a 1 to 6 miss ratio may actually be more or less difficult to attain by chance than a 1 in 7 hit to miss ratio. It sounds counter intuitive, but it's true.

We know a coin flip has a 50-50 chance of heads or tails. Assuming everything is kosher, then if we flip the coin 100 times, the most likely result is 50-50. Intuitively we say that 45 to 55 is not unlikely. Intuitively we also say that 90 heads is very unlikely. At the same time we are also saying that 10 tails is equally unlikely.

So, if we ask someone to guess the results of the flip, we would expect them to get 45 to 55 of them right. If they got 90% of them right, we would probably think that maybe there's something there since it is very unlikely that they would get 90 guesses right. At the same time we are also saying it is just as unlikely that they would only get 10 guesses right. By chance these two outcomes are equal.

Therefore, if I said that in order to falsify a claim of accurately predicting coin tosses a person must miss 9 or more times for each hit, I've actually made it extremely difficult for them to fail. It would be just as difficult as telling them they had to guess correctly 9 or more times for each miss to prove accuracy.

And that's with easy math. Take Keno as another example. There's a board with 80 numbers. The computer randomly selects 15. The player chooses 1 to 15 numbers in an attempt to match.

If you pick 12 numbers, the odds of getting 2, 3 or 4 correct are each better than getting 0 or 1 correct. In fact getting 2 right is 1:4 whereas getting 0 right is 1:43. See this website on Keno Odds (http://www.thegamblersedge.com/keno/kenoodds.htm).

Thus, without any math behind your 1 to 5 miss to hit ratio, we have no idea what meaning there is, if any.

In the moderated thread I wrote this:
If you performed at level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?

Anita replied
This is the type of test I expect to have. And if I fail to obtain medical perceptions in such a test I would definitely conclude, as we all would conclude, that it is not the case of a paranormal ability of perceiving accurate health information. Yes.

Work from there.

This study is not anything like a genuine scientific attempt to discover a perfomance higher than chance.
With modifications this study can reveal an ability that is no better than chance. That's all the evidence anyone needs to reveal that something outside of chance is NOT at work. Proving something cannot be explained by chance alone is much more difficult and has a much higher bar.

But operating around the level of chance is adequate proof that chance alone was probably at work, especially when the claim is 100% accuracy.

Anyway if Godofpie rejects her study I am all for that. But I don't think it would change Anita's intentions in any way. She would probably proceed with the study with Uni friends instead.
I'm only working on the asumption the study will go ahead no matter what.

And if she does, so be it. I want no part of it if it's junk science. That's why I insisted she remove my name from the study form and protocol. I will not assign any value to the results without knowing exactly what it is I am saying.

Show me your work. If 16.67% is around the level of chance and a host of other issues are resolved, I will consider assigning meaning to it. Until then, it's just junk.

So we could all simply turn our back completely on the study and ignore Anita from hereonin (which doesn't look likely) or we can try and get something useful from it.
We should treat it the same way we treated the chemical identification tests and reading photos. Attack the data vigorously without lending it any credibility it does not deserve. If this is another test that means nothing, then that's what we should say.

Do you not think we could get anything useful from instances where Anita claims a perception at a level she agres is significant, yet it is incorrect?
I don't need anything useful. She does. I already know there is no ability.

What Anita needs to learn is how to evaluate data properly. Telling her that sensing mild pain or discomforting pain in someone that has no pain is anything but a complete miss is just silly.

I'm still not clear what your counter proposal is. Simply say no to Anita and hope she listens and ditches the study completely? Is that likely?

I really don't care how likely it is or not. I do not need her to do a survey, study or test. She does.

What do you want? Anita to suddenly say "Oh hang on this study isn't a sensible way to analyse my ability, I hadn't realised until you pointed that out for the 68th time!"
That would be nice. If I once again have to say, "Anita, you are not listening to people who know better than you. Your study was worthless and a waste of time. Nobody supported it." then so be it.

I am unclear as to FACT's current position. I thought they were agreeing in principle to the study as it stands?
His recent quote was something to the effect of that it's not fair to ask the group to participate in a study that will lead to inconclusive results at best.

Look Unca I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I don't see how simply ignoring the study achieves anything.
I'm not ignoring it. I already told you that No means No and any Extent means yes. I will only look at items in the last 30 days. I will outright ignore some conditions. I don't care if she agrees or not. I'm right, and she's wrong.

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 03:24 PM
I see Anita hasn't posted for a couple of days, busy doing homework maybe, but seems to be since godofpie posted the email from Dr Carlson saying she got her test with Wayne wrong.

She logged in yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon/evening. Perhaps she is just skimming the posts like she told us she would do. As of Thursday afternoon's mail delivery I have not received via postal mail or fax the notes from her survey that she offered to send. I'm in Phoenix, and she's in North Carolina. I did receive a card from my niece in Virginia that was mailed Tuesday.

GeeMack
5th February 2009, 04:49 PM
Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?


Why, certainly. Anita thinks using the Scale is a sensible way to test. And thanks to everyone working with her to tweak the details of the Scale, she'll keep on thinking it. Hey, after all, it's being endorsed by a brilliant JREF member! The rest of us aren't indulging her fantasy or allowing her to manipulate us.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 06:56 PM
Happy Birthday Ashles! :hug5

Studies are keeping me very busy. I'm hoping to have the 1st Study with the FACT Skeptics this Sunday February 8 2009 but that decision is now in their hands not mine. And for those of you who've kept claiming that I do all that I can to avoid a study and a test, in order to arrange and to conduct this study I am looking ahead at at least two nights where I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM.

The study procedure I've hastily written for the FACT Study, and the health questionnaire specific for that study, are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html. Note that the health form document provided there is uploaded on the internet with the tables all wrong and that the original Word document looks more orderly. If someone wants the original, printable Word documents of any of the files that are available on my website then please e-mail me and I can send them to you. :)

What else do I have to say before I recede back to studying... I haven't been able to read all of your posts here. I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions. The man has an adam's apple. :rolleyes: Me and my Skeptics:

:grouphug5

desertgal
5th February 2009, 07:06 PM
I made no incorrect perceptions.

If Wayne had a 'slightly uncomfortable' Adam's apple, then, no, you didn't. He didn't, so you were incorrect. If Wayne had had a slightly "tired" shoulder, then, no, you wouldn't be incorrect. He didn't, so you were incorrect. If you are too deluded to see that, that's your problem. Every other person here counts those two things as misses. Yu can keep reiterating your illogical analysis until the cows come home. It won't change anything. You'll still be wrong.

Oh, boy, here we go with the...
Me and my Skeptics:

:grouphug5
...the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with.
...manipulative nonsense again. So pathetic. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jonquill
5th February 2009, 07:12 PM
"I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM. "

I hope being tired won't make Anita perform badly on her Perceptions Study on the 8th.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 07:16 PM
Jim (godofpie):
Thanks for all your work with the FACT Skeptics, and I do appreciate the huge resource that you all are in my paranormal investigation.
I wanted to show you this before I posted it to the forum. Dr Carlson and I have been corresponding and he cc'd me on an email that he had sent to someone else. I have his permission to post the portion of his email that relates to his observations concerning Wayne. You are a nice person Anita and I don't want to hurt your feelings but you continue to point to your reading on Wayne as a success of your powers. I don't feel it was a success (...) and neither does Dr. Carlson. Below are his observations.What I meant by success was that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim since I did not make any incorrect perceptions. That is what I was happy about, although I realize that I should try to remain more neutral and unaffected emotionally regardless of what results reveal. The viewing with Wayne was not successful since I did not make any accurate medical perceptions. But the viewing with Wayne was also not unsuccessful since I did not make any inaccurate medical perceptions. All I concluded from this experience was that I had yet again failed to falsify the claim, which is exactly what I concluded to Dr. Carlson after the viewing when he came to ask about the outcome.

I think we are both right. :)

"I have had only a few meetings with Ms. Ikonen. Though I have dealt with claimants in the past, most of them were referred to me by JREF, and already more or less knew exactly what claim they were making. Ms. Ikonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim. Roughly I know that I can look at a person and detect health problems that are structural or perceived in nature. However I am required by testing organizations such as the IIG West and by Dr. Carlson before he would prepare a test of my claim, to form a more specific claim. The study will help me form a more specific claim. :)

She asserts that she can detect medical ailments by examining people, By looking at people.

but in fact, there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even high, efficiency. I lack the experience to make claims about the efficiency. It does not mean that the efficiency would necessarily be high or low. I just don't know the efficiency that's all. It's because I don't run around offering psychic medical readings to people to find out. And, that is what the study is for. :)

The one test Nope. Was part of my study, not a test. A test is able to pass or fail a hypothesis. What I did with Wayne was by no means capable of passing the hypothesis since some cold reading was still available since I am taking a gradual approach from the everyday experience with the perceptions and change by change by implementing test conditions toward a real test procedure which would be a test.

we have performed with her involved her looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked it with a low level of confidence. I said that I had felt something in the front of the throat but that it involved a bony structure, but I realize that it could have been dense cartilage. :blush: I knew it was not associated with the thyroid or other soft tissue nor embedded tissue. I also knew that the extent of what I perceived was very low and that it was not a health problem, ie. not an ailment. I also found out that it was the adam's apple I was perceiving. And I did not state it as any kind of answer as to what ailments I might have detected. My conclusion was that I detected no health problems in Wayne. My confidence was high that it was a perception of something that occurs to an insignificant extent.

Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect. :confused: He said he has no throat ailment and I said I sense no throat ailment. I said I sensed his adam's apple. I'm pretty sure he has an adam's apple. :confused:

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list.
re posted with permission from Dr Eric Carlson

If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best. Of course I respect Dr. Carlson. But what I have designed is a study not a test. A study whose objectives are to find out more about the claim. A test would be designed not to find out more about the claim but to pass or falsify a claim. Why can't I have a test study? If FACT does not want to participate in the study I'll just have to find some other skeptics who will. :(

On a brighter note, I just read that you are trying to resolve the "hit or miss" problem with Ashles. That's great! If you can come to some kind of agreement with him what a hit is and what a miss is I think we are heading in the right direction. Good Luck! The study is designed as a study for me to gain a general idea of how closely my perceptions correlate with the perceptions that a person has of their health. It is not a test.

desertgal
5th February 2009, 07:24 PM
"I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM. "

I hope being tired won't make Anita perform badly on her Perceptions Study on the 8th.

She's laying out what will be an excuse for the delay in advance. She does that a lot. :rolleyes:

GeeMack
5th February 2009, 07:27 PM
I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions.


You can keep trying to spin this all you want, but you'll still be wrong.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is another piece in an ever increasing pile of evidence that Anita is pulling a scam, is a compulsive liar, or is completely out of touch with reality.

I'd still like to know, which do you think it is, Anita?

godofpie
5th February 2009, 07:27 PM
Happy Birthday Ashles! :hug5

Studies are keeping me very busy. I'm hoping to have the 1st Study with the FACT Skeptics this Sunday February 8 2009 but that decision is now in their hands not mine. And for those of you who've kept claiming that I do all that I can to avoid a study and a test, in order to arrange and to conduct this study I am looking ahead at at least two nights where I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM.

The study procedure I've hastily written for the FACT Study, and the health questionnaire specific for that study, are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html. Note that the health form document provided there is uploaded on the internet with the tables all wrong and that the original Word document looks more orderly. If someone wants the original, printable Word documents of any of the files that are available on my website then please e-mail me and I can send them to you. :)

What else do I have to say before I recede back to studying... I haven't been able to read all of your posts here. I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions. The man has an adam's apple. :rolleyes: Me and my Skeptics:

:grouphug5
Unless I have missed something, I don't know anything about us getting together this Sunday. I have emailed the group to see who is available when, and have received a few responses, but I have made no such arrangements. Am missing something Anita? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: I just received this email.

Dear FACT Skeptics,

I do hope that we can have the study into my paranormal claim this Sunday February 8 as I am hoping to begin making some real progress in my investigation.
Here is a study procedure written specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?access_key=key-igh6i4fgromuvbb62r3
And the health questionnaire specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?access_key=key-2kds8ritvrjnq13y745e
The internet version of the questionnaire displays displays the tables incorrectly. Find both of these documents enclosed as original and printable Word.doc attachments in this e-mail. E-mail me if you are unable to access printable versions of the documents.

Jim wrote,

Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.

The study is not a test and is primarily not designed according to a point scale system, but see the enclosed study procedure which suggests one method of obtaining a result. In the procedure I suggest that for each of the answers that can be answered on a scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, each discrepancy of one units between the answers of volunteer and claimant results in a deduction of 20% of the possible 1.0 point for that question. So that if one answers 2 and the other answers 4 there is a deduction of 40% and 0.6 points correlation for that particular ailment. Since it would be easy to "collect points" by guessing randomly and getting at least "some" correlation, the average correlation per question is calculated. Two skeptics are asked to look at the volunteers and to fill in health questionnaires alongside me the claimant and we will compare the average correlation between claimant and that acchieved by non-claimants. I do not have an answer as to what specific results would lead to the falsification of the paranormal claim. This study is designed primarily for educational purposes, and to make it into a test would reduce the educational quality of the study. I am just hoping that a non-ability would have some opportunity of being revealed.

If it bothers you that there is not a specific point at which the claim would be falsified you may then assume that falsification of a non-ability is not among the objectives of this study. I really would value your participations. This study would be tremendously helpful in forming a stronger claim and coming closer to a real test and the real falsification of a non-ability.

And, do remember: it is a study, not a test. So don't take it "too" seriously. I do hope that the study can take place. Please participate!

Paranormal claimant,
Anita Ikonen

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 07:36 PM
I started viewing Wayne while being under the strong logical assumption that this man has a long list of serious health problems. Because he had been so eager to be viewed by me, and, after all, he had made a list. So, I began viewing him, feeling the Vibrational InformationTM that I feel when I attempt the medical perceptions and having these form images in my mind. When I view a person I barely look at them, because I experience it as my primary sense is feeling, not vision, that forms the perceptions. Yet I have to see where the person is. (Upcoming StudiesTM will attempt to find out what extent of a person's body I need to see in order to form perceptions. Perhaps the volunteers can be behind a screen! If so, yay!)

Well, I made a general search to see what "dissonance" of a health problem would come up first, but... none came about. So I had to look at one part of the body, one at a time. I looked at the heart. It looked perfect! I looked at all the organs and everything looked beautiful and healthy! So, I started to doubt myself, thinking that my abilities were tuned down somehow. So I made the effort of magnifying what I perceive, thinking that "all the health problems on his list" would become stronger. That is when I felt the adam's apple, and the left shoulder. So I thought, those are the strongest perceptions of his body that I sense! Keep in mind I claim to not only feel and see health problems, I claim to also feel other sensations that a person has. And yes, even the good ones. ;) Such as... when a person is eating ice-cream? :blush:

So I wrote down the strongest perceptions that I had: left shoulder, and adam's apple. But strongest is a relative term. It does not imply "strong". Knowing that the extents of these two things that I had sensed were insignificant, I had to conclude that I found nothing wrong with his health. And that is what I concluded as my final answer.

If you guys think you can turn that into inaccuracy then you are just displaying questionable reliability and objectivity. Those two were not inaccurate perceptions. The man does have an adam's apple. And he does have a left shoulder.

I mean, I can even perceive what a person feels that are subtle and healthy things. Like... when a person eats ice-cream, or when they swallow, or their heartbeat, or breathing. If I said that I felt someone's breathing, you would all jump at me and say that I made an incorrect perception since I supposedly claimed to sense lung cancer. No. If I say I felt someone's breathing, I felt someone's breathing. If I say I sensed someone's adam's apple, or left shoulder, then those were what I sensed. I fully and clearly concluded at the end of the viewing with Wayne that those two perceptions were not related to health problems.

Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time. :faint:

Jonquill
5th February 2009, 07:41 PM
Why feel the left shoulder if there is nothing wrong with it, why not the right shoulder or both of them?

GeeMack
5th February 2009, 07:43 PM
Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect.
:confused: He said he has no throat ailment and I said I sense no throat ailment. I said I sensed his adam's apple. I'm pretty sure he has an adam's apple. :confused:

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."
I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list.


You were wrong, Anita, flat out 100% wrong. And everybody but you knows it. Everybody. And that, among a small mountain of other evidence, is why people keep suggesting that you might be mentally ill. You can't be sane and honest, and keep insisting that you didn't fail completely in your session with Wayne. I think a lot of us, out of sympathy, are hoping it's mentally ill. At least there's a chance you can fix that.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 07:44 PM
GeeMack:
I'd still like to know, which do you think it is, Anita? Skeptics' impatience? Misinterpretations? :confused:

godofpie:
Unless I have missed something, I don't know anything about us getting together this Sunday. I have emailed the group to see who is available when, and have received a few responses, but I have made no such arrangements. Am missing something Anita? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: I just received this email.:( I thought we were having a study this weekend. You were the one who suggested this Sunday, as long as I'd provide the material and have your approval. :confused:
Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.*Posted since it is already available on the Skeptics Group's website.

GeeMack
5th February 2009, 07:51 PM
Unless I have missed something, I don't know anything about us getting together this Sunday. I have emailed the group to see who is available when, and have received a few responses, but I have made no such arrangements. Am missing something Anita? Please correct me if I am wrong.


Perhaps you're missing the fact that Anita is a habitual liar? :)

Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time. :faint:


The truth of things is this: You're either a scammer, a compulsive liar, or delusional. And you, Anita, are the only one who doesn't seem willing or able to acknowledge that.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 07:55 PM
I hope being tired won't make Anita perform badly on her Perceptions Study on the 8th.
She's laying out what will be an excuse for the delay in advance. She does that a lot. If I can stay up all night studying for tests and then get up and go have a test and get an A in physics and calculus and chemistry and electrical engineering then I can stay up all night studying for tests and then get up and go have a paranormal study and do my best then as well. :p

Skeptical Greg
5th February 2009, 07:58 PM
The man does have an adam's apple. And he does have a left shoulder. But you have always claimed in the past, that you only detect unhealthy things, out of the ordinary,etc.

You continue to lie and back-pedal when it is pointed out.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 07:59 PM
Diogenes:
No, I detect plenty of things. But health problems and discomforts are the easiest to detect.

GeeMack
5th February 2009, 08:03 PM
No, I detect plenty of things. But health problems and discomforts are the easiest to detect.


So easy, in fact, that so far you've proven yourself wholly incapable of doing it at all! :)

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 08:04 PM
I just saw a picture of Shirley MaClaine. Using my Vision From Vision™ I detected several things:

* She has a shoulder. Wait...No, two shoulders.
* There are several openings on her face that lead inside her body.
* She has small holes in each ear.
* It was blurry, but I thought I saw a frog sitting on her head, but it turns out there wasn't one. This was okay because I really wasn't sure about it.

This, of course, was not a test of my Vision From Vision™ - it was merely a study to see what I could see. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Sorry, Anita, but you can insist all you want that it is a study, but that won't change the fact that it is also a test. You have already conducted a "study" of 100 people and with Apparent Accuracy™ have been 100% correct. That test is what got you here in the first place.

Everyone here insists that your data is easily explained by way of a number well known mechanisms. We conclude that you have not demonstrated even in the slightest way any type of special ability. There exists no ability to study.

If under more reliable data gathering conditions you fail to demonstrate your ability (meaning no or at least very few false positives), you must drop this charade. Furthermore, you must also demonstrate some accuracy - not detecting anything in anyone is also an indicator of failure.

No amount of spinning will change this. Your "study" will be the first evidence that any ability exists. To date you have provided none. Well, I take that back. You have demonstrated that you cannot detect chemicals or read photos.

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 08:06 PM
I predict Desertgal will point out another case of "It's not me. It's YOU."

godofpie
5th February 2009, 08:13 PM
GeeMack:
Skeptics' impatience? Misinterpretations? :confused:

godofpie:
:( I thought we were having a study this weekend. You were the one who suggested this Sunday, as long as I'd provide the material and have your approval. :confused:
*Posted since it is already available on the Skeptics Group's website.

"Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th."

How does the above quote from my email, sent to the entire group, (bolded word intentional) lead you to the conclusion that we had decided to conduct your study this Sunday?

This link will take you to our groups mail archive. Does anyone else, besides Anita, feel like I had agreed to a meeting this Sunday the 8th?
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/archive/

Gmonster2
5th February 2009, 08:24 PM
Anita its too late too trade mark this "Vibrational Information"

Brent atwater im sure u know her , she didn't win the Nobel either. :)

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Is this where u got your story from? :)

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 08:25 PM
If it bothers you that there is not a specific point at which the claim would be falsified you may then assume that falsification of a non-ability is not among the objectives of this study. I really would value your participations. This study would be tremendously helpful in forming a stronger claim and coming closer to a real test and the real falsification of a non-ability.

There are not too few multiple negatives for me not to misunderstand that.

Anita, we have told you this from the beginning: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nobody needs to falsify your ability because as of this moment, your ability is unproven. You have the burden of proof.

You do not deserve a strict confirmation test because you haven't even demonstrated that there's a snowball's chance in hell you might pass. You must present enough data to judge whether it is even worth taking the time to conduct a real test.

Whether you like it or not, your study will serve that purpose. If it is poorly designed (meaning you're not taking the advice of the people who know better), you will not get a real test no matter what the results. If you design it well and fail to demonstrate any abilities, you will not get a test. Only in the case of designing it well and demonstrating what looks like an ability will you get to take a real test.

That, my little babushka, is the way it is. No amount of words on your part will change that, but I'm sure you'll try.

desertgal
5th February 2009, 08:40 PM
That is when I felt the adam's apple, and the left shoulder.

Oh, for the love of Swedish meatballs - you didn't "feel" anything. You realized Wayne had an Adam's apple and a shoulder at precisely the same moment you realized he was a male human being. Stop lying and pretending that it had anything to do with Vibrational InformationTM or your fictitious "ability". :rolleyes:

His shoulder wasn't tired, and his Adam's apple did not have discomfort. You are wrong.


Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time. :faint:

Translation: "It's not ME. It's YOU."

Jeez, Anita, you should put it as your signature, and save yourself having to type your "wall o'text" posts. :rolleyes:

His shoulder wasn't tired, and his Adam's apple did not have discomfort. You are still wrong.

I predict Desertgal will point out another case of "It's not me. It's YOU."

Bless your little Yoda heart, brilliant and psychic, you must be. :D

(Wait....just checking...nope, she's still wrong.)

desertgal
5th February 2009, 08:42 PM
This link will take you to our groups mail archive. Does anyone else, besides Anita, feel like I had agreed to a meeting this Sunday the 8th?
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/archive/

No, but we "misinterpret" stuff all the time. :D

Skeptical Greg
5th February 2009, 08:43 PM
Diogenes:
No, I detect plenty of things. But health problems and discomforts are the easiest to detect.


If they are the easiest, why didn't you detect them, instead of the shoulder and the adams apple ?


Anyway, guess I'll have to dig up a few quotes where you claimed you only got readings from things that were out of wack..

You should really just stay quiet when you are caught in a lie ..

desertgal
5th February 2009, 08:47 PM
If I can stay up all night studying for tests and then get up and go have a test and get an A in physics and calculus and chemistry and electrical engineering then I can stay up all night studying for tests and then get up and go have a paranormal study and do my best then as well. :p

Yes, yes, Anita. We know. 4.0 grade average, yadda, yadda. Whatever you say. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Skeptical Greg
5th February 2009, 08:54 PM
An A in electrical engineering ?

Is that a course ?

Jonquill
5th February 2009, 08:55 PM
At the meeting Anita wants two skeptics to also take the Study, plus two or three to handle the forms, plus volunteers to be looked at say ten or so?
But the next meeting according to the Skeptics calander is the 26th, not the 8th.

VisionFromFeeling
5th February 2009, 10:33 PM
What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study. I've done all I can. Now, I've got to focus on my Upcoming ExamsTM.

How does the above quote from my email, sent to the entire group, (bolded word intentional) lead you to the conclusion that we had decided to conduct your study this Sunday?How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 10:40 PM
"Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th."

How does the above quote from my email, sent to the entire group, (bolded word intentional) lead you to the conclusion that we had decided to conduct your study this Sunday?

This link will take you to our groups mail archive. Does anyone else, besides Anita, feel like I had agreed to a meeting this Sunday the 8th?
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/archive/
Welcome to the frustration that many of us here have felt. Perhaps now you can understand why some of us get a bit snippy at times. There was no way that a reasonable person could construe that exchange as saying that a meeting is taking place, especially since you also wrote, "For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing, at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to participate."

It's like when Anita said that park officials told her she couldn't hold her study when they said in effect, "if you reserve a shelter or a room, you can do your study there."

Or how about when she said "all the arrangements are in place" when she had not set a time, place or duration, much less had a firm commitment from the six skeptics who had expressed interest. Hell, they hadn't even responded to her about whether the protocol or health form were acceptable.

Of course, YOU guys are the bad guys. Did you like how she said, "And could we *please* go ahead and have a study of my paranormal claim this time?" Now once again she's all ready, but you guys are not. Just like the IIG couldn't figure out how to test her.

Jonquill
5th February 2009, 10:56 PM
She hadn't set a place for her study in the park but she assured us there was plenty of seating there.

Maybe Anita is practising to be a comedian? :D

Farencue
5th February 2009, 11:06 PM
[QUOTE=VisionFromFeeling;4411163]What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study. I've done all I can.


Why oh why did I just crack up laughing reading that?

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 11:25 PM
What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study. I've done all I can.
I'm trying to figure out how to write this without drawing the ire of the moderators...

You haven't done all you can. You have done only what YOU wanted to do. You have not taken anyone's advice. You have been manipulative. The exchange with FACT is a clear example.

Not a single person here would conclude that any meeting was scheduled for Sunday. Do you see a time? Location? Duration? Anybody saying, "Yes, I will be there for sure?" Anybody saying, "Sorry, can't make it!"

Your protocol sucks. Your study form sucks. Your analysis of the pain ratings sucks. I have repeatedly outlined why. I am pointing out that it sucks because Godofpie already said that if it's not up to snuff, he ain't doing it.

Sit back and think about this for a moment:
How many people have taken your side on the numerous occasions in which there has been a dispute over interpretation? Zero. Nada. Nil.

How many have spoken up against your position? A helluva lot more than zero, I'll tell you that.

How many people believe that your evidence to this date is worthy of further exploration because there might be something there? Zero. Nada. Nil.

How many people believe that the only reason to even indulge you in any type of study or testing is to prove to you that you do not have any abilities and that you are NOT special? A helluva lot more than zero, I'll tell you that.

How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?
Godofpie didn't conclude that; Dr. Carlson believed you were indicating the thyroid. Had you used the form that was offered instead of LYING about its availability, we would not be having this discussion.

For those of you still debating delusion versus fraud, I suggest you rate the following four statements on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "a delusional person irrationally protecting a fantasy" and 10 means "a fraud trying to maintain credibility in the face of contradiction."

a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

b) I can see why you might consider what I said to be a miss. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the throat or the shoulder at all. I'm not sure why I did. Like I said, the perceptions were really weak. In the future I will be more careful about what I say. Maybe it was just nerves throwing me off my game.

c) That was not a miss and this wasn't a test anyway. I said it was a slight discomfort and probably just his Adam's apple. There's no way that could be a miss or prove anything.

d) How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

You make the call.

Farencue
5th February 2009, 11:28 PM
Anita its too late too trade mark this "Vibrational Information"

Brent atwater im sure u know her , she didn't win the Nobel either. :)

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Is this where u got your story from? :)


Big bucks in this field Gmonster - Cost is $1999 for a full body scan but allow 2-6hours. For existing clients a mini scan is only $695 and a full scan only $820.
Interesting that this lady claims the Rhine Research Center studied her ability when she was only 5 years old - I guess she must be ridgydidge.
I couldnt find any published papers on this research though, so my google skills must be really bad or you just dont need to have any scientific evidence to back up your ability and make money.

I dont think it will ultimately matter if Anita has a study, she should be right too.

Chimera
5th February 2009, 11:54 PM
What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study. I've done all I can. Now, I've got to focus on my Upcoming ExamsTM.


from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.

The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

website (http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd)

Miss_Kitt
6th February 2009, 12:11 AM
Ashles--Happy Birthday!!! May you get no more gray hairs from this thread...

:hbd:

Pup
6th February 2009, 03:26 AM
Why feel the left shoulder if there is nothing wrong with it, why not the right shoulder or both of them?

That's what I wondered also, in a post upthread that I'm not going to search for. :)

Was Wayne ever told or asked about the difference in his shoulders? What was his reaction?

LONGTABBER PE
6th February 2009, 03:45 AM
Jim (godofpie):
Thanks for all your work with the FACT Skeptics, and I do appreciate the huge resource that you all are in my paranormal investigation.
What I meant by success was that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim since I did not make any incorrect perceptions. That is what I was happy about, although I realize that I should try to remain more neutral and unaffected emotionally regardless of what results reveal. The viewing with Wayne was not successful since I did not make any accurate medical perceptions. But the viewing with Wayne was also not unsuccessful since I did not make any inaccurate medical perceptions. All I concluded from this experience was that I had yet again failed to falsify the claim, which is exactly what I concluded to Dr. Carlson after the viewing when he came to ask about the outcome.

I think we are both right. :)

Roughly I know that I can look at a person and detect health problems that are structural or perceived in nature. However I am required by testing organizations such as the IIG West and by Dr. Carlson before he would prepare a test of my claim, to form a more specific claim. The study will help me form a more specific claim. :)

By looking at people.

I lack the experience to make claims about the efficiency. It does not mean that the efficiency would necessarily be high or low. I just don't know the efficiency that's all. It's because I don't run around offering psychic medical readings to people to find out. And, that is what the study is for. :)

Nope. Was part of my study, not a test. A test is able to pass or fail a hypothesis. What I did with Wayne was by no means capable of passing the hypothesis since some cold reading was still available since I am taking a gradual approach from the everyday experience with the perceptions and change by change by implementing test conditions toward a real test procedure which would be a test.

I said that I had felt something in the front of the throat but that it involved a bony structure, but I realize that it could have been dense cartilage. :blush: I knew it was not associated with the thyroid or other soft tissue nor embedded tissue. I also knew that the extent of what I perceived was very low and that it was not a health problem, ie. not an ailment. I also found out that it was the adam's apple I was perceiving. And I did not state it as any kind of answer as to what ailments I might have detected. My conclusion was that I detected no health problems in Wayne. My confidence was high that it was a perception of something that occurs to an insignificant extent.

:confused: He said he has no throat ailment and I said I sense no throat ailment. I said I sensed his adam's apple. I'm pretty sure he has an adam's apple. :confused:

I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list.


Of course I respect Dr. Carlson. But what I have designed is a study not a test. A study whose objectives are to find out more about the claim. A test would be designed not to find out more about the claim but to pass or falsify a claim. Why can't I have a test study? If FACT does not want to participate in the study I'll just have to find some other skeptics who will. :(

The study is designed as a study for me to gain a general idea of how closely my perceptions correlate with the perceptions that a person has of their health. It is not a test.

>>>The viewing with Wayne was not successful since I did not make any accurate medical perceptions. But the viewing with Wayne was also not unsuccessful since I did not make any inaccurate medical perceptions. All I concluded from this experience was that I had yet again failed to falsify the claim, which is exactly what I concluded to Dr. Carlson after the viewing when he came to ask about the outcome.

Now theres a classic. Trying to turn chicken sh*t into chicken salad and make it "unsuccessfully successful".


>>>Of course I respect Dr. Carlson. But what I have designed is a study not a test. A study whose objectives are to find out more about the claim. A test would be designed not to find out more about the claim but to pass or falsify a claim. Why can't I have a test study?

Thats the key to your scam right there. You want it "assumed" and taken for granted that you have "the gift" which allows you to perpetuate your hoax because you hide behind the "pretense" of "studying" it when the FIRST task of any LEGITIMATE study is to factually ascertain if you in fact have the "gift" in the first place.

Iimagine you next claim will be that you are half Betazoid and thats how you can "sense" things.

LONGTABBER PE
6th February 2009, 04:06 AM
For those of you still debating delusion versus fraud, I suggest you rate the following four statements on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "a delusional person irrationally protecting a fantasy" and 10 means "a fraud trying to maintain credibility in the face of contradiction."

a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

b) I can see why you might consider what I said to be a miss. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the throat or the shoulder at all. I'm not sure why I did. Like I said, the perceptions were really weak. In the future I will be more careful about what I say. Maybe it was just nerves throwing me off my game.

c) That was not a miss and this wasn't a test anyway. I said it was a slight discomfort and probably just his Adam's apple. There's no way that could be a miss or prove anything.

d) How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

You make the call.

>>>a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

Solid 10. Cons never give direct answers or speak in finite terms. This is called playing the "pressure" card. "I knew I felt something (legitimizing the initial claim) but jumped the gun because ( playing the innocent error card)"

>>>b) I can see why you might consider what I said to be a miss. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the throat or the shoulder at all. I'm not sure why I did. Like I said, the perceptions were really weak. In the future I will be more careful about what I say. Maybe it was just nerves throwing me off my game.

Solid 10. The "apologetic" scam. The old "yeah you're right" but heres probably why I failed. It wasnt "me" but .............

>>>c) That was not a miss and this wasn't a test anyway. I said it was a slight discomfort and probably just his Adam's apple. There's no way that could be a miss or prove anything.

solid 10- Blaming the test and forming a basis for denying. ( thats like the con saying "what do those nasty realtors know, thats why they are all rich- let me tell you what the "real" truth is)

>>>d) How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

when all else fails, throw up the smokescreen and turn it back on them ( keeps them busy and the con doesnt have to answer and knows they will expend energy "explaining" why the con was wrong which will boil down to nothing since the con already knew he was lying. This is a wear down strategy)

Belz...
6th February 2009, 05:14 AM
Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time. :faint:

You're asking someone not to misinterpret ? You DO know what the word means, right ?

No, I detect plenty of things.

No, Vision, you can't. It's been shown conclusively, here. See a doctor.

Locknar
6th February 2009, 05:28 AM
What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study. You are avoiding having the study.


I've done all I can. No, you haven't


How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?Read the note from Dr Carlson

desertgal
6th February 2009, 05:43 AM
from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.

The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

website (http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#npd)

Yes, and she also displays, in her writings here, symptoms of schizotypal disorder:

* Incorrect interpretation of events, including feeling that external events have personal meaning
* Peculiar thinking, beliefs or behavior
* Belief in special powers, such as telepathy
* Perceptual alterations, in some cases bodily illusions, including phantom pains or other distortions in the sense of touch
* Idiosyncratic speech, such as loose or vague patterns of speaking or tendency to go off on tangents
* Suspicious or paranoid ideas
* Flat emotions or inappropriate emotional responses

Website (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizotypal-personality-disorder/DS00830/DSECTION=symptoms)

And, as Dr. Yaffle pointed out some pages ago, she also appears to suffer from grandiose delusions, which is a symptom of numerous delusional disorders.

Of course, if Anita is delusional, none of us can say what the source is, or if she suffers from one or more personality disorders. Nor can we say the above are accurate in her 'real' life. A great portion of psychiatric evaluation comes from evaluating body language and personal habits, and shouldn't be done by anyone but a qualified mental health professional.

In any case, pointing out DSM-IV supported symptoms to Anita just means that 'we' are misinterpreting the data. :rolleyes:

Anita, if you ever get the chance, while you are on the Internet, take a moment to look up biographical information on John Forbes Nash, Jr. He not only faced the fact that he had a personality disorder, he went on to become a Nobel Laureate. Right up your alley.

Ashles
6th February 2009, 05:50 AM
What ever. No study then. I'll find some other skeptics group if I have to. Just don't tell me I'm avoiding to have the study.

Anyone remember when I posted this?


Then the list of people and organisations who are delaying or hampering you will include:
The Independent Investigations Group
The FACT Noisy skeptics
The owners of a Shopping Mall
The Charlotte Park and Recreation Department

Who's next I wonder? The Illuminati? Big Pharma? The CIA?
Looks like it is the WHOLE of the FACT skeptics now, not just the noisy ones.

I love the increasing frequency of 'what ever' as though she is a rather childish participant on Jerry Springer who cannot actually formulate a decent response to a question so just responds with an incoherent 'what ever'.

desertgal
6th February 2009, 05:51 AM
For those of you still debating delusion versus fraud, I suggest you rate the following four statements on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "a delusional person irrationally protecting a fantasy" and 10 means "a fraud trying to maintain credibility in the face of contradiction."

I'll bite. I think motivation is a worthy debate.

a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

b) I can see why you might consider what I said to be a miss. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the throat or the shoulder at all. I'm not sure why I did. Like I said, the perceptions were really weak. In the future I will be more careful about what I say. Maybe it was just nerves throwing me off my game.

c) That was not a miss and this wasn't a test anyway. I said it was a slight discomfort and probably just his Adam's apple. There's no way that could be a miss or prove anything.

Rate: 1. "I was really nervous because my delusion was being put to the test in the presence of those that aren't so easy to fool, instead of on the Internet. Fictional anecdotes were no longer going to suffice as evidence of my ability. They know all what I have claimed, so I had to come up with something." Desperate maneuvering to perpetuate her delusional reality.

d) How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

Rate: 1. Dr. Carlson may have made a mistake. She will latch onto that, in the same way that she latched onto the misunderstanding about her university education, and use it to divert attention away from her own errors. Desperate maneuvering to perpetuate her delusional reality.

Course, as Longtabber has pointed out, the jury is still out on delusional vs. scam. Course, it could be both-a delusional person running a scam.

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 06:30 AM
If Anita has a 4.0 average, shouldn't she be on the NCC's Dean's List? Check it out.http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/dean.asp?term=20081

Moochie
6th February 2009, 06:40 AM
<snip>


>>>b) I can see why you might consider what I said to be a miss. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the throat or the shoulder at all. I'm not sure why I did. Like I said, the perceptions were really weak. In the future I will be more careful about what I say. Maybe it was just nerves throwing me off my game.

<snip>



Ahem. :wink8:



M.

Old man
6th February 2009, 06:49 AM
I said that I had felt something in the front of the throat but that it involved a bony structure, but I realize that it could have been dense cartilage. I knew it was not associated with the thyroid or other soft tissue nor embedded tissue. I also knew that the extent of what I perceived was very low and that it was not a health problem, ie. not an ailment. I also found out that it was the adam's apple I was perceiving. And I did not state it as any kind of answer as to what ailments I might have detected. My conclusion was that I detected no health problems in Wayne. My confidence was high that it was a perception of something that occurs to an insignificant extent. The bolded portion above is an out and out LIE, and you know it, Anita. Your ‘visions’ are better than X-ray, remember? You’re making up rationalizations after the fact, and you know it.

IF YOU DON’T WRITE DOWN AN OBSERVATION DURING YOUR READING, YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE MADE IT.

IF YOU DO WRITE DOWN AN OBSERVATION DURING YOUR READING, YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE NOT MADE IT.

Originally Posted by Dr. Carlson
He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."
I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list. You can write thousands and thousands of words that convey almost no information, Anita. Why won’t you CLEARLY write what you did and observed during the Wayne test? Why do you force us to pry and drag the pertinent facts out of you? You WANT to make it look like we’re picking on ‘poor little Anita”, don’t you?
Standards in college have certainly changed. I didn’t maintain a 4.0, and none of my science professors would have let me get away with writing crap like you do!

I mean, I can even perceive what a person feels that are subtle and healthy things. Like... when a person eats ice-cream, or when they swallow, or their heartbeat, or breathing. If I said that I felt someone's breathing, you would all jump at me and say that I made an incorrect perception since I supposedly claimed to sense lung cancer. No. If I say I felt someone's breathing, I felt someone's breathing. If I say I sensed someone's adam's apple, or left shoulder, then those were what I sensed… “If you say you sensed that someone's adam's apple is a bony structure, then that is what you sensed.”

And, you’re WRONG.

Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time. Pot, met Kettle.

There exists no ability to study. You’re right about the other meaning of this sentence, too.

This link will take you to our groups mail archive. Does anyone else, besides Anita, feel like I had agreed to a meeting this Sunday the 8th? I don’t need to look at that to believe you. If Anita says the sun is shining, take your umbrella along. Virtually everything she’s said in the last few posts has been lies.

skeen
6th February 2009, 06:50 AM
Anita has a severe case of ferjicity methinks.

desertgal
6th February 2009, 06:54 AM
If Anita has a 4.0 average, shouldn't she be on the NCC's Dean's List? Check it out.http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/dean.asp?term=20081

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Mind you, she 'maintains a 4.0 in a double major', but, maybe, the academics office 'misinterprets' her grades, and that's why she isn't on the list. :D

desertgal
6th February 2009, 07:02 AM
Was Wayne ever told or asked about the difference in his shoulders? What was his reaction?

Dunno. Anita offered to ask Wayne to come here and present his viewpoint of what took place, but, of course, you can imagine that that offer went the way of the dodo.

Presenting corroborating statements to substantiate her claims is not Anita's strong point. It's so weak as to be nonexistent.

It's because I don't run around offering psychic medical readings to people to find out.

Except for, you know, 100 or so friends and relatives. :rolleyes:

nathan
6th February 2009, 07:52 AM
If Anita has a 4.0 average, shouldn't she be on the NCC's Dean's List? Check it out.http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/dean.asp?term=20081

For those of us not from the USA what does a 4.0 average really mean? Beyond 'good' I don't know. Also what's the significance of The Dean's List?

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Mind you, she 'maintains a 4.0 in a double major', but, maybe, the academics office 'misinterprets' her grades, and that's why she isn't on the list. :D

Curious, UNCC doesn't think she's doing a double major. It lists Chemistry as the Major.

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 08:07 AM
For those of us not from the USA what does a 4.0 average really mean? Beyond 'good' I don't know. Also what's the significance of The Dean's List?...
4.0 is a straight A average. The rules for the Dean's list are."The Dean's List recognizes undergraduate students with outstanding records of academic performance. To qualify for the Dean's List during the fall or spring semester, a full-time student must earn a grade point average between 3.40 and 3.75 in 12 or more semester hours of credit graded A, B, or C, with no grade less than C. A part-time student must earn a combined fall and spring grade point average between 3.40 and 3.79 in 12 or more semester hours of credit graded A, B, or C, with no grade less than C."

Actually, a 4.0 average would qualify her for the Chancellor's List, because she claims to have earned more than a 3.75 average. Is she on the Chancellor's List for the Fall of 2008?
http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20061
Nope.

Soapy Sam
6th February 2009, 08:12 AM
The answer to that has been a resounding "no" since the beginning. The E in JREF stands for educational. The discussion of her motivations is educational for all of us. Frauds, deluded persons, jokers, and idiots (and combinations thereof) require different techniques not only in detection but in how they are dealt with.

And just to clarify once again, Anita does not have a specific claim. That's something else that needs to be taught or exposed or whatever based on what you think is behind her continued insistence.


Yes. Her name is Anita. If she's a fraud, she should be exposed. If she's deluded, she should get help. If she's an idiot, she should be taught. If she's a joker, she should be ignored.


Fair enough, UY and I tip my hat to your persistence in this case.
I can't help feeling though, that the thread has long since demonstrated
the sort of cyclic futility that tends to emerge in similar cases.

Beyond a certain point , it's hard to see how further repetition will help anyone- and only the most determined lurking fence sitter is likely to plough through 57 pages of this.
Still, if you have the time and the will, Lay on, Macduff!

desertgal
6th February 2009, 08:12 AM
For those of us not from the USA what does a 4.0 average really mean? Beyond 'good' I don't know.

In the USA, letter grades are converted to a 5 point scale. For example:

A = 4.000
A- = 3.666
B+ = 3.333
B = 3.000
B- = 2.666
C+ = 2.333
C = 2.000
C- = 1.666
D+ = 1.333
D = 1.000
D- = 0.666
F = 0.000

To achieve the accurate GPA of an individual student, the following formula is used: Total all the units of "A" level work and multiply this number by 5. Total all units of "B" level work and multiply by 4 and so on. Add the results and divide by the total number of units. The resulting number is rounded to one decimal place.

Also what's the significance of The Dean's List?

The Dean's List is an honor for students who maintain a high cumulative GPA per term. I'm not certain of the criteria for placement on the Dean's List - I believe the student must have a cumulative GPA of 3.6 to 4.0.

Curious, UNCC doesn't think she's doing a double major. It lists Chemistry as the Major.

I noticed that, too. ;)

al_capone_junior
6th February 2009, 08:39 AM
When I was in school in the late nineties, GPA was calculated much differently than the method described by desertgal.

A=4.0
B=3.0
C=2.0
D=1.0
F=0.0

C was passing, D or F not passing.

A three credit course that you got an A in would be 3x4=12 grade points. Total grade points divided by the number of credits would give you your GPA. 4.0 was the max.

There were no +/- attached to your grade, and no decimals.

desertgal
6th February 2009, 08:54 AM
When I was in school in the late nineties, GPA was calculated much differently than the method described by desertgal.

A=4.0
B=3.0
C=2.0
D=1.0
F=0.0

C was passing, D or F not passing.

A three credit course that you got an A in would be 3x4=12 grade points. Total grade points divided by the number of credits would give you your GPA. 4.0 was the max.

There were no +/- attached to your grade, and no decimals.

Well, I went to college in the...gasp...70's, so I can only attest to the way it worked then. If I am remembering it correctly. I might not be. It was the 70's-peace, love, all that. :D

I'll concede that your description is the accurate one in calculating GPA today.

skeen
6th February 2009, 10:48 AM
Uh oh, did Anita just get exposed? Perhaps the vibrational energies affected the list? Let's wait for her excuse.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 11:16 AM
Please, people, do more careful research for before making accusations. Anita Kristina Ikonen is on a couple of Chancellor's Lists.

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20071

ETA: I found Anita on the Spring and Fall 2007 Chancellor's Lists (http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc_lists.htm)

skeen
6th February 2009, 11:27 AM
How is that possible? What kind of a school is this? How, after extensive education, can Anita be so...intellectually challenged? She knows nothing of the scientific method. Generally, I would call her outright stupid in her ridiculous claims and apologetics.

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 11:30 AM
Please, people, do more careful research for before making accusations. Anita Kristina Ikonen is on the Chancellor's List.

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20071

That is strange, it's not here. http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20061

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 11:39 AM
How is that possible? What kind of a school is this? How, after extensive education, can Anita be so...intellectually challenged? She knows nothing of the scientific method. Generally, I would call her outright stupid in her ridiculous claims and apologetics.
I've known people just as seemingly "challenged" in the real world but who excelled in the academic world. Thing is, are we seeing illogical/unintelligent stuff or are we seeing irrational/emotional stuff?

C'mon, even the most ardent skeptic in the world would have a hard time not falling for the charms of an experienced stripper/cont artist. Wanting to believe is a pretty strong motivator.

sleepy_lioness
6th February 2009, 11:43 AM
That is strange, it's not here. http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20061

Looks to me like she's on the Chancellor's Spring and Fall 2007 lists but not the Spring and Fall 2008 lists, if you navigate from this page:

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc_lists.htm

She isn't on the Dean's list for Spring 2008 either, though I can't check the Dean's list for 2007 as it isn't on the site, and I can't check it for Fall 2008 as it won't load for me:

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/dean_lists.htm

VisionFromFeeling
6th February 2009, 11:43 AM
Jeff Corey:
If Anita has a 4.0 average, shouldn't she be on the NCC's Dean's List? I was waiting for that. I received an F last year because I had a professor who was really mean to some of the students. We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw. None of the students earned this behavior, he was just an unfriendly personality. It was making me depressed having to be in an environment like that, so I had to stop attending his class in order to not let it affect my mood and my other grades. As you all know I'm a very sweet and friendly personality and I don't do well with negative behavior like that. So, the school gave me an F. An F that is not based on my study skills, so it really says nothing about me all it says is that my school isn't perfect. I am using a grade replacement policy and retaking that class this semester and already got an A in the first assignment so the 4.0 is coming back. So the F doesn't count and technically I'm still a 4.0. Not that it matters?

All it takes is one F to be kicked off the Chancellor's List. They don't care why you got it, even if it was the school's fault and there was nothing you could do. I've cried about it plenty, but I'll be back by the end of this semester, check back then. :)

Those of you who don't believe my study record are asked to send me $ 5 (transcript fee) and for postage and will be sent an official transcript in the mail. I don't mind proving it. Not that it matters. I just don't like being called a liar when I'm telling the truth, and here is one of the things that can be proven with documentation.

Curious, UNCC doesn't think she's doing a double major. It lists Chemistry as the Major. I am majoring in Chemistry and in Physics. Chemistry (http://search.uncc.edu/people/?p=search&role=1&refresh=0&firstname=anita&lastname=ikonen), and Physics (http://physics.uncc.edu/people/undergraduates/undergraduates.html).

*I feel like this discussion is inappropriate. Do keep in mind that my university is not affiliated with my paranormal investigation and that I do not represent my university here.

Old man
6th February 2009, 11:44 AM
That is strange, it's not here. http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20061

That's because your link appears to be to the 2006 list.

Gord_in_Toronto
6th February 2009, 11:44 AM
Uh oh, did Anita just get exposed? Perhaps the vibrational energies affected the list? Let's wait for her excuse.

Similar sort of questions from me. I just don't have the energy to read the few hundred posts since I last checked in. :o

Can someone give skeen and I a brief summary? :eek:

Old man
6th February 2009, 11:47 AM
C'mon, even the most ardent skeptic in the world would have a hard time not falling for the charms of an experienced stripper/cont artist. Wanting to believe is a pretty strong motivator. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. :cool:

Professor Yaffle
6th February 2009, 11:47 AM
Deleted - redundant.

Old man
6th February 2009, 11:51 AM
None of the students earned this behavior, he was just an unfriendly personality... Sorta like us? :(

nathan
6th February 2009, 11:52 AM
So the F doesn't count and technically I'm still a 4.0.
This is just so funny in this context :) just like your other misses?

No, 'technically' you are not a 4.0 average -- you got an F. But you are taking steps to restore that. See that problem with the truth? You're still having it.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 11:58 AM
Here's my feeling on the whole 4.0 GPA thing: I don't care if it's absolutely true or reasonably certain to be true or possibly true. Her GPA doesn't mean squat to me. I only care if she's lying about it *and* that lie can be easily exposed. It cannot. Case closed for me.

Ashles
6th February 2009, 11:59 AM
Right my patience is officially at an end.

I tried to be constructive, I tried to deal solely with the study, I tried to generate something worthwhile out of the mess that is this study.
No-one, not even Anita Liekonen could say I didn't.

But I've had enough now.

The last 10-20 pages and all my recent posts have demonstrated that you get absolutely nowhere by treating Anita respectfully, sticking resolutely to the subject, avoiding any distractions or irrelevancies and even sometimes disagreeing with other skeptics in order to attempt to assist her in attempting to tighten some of the fuzziness around this 'study'.

To some extent it was an experiment on my part.

I wanted to attempt to do what I could to help Anita try and get something useful from this study, and see how far such an approach might work.
I tried to generate a Falsification Scenario (we can disagree about the real validity of my arbitrary figures elsewhere) and I even tried to come up with a way that she could measure the strength of individual ailment detection.

I got pretty much NOTHING by way of response from her. She was not interested in working with me on this, or discussing the details.

All I got was a list of ailments measured in a completely different way to what I suggested (her ludicrous percentage scale, adding another scale ON TOP of her 1-5 scale).
My attempts to turn this into something that could be measured as Hits and Misses for the Falsification Scenario she claimed to want, were competely ignored.

Either way I would have learned something by trying to work with her. Whether she was interested in working with anyone or not.

I have learned the not entirely unexpected fact that she is not interested in actually developing a Study, Survey, Test... anything whereby her nonsense is really measured (hardly scoop of the century I know but in this instance she can't turn around and say I didn't try).

She had the opportunity to attempt to convince me she was at least trying to develop a useful protocol, but maybe just had a poor understanding of scientific protocol or experimental design and was open to suggestions.
She is not. She is actively avoiding anything that might remove wiggle room for her ridiculous interpretations of her own ability.

Dear FACT Skeptics,

I do hope that we can have the study into my paranormal claim this Sunday February 8 as I am hoping to begin making some real progress in my investigation.
Here is a study procedure written specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?...4fgromuvbb62r3 (http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?access_key=key-igh6i4fgromuvbb62r3)
And the health questionnaire specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?...itvrjnq13y745e (http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?access_key=key-2kds8ritvrjnq13y745e)
The internet version of the questionnaire displays displays the tables incorrectly. Find both of these documents enclosed as original and printable Word.doc attachments in this e-mail. E-mail me if you are unable to access printable versions of the documents.
After all this time still no correct documents. A last minute rejig, no doubt something that will change again, probably as it was being handed to the volunteers.
This isn't science, this isn't a study, this is a joke.
A day out for Anita.
A party in the park with Anita as the centre of a hub of meaningless activity.

Jim wrote,

Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.
Jim tries to deal in specifics and details and timescales.
He is of course as doomed to failure as any of us who attempt that.

The study is not a test and is primarily not designed according to a point scale system, but see the enclosed study procedure which suggests one method of obtaining a result. In the procedure I suggest that for each of the answers that can be answered on a scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, each discrepancy of one units between the answers of volunteer and claimant results in a deduction of 20% of the possible 1.0 point for that question. So that if one answers 2 and the other answers 4 there is a deduction of 40% and 0.6 points correlation for that particular ailment. Since it would be easy to "collect points" by guessing randomly and getting at least "some" correlation, the average correlation per question is calculated. Two skeptics are asked to look at the volunteers and to fill in health questionnaires alongside me the claimant and we will compare the average correlation between claimant and that acchieved by non-claimants. I do not have an answer as to what specific results would lead to the falsification of the paranormal claim.
Anita ignored EVERY SINGLE POST I made about this.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.

I suggested a way this could be calculated. She didn't even have the decency to respond, much less to try to work with me to improve anything she felt could be reworked.
Just offhand remarks to Jim about it.

Anita never intended to have a falsification scenario. Which we all suspected all along. I was amazed it was even in there as a goal.
Again it shows how appallingly sloppy her study design is - she apparently couldn't even decide if it is intended to falsify or not?
What do they teach at that University?

It was part of the study, now, oh hang on I don't really know how to do that? Oh you have a suggestion? I'll just ignore it, maybe it will go away...

Either she is an abysmal student, her University has Mickey Mouse science degrees or she is simply not interested in analysing her claim in any serious way.
You can tick more than one if you like.

This study is designed primarily for educational purposes, and to make it into a test would reduce the educational quality of the study.
I'm simply going to assume that sentence is a joke.
This study could not have any less "educational quality" if it were designed by Laurel and Hardy.

I am just hoping that a non-ability would have some opportunity of being revealed.
No aims as to how, just, you know, it'll sort of happen. Still it doesn't really matter, it's just a fun day out in the park.

If it bothers you that there is not a specific point at which the claim would be falsified you may then assume that falsification of a non-ability is not among the objectives of this study.
And there we go. The possibility of falsification is simply dropped. She had given it no thought when designing the study, just chucked it in as a vague goal of the "Oh I'll know it when I see it" variety. You know, just how real science works.:rolleyes:
I particularly enjoy the implication is that it because Jim has some strange and unreasonable concerns that there is no agreement of what would constitute falsification.
Never mind that that is ENTIRELY ANITA'S FAULT due to bad study design, lack of intelligent or strict goals and completely ignoring any proposals around falsification.

I really would value your participations.
That is simply a lie. It has passed its sell by date. Wolf has been cried too often. It is meaningless to say she values participation when every single action she makes demonstrates she clearly does not.
Anita has NO interest in anyone's input, suggestions, participation... nothing. Anything that might tighten the protocol or yield useful information is simply rejected or ignored.
She is as self centred as a gyroscope.

This study would be tremendously helpful in forming a stronger claim and coming closer to a real test and the real falsification of a non-ability.
No it won't. It will not be useful for anything whatsoever. She may as well eat a sandwich or learn the violin for all the use this study will be.
And it won't even happen unless Anita does it on her own somewhere. She is systematically ignoring, rejecting or alienating anyone who might possibly want to be involved.

And, do remember: it is a study, not a test. So don't take it "too" seriously.
So even Anita views it as a complete waste of time?
I'm sure all the skeptics who spent time trying to come up with protocols, methods of analysis, reading forms, organising their free time to be spent on this study... I'm sure they are all overjoyed that it turns out Anita doesn't treat this seriously.
Fine let's all forget about it.

I do hope that the study can take place.
Simply and demonstrably untrue.

Please participate!
Why?
It's not a test, it has no strict protocol, no clear goals, no agreed method of measurement, no method of falsification, no location, no participants and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm sure the FACT Skeptics are all fired up about participating in that.

Paranormal claimant,
Oh so today she is a Paranormal claimant then?

Anita Ikonen
Oh look, I found something that might be true. Her name.

And just so we are clear on this once and for all - Anita - you have made incorrect claims regarding your ability.
Wayne's shoulder and his throat were simply and indisputably incorrect perceptions. Your excuses around this are actually laughable now.

I'm glad I perservered as much as I did, I feel totally comfortable in now assuming Anita does not beleive she has any ability whatsoever.
This entire claim from hereonin is, to me, entirely for the entertainment that will be generated by watching her attempt to squirm out of testing.
And alienating yet further skeptic groups.

al_capone_junior
6th February 2009, 12:02 PM
Well, I went to college in the...gasp...70's, so I can only attest to the way it worked then. If I am remembering it correctly. I might not be. It was the 70's-peace, love, all that. :D

I'll concede that your description is the accurate one in calculating GPA today.

Well I only mentioned it because it was common around here. I believe other universities might use different methods, and I certainly didn't mean to discount or contradict your post or anything. :D

Seems like a long time since I was at school too....

al

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 12:04 PM
Please, people, do more careful research for before making accusations. Anita Kristina Ikonen is on a couple of Chancellor's Lists...
I specified that she wasn't on the Fall 2008 list.

nathan
6th February 2009, 12:11 PM
dup

nathan
6th February 2009, 12:15 PM
I am majoring in Chemistry and in Physics. Chemistry (http://search.uncc.edu/people/?p=search&role=1&refresh=0&firstname=anita&lastname=ikonen), and Physics (http://physics.uncc.edu/people/undergraduates/undergraduates.html).

The first link appears to be the university-wide data base, the second appears to be the school of physics. Perhaps you need to click on the 'click here if your student information is incorrect' link?

*I feel like this discussion is inappropriate. Do keep in mind that my university is not affiliated with my paranormal investigation and that I do not represent my university.
It goes to your credibility. If information that we can check up is inconsistent with what you claim, your fraud quotient increases.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 12:18 PM
Ashles,

Some birthday, huh?

I understand your frustration.

Moochie
6th February 2009, 12:25 PM
Anita's having a field day with this. :)


ETA: Has anyone thought to pick up the http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com sites?

M.

Old man
6th February 2009, 12:29 PM
I specified that she wasn't on the Fall 2008 list. Yes you did, but your link went to the 2006 list. Is that the one you were looking at, and thinking it was the 2008 list? (Yes, I realize that that in no way impacts on her NOT being on the 2008 list.)

skeen
6th February 2009, 12:32 PM
Ashles, happy birthday. Along with others, I think you've done a wonderful job in helping to assist in some kind of test taking place. Of course, it was doomed to failure. What now? As per usual, Anita will claim "impatience" on part of us skeptics.

At this point, the wheel can only go around and around. If Anita were really interested in testing this ability, in establishing whether it was real or not, she could have done it in 10 minutes. She could have convinced all of us a thousand times by now.

What are her intentions? I'm starting to think perhaps she's just lonely.

VisionFromFeeling
6th February 2009, 12:32 PM
Dear Skeptics,
I did not produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne. I said that I felt a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent and that I sensed his adam's apple. Neither of which I identified as health problems. My conclusion at the end of seeing Wayne was that I found no health problems.

I will look into the possibility of arranging a study into my paranormal claim together with college students from my university if I find any that are interested in experiencing an attempt of applying the scientific method to explaining an unusual experience. It could be an educational experience for all of us students involved. These would have to be students who I do not know prior, and thus preferably in another major field such as Biology or Psychology. These students could act as participating skeptics. I want to have my study as soon as possible and while I begin making other arrangements on the side, the FACT Skeptics can take their time.

I strongly feel that my 1st Study does not need to be like a test, since it is not a test. But if there is a 2nd Study it will implement even more test conditions and will gradually approach being conducted under proper test conditions.

However, school comes first, so don't you all get frustrated if it takes time for me to arrange it.

skeen
6th February 2009, 12:35 PM
What's that Anita? Starting to lose us, so dangling a possible study in front of us? Nobody believes you.

The only students that can benefit from your study are the psychology students.

And I have to laugh at the notion that school comes first. It comes above potentially saving billions of lives with your incredible discovery? It comes before revealing yourself as the more amazing person the world has ever seen? You craaaazyyyy.

Moochie
6th February 2009, 12:37 PM
<snip>

However, school comes first, so don't you all get frustrated if it takes time for me to arrange it.

No frustration here, ma'am. Just idle curiosity.


M.

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 12:38 PM
Yes you did, but your link went to the 2006 list. Is that the one you were looking at, and thinking it was the 2008 list? (Yes, I realize that that in no way impacts on her NOT being on the 2008 list.)

No, I just posted the wrong link after viewing a few lists because that one was updated on 1/27/09.

Old man
6th February 2009, 12:43 PM
No, I just posted the wrong link after viewing a few lists because that one was updated on 1/27/09. Thought so. (Just keeping things 'honest', a concept that Anita seems to struggle with.)

desertgal
6th February 2009, 12:45 PM
I just don't like being called a liar when I'm telling the truth, and here is one of the things that can be proven with documentation.


Fair enough. I apologize for inferring that you were lying about this specific issue. Congratulations on your accomplishment. It is impressive, and you have every right to defend it.

Here's my feeling on the whole 4.0 GPA thing: I don't care if it's absolutely true or reasonably certain to be true or possibly true. Her GPA doesn't mean squat to me. I only care if she's lying about it *and* that lie can be easily exposed. It cannot. Case closed for me.

Ditto.

I did not produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne. I said that I felt a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent and that I sensed his adam's apple.

Yes, you were incorrect. He did not have a tired left shoulder, insignificant or otherwise. He did not have discomfort in his throat, related to his Adam's apple or otherwise. You did not "sense" his Adam's apple. You can keep reiterating the lies, and they will still be lies.

It's no wonder your honesty is considered doubtful.

I will look into the possibility of arranging a study into my paranormal claim together with college students from my university if I find any that are interested in experiencing an attempt of applying the scientific method to explaining an unusual experience. It could be an educational experience for all of us students involved. These would have to be students who I do not know prior, and thus preferably in another major field such as Biology or Psychology. These students could act as participating skeptics. I want to have my study as soon as possible and while I begin making other arrangements on the side, the FACT Skeptics can take their time.

Yawn. Just more words that will come to nothing.

It goes to your credibility. If information that we can check up is inconsistent with what you claim, your fraud quotient increases.

Anita doesn't get that. She never will.

It is meaningless to say she values participation when every single action she makes demonstrates she clearly does not.Anita has NO interest in anyone's input, suggestions, participation... nothing. Anything that might tighten the protocol or yield useful information is simply rejected or ignored.
She is as self centred as a gyroscope.
This entire claim from here on in is, to me, entirely for the entertainment that will be generated by watching her attempt to squirm out of testing.
And alienating yet further skeptic groups.


Agreed.

At this stage, unless Anita posts results of a "study"-and I'm not holding my breath for that-any further discussion with her is fruitless.

You did good, Ashles. Kudos to your patience and perseverance.

Moochie
6th February 2009, 12:52 PM
Does anyone wonder why Anita refers to the forthcoming activity as a "study," and that she has emphasized this numerous times?


M.

desertgal
6th February 2009, 12:57 PM
Does anyone wonder why Anita refers to the forthcoming activity as a "study," and that she has emphasized this numerous times?


M.

No. It's like referring to her anecdotes as "example" instead of "evidence". It's just Anita, doing the wiggle.

LONGTABBER PE
6th February 2009, 12:58 PM
Does anyone wonder why Anita refers to the forthcoming activity as a "study," and that she has emphasized this numerous times?


M.

Its skillful con talk

a "test" would be go/no-go as to whether she actually has something to be studied. To fail there brings the curtain down forever.

Cant have that.
A "study" implies ( subtley) that the "ability" is a fact ( backdoor proof and acknowledgement that its legitimate) and a "study" can forever be bogged down in ambiguity. ( much as has been seen in this thread by suggesting this and rejecting that with all the aloof flowery reasons that are meaningless)

Remember, a con KNOWS its a con and since they know this, they will NEVER allow themselves to face a test of "proof" because then the con is over.

Thats what she is doing and why. Shes running a scam.

skeen
6th February 2009, 01:00 PM
It is odd that she wants to conduct a "study", and has repeatedly said this will not be a test. Why not just do a test? Her claim is that she wants to study the extent of her ability...which we do not know exists. Because there has been no test.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 01:10 PM
No, I just posted the wrong link after viewing a few lists because that one was updated on 1/27/09.

All of those Chancellor pages were updated on 1/27/09 at 4:12:23 PM.

There are six lists available for viewing, and she's on two of them. You did not mention that rather important detail, maybe because you didn't look.

The page you linked to had no indication of the time period it covered. We had to figure that out from the URL, and it turns out to be from 2006, which, as we understand it, is before she enrolled.

I said that people should be more careful. I stand by that statement.

Belz...
6th February 2009, 01:13 PM
Dear Skeptics,

Anita, this is just a waste of time.

We should just ignore you, now, as I will, and go along our business dealing with other nuttery. You, in the meantime, should seek professional help.

Goodbye.

wardenclyffe
6th February 2009, 01:14 PM
Here's why I agree that VfF needs the "study." She has no testable claim. If the study yields a claim, then it's worth doing. Whether the study will ever happen or ever yield a claim is another debate entirely. Neither F.A.C.T. nor IIG can conduct any sort of test. Test of what? What's the claim? She says the study's designed to give her a more specific claim. The flaws in the study are irrelevant. The only relevant aspect of the study is that it might (might!) give her enough confidence to make an actual specific testable claim. Then that claim can be tested by F.A.C.T. It can be tested by IIG and she can win their $50K and then she can add a million to that by applying for Randi's MDC.

That being said, I understand how she could stop after a poorly designed "study" and say that it's proof of her powers.

She says she's not going to do that, but um.........

Ward

Moochie
6th February 2009, 01:24 PM
All of those Chancellor pages were updated on 1/27/09 at 4:12:23 PM.

There are six lists available for viewing, and she's on two of them. You did not mention that rather important detail, maybe because you didn't look.

The page you linked to had no indication of the time period it covered. We had to figure that out from the URL, and it turns out to be from 2006, which, as we understand it, is before she enrolled.

I said that people should be more careful. I stand by that statement.

Are you saying that our Anita is not the one with the 4.0 GPA?


M.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 01:30 PM
Its skillful con talk

a "test" would be go/no-go as to whether she actually has something to be studied. To fail there brings the curtain down forever.

Cant have that.


Sure she can! Plenty of scammers and frauds have submitted to tests. Some fail. Some wiggle on the hook. Some pass. They all kept right on going. Look at Uri Geller. Look at all the Bigfoot hoaxers. Plenty have been exposed as outright frauds (earpieces with somebody off-stage feeding information), yet they continue.

And how can you say it is "skillful" when everybody can clearly see that she's avoiding a test for some reason despite obviously spending hours and hours on setting it up. That's not skillful in the least.

It's delusional behavior. C'mon, is she such an incredibly good scammer that she set up the FACT people to make it look like they stopped the test, not her? I mean, that is superb acting and incredible manipulation.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 01:34 PM
Are you saying that our Anita is not the one with the 4.0 GPA?


No. I'm not sure how you got that.

Moochie
6th February 2009, 01:39 PM
No. I'm not sure how you got that.

Never mind. It seems I misread your post.

Whether she has a GPA of 4.0 or not is irrelevant. But as far as I can ascertain the poster is quite bright.


M.

skeen
6th February 2009, 02:00 PM
The study could actually be harmful. I mean, it's basically a guessing game, isn't it? That can't possibly yield useful results. The most we can expect from it, is the general woo claim that "my ability works 100%, except when it doesn't".

Anita has already proven than regardless of the results, she will not admit defeat; even in the face of everyone disagreeing with her. This whole thing is useless. Anita is not a willing participant.

She has already thrown several fits, threatening to leave. If the pressure cooker were to be turned up, if she were to get close to any kind of testing, she will merely a leave. She trusts herself above all else. She has shown that she does not care what the outside world (outside of her own world) thinks. She is happy to convince only herself.

Old man
6th February 2009, 02:04 PM
Never mind. It seems I misread misinterpreted your post... Fixed it for you. :D

Moochie
6th February 2009, 02:14 PM
No, no, no! It's



<snip>


Anita has already proven than irregardless of the results, she will not admit defeat; even in the face of everyone disagreeing with her. This whole thing is useless. Anita is not a willing participant.

<snip>




M.

Moochie
6th February 2009, 02:17 PM
Fixed it for you. :D

Son of a gun!


M.

wardenclyffe
6th February 2009, 02:40 PM
Skeen, I agree that the study may be useless, but not necessarily harmful. You suggest both in your most recent post. I half-agree with you.

Ward

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 02:43 PM
Solid 10. Cons never give direct answers or speak in finite terms. This is called playing the "pressure" card. "I knew I felt something (legitimizing the initial claim) but jumped the gun because ( playing the innocent error card)"
Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

>>>c) That was not a miss and this wasn't a test anyway. I said it was a slight discomfort and probably just his Adam's apple. There's no way that could be a miss or prove anything.

solid 10- Blaming the test and forming a basis for denying. ( thats like the con saying "what do those nasty realtors know, thats why they are all rich- let me tell you what the "real" truth is)

>>>d) How does "I conclude that I find no health problems. But I did sense his adam's apple." lead you to the conclusion that I detected a thyroid problem?

when all else fails, throw up the smokescreen and turn it back on them ( keeps them busy and the con doesnt have to answer and knows they will expend energy "explaining" why the con was wrong which will boil down to nothing since the con already knew he was lying. This is a wear down strategy)
I disagree. Both are also very much something a delusional person would do - interpret things in ways that nobody else does. Any con artist worth her salt will, when faced with incredible opposition, back down from a stance and use another.

Thus from my perspective, a con artist will most likely come out with the first two. They make the most sense, and we've seen the Uri Geller's of the world do it. A delusional person would never use the first two. And we've never seen Anita use either approach.

If a con artist tried the second two, I wouldn't think it would be a good choice unless it were one-on-one where personal influence would be a major factor. It would be a bad idea to try it with an audience, especially a hostile one. And if the fraud did try it and met the resistance Anita has met, then dropping back to #1 or #2 would be the best course of action. Starting with #3 and moving on to #4 makes little sense.

Meanwhile, a delusional person would come out with #3 or #4 first, and jump from one to the other without even considering #1 or #2.

Thus, I rank #3 and #4 on their own as being no higher than 5. When I see both being used, I put it as a 3.

This is the heart of my argument. I keep seeing way too many things that land on the delusional side of the scale but could still be fraudulent. Meanwhile, I don't see her doing things that are clearly on the fraud end of the scale and not delusional.

Frauds and deluded persons will twist things around.

A fraud will twist things to get me to believe what she wants me to believe.

A deluded person will twist things to permit herself to believe what she already believes.

Ocelot
6th February 2009, 04:23 PM
stripper/cont artist.

Is cont artistry the new pole dancing?

nathan
6th February 2009, 04:34 PM
Dear Skeptics,
I did not produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne. I said that I felt a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent and that I sensed his adam's apple. Neither of which I identified as health problems. My conclusion at the end of seeing Wayne was that I found no health problems.
Masterfully weasel worded. You're still a liar though.

Ashles
6th February 2009, 05:28 PM
Dear Skeptics,
I did not produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne.
Dear Anita.
Yes you did. Absolutely and unequivocably.
For every time you can repeat that lie we can point to the facts.

I said that I felt a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent and that I sensed his adam's apple.
He didn't have a tired left shoulder, so you were wrong.
You reported the "tired left shoulder" so it was significant enough to mention.
You did not write that you sensed an "adam's apple" so that is a lie. You wrote that you sensed throat discomfort. Which was wrong.
Every man has an adam's apple so your claim to have detected something that every healthy man is known to have, is stupid and demonstrates how blatantly you refuse to accept being wrong. This also shows how little point there is for anyone to even attempt to try and work wih you in developing a test protocol. There are of course loads of other reasons too.
I am happy to copy and paste that as many times as you are prepared to lie about the results of that incident.

Neither of which I identified as health problems. My conclusion at the end of seeing Wayne was that I found no health problems.
Yeah you did. You described them. You were wrong about them.

I will look into the possibility of arranging a study into my paranormal claim together with college students from my university if I find any that are interested in experiencing an attempt of applying the scientific method to explaining an unusual experience.
But you care so deeply about not involving your university don't you?
Oh is that ignored now?
Oh I see that's ditched now the skeptics aren't falling for this. I guess you're looking for more gullible subjects.

It could be an educational experience for all of us students involved.
That's true. Every science student can witness a fascinating display of how not to run a scientific experiment.
And they can read this thread and see how claims without evidence wither and die when questioned methodically.

These would have to be students who I do not know prior, and thus preferably in another major field such as Biology or Psychology. These students could act as participating skeptics. I want to have my study as soon as possible and while I begin making other arrangements on the side, the FACT Skeptics can take their time.
Just like you moved to the FACT skeptic while the IIG skeptics were 'taking their time'.
Because of course it's always everyone else, not you, isn't it?

I strongly feel that my 1st Study does not need to be like a test, since it is not a test. But if there is a 2nd Study it will implement even more test conditions
No, surely not... not EVEN MORE test conditions than ABSOLUTELY NO test conditions?
My goodness, how strict will these non-tests get?

and will gradually approach being conducted under proper test conditions.
'Gradually' we will reach 'proper test conditions' and 'eventually' we will find out about the 'survey'.
And shortly after the heat death of the universe we may 'gradually' approach the definitive and agreed design of a falsification scenario.
Which will then get rejected or ignored.

Gosh these world changing scientific breakthroughs sure are tricky to display.

However, school comes first, so don't you all get frustrated if it takes time for me to arrange it.
How could we get frustrated about the non-appearance of something none of us believe will ever happen?

Anita, you are officially our little clown now.
Please amuse us further with your funny displays and amusing antics.

Jonquill
6th February 2009, 05:43 PM
I had a professor who was really mean to some of the students. We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw.




Would this really happen in a university?

GeeMack
6th February 2009, 05:43 PM
Dear Skeptics,


My, aren't you formal? Damned shame you still can't muster a bit of honesty.

I did not produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne.


Yes, you did produce incorrect medical perceptions in the viewing with Wayne.

I said that I felt a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent and that I sensed his adam's apple. Neither of which I identified as health problems. My conclusion at the end of seeing Wayne was that I found no health problems.


Not even the one that was there. Plus a couple of perceptions which were clearly, 100% wrong.

I will look into the possibility of arranging a study into my paranormal claim together with college students from my university if I find any that are interested in experiencing an attempt of applying the scientific method to explaining an unusual experience.


No, Anita, you won't. You don't have the courage to risk losing your delusion. You're sick like a junkie who can't give up the stuff. Lost Weekend comes to mind. And you wouldn't know the scientific method if it came up and bit you on the ass. And... your unusual experience has been explained many times over right here in this thread. You're either attempting some sort of scam or you're sick in the head.

It could be an educational experience for all of us students involved.


Most of the students at your school have met compulsive liars and egomaniacs before. Most of them have crossed paths with delusional people. It might be educational for them to meet someone experiencing those problems with the severity of yours. But other than that, there's little to learn. But do remember to treat them like crap, the way you've treated everyone in this thread. That's where your real talent lies. (Oh, did I say "lies"? ;))

These would have to be students who I do not know prior, and thus preferably in another major field such as Biology or Psychology. These students could act as participating skeptics. I want to have my study as soon as possible and while I begin making other arrangements on the side, the FACT Skeptics can take their time.


When I read that last sentence, why do I see the words, "... the FACT Skeptics can go screw themselves if they aren't willing to be manipulated?"

I strongly feel that my 1st Study does not need to be like a test, since it is not a test. But if there is a 2nd Study it will implement even more test conditions and will gradually approach being conducted under proper test conditions.


You'll gradually, or sometimes with extreme haste, bail out on anything remotely resembling a study or test if there's even a remote possibility that you'll have to face the fact that you're nuts.

However, school comes first, so don't you all get frustrated if it takes time for me to arrange it.


It was only frustrating when some of us held out a little hope for you, but you've shown that you're hopeless. You've made yourself into an object of ridicule, a mere toy. You're like that ball of lint the cats smack around on the floor. You're mostly boring, but now and then it's entertaining to watch you get batted around again for a few minutes. :)

desertgal
6th February 2009, 06:45 PM
I had a professor who was really mean to some of the students. We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw.
Would this really happen in a university?

Just another version: "It wasn't ME, it was HIM." :rolleyes:

Jonquill
6th February 2009, 06:54 PM
I find it hard to believe that a professor could behave like that and not be reported?

Locknar
6th February 2009, 07:18 PM
We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw. None of the students earned this behavior, he was just an unfriendly personality.Seems unlikely that a university, or any school, would tolerate such criminal behavior. Do tell, what did you do about this?

Surly a student, somewhere along the line, reported this to the Dean of the appropriate dept., or the police (ie. Assault and Battery).

If reported, and the school has done nothing...run, don't walk get your lawyer (the same one you are going to use against the Park Service for denying Constitutional Rights)....

So...to recap; according to you you've told 4 University Professors of your amazing ability and none seem especially interested in what would surely be Nobel Prize kinda stuff, you've had a fellow student steal your ideas on Vibrational Algebra (tm) and a professor that knows of this plagiarism and has done nothing, a mean teacher that essential beats and berates students, Skeptic groups that are standing in your way in terms of conducting your study/test/what ever you are going to call it, the local Park Service denying use of the park, etc. But of course...it is them, not you.

Just to plain sad to be funny.

desertgal
6th February 2009, 07:33 PM
I find it hard to believe that a professor could behave like that and not be reported?

Consider the source of the information. :D

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 07:54 PM
Here's why I agree that VfF needs the "study." She has no testable claim.
To be clear, she has no claim which could be proven to true. She does, however, have claims which could be shown to be false. She has claimed to have read about 100 people with 100% Apparent Accuracy™ - no false positives.

That's testable via her study. In fact, those 100 people are her first "study" that led her to beliefs in the first place. If she throws around a bunch of false positives, then there's no need to go any further.

Prometheus
6th February 2009, 08:02 PM
No, no, no! It's



<snip>


Anita has already proven than irregardless of the results, she will not admit defeat; even in the face of everyone disagreeing with her. This whole thing is useless. Anita is not a willing participant.

<snip>




M.

Now why would you go and incorrectly replace a proper word with that nonsense, while ignoring the perfectly good typographical error immediately to its left? [/pedant]

tsig
6th February 2009, 08:26 PM
Just another version: "It wasn't ME, it was HIM." :rolleyes:

She must have got an A from him to keep her 4.0

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 08:26 PM
Jeff Corey:
I was waiting for that. I received an F last year because I had a professor who was really mean to some of the students. We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw. None of the students earned this behavior, he was just an unfriendly personality. It was making me depressed having to be in an environment like that, so I had to stop attending his class in order to not let it affect my mood and my other grades.
I see. It reminds of this chick I knew who said she could identify chemicals just by looking at them. She offered to prove it, but when the testing got tough, she said it made her sick, and she had to quit.

As you all know I'm a very sweet and friendly personality...
Sometimes. Other times the opposite.

So, the school gave me an F.
No. You earned an F.

An F that is not based on my study skills, so it really says nothing about me all it says is that my school isn't perfect.
It says that you are a quitter. It says you're weak.

I am using a grade replacement policy
Turning a miss into a hit?

So the F doesn't count and technically I'm still a 4.0.
Technically, you are not.

Those of you who don't believe my study record are asked to send me $ 5 (transcript fee) and for postage and will be sent an official transcript in the mail. I don't mind proving it. Not that it matters. I just don't like being called a liar when I'm telling the truth, and here is one of the things that can be proven with documentation.
I still have not received the survey notes you agreed to send. Put the transcript in the same bundle. My business address and fax number are on my website, and the link is in my signature.

*I feel like this discussion is inappropriate. Do keep in mind that my university is not affiliated with my paranormal investigation and that I do not represent my university here.
Then don't discuss it. However, it's certainly on topic.
Me: Do what you say you're gonna do.
You: I am very busy with school. I have a 4.0, ya know.
Me: I managed to meet my obligations while working full time and attending school.
You: But did you keep an 4.0 like me, you know, Miss 4.0?
Others: Gee, where's that 4.0, Anita? We can't find any evidence of it.
You: I quit, but it wasn't my fault. They were mean!:boxedin: I don't wanna talk about it. Weave me awone.

Jeff Corey
6th February 2009, 09:18 PM
Fact was that she earned an F and did not have a 4.0 average while she was telling us she did. She lied.
Fool me once, my fault.

Uncayimmy
6th February 2009, 10:44 PM
Ashles,

This quote from That '70s Show reminded me of this whole health questionnaire thing.

KELSO
I've got it. I got the quote. "What a long strange trip it's been... in Forman's basement!"

DONNA
Yeah, we have made a lot of memories in that basement.

HYDE
To bad we can't remember any of them.

ERIC
Allright, guys, I think it's ready. I'm off to pop!

HE GETS UP AND RUNS OFF

JACKIE
Wait a minute. I hate that quote. My name isn't anywhere in that quote.

KELSO
Okay fine, you know, I'll just make my quote. "What a long strange trip it's been... with Jackie Burkhart?"

JACKIE
Yeah, okay, but without the "long strange trip" part.

KELSO
Allright, so I'll just write...

JACKIE
"I love Jackie Burkhart."

KELSO
Okay.

Miss_Kitt
7th February 2009, 02:06 AM
Okay, okay, when I read the "Anita explains how getting an F is still having a 4.0" post, I got as far the Mean Professor, and I literally went and got some chips to eat while reading. As in, :popcorn1

I thus nearly choked when I got to Ashles's brilliant observation, "She is as self-centered as a gyroscope." Pure poetry, that. Can you nominate two sentences out of a large post for Pith??
Shout out also to whomever suggested she was a ball of paper for cats to bat around, occasionally amusing but not otherwise worthy of attention. Great imagery, folks!

Special to Anita: Let's pretend you are going to see a doctor. You ask him how good he is at this surgical procedure, and he says, "I've had perfect results, never a problem." You then discover that, actually, one time the patient died. Do you agree that he can't honestly claim "perfect results"? Would you feel he was misleading you?

That's what you have done by saying you have a 4.0 when in fact you had a 4.0, but now your GPA has been dragged down by an "F". It's simply not truthful to say you have gotten straight A's. You haven't.

Normally, your grades would not be germane to this thread, but it is a perfect example of exactly the thinking error you are making with your, "I'm 100% accurate" statements. You can't just count the ones where you feel you had a good shot; you can't decide to not include the one failure, because it was somehow not 'fair' that you couldn't perform. You could say, "I've only had one class that I didn't get an A in," and that would still demonstrate a remarkable scholastic achievement; it would also be truthful. You could say, "My perceptions have been correct the vast majority of the time," and that would be truthful even with the misses on Wayne.

But you don't say that; instead, you insist, ever more shrilly, that you have never, ever been wrong. You repeat and repeat the assertion that this is so, even though by this time no one believes you. By doing so, you have shattered your credibility. Since we have no other party to confirm your claimed successes in other cases, we are forced to conclude that we can't rely on them as being anything other than selective memory on your part. Or perhaps, correct memory altered intentfully to deceive. Either way, there's no support for your supposed ability; and now, specific evidence of false witness by you as well.

Your credibility is zip-point-dung. Either you're a liar, or you're really good at lying to yourself. Either way, you have destroyed any chance to be taken seriously, not just in this thread but--due to the Eternal Life of Internet Stuff -- in the future.

What is a future employer going to make of someone who lies about what classes they passed? "Oh, that client was a big meanie, so I just avoided the stress of doing his project." It's the same logic, but it won't fly. No reasonable employer would risk it.

Best of luck, VfF; you're going to need it. Miss Kitt

calebprime
7th February 2009, 04:48 AM
I find it hard to believe that a professor could behave like that and not be reported?

unless it was New England Conservatory during the 80's.

Hey, lookin' good, Miss Kitt.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 05:32 AM
Technically, you are not.


In fairness, technically, she is. She's on the Chancellor's List for her grades from the 2008 fall semester, which translates to maintaining straight A's during the months she has been posting. Which, technically, is what she claimed: "I have a 4.0."

However, not so technically, her "I have a 4.0" also inferred that she has maintained that average for the last three years, which is, as usual, disingenuously manipulative. She didn't have 4.0 for the 2008 spring(?) semester, so her overall average is lower than a 4.0. I don't buy her story about the 'mean' Professor-it's typical Anita speak for shifting the blame onto everyone but herself. You threw up your hands and quit the class, Anita, instead of taking steps to help correct the Professor's alleged mistreatment of his students. By quitting, you earned the F. Stop blaming other people because you elected to quit instead of handling the situation like an adult.

As well, your story is fishy. I went to a state university, as you do, and as many others here did. There is simply no way that a professor would mistreat his students as you describe, and at least some of those students wouldn't behave like the adults they are meant to be and alert the administration. They wouldn't all quit the class, nor would they sit there and take it.

(I will concede, though, that her academic record is still impressive, and it reflects some hard work and dedication on her part. I'm willing to acknowledge that she's done well in college and has the right be proud of that.)

Anita, I have to agree with Miss Kitt-your selective memory and blame shifting, whether it be over grades or "perceptions" or what have you - has contributed greatly to destroying your credibility. It doesn't bode well for your future. While you are arrogantly observing life from your lofty perch of being far superior to everyone else on Earth, you might want to think about that.

She must have got an A from him to keep her 4.0

No, that was in the 2008 spring(?) semester. She didn't receive a 4.0 cumulative GPA for that term because she quit the class, and got an F.

sleepy_lioness
7th February 2009, 06:04 AM
In fairness, technically, she is. She's on the Chancellor's List for her grades from the 2008 fall semester, which translates to maintaining straight A's during the months she has been posting. Which, technically, is what she claimed: "I have a 4.0."


No, that was in the 2008 spring(?) semester. She didn't receive a 4.0 cumulative GPA for that term because she quit the class, and got an F.

I have a feeling I'm discovering a whole new world of pedantry here, but this isn't quite correct according to my reading of the lists. I can't find Anita on either the Fall or Spring 2008 Chancellor's Lists. She was on it in both Fall and Spring 2007, but never since. So she did not have a 4.0 average at the time she was posting.

ETA: and she still doesn't, as she's admitted.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 06:36 AM
I have a feeling I'm discovering a whole new world of pedantry here, but this isn't quite correct according to my reading of the lists. I can't find Anita on either the Fall or Spring 2008 Chancellor's Lists. She was on it in both Fall and Spring 2007, but never since. So she did not have a 4.0 average at the time she was posting.

ETA: and she still doesn't, as she's admitted.

I'm confused. Doesn't this list (http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20071), updated January 27th, indicate that she received a 4.0 GPA for the Fall 2008 semester?

sleepy_lioness
7th February 2009, 06:47 AM
I'm confused. Doesn't this list (http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc.asp?term=20071), updated January 27th, indicate that she received a 4.0 GPA for the Fall 2008 semester?

I *think* that may be a list from a previous semester (regardless of when it was last updated). If you go to this page:

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc_lists.htm

you get links to all the lists from 2006-08. This appears to show that she is only on the 2007 lists.

Also her own posts, notably where she says that her 4.0 is "coming back" seem to indicate that she isn't currently on any list, thus supporting my interpretation.

Moochie
7th February 2009, 06:57 AM
<snip>

'Gradually' we will reach 'proper test conditions' and 'eventually' we will find out about the 'survey'.
And shortly after the heat death of the universe we may 'gradually' approach the definitive and agreed design of a falsification scenario.
Which will then get rejected or ignored.

<snip>




It felt like that here, today. In our fair city of Melbourne, Australia, it reached 46.4C (115.5F) today. Now, at 0056 Sunday morning, it's a pleasant 21C (69.8F).


M.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 07:03 AM
I *think* that may be a list from a previous semester (regardless of when it was last updated). If you go to this page:

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/students/chanc_lists.htm

you get links to all the lists from 2006-08. This appears to show that she is only on the 2007 lists.

Also her own posts, notably where she says that her 4.0 is "coming back" seem to indicate that she isn't currently on any list, thus supporting my interpretation.

Oh, I see. I apologize, then. I thought the "last updated" date indicated that that list reflected GPA's for the semester immediately preceding the current one.

Sorry, UncaYimmy. You were right. Technically, she does not have a current 4.0., and she was lying when she said that she did during the last few months of posts.

As for:
*I feel like this discussion is inappropriate. Do keep in mind that my university is not affiliated with my paranormal investigation and that I do not represent my university here.

Give it a rest, Anita. You opened the door by mentioning your GPA. Your whole "It's only okay for discussion as long as it plays up what a remarkable, extraordinary, superior being I am" schtick is bogus and pathetic. If you don't want a topic discussed, don't introduce it.

And do stop saying that your university is not "involved". You handed three professors the burden of knowing about your irrational claims, so you have already involved them, whether they did anything about it or not. (Unless, of course, that tale was a lie, which wouldn't surprise any of us.) You are proposing to involve other students in your...ahem...study. If, by some bizarre chance, you do manage to pull off a...ahem....study, are you really so oblivious to think that word won't get around that selfsame university that you took a bunch of students into a park and pretended to peer into their bodies, while requesting them to share highly personal health information, and came up with zero results?

Oh, yeah. You're not delusional. Not at all. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Moochie
7th February 2009, 07:05 AM
I find it hard to believe that a professor could behave like that and not be reported?


It was probably Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor.

Or perhaps it was the professor's reaction to Anita's preposterous story. :)


M.

skeen
7th February 2009, 07:15 AM
Anita, was this one of the professors to whom you revealed your powers?

Moochie
7th February 2009, 07:21 AM
Now why would you go and incorrectly replace a proper word with that nonsense, while ignoring the perfectly good typographical error immediately to its left? [/pedant]

Well spotted! In proofreading that's called "proximity blindness"* -- a proofreader will often miss an error that is very near to an error he/she has just found.

*(I coined the term when I found the condition true of myself and many proofreaders/editors I have worked with.)

sleepy_lioness
7th February 2009, 07:46 AM
Well spotted! In proofreading that's called "proximity blindness"* -- a proofreader will often miss an error that is very near to an error he/she has just found.

*(I coined the term when I found the condition true of myself and many proofreaders/editors I have worked with.)


Keeping up the pedantry theme, I'm not sure why you think you spotted an error - 'regardless' is the correct word in this instance.

Dictionary.com has this to say about the word 'irregardless':

"Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

skeen
7th February 2009, 07:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIA3eUc8QKY

Moochie
7th February 2009, 08:15 AM
Keeping up the pedantry theme, I'm not sure why you think you spotted an error - 'regardless' is the correct word in this instance.

Dictionary.com has this to say about the word 'irregardless':

"Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless


I suppose that next you will tell me that "unmisinterpretation" isn't a word, thereby revealing your diseducation. :(


M.

sleepy_lioness
7th February 2009, 08:21 AM
I suppose that next you will tell me that "unmisinterpretation" isn't a word, thereby revealing your diseducation. :(


M.

I'm impressed: with a vocabulary like that, are you a former president of the USA? :p

desertgal
7th February 2009, 09:01 AM
That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

I dunno. This one:
a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

To me, that would very likely be something that a delusional person would feel and do, even if they didn't acknowledge it to themselves or other people, if they were trying to convince others of an extraordinary claim. Remember, many delusional disorders CAN differentiate the difference between reality and delusional reality, even though they avoid doing so. This, to me, would be just that: an avoidance tactic, generated by nerves and fear of exposure, to perpetuate the delusional reality in the face of a confrontation with reality. Not rational, of course, but then delusional behavior rarely is.

Just another version of "It's not ME. It's YOU."

I'll agree that they probably wouldn't vocalize it as an excuse, though.

Maybe that one should be a 5?

desertgal
7th February 2009, 09:02 AM
Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
I suppose that next you will tell me that "unmisinterpretation" isn't a word, thereby revealing your diseducation.
M.
I' impressed: with a vocabulary like that, are you a former president of the USA? :p

Shrub! :p

Ashles
7th February 2009, 10:09 AM
I thus nearly choked when I got to Ashles's brilliant observation, "She is as self-centered as a gyroscope."
To be fair I think I remember reading that somewhere.

This whole grade thing is fascinating - Anita treats her course like she does her testing.
Some course didn't go her way, she describes appalling abuse (Physical violence? In a classroom? On students? In fornt of others? And no complaints? Yeah right...) and redefines everything until it somehow is to be ignored.

If she comes across a course that is harder or she can't cope with I guess she just quits it and then claims that course didn't count.

This is one young lady very unprepared for real life.

tsig
7th February 2009, 10:15 AM
Oh, I see. I apologize, then. I thought the "last updated" date indicated that that list reflected GPA's for the semester immediately preceding the current one.

Sorry, UncaYimmy. You were right. Technically, she does not have a current 4.0., and she was lying when she said that she did during the last few months of posts.

As for:


Give it a rest, Anita. You opened the door by mentioning your GPA. Your whole "It's only okay for discussion as long as it plays up what a remarkable, extraordinary, superior being I am" schtick is bogus and pathetic. If you don't want a topic discussed, don't introduce it.

And do stop saying that your university is not "involved". You handed three professors the burden of knowing about your irrational claims, so you have already involved them, whether they did anything about it or not. (Unless, of course, that tale was a lie, which wouldn't surprise any of us.) You are proposing to involve other students in your...ahem...study. If, by some bizarre chance, you do manage to pull off a...ahem....study, are you really so oblivious to think that word won't get around that selfsame university that you took a bunch of students into a park and pretended to peer into their bodies, while requesting them to share highly personal health information, and came up with zero results?

Oh, yeah. You're not delusional. Not at all. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why do you give her a break? She started out lying has continued to lie and yet you act as though she is truthful. Her first statement here was a lie and all of her posts have been a lie.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 10:24 AM
Oh, I see. I apologize, then. I thought the "last updated" date indicated that that list reflected GPA's for the semester immediately preceding the current one.

Sorry, UncaYimmy. You were right. Technically, she does not have a current 4.0., and she was lying when she said that she did during the last few months of posts.

As for:


Give it a rest, Anita. You opened the door by mentioning your GPA. Your whole "It's only okay for discussion as long as it plays up what a remarkable, extraordinary, superior being I am" schtick is bogus and pathetic. If you don't want a topic discussed, don't introduce it.

And do stop saying that your university is not "involved". You handed three professors the burden of knowing about your irrational claims, so you have already involved them, whether they did anything about it or not. (Unless, of course, that tale was a lie, which wouldn't surprise any of us.) You are proposing to involve other students in your...ahem...study. If, by some bizarre chance, you do manage to pull off a...ahem....study, are you really so oblivious to think that word won't get around that selfsame university that you took a bunch of students into a park and pretended to peer into their bodies, while requesting them to share highly personal health information, and came up with zero results?

Oh, yeah. You're not delusional. Not at all.

Why do you give her a break? She started out lying has continued to lie and yet you act as though she is truthful. Her first statement here was a lie and all of her posts have been a lie.

Huh? Where in the quoted post did I "give her a break"?

Uncayimmy
7th February 2009, 12:34 PM
I dunno. This one:


To me, that would very likely be something that a delusional person would feel and do, even if they didn't acknowledge it to themselves or other people, if they were trying to convince others of an extraordinary claim. Remember, many delusional disorders CAN differentiate the difference between reality and delusional reality, even though they avoid doing so. This, to me, would be just that: an avoidance tactic, generated by nerves and fear of exposure, to perpetuate the delusional reality in the face of a confrontation with reality. Not rational, of course, but then delusional behavior rarely is.

Just another version of "It's not ME. It's YOU."

I'll agree that they probably wouldn't vocalize it as an excuse, though.

Maybe that one should be a 5?

I am really just thinking about what Anita has verbalized versus what we might expect to be hear. Might a delusional person think that without saying it? Oh, yeh. Might another delusional person verbalize it? Sure, but it depends on the circumstances. My scale is intended to be specific to Anita.

In Anita's case, she won't accept anything less than perfection. We will. If she's a fraud, her gullible target audience will. But she won't, and that's who she is trying to convince. That's why I rank that one at the fraud end of the scale.

Uncayimmy
7th February 2009, 01:47 PM
From Anita's website...
Study with the FACT Skeptics as volunteers, February 8 2009
If all goes well, the 1st larger scale study into my paranormal claim will take place on Sunday February 8 2009 with the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) Skeptics as the volunteers that I look at to form medical perceptions. Here is the study procedure specifically designed by me for this particular study,
Study Procedure - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009
And here is the study health form (questionnaire) specifically designed by me for this particular study. Note that in this Scribd.com uploaded version some of the tables in this document appear to be cut off across individual pages of the document, whereas in the original Word document this is not the case. And the Form ID #9087 is just an example of a number and each form pertaining to one particular volunteer will have its own randomly generated number.
Study Health Questionnaire - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009

Update: The FACT Skeptics are not arranging a study with me on Sunday February 8.

Desertgal, this is your cue:

sleepy_lioness
7th February 2009, 02:01 PM
Altogether now:

Moochie
7th February 2009, 02:15 PM
Always look on the bright side . . . of life... :D


M.

LONGTABBER PE
7th February 2009, 02:38 PM
Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.


I disagree. Both are also very much something a delusional person would do - interpret things in ways that nobody else does. Any con artist worth her salt will, when faced with incredible opposition, back down from a stance and use another.

Thus from my perspective, a con artist will most likely come out with the first two. They make the most sense, and we've seen the Uri Geller's of the world do it. A delusional person would never use the first two. And we've never seen Anita use either approach.

If a con artist tried the second two, I wouldn't think it would be a good choice unless it were one-on-one where personal influence would be a major factor. It would be a bad idea to try it with an audience, especially a hostile one. And if the fraud did try it and met the resistance Anita has met, then dropping back to #1 or #2 would be the best course of action. Starting with #3 and moving on to #4 makes little sense.

Meanwhile, a delusional person would come out with #3 or #4 first, and jump from one to the other without even considering #1 or #2.

Thus, I rank #3 and #4 on their own as being no higher than 5. When I see both being used, I put it as a 3.

This is the heart of my argument. I keep seeing way too many things that land on the delusional side of the scale but could still be fraudulent. Meanwhile, I don't see her doing things that are clearly on the fraud end of the scale and not delusional.

Frauds and deluded persons will twist things around.

A fraud will twist things to get me to believe what she wants me to believe.

A deluded person will twist things to permit herself to believe what she already believes.

>>>Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

Thats just how we referred to it back in the day- basically jargon

>>>I disagree. Both are also very much something a delusional person would do - interpret things in ways that nobody else does. Any con artist worth her salt will, when faced with incredible opposition, back down from a stance and use another.

Not at all, a con that gets caught "switching gears" has admitted they are frauds. Its normal for them to act aloof and simply disregard counter commentary and continue on their course. Especially in a case like this where there is no accountability.

>>>Thus from my perspective, a con artist will most likely come out with the first two. They make the most sense, and we've seen the Uri Geller's of the world do it. A delusional person would never use the first two. And we've never seen Anita use either approach.
If a con artist tried the second two, I wouldn't think it would be a good choice unless it were one-on-one where personal influence would be a major factor. It would be a bad idea to try it with an audience, especially a hostile one. And if the fraud did try it and met the resistance Anita has met, then dropping back to #1 or #2 would be the best course of action. Starting with #3 and moving on to #4 makes little sense.

I'm not saying that the methods of both dont frequently cross over

>>>This is the heart of my argument. I keep seeing way too many things that land on the delusional side of the scale but could still be fraudulent. Meanwhile, I don't see her doing things that are clearly on the fraud end of the scale and not delusional.

That may be and as i said before I'm looking at this thru my experience and I see nothing out of the ordinary from scams I have investigated and I see nothing that any court would accept as evidence of mental defect if this were a criminal matter.

>>>Frauds and deluded persons will twist things around.

so do criminals, cons and scam artists

>>>A deluded person will twist things to permit herself to believe what she already believes

Heres the thing. We dont know "what" she believes but if her "experiences" are as she accounts- its odd that never before has she ever gone "public" or tried to test them before now ( and in such a public venue). Something motivated her to do it "now" as opposed to say 5-10 years ago.

Also, she wanted publicity because she started her self promoting website and came here. She didn"react" to skeptics, she sought them out.

Theres an agenda and a plan here. Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.

I dont see deludsional here at all.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 03:02 PM
Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.

No. With the exception of schizophrenia, "delusional" does not fit within the M'Naughton rule. They do know the difference between right and wrong. (Not arguing, just pointing that out. There are any number of cases that set that precedent.)

desertgal
7th February 2009, 03:31 PM
Desertgal, this is your cue:

Altogether now:

Singing! I love singing!

"If I had a million dollars,
Well, I'd buy you a monkey..."

Oh, wait. Wrong page.

"It's not ME. It's THEM."

LONGTABBER PE
7th February 2009, 03:36 PM
No. With the exception of schizophrenia, "delusional" does not fit within the M'Naughton rule. They do know the difference between right and wrong. (Not arguing, just pointing that out. There are any number of cases that set that precedent.)

Actually, it can

>>>M'Naughton Case (10 Cl.2nd F. 200; 1849)

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

>>>From Moore

3. They are delusionally ignorant or mistaken about quality and quantity of acts, or that act is legally or morally forbidden

An example from the ABA Journal

>>>Joy Baker 31-year old women shot and killed her aunt. She became increasing agitated during the days before the shooting and fearful that her dogs, children, and neighbors were being possessed by the devil. On the day of the shooting, she had a pistol and carried it around. Worried in particular about her children being possessed. Her aunt arrived unexpectedly and was trying to get into the house through the back door when Joy shoot her. Severely wounded, she asked Joy why she had hurt her; Joy replied that she had come to do Joy harm. Then Joy shot her a second time, killing her, explaining later that since the aunt was in pain she wanted to end her suffering. She was acquitted under the MPC rule.

I dont see VFF being "delusional" by the standard accepted tests.

desertgal
7th February 2009, 03:57 PM
Actually, it can

>>>M'Naughton Case (10 Cl.2nd F. 200; 1849)

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

>>>From Moore

3. They are delusionally ignorant or mistaken about quality and quantity of acts, or that act is legally or morally forbidden

Wasn't aware of this, thanks.

An example from the ABA Journal

>>>Joy Baker 31-year old women shot and killed her aunt. She became increasing agitated during the days before the shooting and fearful that her dogs, children, and neighbors were being possessed by the devil. On the day of the shooting, she had a pistol and carried it around. Worried in particular about her children being possessed. Her aunt arrived unexpectedly and was trying to get into the house through the back door when Joy shoot her. Severely wounded, she asked Joy why she had hurt her; Joy replied that she had come to do Joy harm. Then Joy shot her a second time, killing her, explaining later that since the aunt was in pain she wanted to end her suffering. She was acquitted under the MPC rule.

This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit.

Uncayimmy
7th February 2009, 10:44 PM
>>>Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

Thats just how we referred to it back in the day- basically jargon
Thanks. I was hoping to find some use of that jargon, but if it was "back in the day" that would explain why I didn't see it.

Not at all, a con that gets caught "switching gears" has admitted they are frauds. Its normal for them to act aloof and simply disregard counter commentary and continue on their course. Especially in a case like this where there is no accountability.
But that's not what she did. In fact Anita seems to be one of those people who can't let it go.

I'm not saying that the methods of both dont frequently cross over
Neither am I. That's why this is so difficult.

That may be and as i said before I'm looking at this thru my experience and I see nothing out of the ordinary from scams I have investigated and I see nothing that any court would accept as evidence of mental defect if this were a criminal matter.
Actually, that's not quite true. There is something HUGE that you are missing: the actual scam. We don't have any victims nor have we seen her even approach a likely victim. No money has exchanged hands. The only "offer" is an off-hand comment about selling her one and only drawing (her hand) for $5. And there's not even a way to buy it if you wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, of course, but your investigations started with the scam. I'm guessing you weren't asked to investigate some woman who swore she was married to Davey Jones but never actually got within 100 feet of the guy.

Heres the thing. We dont know "what" she believes but if her "experiences" are as she accounts- its odd that never before has she ever gone "public" or tried to test them before now ( and in such a public venue). Something motivated her to do it "now" as opposed to say 5-10 years ago.
Nobody really knows what anybody believes. We can certainly identify inconsistencies between stated beliefs and actions, but sometimes that is nothing more than hypocrisy, a sin for which we could all be convicted.

You do bring up a good point about why she didn't "investigate" the claims before now. This, too, could be explained by a delusion. For all we know the delusion really didn't take hold until 18 months ago. Or maybe it escalated, which, as I understand it, is not all that uncommon. Maybe she's just retrofitting her delusion to things in her past or even making up stories. Or maybe her need for attention wasn't being met when she started school - it can be hard making friends in a new place. So she decided to branch out.

Also, she wanted publicity because she started her self promoting website and came here. She didn"react" to skeptics, she sought them out.

Publicity or attention? It's consistent with certain personality disorders to seek out only those the person judges worthy.

Theres an agenda and a plan here. Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.
Your prediction, then, is that an actual money-making scam is going to take place sometime in the future. And she will stop dealing with skeptics or students and instead approach the gullible of this world for fun and profit, claiming her ability is real.

As for innocence, I never meant to imply any such thing. If I see Anita parlaying this into a money making operation, my opinion will change dramatically.

I dont see deludsional here at all.
To be quite honest, I find that unfathomable. I could understand a 90-10 split in favor of fraud, but not 100-0, especially when no actual fraud has been committed.

Uncayimmy
7th February 2009, 11:12 PM
Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

I'm no lawyer, but I think the key here is that the delusion itself has to include the belief that the action is not a crime. Assume for the sake of argument that in the state of North Carolina it would be considered a crime for Anita to accept $50 in exchange for telling someone that she can see his heart is clogged with fat and that he must stop eating peanut oil.

Her delusion is that she believes this to be 100% accurate information. Her delusion is not that she has a medical license that entitles her engage in that activity. Therefore, her delusion would not be a defense.

Now, if she believed she was a doctor, that would be a completely different story. She would probably be involuntarily committed because she would be considered a harm to others.

On a side note I have contacted the North Carolina Attorney General in regards to the apparent fraud Brent Atwater (http://www.brentenergywork.com/). She has disclaimers saying that she's not a doctor, but it seems to me that even if you're not a doctor, you can't act like one. You can't say, "Brent's distinguished peer reviewed and respected international medical intuitive diagnosis, medical intuitive readings and energy healing work has client results and is documented and published" and then claim what you are doing is not medical in nature.

Professor Yaffle
8th February 2009, 02:37 AM
All this talk about M'Naughton is a little pointless. With homicide for example, most people who were mentally ill (and delusional) at the time of the offense will NOT get a verdict of insanity. The vast majority will get (in the UK, I don't know what the US equivalent is) section 2 manslaughter which is to do with diminished responsibility.

desertgal
8th February 2009, 08:15 AM
All this talk about M'Naughton is a little pointless. With homicide for example, most people who were mentally ill (and delusional) at the time of the offense will NOT get a verdict of insanity. The vast majority will get (in the UK, I don't know what the US equivalent is) section 2 manslaughter which is to do with diminished responsibility.

Thank you. That answers my question. :)

LONGTABBER PE
8th February 2009, 09:20 AM
Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

Wasn't aware of this, thanks.

This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit.

>>>Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

By the literal letter, thats correct and from the legal perspective- thats the easiest to"prove" ( actual diagnosis, treatment plans and a verifiable history of same) BUT its not the only definition. ( always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done)

The law also allows for strong belief ( delusions based on religious beliefs etc), actions taken under duress ( doesnt really apply in this case, mentioned just for reference) and other variants.

Also, "the law" allows for a juror to "believe" a person was acting under a delusion and even tho act was committed- the "intent" to commit a crime wasnt there. ( Its in the judges instructions) ( you wont see that in any scientific journal, thats a jurors right)

>>>This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit

I had the journal and read the whole account. That was an excerpt I found online because I had to research that one once. This woman had no mental disorder ( defined as injury/disease or prior treatment) Her belief was fostered by a far off "unvonventional" church ( the snake handler type who find demons from everything.

So, even tho she was "normal" in every legal/medical sense, her "belief" was so deep and ingrained that it qualified.

desertgal
8th February 2009, 09:45 AM
>>>Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

By the literal letter, thats correct and from the legal perspective- thats the easiest to"prove" ( actual diagnosis, treatment plans and a verifiable history of same) BUT its not the only definition. ( always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done)

The law also allows for strong belief ( delusions based on religious beliefs etc), actions taken under duress ( doesnt really apply in this case, mentioned just for reference) and other variants.

Also, "the law" allows for a juror to "believe" a person was acting under a delusion and even tho act was committed- the "intent" to commit a crime wasnt there. ( Its in the judges instructions) ( you wont see that in any scientific journal, thats a jurors right)

>>>This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit

I had the journal and read the whole account. That was an excerpt I found online because I had to research that one once. This woman had no mental disorder ( defined as injury/disease or prior treatment) Her belief was fostered by a far off "unvonventional" church ( the snake handler type who find demons from everything.

So, even tho she was "normal" in every legal/medical sense, her "belief" was so deep and ingrained that it qualified.

Thank you-that answers my question, as well.

And "always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done" - excellent advice, and I will definitely remember that before quoting a law again. I'm not trained in criminal law or justice - merely a researcher - I should remember that I don't know as much as I think I do before typing. :)

LONGTABBER PE
8th February 2009, 09:47 AM
Thanks. I was hoping to find some use of that jargon, but if it was "back in the day" that would explain why I didn't see it.


But that's not what she did. In fact Anita seems to be one of those people who can't let it go.


Neither am I. That's why this is so difficult.


Actually, that's not quite true. There is something HUGE that you are missing: the actual scam. We don't have any victims nor have we seen her even approach a likely victim. No money has exchanged hands. The only "offer" is an off-hand comment about selling her one and only drawing (her hand) for $5. And there's not even a way to buy it if you wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, of course, but your investigations started with the scam. I'm guessing you weren't asked to investigate some woman who swore she was married to Davey Jones but never actually got within 100 feet of the guy.


Nobody really knows what anybody believes. We can certainly identify inconsistencies between stated beliefs and actions, but sometimes that is nothing more than hypocrisy, a sin for which we could all be convicted.

You do bring up a good point about why she didn't "investigate" the claims before now. This, too, could be explained by a delusion. For all we know the delusion really didn't take hold until 18 months ago. Or maybe it escalated, which, as I understand it, is not all that uncommon. Maybe she's just retrofitting her delusion to things in her past or even making up stories. Or maybe her need for attention wasn't being met when she started school - it can be hard making friends in a new place. So she decided to branch out.


Publicity or attention? It's consistent with certain personality disorders to seek out only those the person judges worthy.


Your prediction, then, is that an actual money-making scam is going to take place sometime in the future. And she will stop dealing with skeptics or students and instead approach the gullible of this world for fun and profit, claiming her ability is real.

As for innocence, I never meant to imply any such thing. If I see Anita parlaying this into a money making operation, my opinion will change dramatically.


To be quite honest, I find that unfathomable. I could understand a 90-10 split in favor of fraud, but not 100-0, especially when no actual fraud has been committed.

Lets go down the list here

>>>Thanks. I was hoping to find some use of that jargon, but if it was "back in the day" that would explain why I didn't see it.

Back in my day, it was much easier but then somebody drafted that Constitution and Bill of Rights and everything got complicated from then on

>>>But that's not what she did. In fact Anita seems to be one of those people who can't let it go.

Well, heres where we havent seen the end result yet. So, I have to acknowledge that the legitimate possibility this is nothing more than a person feeding a delusion for nothing more than self gratification. The deciding factor isnt where its been but where its going and that chapter hasnt been written yet.

>>>Actually, that's not quite true. There is something HUGE that you are missing: the actual scam. We don't have any victims nor have we seen her even approach a likely victim. No money has exchanged hands. The only "offer" is an off-hand comment about selling her one and only drawing (her hand) for $5. And there's not even a way to buy it if you wanted to.

No I didnt miss it. I actually take it into account. ( see statement above) Scams are like crops. The scam has to be conceived, planned, grow and then payoff. ( its the difference between the local scammer and the professional ones) VFF, regardless of being caught in lies etc , isnt stupid. I feel this is the beta scam in field testing.

>>>Correct me if I am wrong, of course, but your investigations started with the scam. I'm guessing you weren't asked to investigate some woman who swore she was married to Davey Jones but never actually got within 100 feet of the guy.

Thats it but remember, to a great degree, "lies" and false claims are protected speech under the 1st Amendment. ( except in certain cases where the USSC has defined it) Its often how the lie is "dressed up" and carefully phrased thats the difference.

I see this all over what she is doing.

>>>I think the key here is that the delusion itself has to include the belief that the action is not a crime.

Thats correct but to a point. You can add "justified" to it. ( moves to intent)

I had a case where a car was stolen from a man. The thief needed it to get to work and such. He repaired it and it was actually in "better" condition when recovered than when stolen. He "knew" his actions were wrong but justified his reason by his circumstance and claimed he "intended" to return the car. He convinced a jury of that and was aquitted. ( to the absolute surprise to myself, the prosecutor, the victim and the judge) ( just to show you how a jury can react to a strong belief and what I considered a well constructed sob story in complete contradiction to the letter and essence of the law)

The way I see VFF talking and spinning ( and building a history by her older claims) she could convince the "right" jury if challenged. Thats why I think she has done her homework and putting all the necessary building blocks in place.

>>>Her delusion is that she believes this to be 100% accurate information. Her delusion is not that she has a medical license that entitles her engage in that activity. Therefore, her delusion would not be a defense.

Now, if she believed she was a doctor, that would be a completely different story. She would probably be involuntarily committed because she would be considered a harm to others.

Actually, thats backwards, if she claimed to be a doctor ( or any other licensed professional like me being a PE) then thats outright fraud ( criminal) and in that case, she BETTER have a medical condition that could be proven or she would be toast.

Her "delusion" could be an effective defense AS LONG AS she makes no definite, clear and iron clad ( and provable) claim that her "information" is NOT a medical diagnisis. ( you see that with psychic hotlines, this new psychic "money management" and on all woo health infomercials.

LONGTABBER PE
8th February 2009, 11:59 AM
On a side note I have contacted the North Carolina Attorney General in regards to the apparent fraud Brent Atwater (http://www.brentenergywork.com/). She has disclaimers saying that she's not a doctor, but it seems to me that even if you're not a doctor, you can't act like one. You can't say, "Brent's distinguished peer reviewed and respected international medical intuitive diagnosis, medical intuitive readings and energy healing work has client results and is documented and published" and then claim what you are doing is not medical in nature.

She is perfectly legal ( not legitimate mind you) and I believe thats a VFF prototype. ( Where she is going to end up)

If the NCAG doesnt give you a good answer, I will. Her site is the same skillful nondescript legally checked wordsmithing that I expect to eventually see from VFF.

VisionFromFeeling
8th February 2009, 05:43 PM
Dear Skeptics,
Since I have a valid excuse of being very busy with my college studies at the moment, those of you who have criticized the study procedure that I have designed and compared it to the one that was designed by UncaYimmy, those of you who are very well-informed on both study designs - could you tell me in what ways mine was worse than his, or his was better than mine, for the purpose of learning more about the specifics of the claim? If I agree on advantages of his over mine I will of course incorporate those into my study design.

Here is mine: StudyProcedure-FACT Version (http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?access_key=key-igh6i4fgromuvbb62r3), [/URL][URL="http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?access_key=key-2kds8ritvrjnq13y745e"]StudyHealthQuestionnaire-FACT Version (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315843&postcount=991)
And here is UncaYimmy's: #983 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4314631&postcount=983), #991 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315843&postcount=991)

Oh, and I have a question: What do you think the reasons are for why the FACT Group (or perhaps godofpie/Jim, in particular) disapproved of my study design but would have undertaken UncaYimmy's design?

I do apologize, I have to study physics so I don't have time to study our study procedures! Also I thought mine were better for the purpose of the study of learning more about the paranormal claim! But, thanks guys! :)

VisionFromFeeling
8th February 2009, 06:12 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
Not at all, a con that gets caught "switching gears" has admitted they are frauds. Its normal for them to act aloof and simply disregard counter commentary and continue on their course. Especially in a case like this where there is no accountability.I am being very careful in my investigation into my unusual experience. You see, it would be too easy for some of you to simply dismiss what reasons I have for investigating something. It is too easy and tempting for a skeptic to say, "Oh well, it was just cold reading." or, "Oh well, it didn't happen like you say that it did." But then those assumptions are made without those skeptics having witnessed what my experiences were. So I do defend my stance of having this investigation in the first place. So there is an extent of disregarding on my behalf. I will not be discouraged from my investigation, or told to just drop it, when I have had the experiences that I need to investigate in order to explain, and those of you who would like to drop it entirely simply were not there.
Heres the thing. We dont know "what" she believes but if her "experiences" are as she accounts- its odd that never before has she ever gone "public" or tried to test them before now ( and in such a public venue). Something motivated her to do it "now" as opposed to say 5-10 years ago.And why is that suspicious? At what point should I have become compelled to investigate? At the tender age of 14 when it first began? That is too young for most people to realize to begin to investigate objectively and scientifically into an experience. If so, then what age would be that "magic number" when suddenly a person realizes "I've got to look into this! Scientifically! Now!"? At the age of 18? 21? Or how about at the age of 24, as was in my case?

As for "going public" I have always considered the medical perceptions to be personal to me and also to be quite normal to me. Some of what compelled me to begin to investigate them when I did is that I am now a science student and that changes somewhat the outlook on life and I think this is an interesting case where I can practise the scientific method. If I had another person with the same unusual experience of perceiving accurate medical information I might be just as curious to investigate them. I am very research oriented.
Also, she wanted publicity because she started her self promoting website and came here. She didn"react" to skeptics, she sought them out.The reason I initiated contact with "the skeptics" was because I thought that if I have the test with the IIG then my investigation would become publicly known so I might as well start the discussions myself and also engage in them so that people don't have to just talk behind my back but that I could answer questions as well.

I am not promoting myself. I am promoting my unusual experience of medical perceptions and the scientific investigation of them. Also, :duck: I am not some woo who tries to avoid skeptics, science, truth and objectivity who would have some tricks or frauds to hide. I have been and will continue to be very open and honest :duck: about my experience and about how it works.
Theres an agenda and a plan here. Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.The agenda and plan is to establish what is the true and actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with the actual health of persons as well as to find the source of the information. Skeptical organizations such as the IIG might only be interested in finding out whether I can do what I claim to or not, whereas the investigation into the mechanics of the ability would have to be referred to organizations with other interests.

"Arrested"? :covereyes Am I in trouble? ;)
I dont see deludsional here at all. OH NO!! Finally when someone says what I've been waiting to hear from one of you since I'm not allowed to say it myself - you've spelled it all wrong! :faint:

VisionFromFeeling
8th February 2009, 06:45 PM
UncaYimmy:
I'm no lawyer, but I think the key here is that the delusion itself has to include the belief that the action is not a crime. Assume for the sake of argument that in the state of North Carolina it would be considered a crime for Anita to accept $50 in exchange for telling someone that she can see his heart is clogged with fat and that he must stop eating peanut oil. I am not a licenced physician and I am not allowed to dispense medical diagnose to persons. I have only shared my medical perceptions with people I know and in a very careful manner and only for educational purposes for me to try to establish the correlation, while emphasizing to the persons that I may be wrong so therefore disregard all what I've perceived. I will not be accepting money from people for psychic medical diagnose, nor will I offer public psychic medical diagnose especially since my ability has not been verified and could be wrong without anyone realizing it. I would also not run a business without registering a company first. I am building my career and this paranormal investigation is just a hobby on my spare time. :)
Her delusion is that she believes this to be 100% accurate information. Her delusion is not that she has a medical license that entitles her engage in that activity. Therefore, her delusion would not be a defense.Ahem. I've said that I've had 100% apparent accuracy in the past, which includes that a person could have been lying or mistaken about their health and leading to false accuracy that I could not have detected as false and also includes that unintended cold reading could have been available for some of the cases. And in the reading with Wayne I made no incorrect medical perceptions. I have not been confirmed inaccurate a single time yet and that is not a delusion. It does not mean that I am not open for future inaccuracy to be encountered.
On a side note I have contacted the North Carolina Attorney General in regards to the apparent fraud Brent Atwater. O-M-G!! "Full Body Scan, a detailed physical description & evaluation $ 1100.00 (http://brentenergywork.com/SERVICES.htm)" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alright you skeptics! Please give me some credit! Even if I were fully convinced that I had such an ability you don't see me offering psychic medical readings and for money such as this! Come on guys, get real!!! How do I feel when I see that someone "like me" is making such money for what I could do too? I felt appalled, scared, shocked. I was thinking of the little old ladies with health problems who I would first of all read for free on my spare time while having a career for income, and secondly I wouldn't read them because what they need is a proper MRI (go Medical Imaging!) from which reliable conclusions about health can be made. You should not conclude on health problems if there is no formal evidence that all can share not just seen by one person and you can not declare someone healthy by the same standards. What if she'd be wrong? Someone could die of undiagnosed cancer? Or someone could be sent to a real MRI that costs much more than this and not have needed one?

Skeptics, please realize that I am applying the scientific method to my unusual experience of medical perceptions. Please realize that I am not conducting a scam or working my way into the woo economy. I am a respectable woman working hard on my science career and seeking a scientific explanation to what I experience. You skeptics and me the paranormal claimant are actually on the same side. I just happen to have an unusual experience, but that itself does not immediately make me a woo. Please, I'm trying to be "one of you".

Locknar
8th February 2009, 06:56 PM
Since I have a valid excuse of being very busy with my college studies at the moment, those of you who have criticized the study procedure that I have designed and compared it to the one that was designed by UncaYimmy, those of you who are very well-informed on both study designs - could you tell me in what ways mine was worse than his, or his was better than mine, for the purpose of learning more about the specifics of the claim?This has already been explained to you; you don't listen.

Skeptics please realize that I am applying the scientific method to my unusual experience of medical perceptions. No, you're not.

Pup
8th February 2009, 07:07 PM
And in the reading with Wayne I made no incorrect medical perceptions.

So did he actually have a tired left shoulder or not? What did he say?

Ashles
8th February 2009, 07:09 PM
Dear Skeptics,
Since I have a valid excuse of being very busy with my college studies at the moment, those of you who have criticized the study procedure that I have designed and compared it to the one that was designed by UncaYimmy, those of you who are very well-informed on both study designs - could you tell me in what ways mine was worse than his, or his was better than mine, for the purpose of learning more about the specifics of the claim? If I agree on advantages of his over mine I will of course incorporate those into my study design.
No you won't.

There is no point in explaining better experimental procedures to you because you won't pay the slightest bit of notice.
And it should be obvious why his were better than yours. I'm amazed you have to ask. Do they give out 'A's at the U of Carolina simply for good attendance?

Here's a clue - his experimental design had a point. He had decided what he wanted to investigate beforehand and designed an experimental procedure from that starting point. The design came after the desire to learn something specific.
What point did you start from? What were you hoping to learn? What goals did you have? How were you objectively measuring those goals?
Clearly you first randomly created a study and then wondered how it might be interpreted to measure anything. Even the goal of a falsification scenario had nothing in place by which to be measured. And so was ditched.
Staggeringly poor design.

Everyone is fed up with trying to give you assistance you pretend to want but then never take.
So you're on your own now with your study design.

Which is moot anyway as no-one who might be considered as reliable independent adjudicators will work with you on your designs as they are simply too poor to be anything but a waste of their time.

Still I'm sure you'l have a fun day out with the students.
Unless they reject the farce too and you'll only be left with friends and family to work with... and you'll have come full circle.

That sound you can hear... that's your claim winding down to a standstill.

Gmonster2
8th February 2009, 07:12 PM
Wow, you are stuck on this Wayne reading like an Alabama tic!

You said as well as medical perceptions you perceive discomforts its even on your new health study form as a separate section DISCOMFORTS.

You said Wayne had a tired left shoulder and a discomfort in the throat area.

You were dead wrong !

So you are wrong on discomforts twice already but not on medical perceptions ok? :) happy now...

One question, why are you afraid to use UncaYimmy's form??

Ashles
8th February 2009, 07:13 PM
UncaYimmy:
Ahem. I've said that I've had 100% apparent accuracy in the past, which includes that a person could have been lying or mistaken about their health and leading to false accuracy that I could not have detected as false and also includes that unintended cold reading could have been available for some of the cases. And in the reading with Wayne I made no incorrect medical perceptions. I have not been confirmed inaccurate a single time yet and that is not a delusion. It does not mean that I am not open for future inaccuracy to be encountered.
Untrue.
He didn't have a tired left shoulder, so you were wrong.
You reported the "tired left shoulder" so it was significant enough to mention.
You did not write that you sensed an "adam's apple" so that is a lie. You wrote that you sensed throat discomfort. Which was wrong.
Every man has an adam's apple so your claim to have detected something that every healthy man is known to have, is stupid and demonstrates how blatantly you refuse to accept being wrong. This also shows how little point there is for anyone to even attempt to try and work wih you in developing a test protocol. There are of course loads of other reasons too.
I am happy to copy and paste that as many times as you are prepared to lie about the results of that incident.

Jonquill
8th February 2009, 07:36 PM
Anita, why don't you just do the test as UncaYimmy designed it?

If you can do what you claim, the test would be easy for you.

Your test is just a guessfest.

desertgal
8th February 2009, 07:38 PM
:popcorn1

Gmonster2
8th February 2009, 07:42 PM
Desertgal I find your signature very apt for this thread and claimant :)

Jonquill , nicely put ....

Jeff Corey
8th February 2009, 07:45 PM
... Do they give out 'A's at the U of Carolina simply for good attendance?..

Probably not, it's a well respected university. But is is clear that they award Fs to people who don't attend classes without a valid reason for an official withdrawal.
You see, an official withdrawal would result in the course not counting at all in the student's GPA, thus preserving the 4.0 average. Usually there is a cut-off date for getting an official withdrawal, but usually a department chair or dean can grant one if the professor throws things at the students or screams at them to leave the class or wears his underwear on his head .

LONGTABBER PE
8th February 2009, 07:45 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
I am being very careful in my investigation into my unusual experience. You see, it would be too easy for some of you to simply dismiss what reasons I have for investigating something. It is too easy and tempting for a skeptic to say, "Oh well, it was just cold reading." or, "Oh well, it didn't happen like you say that it did." But then those assumptions are made without those skeptics having witnessed what my experiences were. So I do defend my stance of having this investigation in the first place. So there is an extent of disregarding on my behalf. I will not be discouraged from my investigation, or told to just drop it, when I have had the experiences that I need to investigate in order to explain, and those of you who would like to drop it entirely simply were not there.
And why is that suspicious? At what point should I have become compelled to investigate? At the tender age of 14 when it first began? That is too young for most people to realize to begin to investigate objectively and scientifically into an experience. If so, then what age would be that "magic number" when suddenly a person realizes "I've got to look into this! Scientifically! Now!"? At the age of 18? 21? Or how about at the age of 24, as was in my case?

As for "going public" I have always considered the medical perceptions to be personal to me and also to be quite normal to me. Some of what compelled me to begin to investigate them when I did is that I am now a science student and that changes somewhat the outlook on life and I think this is an interesting case where I can practise the scientific method. If I had another person with the same unusual experience of perceiving accurate medical information I might be just as curious to investigate them. I am very research oriented.
The reason I initiated contact with "the skeptics" was because I thought that if I have the test with the IIG then my investigation would become publicly known so I might as well start the discussions myself and also engage in them so that people don't have to just talk behind my back but that I could answer questions as well.

I am not promoting myself. I am promoting my unusual experience of medical perceptions and the scientific investigation of them. Also, :duck: I am not some woo who tries to avoid skeptics, science, truth and objectivity who would have some tricks or frauds to hide. I have been and will continue to be very open and honest :duck: about my experience and about how it works.
The agenda and plan is to establish what is the true and actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with the actual health of persons as well as to find the source of the information. Skeptical organizations such as the IIG might only be interested in finding out whether I can do what I claim to or not, whereas the investigation into the mechanics of the ability would have to be referred to organizations with other interests.

"Arrested"? :covereyes Am I in trouble? ;)
OH NO!! Finally when someone says what I've been waiting to hear from one of you since I'm not allowed to say it myself - you've spelled it all wrong! :faint:

Here we go

>>>I am being very careful in my investigation into my unusual experience.

No, you are being very coy and evasive- we both know why

>>>You see, it would be too easy for some of you to simply dismiss what reasons I have for investigating something.

I see quite clearly and your reasons are simple. You know you are pulling a scam and you are smart enough to not get backed into a corner. I know it and so do you.

>>>It is too easy and tempting for a skeptic to say, "Oh well, it was just cold reading." or, "Oh well, it didn't happen like you say that it did." But then those assumptions are made without those skeptics having witnessed what my experiences were.

The problem is, I'm not a "skeptic"- I'm a seasoned investigator and PhD. I see you for exactly what you are. ( go back to an earlier post of mine- show you "have" abilities in the first place, then do a "study")

You havent fooled me and your obfuscations dont work.

>>>And why is that suspicious?

Because I have dealt with your kind before

>>>At what point should I have become compelled to investigate? At the tender age of 14 when it first began? That is too young for most people to realize to begin to investigate objectively and scientifically into an experience. If so, then what age would be that "magic number" when suddenly a person realizes "I've got to look into this! Scientifically! Now!"? At the age of 18? 21? Or how about at the age of 24, as was in my case?

I dont know who you think you are BS'ing but I'm not one of them.

>>>As for "going public" I have always considered the medical perceptions to be personal to me and also to be quite normal to me.

You dont have a problem advertising them- here and your site and your bogus test

>>>Some of what compelled me to begin to investigate them when I did is that I am now a science student and that changes somewhat the outlook on life and I think this is an interesting case where I can practise the scientific method.

Good, heres where the rubber meets the road. Step 1 in the "scientific method" is to ESTABLISH you have an "ability" to study. Anything short of that is a scam.( you cant fool someone that has 10,000 times your knowledge and experience) You are obfuscating.

>>>The reason I initiated contact with "the skeptics" was because I thought that if I have the test with the IIG then my investigation would become publicly known so I might as well start the discussions myself and also engage in them so that people don't have to just talk behind my back but that I could answer questions as well.

No, you contacted "them" to win a blog war ( with no accountability) and to get your name out there. If you wanted to "contact" someone with legitimate research, there are MD's ( those are medical doctors) and plenty of qualified professionals out there. You didnt. We both know why.

>>>I am not promoting myself

BULLSH!T

>>>I am promoting my unusual experience of medical perceptions and the scientific investigation of them. Also, :duck: I am not some woo who tries to avoid skeptics, science, truth and objectivity who would have some tricks or frauds to hide.
You are lying thru your azz. Show us the TEST that establishes you have an ability in the first place

>>>I have been and will continue to be very open and honest :duck: about my experience and about how it works.

You LIE like a rug

>>>The agenda and plan is to establish what is the true and actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with the actual health of persons as well as to find the source of the information.

Your "agenda" is to make money

>>>Skeptical organizations such as the IIG might only be interested in finding out whether I can do what I claim to or not, whereas the investigation into the mechanics of the ability would have to be referred to organizations with other interests.

Spare me your lying tripe, you want "legitimacy" go to the AMA. You wont, we both know why

>>>I can do what I claim to or not, whereas the investigation into the mechanics of the ability would have to be referred to organizations with other interests.

The wheels on the bus go round and round

Farencue
8th February 2009, 09:06 PM
Dear Skeptics,
Since I have a valid excuse of being very busy with my college studies at the moment, those of you who have criticized the study procedure that I have designed and compared it to the one that was designed by UncaYimmy, those of you who are very well-informed on both study designs - could you tell me in what ways mine was worse than his, or his was better than mine, for the purpose of learning more about the specifics of the claim? If I agree on advantages of his over mine I will of course incorporate those into my study design.
People like you Anita always need an advantage don’t you? I thought you were a science student. But yes we know you have a very valid EXCUSE, so don’t worry its all cool.
Oh, and I have a question: What do you think the reasons are for why the FACT Group (or perhaps godofpie/Jim, in particular) disapproved of my study design but would have undertaken UncaYimmy's design?
Instead of throwing another red herring into this thread Anita, why don’t you simply ask them? I mean they are wonderful people aren’t they?
I do apologize, I have to study physics so I don't have time to study our study procedures! Also I thought mine were better for the purpose of the study of learning more about the paranormal claim! But, thanks guys!
You don’t have time to study the study but you thought yours was better. Oh I get it, yep.
could you tell me in what ways mine was worse than his, or his was better than mine, for the purpose of learning more about the specifics of the claim?
Why did you ask this question if it has been explained to you in thousands of words? Surely you are not trying to confuse people?
I think this is an interesting case where I can practise the scientific method. If I had another person with the same unusual experience of perceiving accurate medical information I might be just as curious to investigate them. I am very research oriented.
I suggest you pop on over to the Rhine Research Center Anita. They have lots of experience with people like you. Don’t worry Im sure they practise the scientific method and are very research oriented too, maybe not as good as you, but they might pass muster.
The reason I initiated contact with "the skeptics" was because I thought that if I have the test with the IIG then my investigation would become publicly known so I might as well start the discussions myself and also engage in them so that people don't have to just talk behind my back but that I could answer questions as well.
The latest IIG update suggests they still don’t have a clue what you are talking about (claiming) so I don’t think there is any danger of a test.
Skeptical organizations such as the IIG might only be interested in finding out whether I can do what I claim to or not
Anita, the IIG don’t know what your claim is. When will you enlighten them?
"Arrested"? Am I in trouble?
Pfft, dont worry about that now Anita, if you ever get arrested you will know you are in trouble, no need to ask us - the nice police officer will tell you him/herself.
I would also not run a business without registering a company first.
Im so glad you put my mind at rest – I wouldn’t want you to get into trouble.
I am building my career and this paranormal investigation is just a hobby on my spare time.
Yeah what a bummer you don’t have more time to put into your paranormal investigation. But, career comes first!
Ahem. I've said that I've had 100% apparent accuracy in the past, which includes that a person could have been lying or mistaken about their healthAnita, you have such a funny way with words, rather delightful in fact. Imagine! You accusing people of lying – well I never.
How do I feel when I see that someone "like me" is making such money for what I could do too?
Gee Anita, I know it upsets you that someone like you is making lots of money doing such an appalling thing. But you don’t have to worry, after all you are not claiming to be a professional giving out medical advice - it is only a hobby that you don’t really have a lot of time for.
I was thinking of the little old ladies with health problems who I would first of all read for free on my spare time while having a career for income, and secondly I wouldn't read them because what they need is a proper MRI (go Medical Imaging!)
Im so glad I understand where you are coming from Anita – you wont be charging heaps of money because its just a hobby on the side - you will read little old ladies for free in that capacity while you also have a professional career. Oh wait, you wont read them because they need a proper MRI. That sounds like medical advice. Careful, you don’t want little old you getting into trouble.
Or someone could be sent to a real MRI that costs much more than this and not have needed one?
Dont upset yourself Anita - in Australia, at least, only a medical doctor can order an MRI, not people like yourself.
Skeptics, please realize that I am applying the scientific method to my unusual experience of medical perceptions.
If only these wonderful skeptics would realise. Dont they know thats all they have to do? Why do they analyse and apply their knowledge and stuff Anita, you know like science stuff, so tiresome really.
I am a respectable woman working hard on my science career and seeking a scientific explanation to what I experience.
Such a shame that you need to convince us of this Anita. Shame we just can’t see it for ourselves.
You skeptics and me the paranormal claimant are actually on the same side. I just happen to have an unusual experience, but that itself does not immediately make me a woo. Please, I'm trying to be "one of you".
I suggest you collaborate with UncaYimmy and Ashles on the study Anita, least we might think you are not one of them.

desertgal
8th February 2009, 09:24 PM
I will not be accepting money from people for psychic medical diagnose

I predict the evolution of that statement:
"I will accept money for psychic medical diagnose, but I will donate it to charity."
"I will donate a portion of it to charity."
"I don't have to disclose how much I gave to charity. That's private."
"Shut up. I earned it and I'm keeping it."

...nor will I offer public psychic medical diagnose especially since my ability has not been verified and could be wrong without anyone realizing it.

"Except, of course, to draw babies in the womb."

I would also not run a business without registering a company first.

"Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone said, but let me throw in a non sequitur to look a little ethical."

I am building my career...

You graduated from college already?

Come on guys, get real!!!

You go first.

How do I feel when I see that someone "like me" is making such money for what I could do too? I felt appalled, scared, shocked...

"...they might beat me to that Nobel."

I was thinking of the little old ladies with health problems who I would first of all read for free on my spare time while having a career for income, and secondly I wouldn't read them because what they need is a proper MRI (go Medical Imaging!) from which reliable conclusions about health can be made. You should not conclude on health problems if there is no formal evidence that all can share not just seen by one person and you can not declare someone healthy by the same standards. What if she'd be wrong? Someone could die of undiagnosed cancer? Or someone could be sent to a real MRI that costs much more than this and not have needed one?

"Unless I recite my oral disclaimer. Then it's okay."

Skeptics, please realize that I am applying the scientific method to my unusual experience of medical perceptions.

When? Where?

Please realize that I am not conducting a scam or working my way into the woo economy.

"At least, not till after our fun day out in the park..."

Scam or delusion. It's a coin toss.

I am a respectable woman...

It's okay. We didn't believe Richard Nixon when he said he wasn't a crook, either.

You skeptics and me the paranormal claimant are actually on the same side.

You think you're a fraud, too?

I just happen to have an unusual experience, but that itself does not immediately make me a woo.

Not immediately-it took 60 pages and a whole lot of back pedaling, evasions, lies, obfuscations, and bogus delays to prove your "woo"ness.

Please, I'm trying to be "one of you".

We know, we know...with Locknar in the middle. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jonquill
8th February 2009, 09:34 PM
Anita in regard to Brent Atwater you say-
"I see that someone "like me" is making such money for what I could do too?"

What do you think it is that Brent is doing, a psychic scan that reveals real medical information, or spouting a pack of lies to make money from sick gullible people?

Miss_Kitt
9th February 2009, 01:04 AM
Anita: I just happen to have an unusual experience, but that itself does not immediately make me a woo.

DesertGal:Not immediately-it took 60 pages and a whole lot of back pedaling, evasions, lies, obfuscations, and bogus delays to prove your "woo"ness.

MissKitt: ROTFLMAO! "Circle takes the square!!"

desertgal
9th February 2009, 05:00 AM
I dont see deludsional here at all.
OH NO!! Finally when someone says what I've been waiting to hear from one of you since I'm not allowed to say it myself - you've spelled it all wrong! :faint:

You might want to be careful tossing phrases like "not allowed" around here, Ophelia. The only folks who can censor what you say are the mods - and it really ain't kosher to say they have when they haven't.

Long Tabber doesn't think you are delusional. He thinks you are a lying con artist. That's not an improvement.

I am not a licenced physician and I am not allowed to dispense medical diagnose to persons.

Then, maybe, you should stop doing just that.

I have only shared my medical perceptions with people I know and in a very careful manner and only for educational purposes for me to try to establish the correlation, while emphasizing to the persons that I may be wrong so therefore disregard all what I've perceived.

Yeah, right, Anita.

Anita: OMG!
Mark I: What?
Anita: The tissues around your heart are saturated with deep fried peanut oil! I've never seen peanut oil, but I know that's what it is. This is a potentially serious and fatal heart condition!
Mark I: Oh, no!
Anita: Fortunately for you, I know what you can do to halt the advancement of the condition!
Mark I: Really? What?
Anita: You must change the type of fat and oil you consume. The good news is that you can consume just as much, as long as it isn't peanut oil.
Mark I: Oh, I will do that right away! Thank you! You may have saved my life!
Anita: Please disregard all that I just said. I've never been wrong before, but I could be wrong this time.
Mark I: Oh, of course. Your advice would save my life, but I'll just ignore it.

Anita: OMG!
Mark II: What?
Anita: Your blood flow is being inhibited! This will lead to reduced blood flow to the brain, and partial brain damage due to the oxygen deficiency that would result.
Mark II: Oh, no!
Anita: Fortunately for you, I know what is causing it!
Mark II: Really? What?
Anita: It's a new medication that you have never taken before.
Mark II: You might be right! I just started a new blood pressure medication.
Anita: I order you to stop taking it. It will kill you. Have your doctor give you another brand.
Mark II: Oh, wonderful! Thank you! You may have saved my life.
Anita: Please disregard all that I have just said. I have never been wrong before, but I could be wrong this time.
Mark II: Of course. Your advice might save my life, but I'll just ignore it.

At the nursing home:
Nursing Assistant Anita: And how are you today, Mrs...(looks at name on chart)...Mark?
Mrs. Mark: Not so good, dearie.
Nursing Assistant Anita: OMG!
Mrs. Mark: What?
Nursing Assistant Anita: You have dangerously low blood sugar! Are you a diabetic?
Mrs. Mark: Well, yes. How did you know that?
Nursing Assistant Anita: I call it "psychic medical diagnose". I've had it all my life. Then, when I was 14, I had these crystals one day, and...
(17 hours later)
...pushed me right off the chair! Oh, and I can solve historical crimes, too. I'm going to go the White House one day and talk to Abraham Lincoln. And I'm going to bring in Bigfoot.
Mrs. Mark: Maybe you could even solve the Ripper mystery?
Nursing Assistant Anita: Well, I could, but it would have to be top secret. I don't like to draw attention to myself. Hey, do you think I could win the Nobel for that?
Mrs. Mark: I don't think the Nobel has a category for...
Nursing Assistant Anita: That's okay. They'll make one for me, since I am the most extraordinary human being on the planet. Although, I'm not really a human being. I'm an extraterrestrial incarnation from...
Mrs. Mark: Dearie? I feel faint.
Nursing Assistant Anita: Oh, that's right. Dangerously low blood sugar. Staff! Staff!
Staff: What?
Nursing Assistant Anita: Mrs. Mark has dangerously low blood sugar.
Staff: Oh, my. Let's take a reading right now. You have saved her life!
Nursing Assistant Anita: Please disregard all that I just said. I have never been wrong before, but I could be wrong this time.
Staff/Mrs. Mark: Of course. She does have diabetes-which you couldn't have possibly known, even with her chart in your hand-and it could save her life, but we'll just ignore what you said. Go give Mr. Yeagar a sponge bath. You'll like him. He's from former planet Pluto.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Moochie
9th February 2009, 07:16 AM
Well, "Anita," you're young, you're reasonable-looking, and you have your whole life ahead of you. So go out and have yourself some fun!

Before you know it you'll be old and gnarled, and Sylvia Browne.


M.

Ashles
9th February 2009, 12:51 PM
Desertgal that was great. Best laugh I've had on this thread so far (other than when Anita said we were on the same side and someone pointed out that meant she thought she was a fraud too... wait that was you as well. You're on fire today) :)

Uncayimmy
9th February 2009, 11:04 PM
I had a little chat with Anita on Skype today. I actually sent her the IM a few days ago to ask her if she was coming back to the forums. It sat in the queue into this afternoon. It's always an interesting experience to chat with her. Give it a shot yourself - she offers her Skype address on her website. Skype is free, and it's pretty good software. It's easier to stay focused in a chat.

Anyway, I asked her if she believed she had a special ability. She said no because there is no evidence of it. So I asked her what what she intended to "study" since you gotta have something to study, right? She said, "The claimed perceptions. But to see whether they persist under a controlled test setting."

I, of course, replied, "Right. You just described your study as a test." In response I received several IMs in a row totaling about 350 words explaining, well, I'm not quite sure. I'm pretty sure it had to do with it being us, not her.

LONGTABBER PE
10th February 2009, 03:22 AM
>>>>She said no because there is no evidence of it. So I asked her what what she intended to "study" since you gotta have something to study, right? She said, "The claimed perceptions. But to see whether they persist under a controlled test setting."

She has no special ability but plans to test a "perception" and to see that something you dont believe you have exists under a controlled test setting?

She needs to be in politics.

Farencue
10th February 2009, 05:48 AM
7th December 2008, 12:00 PM #7
VisionFromFeeling
Critical Thinker

Find me a celebrity who would not mind me attempting psychic medical diagnose on him or her and making that information public, and obtain their permission to do so, and I will do it. I do not share the views of the media or the public on celebrities, celebrities are people to me and I respect their privacy and integrity. Who knows, one day I will be good at what I do, and people will want to meet with me, including celebrities, and there is no way I would break that trust and to share personal information with others. It can only be done with given consent from the individual.

I would not even tell who I've seen unless that person has given me permission to do so. Now it sounds as if I meet with people and do this but I do not. If turns out I am really good at what I do, I am sure many people would be interested in meeting with me and finding out what is going on in their bodies. Also it is good for people to get confirmation for their pain and health problems, especially from someone who reaches the same conclusions on their own and independently.

And, since even if I pass a paranormal test of scientific standard and receive the title of "true medical psychic" it does not give me the licence to dispense medical information in the way that physicians do. Even if I were never incorrect, there would be a disclaimer and a reminder to continue placing your trust in conventional medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post from Mary Occhino thread.

Longtabber,
I believe Anita's primary goal can be found in her words above (my bolding).
Her motive for coming here was to get some cred amongst her fellow woos for "being one of them" (skeptic) as was contacting IIG, the local Winston skeptics group and a group in the UK. A bit like the medical psychic frauds Greta Alexander getting some cred from Dr Leon E Curry and Brent Atwater being "studied" by the Rhine Research Center.

Her ditzy act serves the purpose of throwing up a smokescreen when the going (skeptics) gets tough, as is writing thousands of words that mean nothing.
And the biggest biggie cred wise? Anita is a skeptical straight A science student with this amazing ability that she wants us to believe she is nonchalant about.
In fact she could, as all good con artists do, stretch the truth a bit further and say she was "studied" by the famous JREF and they could not prove that she has been incorrect a single time!
I noted also that Anita has peppered her medical advice she gives out with lots of disclaimers so Im pretty sure she thinks she has it all covered.

GeeMack
10th February 2009, 06:06 AM
She needs to be in politics.


... in Alaska.

LONGTABBER PE
11th February 2009, 03:41 AM
7th December 2008, 12:00 PM #7
VisionFromFeeling
Critical Thinker

Find me a celebrity who would not mind me attempting psychic medical diagnose on him or her and making that information public, and obtain their permission to do so, and I will do it. I do not share the views of the media or the public on celebrities, celebrities are people to me and I respect their privacy and integrity. Who knows, one day I will be good at what I do, and people will want to meet with me, including celebrities, and there is no way I would break that trust and to share personal information with others. It can only be done with given consent from the individual.

I would not even tell who I've seen unless that person has given me permission to do so. Now it sounds as if I meet with people and do this but I do not. If turns out I am really good at what I do, I am sure many people would be interested in meeting with me and finding out what is going on in their bodies. Also it is good for people to get confirmation for their pain and health problems, especially from someone who reaches the same conclusions on their own and independently.

And, since even if I pass a paranormal test of scientific standard and receive the title of "true medical psychic" it does not give me the licence to dispense medical information in the way that physicians do. Even if I were never incorrect, there would be a disclaimer and a reminder to continue placing your trust in conventional medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post from Mary Occhino thread.

Longtabber,
I believe Anita's primary goal can be found in her words above (my bolding).
Her motive for coming here was to get some cred amongst her fellow woos for "being one of them" (skeptic) as was contacting IIG, the local Winston skeptics group and a group in the UK. A bit like the medical psychic frauds Greta Alexander getting some cred from Dr Leon E Curry and Brent Atwater being "studied" by the Rhine Research Center.

Her ditzy act serves the purpose of throwing up a smokescreen when the going (skeptics) gets tough, as is writing thousands of words that mean nothing.
And the biggest biggie cred wise? Anita is a skeptical straight A science student with this amazing ability that she wants us to believe she is nonchalant about.
In fact she could, as all good con artists do, stretch the truth a bit further and say she was "studied" by the famous JREF and they could not prove that she has been incorrect a single time!
I noted also that Anita has peppered her medical advice she gives out with lots of disclaimers so Im pretty sure she thinks she has it all covered.


Interesting ( I didnt read that thread) and I also believe thats her end goal.

I can see a person with an advanced degree ( adds legitimacy) and a properly worded ( and legally checked) business being the next woo super hero.

It all fits. This has been a scam from day 1

desertgal
11th February 2009, 06:08 AM
Desertgal that was great. Best laugh I've had on this thread so far (other than when Anita said we were on the same side and someone pointed out that meant she thought she was a fraud too... wait that was you as well. You're on fire today)

:D

As I recall, y'all have made me clean off my monitor more than once. :p

Skype is free, and it's pretty good software. It's easier to stay focused in a chat. <snippety.

I like Skype.

Anyway, I asked her if she believed she had a special ability. She said no because there is no evidence of it. So I asked her what what she intended to "study" since you gotta have something to study, right? She said, "The claimed perceptions. But to see whether they persist under a controlled test setting."

Wow. The level of oblivion just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

I, of course, replied, "Right. You just described your study as a test." In response I received several IMs in a row totaling about 350 words explaining, well, I'm not quite sure. I'm pretty sure it had to do with it being us, not her.

Yer a brave man, Unca. Her wall o'texts are bad enough here - private texting must be akin to being buried alive.

I figured it would be us. Big bad meanie skeptics.

Interesting ( I didnt read that thread) and I also believe thats her end goal.

I can see a person with an advanced degree ( adds legitimacy) and a properly worded ( and legally checked) business being the next woo super hero.

It all fits. This has been a scam from day 1

BUT, that doesn't mean she isn't delusional. It boils down to whether she actually believed in her "ability" when she came here.

Personally, I think she did. I think she has her doubts now, and she's scrambling to hang onto the belief, but, again in my opinion, her behavior has been consistent with a delusional state. Which is not to say that she isn't running a scam. I think she sees herself as the next big thing in the woo world, and that's what she is trying to sell.

(That's just a personal perspective-not intended to say that other opinions about her motivations is wrong.)

In the end, it's just sad. If she is delusional, she's headed for a world of hurt, and if she isn't, and she plans on having a serious career in the scientific world, while keeping up this nonsense, it's going to come back and bite her on the a$$ pretty damn hard. The world just ain't big enough to do both.

Sigh. If she is delusional, I wish I could have helped her more. It's such a thief of love, honest friendship and time that could be spent living life to the fullest. Whoever said the truth shall set you free had it right.

Uncayimmy
11th February 2009, 09:55 PM
Yer a brave man, Unca. Her wall o'texts are bad enough here - private texting must be akin to being buried alive.
I encourage others to have an IM chat with her. Everyone comes across a bit differently in IM versus forums. IMs are interactive, so there's more give and take. IM's are faster, so there's less self-censoring and picking/choosing words. And people let their guard down a bit. In IMs I even find myself ending sentences with a preposition, and that's not something for which I am known.

Personally, I think she did. I think she has her doubts now, and she's scrambling to hang onto the belief, but, again in my opinion, her behavior has been consistent with a delusional state. Which is not to say that she isn't running a scam. I think she sees herself as the next big thing in the woo world, and that's what she is trying to sell.
She wants to be the next big thing in the science world. To date we have no evidence that she's at all interested in believers of woo. She has, however, demonstrated not only the desire for approval from people of a scientific nature, but she has also demonstrated paranoia about fellow scientific people stealing her ideas or getting credit for her abilities.

(That's just a personal perspective-not intended to say that other opinions about her motivations is wrong.)
We're all opining here. I'm not going to say everyone who disagrees with my opinion is wrong. I will say that my opinion is the right one, though.

Sigh. If she is delusional, I wish I could have helped her more. It's such a thief of love, honest friendship and time that could be spent living life to the fullest. Whoever said the truth shall set you free had it right.
Say it loud, sister!

desertgal
12th February 2009, 06:09 AM
In IMs I even find myself ending sentences with a preposition, and that's not something for which I am known.

I always sensed you have a dark and dangerous side. :D


She wants to be the next big thing in the science world. To date we have no evidence that she's at all interested in believers of woo.

I dunno...she did say:
"Who knows, one day I will be good at what I do, and people will want to meet with me, including celebrities..."

"If turns out I am really good at what I do, I am sure many people would be interested in meeting with me and finding out what is going on in their bodies."

"And, since even if I pass a paranormal test of scientific standard and receive the title of 'true medical psychic...'"

And she did start a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4262369&postcount=1) where she asked for help in developing a disclaimer for psychic medical readings.

I think that can be considered evidence that she does have some interest in taking her show on the road.

We're all opining here. I'm not going to say everyone who disagrees with my opinion is wrong. I will say that my opinion is the right one, though.

Brilliant and humble. :D

skeen
12th February 2009, 08:26 AM
That statement about celebrities is odd. Are celebrities the pinnacle of the human species? Only for those interested in fame. Shouldn't she have said, "including prominent intellectuals"?

I think her issues circulate around her desire for attention - she clearly wants fame and recognition. Even the Nobel Prize is just a way for her to be famous, and to achieve that shallow desire for fame and fortune.

This is all just a game to her, really. She wants to hold on to these fantastic possibilities for as long as possible, because they're never going to come. Her coming here, discussing with us protocols, and so on and so fourth, while getting absolutely nowhere due to her reluctance to be exposed as normal, facilitate that fantasy.

So long as she leaves the thread having convinced herself that things are moving forward, she is happy. She is not interested in logic, or evidence. This is all make-believe.

And I wouldn't be surprised if her claims had something to do with her leaving class. Or, perhaps she wasn't doing so well that year, and decided that since she can convince herself that she would still 'technically' have a 4.0 average, she'd leave and come back to maintain it. Again, she needs only to convince herself.

VisionFromFeeling
15th February 2009, 11:47 AM
Regarding the thread Harassment - Vision From Feeling (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134262), which was brought to my attention by a Forum member. Unfortunately the thread was closed before I had the chance to respond there. I strongly feel that I have been plenty harassed on the JREF Forums regarding every single thing I have said here whether completely trivial things or yes, unconventional and perhaps provocative things. Once I decided to begin an investigation into my unusual experience of perceiving visual and felt health information from people, I was aware of the JREF and thought that I should present my paranormal investigation here since it would become public knowledge due to my involvement with the IIG anyway, and since I thought I could discuss my investigation here and find contributions to my investigation.

Let me tell you what we like to say to each other in Sweden after we've been to see a doctor. The doctor will listen to your symptoms and then will usually ask whether you smoke. If you say yes, he says you should go home and stop smoking and you'll be fine. If you say no, he asks you if you have a lot of stress in your life. If you say yes, he says you should go home and stop stressing and you'll be fine. If you say no, they send you to tests. So when you come here to the JREF Forums, they ask you if you are a scam artist. If you are, you should leave and withdraw your claim. If you are not, they ask you if you are mentally ill or deluded. If you are, you should leave and withdraw your claim. If you are not, well, that has never happened before. So you guys don't know what to do. I'm supposed to have the paranormal tests at this point.

I am not engaging in a hoax of any form. And I am not deluded or mentally ill. There is nothing indicative of a mental health problem, and I am sad that you don't see that. I have many symptoms consistent with synesthesia, which is when a person perceives information relating to one form and automatically associates it into information of another form. There is something I perceive when I look at a person, that becomes associated into images and felt information about the health of that person.

I am studying for my exams tomorrow and have noticed that I have color synesthesia too. The variables in physics equations come out at me in color. It helps me remember them and I don't see how I could ever remember some of them without the colors. There is an equation where I have to remember to use N lambda but always kept forgetting. Suddenly I noticed that a green yellow color appeared in my mind when ever I saw the other portions of the equations where N lambda needs to be used, and I could translate the color into the variable combination. N is green and lambda is yellow, and N lambda is green with yellow beside it.

I also associate everything to a sense of vibrational patterns, which is why I am so in love with the study of optics and electromagnetics since it deals with vibrational patterns and waves and I have very easy to visualize and deal with such concepts.

Recently I took the initiative to share with a Psychology professor about my unusual medical perceptions and my investigation into them. Her opinion was that it is very reminiscent of synesthesia. I will not disclose her name or what more was said until I progress more in this and have specific consent to do so.

Synesthesia is not a mental illness. In fact, studies show how it is not even a handicap and it is an advantage that leads to more creativity and enhanced learning skills. When I study with fellow students I often find that most of them relate to equations as just rows of letters and numbers, whereas to me equations come to life. They are shapes and colors, and when I learn a new equation it is not just a row of letters and numbers. It unwraps shapes, colors, and feeling. I think I am generally better at learning and remembering than those who do not relate to things in color, shapes and vibrational patterns.

So far I have not encountered a single confirmed incorrect medical perception. In the reading with Wayne I concluded that I find no health problems. What I sensed in the throat and shoulder I perceived not as health problems, but simply as "the shoulder" and adam's apple. For instance if I say I feel someone's breathing, then that is all I sensed, it does not mean I was claiming to sense lung cancer or anything. I made no incorrect perceptions at that time. And so far I haven't.

So, let's assume if I do perceive correct health information. Where does that information come from? Do I read body language? External and visually detectable symptoms? That are then translated synesthetically into corresponding visual and felt information? I am of course very intrigued, and I am sorry if some of you don't share my fascination into this and instead are concerned that this might involve a mental health problem. The medical perceptions do not interfere with me, and they do not change my sense of reality or the way in which I relate to the world. I do not hold them real in the sense I do my vision or other ordinary senses of perception. The medical perceptions are impressions, that's all. Just like when you perceive an image of a memory in your mind, it does not mean that you think you are living in that memory or that it is somehow part of your reality now. The medical perceptions are impressions, they are subjective to me, but I am investigating this since they seem to correlate with actual health information.

My investigation wants to find out what is the actual correlation if in a test setting? And what is the source of the information that becomes translated into medical perceptions? To me, it is "Vision from Feeling", since after I've seen a person I tend to look away or to close my eyes entirely and I perceive as if I am feeling vibrational patterns from the material that makes the body and tissues which becomes converted into visual images and felt information in my mind.

I am very curious. And there is no mental health problem involved. I do thank you for your concerns but I must use my own judgement here as well and there is no reason for worry. It is most likely some form of synesthesia, that's all.

I do feel that it is harassment to contact my school regarding my investigation. I have not been contacted by anyone at my school regarding this so I can assume that they too, think that there is nothing of concern here.

I somehow think that some of you guys are so strongly expecting there to be a hoax, or a delusion, when in fact I am investigating an actual phenomenon that obviously most likely will find a normal as opposed to paranormal explanation at the end. There is no hoax. I have been entirely sincere in my descriptions of the claim. And there is no mental illness. It is very reminiscent of synesthesia, but is an unusual and very interesting case, borderlining to the "paranormal" since I have perceived things that should not be detectable by any ordinary senses of perception! I think this is exciting! Why can't you guys feel the same!

LONGTABBER PE
15th February 2009, 12:00 PM
All those words, so little said

skeen
15th February 2009, 12:35 PM
Same old. She does not have synesthesia. And to say, "I have to judge whether I am delusional or not" makes no sense whatsoever. But, that's what we've come to expect from this run of the mill paranormal claimant.

VisionFromFeeling
15th February 2009, 12:52 PM
Regarding that some of you Forum members have contacted my school and told them that I am expressing reasons for concern of my mental health, at first I did take it as a deep violence against me as a person that you would have done such a thing. I took it as harassment, but have until now not mentioned any of my reactions to this here.

I have chosen to make my investigation and my experience of medical perceptions public, because I think it is a very interesting topic that others might find interesting too. The medical perceptions are most likely an expression of synesthesia, and I am investigating their actual accuracy in a test setting, as well as to find out what the source of the information is. The way the perceptions express themselves, the way I respond to experiencing them, and the way in which I conduct this investigation, all are no reason for concern. There are no valid reasons for concern of my mental health.

I have so far shared my investigation and perceptions with four professors, none of which responded negatively. I would be very surprised if this would damage my reputation as a scientist science student. In fact I am proud of myself for conducting a science project on my spare time.

I have not been contacted by my school regarding concerns about the investigation or the perceptions, just like I had expected. The Counceling Center, or whom ever it was that was contacted, are as opposed to some of you Forum members fully qualified to evaluate this on their own and have obviously concluded as have I that there are no reasons for concern. I have already made my investigation public access and can not object when ever someone finds out about it. If I feel that the way my investigation was described by Forum members was inconsistent with how I view it, I know that anyone can go to my website and read my posts here to get my version of the story as well.

As much as I would wish to ask that some of you become less impolite, I do realize that no matter how vicious and malevolent some of you come across, when the time comes that I can present some real results from a study or a test you will all be a very valuable contribution in the discussions. I can not conduct my investigation on my own, and I am trying to be "one of the skeptics" even though by being the paranormal claimant I am probably banned from being that as well. I am free to leave at any time if I am too uncomfortable here, but I feel that I can stay here until the investigation reaches a final conclusion. I think we all want to know.

VisionFromFeeling
15th February 2009, 12:58 PM
Moochie:
...you're reasonable-looking...
Gee thanks!

skeen
15th February 2009, 01:18 PM
The medical perceptions are most likely an expression of synesthesia

No. You don't have synesthesia. You have no medical diagnosis of this, and you have proven time and time again that we cannot trust your perception, or even world-view. It is most likely an expression of a mental issue, or outright lying - in all likeliness, it's a bit of both.

Ashles
15th February 2009, 01:25 PM
Let me tell you what we like to say to each other in Sweden after we've been to see a doctor. The doctor will listen to your symptoms and then will usually ask whether you smoke. If you say yes, he says you should go home and stop smoking and you'll be fine. If you say no, he asks you if you have a lot of stress in your life. If you say yes, he says you should go home and stop stressing and you'll be fine.
Of course one assumes doctors in Sweden are not in reality so unutterably stupid.
"Go and stop stressing" Oh yes, that would be fantastic medical advice. :rolleyes:
Anita does so love the cute little story doesn't she?

If you say no, they send you to tests. So when you come here to the JREF Forums...
*boring repetition cut*

I am studying for my exams tomorrow and have noticed that...
*yet more unverified aspects to the claim cut*

I also associate everything to a sense of vibrational patterns...
*pointless repetition of pseudoscience cut*

Recently I took the initiative to share with a Psychology professor about my unusual medical perceptions...
*vague and again unverifiable description of FIFTH uninterested professor informed about the claim cut*

Synesthesia is not a mental illness. In fact, studies show
*irrelevant sutff about synesthesia and repetition of how much better than other people Anita is at things cut*

So far I have not encountered a single confirmed incorrect medical perception. In the reading with Wayne I concluded that I find no health problems. What I sensed in the throat and shoulder I perceived not as health problems, but simply as "the shoulder" and adam's apple. For instance if I say I feel someone's breathing, then that is all I sensed, it does not mean I was claiming to sense lung cancer or anything. I made no incorrect perceptions at that time. And so far I haven't.
*Left in so I can match the repetition:*
He didn't have a tired left shoulder, so you were wrong.
You reported the "tired left shoulder" so it was significant enough to mention.
You did not write that you sensed an "adam's apple" so that is a lie. You wrote that you sensed throat discomfort. Which was wrong.
Every man has an adam's apple so your claim to have detected something that every healthy man is known to have, is stupid and demonstrates how blatantly you refuse to accept being wrong. This also shows how little point there is for anyone to even attempt to try and work wih you in developing a test protocol. There are of course loads of other reasons too.
I am happy to copy and paste that as many times as you are prepared to lie about the results of that incident.
One single reading so far in front of skeptics, two clear incorrect results.

Oh dear. Her continuing lies about this are doing her more harm than anything else. The tiniest shred of honesty would have given her a scrap of credibility i.e. admitting that her abilty might not be 100% after all but she still felt it was strong.
But no, Anita has to be perfect (the 4.0 average story was very interesting) and anything less than that has to be discarded. No matter how ludicrosly.

So, let's assume if I do perceive correct health information...
*pointless and uneccessary assumption cut*

My investigation wants...
*repetition of pretense of investigation cut in complete absence of ay actual investigation*

I am very curious....
*Irrelevant repetition cut*

I somehow think that some of you guys are so strongly expecting there to be a hoax,
Nope. A hoax usually involves something mysterious happening requiring explanation.
Your claim is completely devoid of anything mysterious.

All we have is your unverified description of events that happened to unknown people with no independent verification (or even verification by the people involved) - events judged by yourself and described by yourself. Completely anecdotal evidence. Completely ignorable.
There is absolutely nothing requiring explanation.

or a delusion, when in fact I am investigating an actual phenomenon that obviously most likely will find a normal as opposed to paranormal explanation at the end.
At "the end"? Your "investigation" has never even had a beginning.

And there is no phenomenon requiring investigation.

This whole claim is dead in the water. A damp squib. All you ever had was words, and you are attempting to generate some interest by... simply typing more words?
Why? You know nobody here believes you. You know nobody here even believes you are going to attempt any sort of proper investigation.

In fact I think many (most?) people here no longer even think you believe there is a claim.

There is no hoax. I have been entirely sincere in my descriptions of the claim. And there is no mental illness. It is very reminiscent of synesthesia, but is an unusual and very interesting case, borderlining to the "paranormal" since I have perceived things that should not be detectable by any ordinary senses of perception! I think this is exciting! Why can't you guys feel the same!
Because it isn't exciting.
It's boring watching you write the same thngs over and over as though repetition and pig-headed refusal to admit error will somehow win us over to you.
All you have ever had is words. And you still have no more action on this than writing more words.
We think this whole claim is ludicrous. Why don't you feel the same?

Remeber pages and pages ago when I described you as a typical claimant... you still are.
Many words... many different claims... refusal to admit error... no proper testing... excuses for failures... rejection of skeptical groups... refusal to agree sensible protocol... no clear claim... very standard stuff.

Oh and there's still the Survey to hear anything about (remember that?)... still the notes from that to fax to UncaYimmy... still the pill study to hear about (remember that?)... still your original written comments from Wayne's reading to provide to anyone...

You know, real actual actions of some sort.

I guess all you really have time for is writing more repetitive words making the same lame tired pointless claims.:rolleyes:

Exciting? Why on earth would you imagine your empty words are exciting to us?

Anita, unless something drastically changes There Is No Claim. It is completely defunct. Further repetition of your previous posts is utterly pointless.

And please note I will continue to copy and paste my response to any further futile attempts you make to somehow rewrite what happened during your incorrect reading of Wayne.

LONGTABBER PE
15th February 2009, 01:27 PM
Regarding that some of you Forum members have contacted my school and told them that I am expressing reasons for concern of my mental health, at first I did take it as a deep violence against me as a person that you would have done such a thing. I took it as harassment, but have until now not mentioned any of my reactions to this here.

I have chosen to make my investigation and my experience of medical perceptions public, because I think it is a very interesting topic that others might find interesting too. The medical perceptions are most likely an expression of synesthesia, and I am investigating their actual accuracy in a test setting, as well as to find out what the source of the information is. The way the perceptions express themselves, the way I respond to experiencing them, and the way in which I conduct this investigation, all are no reason for concern. There are no valid reasons for concern of my mental health.

I have so far shared my investigation and perceptions with four professors, none of which responded negatively. I would be very surprised if this would damage my reputation as a scientist science student. In fact I am proud of myself for conducting a science project on my spare time.

I have not been contacted by my school regarding concerns about the investigation or the perceptions, just like I had expected. The Counceling Center, or whom ever it was that was contacted, are as opposed to some of you Forum members fully qualified to evaluate this on their own and have obviously concluded as have I that there are no reasons for concern. I have already made my investigation public access and can not object when ever someone finds out about it. If I feel that the way my investigation was described by Forum members was inconsistent with how I view it, I know that anyone can go to my website and read my posts here to get my version of the story as well.

As much as I would wish to ask that some of you become less impolite, I do realize that no matter how vicious and malevolent some of you come across, when the time comes that I can present some real results from a study or a test you will all be a very valuable contribution in the discussions. I can not conduct my investigation on my own, and I am trying to be "one of the skeptics" even though by being the paranormal claimant I am probably banned from being that as well. I am free to leave at any time if I am too uncomfortable here, but I feel that I can stay here until the investigation reaches a final conclusion. I think we all want to know.

>>>Regarding that some of you Forum members have contacted my school and told them that I am expressing reasons for concern of my mental health, at first I did take it as a deep violence against me as a person that you would have done such a thing. I took it as harassment, but have until now not mentioned any of my reactions to this here.

Well, even tho I personally do not condone nor would ever conduct such an action, your publicity seeking and personal revelations did play a significant part in setting yourself up for it. If you want sympathy however, its in the dictionary between SH*T and SYPHILIS.

>>>I have chosen to make my investigation and my experience of medical perceptions public, because I think it is a very interesting topic that others might find interesting too.

Marketing

>>>The medical perceptions are most likely an expression of synesthesia, and I am investigating their actual accuracy in a test setting, as well as to find out what the source of the information is.

In non VFF English "I finally found something letigimate that I might be able to fit into and convince others thus substantiating my claim"

>>> I do realize that no matter how vicious and malevolent some of you come across,

Appeal to sympathy- would you like some cheese with that whine?

>>>when the time comes that I can present some real results from a study or a test you will all be a very valuable contribution in the discussions.

February 31st of what year?

>>>I can not conduct my investigation on my own, and I am trying to be "one of the skeptics" even though by being the paranormal claimant I am probably banned from being that as well.

Obfuscation and stalling

>>>I am free to leave at any time if I am too uncomfortable here, but I feel that I can stay here until the investigation reaches a final conclusion.

The world is scheduled to end in 2012 so theres not much time left

>>>I think we all want to know

"we" already do

Locknar
15th February 2009, 01:33 PM
Anyway, I asked her if she believed she had a special ability. She said no because there is no evidence of it.
From her latest tirade, seems she has changed her mind since your chat - shocking!

Ashles
15th February 2009, 01:43 PM
Regarding that some of you Forum members have contacted my school and told them that I am expressing reasons for concern of my mental health, at first I did take it as a deep violence against me as a person that you would have done such a thing.
"Deep violence"? You do like the drama of ludicrous hyperbole don't you.
The issue has been adressed already by the mods. Bring it up by all means but really that's a pretty disingenuous way of refering to how you feel about it since you are more than happy to keep posting here.
Another attempt to somehow win the moral high ground.

I have chosen to make my investigation and my experience of medical perceptions public, because I think it is a very interesting topic that others might find interesting too.
It is no more interesting than any other unverified paranormal claim we have seen. Some people might find it interesting. Some people find Uri Geller interesting. Some people find Sylvia Browne interesting.
Some people apparently don't mind being gullible.

The medical perceptions are most likely an expression of synesthesia, and I am investigating their actual accuracy in a test setting, as well as to find out what the source of the information is. The way the perceptions express themselves, the way I respond to experiencing them, and the way in which I conduct this investigation, all are no reason for concern.
There is no investigation going on. You have ensured no skeptical groups can work with your appalling tests. Or lack of actual clear claim.
Any tests you run yourself will be as worthless as any of your previous self-tests.
And your own University (which apparently you suddenly have no problem working with) appears to be repeatedly completely uninterested.

There are no valid reasons for concern of my mental health.
Personally I agree.
Willingness to dupe others, arrogance and refusal to admit error... they might not be pleasant personality traits, but not actually mental illness.

I have so far shared my investigation and perceptions with four professors, none of which responded negatively. I would be very surprised if this would damage my reputation as a scientist science student.
In complete and total contrast to everything you said up until now.
I guess after telling 5 Professors with no ill effects (other than their fascinating response of "Whatever") you feel they don't care enough about you or your career to have any reason to damage it.

In fact I am proud of myself for conducting a science project on my spare time.
I get the feeling you would be proud of yourself if you sharpened a pencil.

I have not been contacted by my school regarding concerns about the investigation or the perceptions, just like I had expected. The Counceling Center, or whom ever it was that was contacted, are as opposed to some of you Forum members fully qualified to evaluate this on their own and have obviously concluded as have I that there are no reasons for concern. I have already made my investigation public access and can not object when ever someone finds out about it. If I feel that the way my investigation was described by Forum members was inconsistent with how I view it, I know that anyone can go to my website and read my posts here to get my version of the story as well.
Well not the full version of course.
Just a very vaguely and completely unscientifically reported totally biased version.

As much as I would wish to ask that some of you become less impolite, I do realize that no matter how vicious and malevolent some of you come across, when the time comes that I can present some real results from a study or a test
How about you not bother posting anything here until such a miraculous turn of events comes to pass?
If at the same time you happen to pass Satan on a snowboard, feel free to tell him Hi from us.

you will all be a very valuable contribution in the discussions. I can not conduct my investigation on my own, and I am trying to be "one of the skeptics"
Not even slightly true.

even though by being the paranormal claimant I am probably banned from being that as well.
Another patented "It's everyone else against me" whine.

I am free to leave at any time if I am too uncomfortable here,
What despite the "deep violence" committed against you, you are continuing to post here?
But it's almost like you are compelled to keep repeating your unverified claims to us as though we will suddenly accept them.

Or as though you don't want to admit that the JREF skeptics created any perfectly reasonable tests which you had to publicly ignore or alter or evade, and you were forced to leave without convincing anyone here about any single part of your claim.

And at the risk of repetition (and that would be a shock on this thread) feel free to not bother posting exactly the same stuff you have done for over sixty pages - post something new. Post some actual information. Post a test carried out properly. Post... never mind. I might as well ask you to post the location of the Ark of the Covenant.

but I feel that I can stay here until the investigation reaches a final conclusion.
Or ever actually begins.

I think we all want to know.
Sure. It's the top of our To-Do list, just below finding out if Uri Geller really can bend spoons with his mind, whether Sylvia Browne really can contact the dead and whether Harry Potter really does travel via King's Cross.

calebprime
15th February 2009, 02:12 PM
Same old. She does not have synesthesia. And to say, "I have to judge whether I am delusional or not" makes no sense whatsoever. But, that's what we've come to expect from this run of the mill paranormal claimant.

No. You don't have synesthesia. You have no medical diagnosis of this, and you have proven time and time again that we cannot trust your perception, or even world-view. It is most likely an expression of a mental issue, or outright lying - in all likeliness, it's a bit of both.


I haven't read the whole thread. Remind me or fill me in: How do you know this? Synesthesia isn't that uncommon. It's also not paranormal, nor does it translate into anything useful, necessarily. (So what if you perceive the number 9 as purple, or a G# seems 'smooth', for example. This, unfortunately, is not a deep insight into 9-ness or G#-ness, just a more-or-less arbitrary association made vivid)

skeen
15th February 2009, 02:29 PM
She simply self-diagnosed herself with synesthesia. She took an online test which concluded she might have one kind of synesthesia, but I believe she merely faked it (which of course anyone can do).

She lacks the ability to evaluate anything as any ordinary person would. She has made claims far beyond synesthesia, and her attempts to rectify her ability with this condition have made no sense at all.

She has simply made it up. Anita's claims center around an over-active imagination. She even admits that everything she "perceives" is just in her mind.

Uncayimmy
15th February 2009, 02:41 PM
Anita,

Just because the counseling center did not approach you is no reason to believe that they didn't conclude there was a potential mental health issue. Nobody here believes that you are an immediate danger to yourself or others, which to the best of my knowledge is only reason they could actually approach you. Even then, I believe it would be the police who intervened, not the center.

I repeatedly extended an offer to pay out of my own pocket for a professional local to me to evaluate your writings. You have repeatedly ignored my offer. I now also offer to pay for your first appointment at the counseling center to be evaluated. What have you got to lose except a little time? Quite frankly, you've spent far more time arguing about it here than required for an appointment. When people I knew suggested I might be suffering depression, I went and saw someone.

Remember, when using my intuitive skills at diagnosing mental health, I have not had a single confirmed instance of being wrong.

Ashles
15th February 2009, 02:55 PM
I've noticed she has moved from talking a lot about ESP at the start of the thread, then she was mentioning cold-reading a lot for a while, which has now been downgraded again to synesthesia which is what she is currently latching onto.
It all seems like gradual steps from an amazing paranormal ability to complete imagination so that if she ever does have a test (and obviously demonstrates no more paranormal ability than stale cheese) then she can pretend that the negative results were in line what she was thinking all along.

In fact it's actually very hard to know what Anita thinks the status of her ability is at the moment.

In the months she has been posting on this thread there seems to have been a complete disappearance of any actual ability.
It's strangely not happening to her anymore, certainly not in front of skeptics or Professors.

Uncayimmy
15th February 2009, 03:00 PM
I haven't read the whole thread. Remind me or fill me in: How do you know this? Synesthesia isn't that uncommon. It's also not paranormal, nor does it translate into anything useful, necessarily. (So what if you perceive the number 9 as purple, or a G# seems 'smooth', for example. This, unfortunately, is not a deep insight into 9-ness or G#-ness, just a more-or-less arbitrary association made vivid)

There are two issues here. First, does she have synesthesia? She took an on-line assessment, which, like other on-line diagnostic tools, is designed to capture potential synesthetes rather than make a diagnosis. You choose the various types of synesthesia you believe you have. She choose several of them (the number 9 comes to mind). Only in one did she get the, "we should look into this more" result. I took two tests. On the second test I was able to manipulate it (by lying) to give me an extremely high score.

The second and more important issue is that synesthesia is no more likely than a broken leg to account for her perceptions. In my research I found nothing even remotely resembling what she describes. Synesthesia by definition is a crossing of the senses. She's talking about looking at a person and creating 3D imagery that she can manipulate spatially and zoom down to the subatomic level.

Her perceptions are either lies, an active imagination to which she assigns reality, or delusions. She keeps bringing it up as a cover for her belief that she has ESP. Her latest gambit is to approach the psychology students at her school. So naturally, synesthesia is back on the table. A few weeks ago she was saying it might be cold reading because she was dealing with skeptics.

Ashles
15th February 2009, 03:11 PM
List of things Anita should do BEFORE making any further pointless posts that do absolutely nothing other than repeat claims and assertations made previously in this thread:

(N.B. these are ALL activities that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is preventing Anita from doing and most of these she said she WOULD DO)


Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd (I think "eventually" has officially passed now)
Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago
Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Provide the results of her analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Any others I have missed?

volatile
15th February 2009, 03:41 PM
Alright you whining skeptics. I see nothing but impatience here.

:jaw-dropp

Ashles
15th February 2009, 03:53 PM
Alright you whining skeptics. I see nothing but impatience here.
That's true, we can't wait for you to leap into inaction and do nothing again.

Or repeat your claims. Again.
Or write some more whiny complaints about how the world is against you. Again.
Or pretend to be about to do an investigation. Again.
Or make excuses about why you got Wayne's reading incorrect. Again.
Or make excuses about why you can't use anyone else's test protocols ever. Again.
Or go on about why you do/don't have synesthesia/delusion/amazing cold reading ability etc. Again.

Or ignore all of the bulleted acivities you could actually do which I detailed in the post right above the post you just made. Again.

'Impatience' implies frustration in waiting for something specific to happen. Whereas we don't think you are actually going to do anything. So I don't think 'impatience' is the correct word.

It's just amusing to watch what you will post next as an excuse (as opposed to, you now, actually doing something productive).

It can't be long now before you flounce out in a great show of drama vowing never to return. You haven't really got anywhere else to go with this claim. More posts won't help in any way, no matter what you write - you'll just be recycling old excuses and whines. You have made all the excuses you can for failing to test your 'ability' at all.

Anita you've obviously got sme time free this evening - why not do one of the bulleted activities mentioned above instead of witing yet another pointless essay that will not change anyone's opinion one iota about anything?

nathan
15th February 2009, 03:56 PM
I see nothing but impatience here.
You're remarkably unobservant if you see nothing more than that! (or perhaps you're lying again)

nathan
15th February 2009, 03:59 PM
It can't be long now before you flounce out in a great show of drama vowing never to return -- only to return a short while later.
There, fixed it for you.

skeen
15th February 2009, 04:03 PM
Ah yes, the magical word that makes everything go away. Impatience.

nathan
15th February 2009, 04:16 PM
Her latest gambit is to approach the psychology students at her school. So naturally, synesthesia is back on the table. A few weeks ago she was saying it might be cold reading because she was dealing with skeptics.

Yup, in this forum, the pool of unknownness has been used up. Anita has convinced noone. so now she's moved on to a new audience, and being psychology students, synesthesia's back on the table. The story will complete itself again with them. Anita, do come back here and let us know when the students have called you on your subterfuge. I wonder how long it will take ...

skeen
15th February 2009, 04:17 PM
It will take as long as a Google search.

Farencue
15th February 2009, 04:39 PM
I noticed yesterday that this thread dropped down to second from the bottom of the opening page in this section and was in danger of disappearing off the opening page completely.
I actually thought that would be a good thing - "FadingfromVision" - as this thread, in my opinion, is dead in the water.
I pointed this out to someone in my household and we wondered if the thread would in fact die or if someone would post to this thread to bump it up again.

Geez it really teaches us for "wondering" doesnt it?

skeen
15th February 2009, 04:51 PM
Yup, I think we can now declare this thread deceased. Anita knows it, too; hence her recent frustration. It's over.

Ashles
15th February 2009, 04:54 PM
It was inactive since 12 Feb and it was bumped by... [scrolls up to check] oh yes, Anita herself. What a surprise.
And she bumped it... why?
No new information, same old claims, just adding comments about another thread started on 30th January that is now closed.

And then, after 3 days of no comments on this thread, a period of inactivity which she herself ended, she then complains that she sees "nothing but impatience here"?

God she really does crave the attention doesn't she?

skeen
15th February 2009, 05:11 PM
This word assimilation thing is so bizarre. Does she realize she's doing it? Does her brain shut off when we mention it?

And Ashes: wonderful summary. 3 days of no comments. Yep, that's impatience!

LONGTABBER PE
15th February 2009, 07:49 PM
Alright you whining skeptics. I see nothing but impatience here.

Planning your exit strategy because your scam didnt work?

Miss_Kitt
16th February 2009, 01:19 AM
VisionFromFeeling's webpage:

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/

Can you describe to us the ways you have tested yourself?

ETA: Welcome to the forums Anita


I am amused to look back at the beginning and realize that Professor Yaffle's request--the first reply to Anita's initial post--is still unanswered, with 63 pages of waffling, meandering, misrepresenting, changing stories, protesting innocence, and outright lying in between.

Months of time, hundreds of post, and she still hasn't actually tested herself--by her own admission, she has only done "surveys" or "studies", not tests.

My how time flies when you're desperately trying to salvage your illusions of specialness!

Akhenaten
16th February 2009, 02:54 AM
Hi all. What's this thread about then?

Belz...
16th February 2009, 05:49 AM
Regarding that some of you Forum members have contacted my school and told them that I am expressing reasons for concern of my mental health, at first I did take it as a deep violence against me as a person that you would have done such a thing.

Then you have no idea what "violence" means or you're using it to create sympathy. We are all concerned about your... er... state; but you don't seem willing to help yourself.

Belz...
16th February 2009, 05:51 AM
The world is scheduled to end in 2012

Yeah but it reopens in March 2014.

Ashles
16th February 2009, 06:12 AM
Hi all. What's this thread about then?
Same old claims, different name.

Girl claims amazing ability.
Amazing ability has never been wrong.
Amazing ability has come by itself many times and can be consciously called upon at will.
Amazing ability could revolutionise world.
Claimant doesn't see it as anything special.
Girl also has several other amazing abilities.
Girl refuses to involve university as it would hamper her career.
Skeptics suggest testing.
63 pages of evasions, excuses, passive agressive behaviour, insults and pleas.
Girl tries a few tentative experiments.
Experiments go as badly as they could, or results are never provided.
Girl makes many more excuses.
Testing methods are suggested.
Girl rejects all test procedures by at least 3 different groups of skeptics.
Girl suggests her own procedures which are so bad nobody is interested in using them.
Some skeptics attempt to work even with girl's bad protocol. They are completely ignored.
Girl whines about how everyone is against her.
Girl 'rejects' 2 different groups of skeptics.
Girl tells 5 different Professors at her university as now she doesn't feel it will harm her career.
Professors all don't care.
Girl repeats claims, repeats excuses, repeats pleas and insults.
Everyone gets bored.
Thread dies.
After days of inactivity girl bumps thread to complain the skeptics are impatient.
No test happens.


Same old song, different words

Ah well, time to wait for the next claimant to burst on the scene with big claims, lots of words and zero evidence or intention to test for claimed ability. What do you reckon, within 4 months? Or sooner.

Soapy Sam
16th February 2009, 06:22 AM
In other news, Scientists discover water runs downhill...:rolleyes:

Ocelot
16th February 2009, 06:35 AM
Hi Anita,

I've only been skimming the monster thread for a while since you decided that you would not be progressing with the cereals test I was interested in. Your stated reason for not doing so was so that you could concentrate on the Medical Diagnoses in preparation for the IIG test.

My thought at the time was that even if you did have more experience with medical diagnoses than detecting lactobacillus, the test subjects for medical diagnosis are hard to come by and fraught with ethical complications. The test subjects for a lactobacillus test can be easily purchased from the supermarket and when you’re done with them, you can eat them to get you money's worth. You're probably buying breakfast cereal anyway.

As such since the 12th December when you gave that answer, even just looking at 10 cups of cereal a week in a properly randomised double blind test, you’d have been able to have run ten such tests. 100 separate trials. You’d be very experienced by now. Maybe with practice you’d have been able to run through the ten trials without any of the exhaustion you’d previously complained about.

If you had by now figured out how to consistently score 90% in picking which of three covered cups had a lactobacillus enhanced cereal inside then that’s the test you’d be able to take public. Maybe you’d have developed a protocol where the cereal had been kept in the cups for a period of time before viewing, to allow the “vibration” to seep through. Maybe you’d have discovered that your success after wetting the cereals allowed you to carry on with the covers back on. If not then you’d have learnt which controls were stopping you from achieving your previously high scores and have learnt something about the probable methods your subconscious had been using to create the impression of a genuine power.

Have you had a similar level of progress pursuing your medical diagnosis claim?

I’ve skim read that you have developed a study protocol which I presume is in order to present the IIG with a list of conditions which you’re confident you can detect most of the time. As I understand it you’ve been arguing with sceptics here over the use of a five point scale rather than a definite yes/no for each condition. This five point scale would allow a chancer to say things like, well I’m getting a vague impression of a tired shoulder and a sore throat but it’s not worth mentioning. Thus if the test subject had neither of those conditions you could say “well I did say it was a vague impression not worth mentioning” whereas if either of those conditions materialised then you could count them as a hit. This is what cold reading experts call the rainbow ruse. Making a statement and immediately contradicting it, thus all bases are covered. E.g. I see you are a friendly person who can be the life and soul of a party but at times you can be introverted and shut others out. From the fact that these examples weren’t picked at random but from the controversy surrounding the only medical diagnosis I can see that you’ve attempted in these ten weeks I hope you can see the reason for the objections to a five point scale. A simple yes/no would be definitive whereas a five point scale lets others claim you were wrong whilst you claim you were right.

The only thing we’ve learnt from that reading is that you cannot reliably detect the lasting scars and contusions of major surgery. That must be disappointing. It doesn’t look good for the IIG test.

Am I correct that this is the only diagnosis you managed to perform whilst focusing your attentions on medical diagnosis rather than cereal? It’s the only one I can see on your observations made page. Do you agree that the results were controversial? Are you ready to change your claim regarding medical diagnosis from “Never Wrong” to “Only Wrong about things I’m not certain of” which rather raises the spectre of the No True Scotsman. How many of your previous hits could have been phrased with a built in exit route in case you'd been wrong. All we have to tell us one way or another is falliable memory which has been known to re-paint a more impressive picture very quickly and more so over time.

However if the only purpose of the study in question is so that you can submit to the IIG what conditions you feel you can reliably detect then I guess we can wait until the IIG’s matching protocol for a definitive answer. How much closer are you. Are there yet, any conditions you can tell them that you should be able to reliably detect?

It seems strange that asking for more data means that you can read less from the study than would otherwise be the case, however if you do manage to get study off the ground I will be happy to help with the statistics. Either with a yes/no or if you’ve got a large enough sample (over 50 subjects) I can cobble together a method for comparing your answers for one subject with the responses given by other people.

It'd be easier if the form simply said back pain rather than lower back pain, upper back pain and middle back pain. I'd assume that you'd want the analysis to be giving some credit to you if you perceived upper back pain for a test subject who reported middle back pain.

We can look at that. That said, since the form is so bloated I will be correcting for data mining effects.

However looking at the forms you intend to be using I wonder if you’ve questioned the wisdom of including vasectomy, pregnancy and breast implants in a study designed to highlight which conditions you hope to be able to detect for a subsequent matching protocol? I have to tell you, If there’s five men and five women to match to ten diagnosis including on diagnosis of vasectomy, I’ve doubled my odds on getting that diagnosis matched correctly. That ups the odds on the others through a knock on effect. I’m also pretty good at detecting pregnancy after a few months through non-supernatural means and breast enlargements too. Odds there are far more than doubled. I think it’s very unlikely that you’ll be seeing those conditions in the IIG test.

Yet since you’ve been focussing your efforts on this how much closer are you?


The study form is a controversial mess. I do hope that the new version is slimmed down and greatly simplified. When should we expect improvements?

You need to reserve a space via the parks department, have you managed that yet?

You need to recruit people to help administer the study, have you?

Ashles
16th February 2009, 06:47 AM
Anyone remember when she could do these things:
Madalch:
Good to have a chemist taking part in the discussion. I've actually used my ability to aid me in identification exercises at college. During a human anatomy lab exam we had to identify human tissue samples under a microscope based on the appearance of them. There was one that I just couldn't figure out, so I decided to use my ability to feel into the tissue rather than just guessing. The exact tissue structure, the spacing between the individual components that make the tissue, as well as the compounds that make it, all add up to a complete vibrational structure that I sense. From having not had a clue from just looking at it and trying to remember the tissue photographs in the textbook, I immediately knew what it was and was absolutely certain that it was testicular tissue. And it was.

I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab. We were given four unknown compounds that we had to identify through various chemical testing, melting point, IR and NMR spectra. By looking into the molecules, I could for instance clearly see biphenyl, and the nitrogen that was involved in two of the others was clearly detectable and a helpful clue. I have a great advantage. Of course I would not use this ability as a working professional to make final conclusions, especially if working in the medical field involving patients. But when all that is left to do is guess, I will guess with this ability and increase my chances.
(Bolding mine)
So at one point she could draw on this abilty at will and identify tissue samples. (And identify chemicals by looking at their molecules)

More abilities seemingly somehow lost over the course of this thread.

I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying human tiss... nah, never mind. I think we already know.

jhunter1163
16th February 2009, 06:51 AM
Anita:

I haven't read this thread either, so I'm not really clear on what it is you are trying to claim. Can you detect injuries that people have suffered in the past, or is your ability limited to current conditions? I had a fairly horrific accident in my 20s; can you tell me in general (or specific) terms what injury(ies) I suffered?

Thanks for clearing this up.

Ashles
16th February 2009, 07:00 AM
Some more amusing claims back from page one of this thread:

Do you seriously want me to use my ability on persons in the bathroom? Do you have any idea of the things that I can see?
Actually no. We spent another 63 pages trying to specify that. To no avail.

I would prefer to respect their privacy and not try this. While we're on the subject, I love to tell people when they need to go to the bathroom. It is not visible externally, but I can feel it.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying when people need to go to... nah, never mind. I think we already know.

I can also see the composition of urine and the contents of the stomach and intestines and am learning to decipher this into what a person ate. It does not bother me at all. One of the clearest things to see that a person ate, is a meal composed mostly of sucrose (tablesugar), and another one is a meal composed mostly of fat.
Boy that would be easy to test.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying whether a subject had eaten a meal of... nah, never mind. I think we already know.

I already know that I benefit from seeing the person that I am viewing. Seeing the person should also not pose a problem for the sake of the test since there is plenty of information to test on that is indetectable from the outside with no external cues. I would like to mention some of these, which are not necessarily going to be involved in my test with the IIG:
Interesting use of lanuage there.
Even right at the start she refused to commit to any particular conditions. Here is a random list which Anita provides no indication of whether these are ailments she can actually identify or not.
A casual reader might think she is listing ailments she can identify but in fact she is specifically listing these simply as examples of things that are undetectable externally. She is careful not to claim she can actually identify any of these.

The presence of infectious bacteria, their type and location / Lung cancer / Removed lobes of the lung / Asthma, allergies, the presence of asthma medicine still on the trachea from the past / Pregnancy / Female cysts of the reproductive system / Prostate cancer / Breast cancer / Stomach ulcers / Pain, a description of its extent and location and the tissues involved as well as its cause / Damages to the normal alignment and structures of the spine / Bone fractures that did not heal properly (can be concealed by clothes) / Contents in urine / Liver worm, parasites / Blood composition / Kidney stones / Gall stones / Liver damage, cirrhosis, holes in the liver tissue, damage from alcohol or infection / Damaged appendix / Colon cancer / Mental illness, may show as dark areas on the brain’s electrical activity / Tinnitus / Obscured vision / Discomforts of all forms in the body, their location and a description of

And many more.
She could list every ailment known to man there for all the information it is really providing.

I like to use my ability when I get the chance since it is improved by practice.
Again, interesting. Has she been testing her ability recently?
If not, how curious. Doesn't she want to pass the upcoming Test?
And, as mentioned by Oceot above, maybe she would improve in the clear cut tests (chemical identification, lactobacillus, crystals, tissue identification etc.) to a level she could test at.
Since she improves with practice.

Of course that would mean carrying out tests in which Anita produces less than perfect results. And we know what hapens in such cases.
Hello Mr File Drawer.

Ashles
16th February 2009, 07:06 AM
Anita:

I haven't read this thread either, so I'm not really clear on what it is you are trying to claim. Can you detect injuries that people have suffered in the past, or is your ability limited to current conditions? I had a fairly horrific accident in my 20s; can you tell me in general (or specific) terms what injury(ies) I suffered?

Thanks for clearing this up.
Anita doesn't know. Anita's upcoming study is designed to find out more about her ability.:rolleyes:

Despite the absolute confidence she had when entering this thread that she could, at will, look into a person's body to an atomic level, now it seems she doesn't know what she is claiming she can identify.

Essentially if she guesses right it is a hit, if she guesses wrong it was too weak a guess to be counted as a miss, and if she misses something completely it also isn't to be counted.

In 63 pages she has refused to specify what actual ailments, conditions or characteristics she is able to reliably identify, or under what conditions.
Even whether she has to be facing the subject has changed throughout the course of this thread.

Ashles
16th February 2009, 07:12 AM
And let's not forget:
My ability is always active, but when I am focused on something else I am not aware of the ability. It is like when you are working on something and there is music playing in the background, you have moments where you do not hear the music at all because you are not paying attention to it and have your mind focused on something else at that time. When I am not doing anything in particular the ability is active and I receive the information. I can choose to focus it at times when I want to obtain information with it, just like when you really want to hear music you can focus and listen to it. I test my ability on people I haven't seen all the time. Most of the time though I am unable to check my observations with them since you do not approach a stranger and say, "By the way, do you have colon cancer?"
How can she posibly pretend this is consistent with later posts in the thread?

Where did this amazing, always-on ability disappear to?

She has been in rooms full of skeptics at least twice so far!
But... no ability.
She has had Pup's tablets in her room for weeks now.
But... no ability.

jhunter1163
16th February 2009, 07:19 AM
Anita doesn't know. Anita's upcoming study is designed to find out more about her ability.:rolleyes:

Despite the absolute confidence she had when entering this thread that she could, at will, look into a person's body to an atomic level, now it seems she doesn't know what she is claiming she can identify.

Essentially if she guesses right it is a hit, if she guesses wrong it was too weak a guess to be counted as a miss, and if she misses something completely it also isn't to be counted.

In 63 pages she has refused to specify what actual ailments, conditions or characteristics she is able to reliably identify, or under what conditions.
Even whether she has to be facing the subject has changed throughout the course of this thread.

Ah. I see. Well, in that case, I'll go get some popcorn.

volatile
16th February 2009, 08:27 AM
If anyone is really bored, I think we could do with a nice list of up-to-date contradictions!

Moochie
16th February 2009, 08:36 AM
Moochie:

Gee thanks!

All joking aside, ma'am, but the only thing that would satisfy my rapidly fading interest in this thread, and in you, is some indisputable evidence that you, indeed, have what you refer to as "the ability." This evidence would need to be from multiple sources, and corroborated by several unimpeachable witnesses with well established reputations in the world of science.

Until you are able to point me to such evidence, all this talk is just so much chin-wagging. Nothing wrong with a bit of a natter, but up to now that is all that is happening.

When you have successfully established, with irrefutable evidence, that an "ability" exists, then, and only then, will we (you and I, because I can only speak for myself) have something meaningful to discuss.

Cheers,


M.

Moochie
16th February 2009, 09:15 AM
I noticed yesterday that this thread dropped down to second from the bottom of the opening page in this section and was in danger of disappearing off the opening page completely.
I actually thought that would be a good thing - "FadingfromVision" - as this thread, in my opinion, is dead in the water.
I pointed this out to someone in my household and we wondered if the thread would in fact die or if someone would post to this thread to bump it up again.

Geez it really teaches us for "wondering" doesnt it?

Yeah, I noticed that too, and almost made a post yesterday to send it to the top of the page again. Then I had an epiphany -- the thread was meant to die a natural death!

So I let a sleeping dog lie. :)

Maybe this will become another "Lazarus" thread...


M.

LONGTABBER PE
16th February 2009, 09:59 AM
Yeah, I noticed that too, and almost made a post yesterday to send it to the top of the page again. Then I had an epiphany -- the thread was meant to die a natural death!

So I let a sleeping dog lie. :)

Maybe this will become another "Lazarus" thread...


M.

It could simply be the first test of the "ability" The "vibrational patterns" of the thread were read and she realized it was near death.

Uncayimmy
16th February 2009, 11:52 AM
Ocelot: It'd be easier if the form simply said back pain rather than lower back pain, upper back pain and middle back pain. I'd assume that you'd want the analysis to be giving some credit to you if you perceived upper back pain for a test subject who reported middle back pain.

In what sense would it be easier to combine areas except to increase the odds in favor of someone guessing?

Ocelot
16th February 2009, 02:05 PM
In what sense would it be easier to combine areas except to increase the odds in favor of someone guessing?You think she's not going to give herself full marks if she diagnoses someone with middle back pain and they put down lower back pain?

Ashles
16th February 2009, 02:13 PM
You think she's not going to give herself full marks if she diagnoses someone with middle back pain and they put down lower back pain?
She'd give herself full marks if she diagnosed back pain and they had athlete's foot.

Moochie
16th February 2009, 02:21 PM
She'd give herself full marks if she diagnosed back pain and they had athlete's foot.


Isn't the thighbone connected to the trombone?


M.