Vision From Feeling [Archive] - Page 4

Old man

22nd December 2008, 09:27 AM

I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them. Fixed it for you. :p

Belz:
When I said "There's so many of you and only one of me.", Belz said "This is usually the case when you suppose fringe claims. It's often a clear indication that something's wrong with your ideas." So because I am the only psychic claimant posting on this thread, and there are so many skeptics here involved in the discussion, that would make my claim less reliable? So if we invite some more psychics in here, or ask some of you skeptics to leave, my claim would immediately become more reliable? I don't understand. It’s a case of the old (Arabic?) proverb – (paraphrasing)
“If one man calls you an ass, pay no attention. If ten men do, go look for a saddle.”

Human Anatomy was on the undergraduate, introductory level, where we are introduced to the organs and tissues of the human body, learn the names of major structures in the body, and also some of the chemistry of the body. Anita, why did you seem to be denying knowledge of anatomy, earlier in this thread?

I get criticized for what I do, for what I don't do, and for what others do, and for what others don't do. Everything is wrong.
“Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, think I’ll go eat some worms…”

Originally Posted by Old man
Maybe you’re like the rich kid you complains “I never get anything!”
I think you are just being silly. Yes, I was “just being silly”. We’re making progress on the communication front!

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita (sigh), you just don’t get it, do you? What will be your response if NONE of your readings (under the ‘altered’ protocol) are right? Well, Old man, you just don't get it either. As I've already said many times before, if the test concludes no ESP ability, I will be happy and will have acchieved the objective of the test, and nothing changes in my world. I will have a label for what my perceptions are, or are not. And if I were running the test, I’d have to include the possibly that your ESP just wasn’t working at that time, since you do claim that it doesn’t always work. Failing to check that your ‘power’ is ‘on’ is a flaw in your testing procedure.

Everyone:
I think a sex identification test is probably not the main health information to test for that we should be focusing on, since sex definitely has external symptoms. If I had suggested an ailment that as much as may have external symptoms, you would all be chasing me for that. Now that you're all discussing to have one of the most externally detectable types of information about a person on a test surprises me. I'm shocked. Actually, I'm stunned. And frankly, I'm disappointed. Just think about what I just said. It might occur to you as well, and then you'll be as shocked as I am. I concur, which is why I’ve been arguing all along to keep that out of any test.

Originally Posted by Hokulele
No problem. I would still recommend having one or more other people who do not claim to have her ability take the matching quiz as well in order to act as controls. It may be that certain ailments are noticeable to anyone, even if they do not have any special type of vision. These controls will demonstrate that any person could detect certain ailments (such as the color-blind example noted earlier in this thread), so it is unlikely that her ability is anything abnormal.
I agree that it would be a good idea to have others taking the test with me, however these should be persons with experience in diagnose, such as physicians, to reduce or eliminate the concern that my conclusions would be based on knowledge of reading external symptoms. However it would probably be best to work with ailments that are agreed to have no known external signs and control persons would not be as necessary since control persons seem to make a test more complicated to arrange. Actually, the control readers should be skilled ‘cold readers’, not physicians, since cold reading (not medical knowledge) is what is likely to be the mechanism, here.

Old man:
Please accept that I am not here for personal attention, but to discuss medical perceptions that may or may not be due to ESP. You can believe what you want, but I am just trying to guide you toward the truth. And many of us are eagerly, excitedly, yeah, even impatiently, waiting to be led on this journey of discovery! Please, can we get started soon?

Belz, Old man, Locknar:
You might all make excellent lawyers. Thank you. Science, like law (I know, it isn’t always practiced that way), really should be about getting down to the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted by Old man
Finals week, man. Have patience…
Stalkers, anyone? Just kidding. You guys sure do your investigations. I expect you will soon be going through my trash and looking in through my windows for what ever evidence there may be. Just kidding. Keep up the good investigations practice. Why Anita, you noticed! :blush: Thank you so much! I’m just so… so… flattered! :)

Originally Posted by Dr. Carlson post #683
I brought up the possibility of vasectomies (because of this discussion), and she said that because she has only ONCE detected a vasectomy, she is not prepared, at present, to perform a test based on this. Think about it - if she has looked at thousands of people over time, and only once seen a vasectomy, think of the sample size we would need to get a statistically significant number of vasectomies that she could see. There is an incorrect assumption here. When I have chosen to do a thorough head-to-toe reading of persons, and so far there has only been a handful of persons available for this, I make a thorough effort to detect anything of any sort that would be out of the ordinary or significant to mention. This is when health information such as vasectomy comes to my attention. Having had a vasectomy is not a health problem and is not associated with disease, pain or discomfort, so it is not among the information that captures my attention on its own, such as several cases of cancers or pain do. Vasectomy is therefore not a piece of information that I will notice in a daily situation when among people. Vasectomy is information that I detect only when I consciously read into a person. And as such it is not unthinkable to use in a test, I just haven't had a lot of experience with this particular bit of medical information. I hope this clarifies the matter. Excellent. We need this kind of clarification. However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?

Originally Posted by Hokulele post #692
I have a question for VfF.

In your opinion, if I were to watch you making your observations, how could I differentiate between your method of determining a medical condition and cold reading?
Finally! A productive question! I knew there would be one eventually! I think your question is an excellent one. I am arranging to have a study, which in essence will be like a test that begins under the same conditions as how I have experienced the perceptions, I’ve suggested that you do this (as a control for any tests), and you rejected the idea. Why is it a good idea now?

… And I have definitely listed all hits and misses regarding the anecdotal experiences listed on the observations page of my website (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) and always ensure that I do... I see that these statements –

“I then detected a very specific small region on his abdomen within which the small intestine has a tendency of becoming rigid…
I defined the very small and specific space in which this occurs: being immediately below the sternum, occupying a rectangle of one and a half centimeters vertical width and four centimeters horizontal width - very specific…
The intestine locking up is definitely "verified correct without any known subtle clues".”

- are still there, even though they can’t all be true. Why haven’t you corrected them?

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, I've been meaning to ask you a question, and now seems to be a good time. Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities? You must encounter tens (if not hundreds) of people every day. Your statements in this thread and on your web page led me to think that these reading are 'normal' for you. My belief was that they happened frequently.

Do these "visions from feeling" happen, on average, every hour? Every day? Once a month? Imagine if you are in a room with walls covered in text. You notice text that stands out from the rest, if it is highlighted, in bold, or larger, and you can't help but to perceive what it says in those cases. That is what health problems are to me, they stand out from the vast amount of other information that a person carries around in themselves, and I can not help but to read it. Then if you want to, you can choose to read the text itself, and you make the choice and the effort and start reading. You can then find out about the less important information that no one bothered highlighting for attention, and that is what information such as vasectomy is. It is not a health problem, it is not associated with pain, disease, or discomfort. So to detect it I have to make the effort of reading for it. I detected it in a case where I choose to do a head-to-toe thorough analysis where I look for anything unusual of any kind. I have had very few opportunities to do this head-to-toe with people so that is probably why to date I only have one example of detecting vasectomy. With regard to other information that is highlighted and comes to me on its own I've experienced it more often. I hope that answers your question. Great info, it really helps me formulate my questions. Thank you. However, it doesn’t answer the question I asked.
Imagine if you are in a room with walls covered in text. You notice text that stands out from the rest, if it is highlighted, in bold, or larger, and you can't help but to perceive what it says in those cases. Interesting analogy. I’ve been in many situations just like you’re describing. However, I can also just look at any of the text, anytime I want, and read it. So, not that good of an analogy, is it?

Originally Posted by Ashles
To put it another way, as a rough estimate, what proportion of new people you meet do you get a propoer reading from (i.e. that a reading comes to you as you have previously described as being totally accurate)?
If a person has a health problem it is highlighted for my attention and I perceive it whether I intend to or not. With regard to doing an intended head-to-toe reading it is something I do only with the participation of the person, and is very rarely.

To clarify, there is information that is very clear and comes to me on its own. This occurs in perhaps one out of twenty persons in a crowd? That's a very bad estimate though, so don't rely on it. And as to information that I perceive from effort, which is like choosing to actively read a text rather than just seeing it and detecting highlights that stand out, I rarely encounter this possibility. I plan to have a study to experience more reading. This does answer my question. Thank you.

This occurs in perhaps one out of twenty persons in a crowd? So, you should be able to go the mall tomorrow, and in an hour or two be able to come back to this thread and tell us whether any or all of the following - circumcision, vasectomy, appendectomy, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, cardiac surgery, dental bridge work - are suitable for testing. I look forward to the coming voyage of discovery that you’ve promised us!

Moochie

22nd December 2008, 09:27 AM

Moochie:
Please don't make a fool out of yourself.

Wouldn't be the first time.

All that I have said about non-paranormal things such as educational background for instance have been true,and the only things, so far, that stand a chance of verification

so the fact that you guys argue against trivial things that I know to be true makes me question the way some of you skeptics approach things.
Question away! No extraordinary claims being made here!

I stand by my summation: either you're severely deluded, or a (perhaps not so very) gifted prankster.

In any case, I'm going to be 59 next month, so I'm wondering if I'll live long enough to see you submit to a proper test of your claim(s).

I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery.

ETA: I notice you're repeating your site's address every so often. Afraid we'll forget?

M.

Skeptical Greg

22nd December 2008, 10:37 AM

Quick summation..

These skills are very precise and accurate, except when they are not ..
Even though Anita successfully uses these skills all the time, when it comes to testing them, they seem to shift to the ' not working ' end of the chart ..

As I've mentioned before .. I believe I have these same abilities; however, so far, I seem to be stuck in the ' not working ' mode ....

I keep getting the feeling someone Googled " psychic abilities " and stumbled into the wrong forum ...

Ashles

22nd December 2008, 10:42 AM

So if Anita gets readings for roughly one in 20 people, would a sample of 60 people give enough to form any kind of conclusions?

Surely with the level of accuracy displayed for each time the ability is active, even three people analysed would give a reasonably large amount of data to work with?

Uncayimmy

22nd December 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
Anita is one of the people I believe I can influence. I honestly believe there's a chance she'll see the light and learn to address her claims critically. If she does, I'm sure it will expand outwards to her circle of friends. Based on her personality I'm sure she will enjoy challenging others the same way we have done her. What a great victory for critical thinking.
Insult! I am here doing all I can to critically analyze my medical perceptions, and I believe that most of the criticism against how I approach this is based on impatience. I know there is more I should and could do but it is a lot of work and takes time! I think I am doing well in my investigation. And besides I have shown to be much more objective and science-minded many times than many of you skeptics.

You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..."

And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt. To make it worse, you resist the testing protocols we have suggested.

If you feel insulted, change your behavior.

Old man

22nd December 2008, 12:07 PM

You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..."

And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt... ...Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day. :jaw-dropp

And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far? :rolleyes:

desertgal

22nd December 2008, 05:18 PM

You know, I just noticed this:

I am here to objectively discuss the possibility of having an ESP ability. I have not concluded one way or the other.

I am here to discuss a test whose objective is to find out either that it is the case of ESP or that it is not the case of ESP.

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, the home page of http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/ reads:

"This webpage is about my extrasensory perception that allows me to know about the health condition of people."

Kinda contradicting yourself there, ain't ya?

Uncayimmy

22nd December 2008, 06:15 PM

Kinda contradicting yourself there, ain't ya?

Don't forget her first post here:

I am in the process of arranging with the IIG in Hollywood to test what seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia which leads me to obtain accurate information that is normally out of reach of ordinary perception.

Her abilities were a foregone conclusion - it was just an either/or test of ESP or something like synesthesia. Of course, she later lumped herself in the ESP category when she wrote, "Unlike many who are under the impression that they have a psychic ability..."

If there's any doubt her psychic notions, she also wrote, "I believe that there are elements of the paranormal that can be brought into science once properly understood and established."

The biggest problem is summed here in one of her earliest posts where say says, "[I] have no personal preference for having either synesthesia or actual verifiable extrasensory perception."

She's utterly convinced what she is doing is real. She's just wondering whether it's ESP or synesthesia.

Miss_Kitt

22nd December 2008, 06:21 PM

Anita,

I would like you to clarify a couple of things. Forgive me for not quoting the exact post, but they are all from the "reply to Page 16" -style posts you have made recently.

On your ability and its prevalance: You suggest that, perhaps, 1 in 20 people "ping your radar" with a health issue. (I note that you said that may not be an accurate fraction, thank you for noting that.) Do you know what your percentage is for people who do have health issues? That is, when you go to see a doctor (or to the health clinic that undoubtedly is at/near your college for the students), about what fraction of the people in the waiting room do you see something from? I am not asking you to try to verify any reading, here, just if you do a walk-through of the lobby, how many do you see something in?

You indicated in one of those lengthy posts that you know you have synesthesia, which may or may not be related to your medical perceptions. What form of synesthesia do you have? This is an important piece of information in regards your claim.

I also wish to raise an issue that I think you haven't quite heard, though the point has been brought up several times. (I think this may be a language issue, however, since English is not your native tongue? BTW, for a non-native, your English is remarkably good, congratulations on that. It's a difficult language even for natives!) Have you thought about the possibility that you do not receive perceptions at all? That is, that what you do is have 'blips' of imagination that are not based upon what you are looking at, except very indirectly? All of your comments seem to pointed to the two options, A) It is ESP-based medical percpetion, or B) It is non-ESP medical perception. These are not the two only options.

I don't want you to hear this as a slam, or accusing you of anything, because I have had experiences in my life that seemed to be real, but were not. What if, for instance, you did a test and (unbeknownst to you) there was an experienced actor in the group?--and you 'read' in him certain medical issues that he did not have, but was showing subtle symptoms of? The most reasonable conclusion from such a result would be that you are performing some kind of mental modelling based upon subtle behavioral information...which means that your 'vision' of the tissues involved, etc. was purely created by your imagination. You would have NO ability to see into tissues or read vibrations for their information. Is that possibility one you are willing--and able--to allow for?

Take a few minutes to think about that, it's a tough concept. "Losing" my ability was quite disappointing and even painful, and took me a long time to process. I had to accept it, because--as a science student (I went to Harvey Mudd)--I knew the test was well-designed. I knew what it implied; and I knew that the test had "felt" just as usual. But the results clearly showed that I was unconsciously reacting to other people, not the target.

The answer-set of A = ESP reading, B = Non-ESP reading is incomplete. You need to allow for C = No reading, just projection. So far, I have not seen you looking at that as a possibility.

Congrats on surviving finals, and either a safe journey home for Christmas, or a fine holiday here in the States. Regards, Miss Kitt

ETA -- Unca Yimmy, will you please stop reading my mind and doing a shorter, pithier post while I'm composing mine? Jeez, man, you make me look bad!! ;)

VisionFromFeeling

22nd December 2008, 07:21 PM

Miss Kitt:
Do you "see people's insides" all the time, or not? Is it a daily occurance? When you find a person you can "read", can you read them all the time, or only on some occasions?Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. If I am busy with other things I am less likely to notice such images, just like when you are busy and there is music playing in the background, you might not be aware of the sound at all. When I am more relaxed and attention is not on other things, I tend to perceive more of the medical images. But yes it is a daily occurrence. Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. I can read a person all the time except if I become very tired which is when most abilities of any kind would be harder to do. I can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time. And, although you did not ask this specificly, I also see inside myself and I do this very often to check on things.
The earlier stages of this thread seemed to imply that it was something that was common in her life. But the number of amendments, adjustments, and requests for "byes" leads me to now question how common this experience actually is in her life.It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person. I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy, which gives the appearance that I'd be less experienced than I in fact am. Which is also why I can not for instance state whether I can detect an appendectomy or not. I do not have the experience of checking accuracy as much as I have experienced perceptions.
If it is some form of physical perception, then it should work most of the time. (Most of us have perceptual difficulties when we are tired, overstressed, in a distracting environment, etc.) If only certain people produce a 'signal' she can 'read', then those people would, one expects, always be readable.And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I always can. I have never come across a person who I wasn't able to read.
One of the alternative mechanisms hypothesized for her visual/mental image events is synesthesia--but for it to be synesthesia, it needs to be involuntary, consistent, and lifelong. That is, if to you a trumpet's note is a blue sound, then it always is and can't be made not-blue. Most synesthetes have learned to suppress the imagery somewhat when they want to focus on something else, but it's always there, and when not actively suppressed, always the same. Synesthesia is neuralogic in nature, so it's not a learned association...I just wrote a (short) paper on this last quarter, so I'm pretty secure on my research here.Yes, and some of what I perceive is consistent with synesthesia.
Curiouser and curiouser, but getting further than ever from a test, I suspect...I apologize for all this delay in progress in my investigation. I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim. I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.

Anna Karenina:
And I already conceded to someone else that I was mistaken about the American system, I didn't realise it was so different to the Australian one, where you can't do two concurrent BSci (we have two majors within the one degree instead).Phew. I almost went to Australia for my Bachelors.
I don't think Anita is a scam artist, I think she genuinely believes her abilities are real. Actually I do not conclude whether I have ESP or not until a test suggests which is the case. I believe my perceptions are real perceptions, but I do not conclude that the perceptions are images formed from actual information in the real world until proven so, regardless of what I would come to believe from my perspective. I am remaining open-minded, and I suggest you skeptics here do the same.

Diogenes:
Based on what Anita claims her powers are, why should she have any discussion with her subjects, at all ?There will be no discussion between me and the subjects up ahead.
Let me guess.. Her answer would be something like:

" I don't really understand how it works, but perhaps in hearing their voices, it helps me fine tune my receiving mechanism to the transdimensional frequencies, that enable me to see the X-ray like images . "No, no discussion between me and the subjects is ever part of forming the conclusions I make about their health information, and any speaking can be excluded from further experiences with the medical perceptions.

I definitely do not use their voices to conclude anything. The fact that you suggest this yet again shows how you skeptics make incorrect conclusions. And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.

Uncayimmy

22nd December 2008, 07:23 PM

ETA -- Unca Yimmy, will you please stop reading my mind and doing a shorter, pithier post while I'm composing mine? Jeez, man, you make me look bad!!

I don't know if I was reading your mind or if you were transmitting the information into my head. I have no personal preference either way. I'm just here to find out which it is. :jaw-dropp

Uncayimmy

22nd December 2008, 07:33 PM

I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim.

Did I not say this to you several times?

I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.

This is where everyone here has been trying to help you. We have lots of solid advice to give you.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd December 2008, 09:54 PM

desertgal:
Huh? She said several times, in this thread, that most people in the town where she grew up, as well as her family, were aware of this alleged ability, and relatively unimpressed by it. She has also said, several times, that, to her, this alleged ability is as normal and mundane as seeing with our eyes is to you and I.

What she says in this letter seems to be contradictory. Honey bring me the quote where I say that most people in the town where I grew up were aware of the alleged ability, because this is untrue and I would need to go back and change the statement. My closest family are aware of the ability to some extent, yes. And yes they are relatively unimpressed by it. So what? And yes it is normal and mundane to me and is part of my average perception. We have already attacked me for several pages in this thread because of the way I feel about my perceptions. Let's not go through that again. I suggest you go back to the appropriate pages and read it again to get what ever sustenance you look for in such a discussion, because I will not participate in such a discussion all over again. It takes up thread-space. What I said in the letter to the local skeptics group is not contradictory with my previous statements. I had never been in a room full of strangers before where I had been able to be fully open about the ability with everyone. So what I said in the letter to Jim was true.

skeen:
Why can't she just do what she claims she has been doing all along? If she can do what she says she can do, she could very easily have convinced a hell of a lot of the skeptics at that group, by merely telling them what she sees.I wish I could have demonstrated the perceptions at that meeting but there was never the opportunity to do so. And it was already 10 PM I think when we finished the lecture, and everybody was leaving and I was tired. There will be opportunity eventually, I promise.
At least give people something. We haven't even had an informal presentation of these alleged abilities. It's all the same, isn't it? These people.Bring me a room full of people who volunteer and it will be done at once.
She has said time and time again that she actually sees the muscle tissue, like an X-ray. If she can do this, she cannot possibly be wrong in what she says - and if she is, that should be sufficient enough for her to recognize that it's just her imagination.A test will indicate whether the perceptions are based on information from our real, mutual world, or whether the perceptions arise from something that is more like automatic imagination or synesthesia.

UncaYimmy:
Besides the fact that x-rays aren't effective with muscle (ahem), I knew it!
if it *is* her imagination (dollars to donuts that's the case), making her realize that is going to be exceptionally difficult.Not at all. Why do you assume that? Just wait and see how I react if test results conclude no ESP ability.
Think about it. She fundamentally has two choices:I fundamentally have two choices: ESP ability, or no ESP ability. Either case, the perceptions continue in the exact same way as before. Neither outcome of a test has me lose anything, since I have not attached myself to either outcome.
1) I am special. There's no one like me on the whole planet. I have an ability that can do so much good for so many people. Nobody else has ever done it. My ability will turn science on its ear. I will prove all the skeptics wrong.In my humble opinion I already take great pride in my college and career accomplishments and ambitions and that brings me all the satisfaction and being a special somebody in my own life. I am here to investigate the medical perceptions I perceive. I haven't thought of my ability as going to do good to other people. I thought my career would. :confused: I'm not here to prove skeptics right or wrong. I think we should discuss this openly and if all of us are open to either outcome none of us will be proven right or wrong. We'll just find out what the outcome of a test is.
2) I'm just an ordinary person. I have been deceiving myself for years. I have announced to the world how special my abilities are, and now I have to admit it was all in my imagination. I have convinced myself and attempted to convince others, and now I have to admit I was completely wrong. I already think highly of myself for myself and none of that will be taken away if the results of the test conclude no ESP ability. I'm just here to find out what the source and actual accuracy of the medical perceptions are. You're not very good at trying to analyze me. I love you anyway. :hug5
Most skeptics are not inclined to go down the "I am special" path, but suppose you were. How hard do you think it would be to come around once you got there?What does this mean?
I think the mistake we skeptics make sometimes is not giving a soft enough landing pad.My feelings about my investigation does not come from you skeptics. If I fail a test I will be happy because I will have acchieved the objective of the test, which is to find out whether I have ESP or no ESP. I'm intelligent enough not to attach myself to an idea that might be proven to not exist once a test result comes in.

stanfr:
Maybe it's the Swedish part that gives her an edge--i must confess it does for meI'm glad you like the Swedish. Tristan Chi is Swedish too. :) And steenkh is Danish, which is just as good. :)

Akhenaten:
Referring to my observations page at www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html and me saying that I've not had informal tests on medical information from live persons, What's this page all about then?Those were not tests. They are examples of everyday experiences with the perceptions. The difference is that a test would implement conditions that control for the condition under which the perceptions take place, whereas real life examples take place as they do, in a very everyday situation where an apparent accuracy is not reliable as evidence toward ESP. I was asked by Forum members to write down my everyday experiences with the perceptions. Everything I do is wrong. Everything I don't do is wrong. It's all wrong.
The fact that you italicised the word "study" here seems to me to indicate that you're perfectly aware that all you're really doing is repeating all of your earlier outlandish, albeit vague, claims and simply substituting "study" for "test" and hoping nobody notices.

I'll bet you don't get away with it. Listen to me real well: the study can conclude "no ESP" if the accuracy of the perceptions appears to be poor, and the study can conclude "proceed toward further testing" if the accuracy of the perceptions appears to be good. I was trying to be extremely clear on the fact that the study is not a test, therefore I italicized it. I even state that it is a "study, note: not a test". This is because a test can provide evidence FOR ESP, whereas a study can NOT provide evidence for ESP.

The study is to gain more experience with the perceptions. The conditions will initially be exactly what my real life experiences with the perceptions are. I will then one by one change one of the conditions under which the perceptions are made, approaching what a proper test setting would be. So, it is a study, not a test. The study will not only provide more material to contribute to the formation of a test, the study also provides a possible non-ESP ability plenty of opportunity to be revealed as such, and the study also tests the various test conditions, such as having a screen, so that I will know what we can include in a real test.

I think that the study is the perfect next step, so that I not waste the time and efforts of a skeptics group and can bring to them a claim that I have tested out and can provide them with the best test conditions under which my ability works. This is all about conforming what the perceptions are in life, to adapt them into a "laboratory setting" for a test. Think about what I said before you criticize. What I'm doing here is actually a very good thing, especially from the skeptics' point of view.

Pup:
If you're not trying to hang on to the possibility that you do have the ability, why in this thread did you change the suggested protocol from Miss Kitt's yes-or-no , to one that's easier to pass with cold reading?Because Honeybunches I was proposing a quick to arrange screening test whose objectives are:
1) Quick and easy to assemble, and
2) Gives a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such so that no additional elaborate test need be done in vain, and
3) Shows how the perceptions come about in an everyday situation so that this knowledge can be used in the work of taking the phenomenon and adapting it to a laboratory test setting.
If it is concluded that my information matches with that given by persons to a satisfactory extent, then we will discuss the necessity for arranging further tests. Further tests will then be done under stricter and more scientific conditions.

The purpose of this initial test, is to assess whether there is reason to pursue further testing. In the case that there is no ESP ability involved, the purpose of this initial test is also to give such a non-ability a good chance of being revealed as such. This initial test will also show how I perform with the ability, what is and is not involved, and that knowledge will be useful for the arrangement of further and more elaborate tests.

This initial test should not concern with how to count points or percentage of accuracy. It is designed to give a general evaluation of whether there seems to be an ability or not, and as to how it works and how well it works.

I would also value having this opportunity to show how my ability works, when I use it in the way that I do normally, since real testing further ahead will be done under conditions that differ from what my real life experience is.

I realize the necessity and value of having simple, easy to put together, initial tests, mostly since I expect that a non-ability could be revealed rather easily at an early stage. This is not to say that a non-ability could not "pass" this initial test, because it can, and if it does it would definitely be detected at later stages in more elaborate testing.

Please read carefully what I have suggested before replying with comments or objections. Based on how I understand my ability, and what I can offer to suggest from my perspective as a scientist, I really see that this is a good way to begin. To some this might not seem like the scientific approach, but I think this gradual approach is beneficial as a quality control of whether there even is anything to study, as well as to ensure that we not waste resources further ahead.All in accordance with my statement. I am now planning to have a study that is also "not a test", but a study to gather more knowledge that is used to adapt the phenomenon into a test setting. I strictly do not see a problem with having simpler studies or informal tests before having an actual and elaborate test, so I will proceed with this plan. I am not changing claims, or changing the approach, I am simply taking what the next step is toward a test.
Originally it was to be check-off, right or wrong, tonsils in or out, appendix in or out (post 26).Yup. That is what we are discussing with the IIG West who want to test me. However with my local skeptics group I thought I could investigate into the perceptions on a gradual and different level, to build a stronger base on which a formal test can be done. Informal tests and studies will also benefit my work with the IIG.
The only reason I can see to substitute that for the original protocol is to make your ability appear to be real, for a little longer.Nooooo!!!!!!!! Not the objective at all!!!!! The objective of a study is in fact to falsify a non-ability faster and sooner! Can you believe it? That's what I'm doing. The thing is, the IIG seems to be stuck in their work, and my local skeptics group informed me that we need more clarity into the claim before it can be adapted into a test setting. So I am taking that natural next step in investigating the claim properly. Nothing wrong is going on at all. I am doing a good job. It just takes time that's all, because I had put this in others' hands. Now that it is in my hands I can work faster.
So why did you want to change the protocol to one that's easier to pass the way people do, when they don't have a real ability? Simpler tests have many benefits:
1) They can be arranged much sooner and easier so that we can begin to get some sort of results sooner. I realize that they may pass a non-ability, which is why any study or test that is less than acceptable can only conclude "no ESP", or "proceed to further testing", and can not conclude "ESP".
2) They give a non-ability plenty of opportunity to be falsified sooner.
3) They are easier to set up than an elaborate test.
4) They investigate the phenomenon so that it becomes easier to construct a test around the perceptions. They gather information that is useful further ahead in the design of a real test.

So, Pup, in fact rather than wanting to make a test that is easier to pass with a non-ability, my intentions are to get making progress sooner and to actually begin trying to falsify a non-ability. I plan to do a study in which I gradually change one condition at a time in the conditions toward a proper test setting. All is going well. In the wait before I am allowed to take a real test I am doing other things that are actually the best way to go about right now.

Ashles:
My post was quite a way back - you didn't need to respond to it if you didn't want to. But it seems you almost want this part of the discussion to be discarded, your opinion on it accepted and then we must talk of it no more. Doesn't work that way.I have all intention of defending myself when criticized for things that are not correct, and to clarify and explain when false assumptions are made against me.
This is standard claimant behaviour and although you clearly do not like it described as such, we have a lot of experience with such claims. Sorry but this is a public forum and I am breaking no forum rules by responding as I see appropriate.What ever. And I will defend myself when attacked with false assumptions.
I do see your behaviour as typical and you do have an occasional tendency to almost insist people do not raise certain issues or direct the conversation in certain directions, as you have done just here.But there is so much garbage here that just isn't true! Some say that I would not accept the conclusion of no ESP, when I am quite clear about embracing either outcome of the test. Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way. Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special. There is a lot of attack against me as a person and against how I feel about the perceptions. Criticism about my statements on anecdotal experiences that I have given with all intention of honesty, criticism against my educational background, and what else. I just tell you all how it is. How I really am feeling, and what really is going on. And the point is that some of the criticism concerns topics that are not of importance in the investigation. And I try to steer the conversation toward the discussion about the medical perceptions and their test design, as this thread was intended to be about.
You can ignore certain subjects or people or you can respond to them, but you can't order people to raise only the subjects you wish.Well I have to respond when people say things about me that aren't true. I don't want lies circulating on my discussions thread. People would read them and get the wrong idea about me.
I could easily demonstrate my ability to hear or see under controlled conditions. I could do it today far beyond any shadow of doubt.
You cannot with your claimed ability.To test my ability I need volunteers to participate in the attempted psychic medical diagnose. This is the hardest thing to arrange with regard to my tests.
Really that analogy is appalling.Yes but I am explaining to you that my perceptions are as normal to me as vision and hearing is to you. In that way the analogy I used is quite appropriate.
If you genuinely do not understand why that comparison fails in every way then I doubt you will ever be able to be in any way logical about any aspect of this claim.And I hope that you understand that I was saying that my perceptions are part of how I perceive the world and as such are normal to me.
Can I also remind you that you have set up a website around your suposed claims. And you have visited other websites to tell people abut your ability. Has anyone ever done that about their hearing or vision?
It's the double standards I am highlighting.The perceptions are normal to me, yet I understand that they are not part of other people's experience. That is why I am investigating whether the perceptions are true ESP or formed by my imagination. And in either case they still remain part of what is my perception, like vision and hearing.
Please do not lie about my responses.Please do not lie about my emotions.
Untrue.
I have never set up websites describing my unusual ability to 'see'.My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight. At the same time I understand that my perceptions are not as normal to others as their eyesight. That is why I on one part consider my perceptions normal, and on the other hand I made a website and an investigation into my perceptions. What I have said is the truth about what I think about this.
Again you attempt to forcefully direct what can and can't be discussed. Which is in itself quite rude.It is not rude to ask that the discussion be steered away from personal attacks against me as a person.
Your analogy about eyesight is deeply flawed and I will continue pointing that out whether you like it or not (and part of me suspects you know this which is why you raise it again and then attempt to close the issue down almost to 'have the last word' on the subject).My analogy about eyesight was most appropriate. To me my perceptions are as normal and no big deal as my eyesight is to me or as your eyesight is to you.
You absolutely do NOT consider your claimed ability as normal as eyesight or hearing because (...)The perceptions are normal to me, yet I also understand that they are not normal to others.
Does that sound like someone who believes they possess something entirely mundane that is no more remarkable or unusual than eyesight or hearing?Mundane to me, not mundane to certain others.
A lot of deluded or untruthful people say exactly the same thing. They 'know' because it is hapening to them. 'I know I saw a ghost. I was there!'
What would you say if Sylvia Browne declared she 'knows' she is hearing dead people, it is happening to her?
They ALSO think they are right.I am arguing against when skeptics make incorrect assumptions about what I feel about my perceptions, then I say that I in fact am describing how I feel about my perceptions and you argue against that. Let me feel the way I feel and stop arguing against that.
Trying to demand our belief or acceptance will simpy not work.I have never demanded belief or acceptance from you skeptics. I was just saying stop assuming that I am lying about every single thing that I say, even the trivial things like my educational background. I am wearing a white shirt today. Let's spend two pages arguing about the credibility of that.
This really will all be sorted a lot quicker if you try and reach some form of agreed testing rather than the protestations of being shocked (for reasons that are not obvious and again aren't really relevant). Can you do this? Even telling us why not may help reach a protocol which is the idea of this thread.
Isn't it?I was shocked to find that skeptics are not always as open-minded or objective as I expected you to be. And I was shocked about all the personal attacks done against me here, about trivial things like "paranormal ability or no paranormal ability is just a label to me", "I am not trying to be special", or "you can't do two B.S. degrees at the same time". Yes this thread was meant to be about test design. But you guys can not say untrue things about me and expect me to not correct things that are incorrect. I want truth and clarity here.
But why not conduct such tests with one of the 2 independent agencies that you are in contact with?
If they are valid tests I am sure they will be happy to assist or advise.
If they are not valid tests then you ar only wasting your own time.
Please get their help, your own studies so far appear inadequate in terms of scientific rigour.According to Dr. Carlson's lecture about how to test paranormal claimants, the testing groups are not to involve themselves in anything less than a formal test of the claim, excluding things such as demonstrations, studies, and informal tests. That is why I am expecting to conduct the study on my own, however I have asked for two of the local skeptics to participate somewhat. I will post the specifics of the study soon and only then will you be able to discuss its scientific rigour. The study will not be a test but it serves its own purposes that will be of benefit for a test.
You haven't actually done any objective testing yet.Nope. It's hard to arrange for volunteers. I will have to advertise for volunteers for my study, but first I have to find out whether my study is legal.
I will leave it to the other posters to check whether that is even possible at you university.
Why try to do so many different majors? Surely you should get somewhere with some of them first before deciding to add yet more?
At the moment as you say yourself you haven't actually studied statistics or QM yet - isn't it best to see how you get on before adding yet more to your workload? (But this is more general conversation and not directly related to the ability so feel free to ignore if you want)Whether what is even possible at my university? Why try to do so many different majors? Because I am headed toward research in Medical Physics and want to build new medical instruments that use engineered light structures to rearrange human tissue structure. That is why I am doing chemistry (for a fundamental understanding of human tissue), physics (understanding of light and radiation), electrical engineering (to build medical instruments). Many people who are dedicated toward a career combine the different fields of study that are part of their future work. Medical Physics is a very broad subject and I intend to be good at it. I am a straight A student and so far am getting somewhere with all the subjects.

JWideman:
For you, the paranormal is not only likely, but the most obvious.What interests me is that I have accurately described health information that should not be accessible to ordinary senses of perception. Not even through cold reading etc. That is why I have this investigation.
And when those tests begin to show less favorable results, you'll abandon them and change your claim yet again.I have consistently stated that my perceptions are the most frequent, most clear, and most interesting with medical information from live persons. I will not find a new claim if this one is falsified in a formal test.
But they do relate to your main claim. And the purpose of the informal tests was to prove to yourself that maybe, just maybe, you didn't have this ability after all. Stating, after the fact, that these were just tests to find the limits of your ability is how you deceive yourself, but won't fool us.I have not had informal tests with my main claim. Let's just wait for documented examples of how this takes place because you are all ready to investigate and there is little material to work with right now.
It wouldn't have been lying at all for you to have said "I can't see anything in this particular case. Let's move on." It would have, of course, been close to admitting you don't have an ability and that's just too much for you.With the picture tests done here on this thread and the chemical identification test done with Madalch I was exploring the limits of the perceptions. None of the conditions of those tests that were done were part of my claim, so that's why.
But your claim doesn't involve pictures, of course, so I guess we should just forget it.Exactly. And the most clear perception I had was of neck vertebrae and that was correct. Let's move on to what my claim actually is.
My concern is that when a test of live persons doesn't work out for you, you will simply change your claim and say the test merely established your limits.If a test is labelled as being a formal, real, test, I do not state that the test was designed to test my limits. I am planning to have what I call a study, and it is meant to test my limits which is why an apparent positive result does not conclude ESP ability.

Ashles:
Why are we not concentrating entirely on the cereal expriement?Because I am concentrating on the main part of my claim in which perceptions occur the most often, the easiest, and without effort.
Anita do you have any objection to the cereal testing with ECarlson or IIG? No I don't but I want to test the medical perceptions instead.

UncaYimmy:
Yes or No: Has it been established that green and purple mammoth does NOT live on the UNCC campus?If I make a significant amount of incorrect statements about people's health, what makes it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? The falsifiability of my claim is not equivalent to that of mammoths.
We can be in a situation where neither has been established just yet. If it is shown to not exist, it has been falsified.
And the hypothesis of ESP can be falsified by making a significant amount of incorrect descriptions of health in which I stated confidence during a test.
When confronted with a variety things to test, do the easiest ones first.And the easiest one for me is medical perceptions from live people. Let's just all forget about chemical identification, I will not focus my efforts on that now.
Doing this test would be an incredible demonstration of good faith on your part. You would earn my respect as well as that of others. Hell, even James Randi would be impressed if a claimant like yourself actually took the advice of experts and performed a real test.A real test will be done on medical information.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd December 2008, 10:43 PM

skeen:
I just wanted to checkin at this stage, to express once more than I see absolutely no difference between Anita and other claimants. It was said that her cooperation is what separated her, but I'm seeing little of that as of late.How has my cooperation become reduced from what it was before? I apologize on behalf of the testing organization that had agreed to arrange a test with me as it takes them months to get back with me each time whereas I always reply within the next day. I think the problem is impatience and lack of progress. I do not feel responsible for the delays since I was doing all I could think of as a claimant, but from last week's meeting with the local skeptics I understand that I must take more initiative myself as the claimant and I am doing that by planning a study that will make test arrangements easier.
Little of real, tangible cooperation that would genuinely work toward establishing an ability. She is absolutely indistinguishable from other claimants, who drag it all out, who apologize for failed tests, and inevitably walk away defeated, self-deluded in their success.I have been working as fast as I can, patiently waiting for replies from the IIG who are arranging a test with me. I do not intend for things to take so long. I thought I was working with others who turn out to not be working so much. I would not apologize for a failed test. There is nothing wrong with failing a test. That would reach the objective of acchieving a conclusion from a test. I have not walked away, I am still here. The ESP hypothesis has not been falsified yet, so nothing has been defeated yet. How am I self-deluded in success by stating that I perceive medical images that so far have appeared to have accuracy, where all I conclude is to proceed toward further tests?
Anita, you seem to think that proving "no ability" should be as conclusive as proving an ability. Don't you realize that no ability is the default? We conclude that given no evidence whatsoever, you have no ability.If I make a significant amount of incorrect answers during a formal test, I will conclude "no ability". Why is that wrong? Well based on my experience I remain unconvinced of neither ESP or no ESP, whereas you seem to have concluded no ESP even though there is no evidence against it. I think in this way I am being more objective than you are.
If is clear to me that other than being self-deluded, you're actually lying about what you think you're able to do. Take actually seeing muscle, etc. like an X-ray; this is an instantly testable claim, that you can confirm with relative ease.You have proven yourself to be self-deluded, since you are deluded about X-rays seeing muscle which they in fact do not. The fact that you say I am lying about what I can do when I know I am not lying about what I can do also confirms with me that you are deluded about what I can do.
You were at a skeptics meeting. Surely you must have seen through people then? That would have been the perfect time to tell people what you saw. As you say, it's not a big deal to you; it's a regular occurrence. There was no opportunity for me to attempt psychic medical diagnose or to present my perceptions to them. If you don't believe me please contact the skeptics group and ask them yourself.
If you were wrong in what you said, then right there and then, you have proven to yourself that you have no ability. If you were right, you would be on a very good road toward proving your claimed abilities.And that is true.
I have to concur with others that the view that you don't treat your ability as special, and neither do your family or friends absolutely laughable, and ludicrous. I question your very intelligence with crazy logic like that. What utter nonsense.You are just being ridiculous yourself. I challenge you to spend two weeks with me, getting to know me and my perceptions and perhaps you too would get used to it. The fact that you are arguing against what actually takes place, that is, that those who know me do not act like it is anything special, further proves to me that you are self-deluded. I have told you the truth about how people react about the ability, and the fact that you assume something else that is incorrect and try to turn that against me makes you appear very ridiculous to me. What do you want me to say? That my family and friends get really excited when I know their health and how they are feeling? Well they don't and if I said so I would be lying.
You seem to fail to realize that if you have this ability, to reiterate, you would be the most incredible person in the history of the entire world. As if people would treat such an incredible, and downright magical ability nonchalantly. So what. It has not been exposed or established yet.
People are pushing for a test, but I'd like to see something. Just something. I can see a cup, and say, "look, that's a cup". Do the same to a skeptic, without cold-reading them, and tell them what you see, if you see something. If you don't, don't make a claim - you just give yourself room for apologetics (which you've done a few times in this thread alone). Just say what you see.And I will as soon as the opportunity comes my way. The problem is that although I meet with people all the time, I have to be careful who I share this with. I am arranging a study where I will ask for the participation of volunteers who allow me to attempt psychic medical diagnose with them. These will be persons I have not met before.
As of right now, you have no ability as far as anyone is concerned. I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for you as I see you cling tightly on to the vague possibility that you have it, a possibility that only you can see, for reasons you should discuss with a psychiatrist. I perceive medical information and when I check for its accuracy it has so far been very accurate. There is nothing sorry about proceeding toward tests. The fact that you are getting upset is just a consequence of your impatience. I would not favor ESP over no ESP, I just want the results of a test. And if the perceptions are not based on ESP, it is not the case of a psychiatric condition. You however should seek instant medical attention for thinking that X-rays are used for imaging of muscle.

(Sorry guys for being so harsh, I was just talking in the same language as you guys. :( And it is not very nice.)

Yubi:
Would you need to see the face of a person you are detecting health information from? That is, if a test is made up of people having a certain problem and people not having it, it seems a common risk would be that especially facial expressions or other signs of agony could be detected by vision alone. If a person has, say, a tooth ache, would you still have to see the face of the person, or could he/she be hooded?Based on experience I do not specificly have to see the face to construct medical perceptions. I will be conducting a study shortly in which I attempt medical perceptions from people whose face I see, and others when I do not see their face, and can compare the results. I do not have to see the face to detect dental information. After all, I see through the facial tissue, so it is equivalent to detect dental information from seeing through neck tissue. I was considering having people faced the other way, but I can also try with persons who are hooded on the upcoming study.

Tristan Chi:
Why did you choose the phrase "vision from feeling"?
Isn't "feeling from vision" a more accurate description of what you claim to experience?Because I am under the impression that the perceptions come about when I am sensing vibrational information through the sense of feeling, which in me is then translated into among other categories of information visual information. So it is vision from feeling. Good question. Feeling from vision would also work, since I need to see the person I am perceiving about, and among other categories of information I perceive feeling such as pain and discomfort for instance. But the perceptions from feeling addresses what I believe to be an even more fundamental source of the perceptions than is vision. I believe that vision simply locates the information that is then felt. What do I know, huh.
Akta, stanfr tycker om oss.

Pup:
Apparently, in the kind of face-to-face medical diagnosis that you're claiming is your strength, you actually "saw"--not guessed--that someone either had, or didn't have, his/her tonsils, and in fact the opposite was true.

So now, at least once, you have been inarguably incorrect in a face-to-face medical test. Or is there some other explanation? Actually, I concluded that I was unable to detect whether the tonsils had been removed or not removed, and I stated that as my answer. That is the explanation. No incorrect "guess" or "perception" was made in the tonsillectomy example.

VisionFromFeeling

23rd December 2008, 12:36 AM

Belz:
No. But think about it. If someone claims to be able to heat up liquids with his mind, and nobody's ever been shown to be able to do this before, what do you think would be the response when he'd post here ?The response would be "prove it! test it! give us some evidence and stop talking about it! we've been talking about it for 20 pages now and there is absolutely no evidence or material to work with here! the fact that you are just talking about it makes it seem as if you are either making it up or are entirely self-delusional, and you are clearly here for attention and you think you are special! all we want is for you to present some type of evidence with your claim. film it, photograph it, have academic persons witness it, anything, but do not just come here and talk about it because it is bringing down your credibility! we've seen plenty of claims made before and they never amount to anything, and you have to work harder to prove yourself or we will assume the same! how hard is it to put together a simple demonstration? at least show some intention of approaching a real, reliable test! you are wasting thread-space and our time and efforts and that is just immoral! we are starting to get very tired of you so it is time for you to take some more action toward testing your claim! or get out!" Or, that is what I would say.

To which he would reply, "I have done all I could. I contacted a testing organization a year and a half ago, and they are very slow in their progress. it takes them months each time to get back with me, and often I even e-mail them asking for any updates or concerns, and receive no reply. then when a reply does come to me from them, I reply back with them within the next day, only to find myself waiting again. that is how I thought the paranormal challenge application process would take place, so I found myself in a waiting game that leads nowhere. I then decided to come here to this JREF Forum thread to discuss my claim with you guys, because I am really interested in testing the claim and want to benefit from your perspectives and suggestions as skeptics. instead I often find that I am criticized here a lot for reasons that I believe are based on impatience, and we are all getting frustrated at the lack of evidence at this point. I recently came across a local skeptics group in my area and attended a meeting with them last week, and I finally had the chance to spend some time with skeptics in life and I learned a lot that is actually helpful in the progress of this investigation. I learned that I had assumed that it is the skeptics organization that will design the test for me, that it is in fact me as the claimant who has to do all the work. but the good thing is I can now take more initiative myself and am arranging a study to learn more about how to take what I can do in real life, and to adapt it to a test setting, because it is this step that is where we are stuck."

To which the skeptics say, "we are getting fed up with your claims and it is taking far too long for you to set up any kind of simple tests. we want evidence - now!! give it to us, or, or... we will not believe in anything you've said! we don't believe you are emotionally attached to your claimed ability! and we don't believe that you aren't emotionally attached to your claimed ability either! and I don't believe that your family isn't amazed when you boil water with your mind, because your ability would be the most amazing thing in the world! and I don't believe you went to college at all like you said, it is clearly a lie! [this one's for you UncaYimmy] and you are self-delusional about there not being any purple mammoths at your house, did you really look everywhere? under the bed? and I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt, you are clearly mistaken! everything you do is wrong! everything you don't do is wrong! it is all wrong!"

So he continues rabbling on, still without presenting any evidence what so ever or showing any initiative toward taking real tests, making the silly excuses that "I have been unable to test this claim myself much because water that is willing to participate in being boiled by my mind is very hard to come by..." Oops, did I get carried away?

And as well it should be. There is no known mechanism to allow this man to do this, and he should be aware that not only are other people going to be justifiably skeptical of his claim, but that he should be, as well.I understand. I think the main concern here is impatience and the slow progress.
But will you ? If you test for this ability in controlled conditions under a protocol to which you've agreed, and fail, would that shake your confidence ? Or will you find an excuse as to why you failed but really do have the ability ? I'm not assuming you will, but so many people have that statistics seem to lean in that direction.I am prepared to accept having my ESP falsified, but only when we are at that situation can we tell what in fact will be my reaction. I expect to thoroughly try out the test conditions before implementing them on a formal test, so at that point no excuses could be made.

Dear Locknar:
When I said, "I know I have medical perceptions, and I know I will continue to have them no matter what the outcome of a test is.", Locknar replied,
Given this, no amount of reasoning or evidence will convince her that she does not have these "amazing powers."But Honey, you are entirely wrong again. I was saying that the perceptions occur on their own and that no matter what they turn out to be (ESP, synesthesia, or something else) they will continue to take place. After a long talk with Ashles we concluded that "perceptions" refers simply to the medical images without any assumption implied as to their accuracy, and as such they will continue.

Belz:
Uh-huh, but without medical training how would you tell what the condition is just by seeing it ? Do you have medical training ?I do not have much formal medical training although I have interest in medicine and pick up information from media. But even with limited medical knowledge it is possible to describe a health problem at least to the extent where a condition can be identified. What part of the body is affected, what organs and tissues, what feeling is associated with the problem, and in many cases I do recognize it from having encountered it before to know it by name. Even if I had extensive medical knowledge there should be plenty of health information that can be used in a test without concern that I would be using medical knowledge for their detection.

And I only remember hits because there have only been hits, and this is especially true with regard to the experiences listed on the observations page where I made sure to list all results regardless of their apparent accuracy. (Note: I like to say "apparent accuracy" because the accuracy based on the accounts of persons has so far not been reliable enough no matter what the intentions of those persons have been. A test setting should hopefully deal with this concern.)

JcR:
As far as my little Saltshaker story goes
Well I feel like that blind person here at times.
Text by itself is not going to give me a true insight
into your visions. They can give me ideas and thoughts
But they would be my thoughts and notions formed by my perceptions.
And to be honest my little stabs at you were unfair on my part.
So beyond all that. Do you believe a real world series of tests
could be of value to your field of study ?
Its funny how things in life develop out of
the most surprising places. Another series of thoughts from you that I can only describe as something poetic in nature. Well, for you to truly understand my perception entirely in the way that I perceive things, rather than just formed from my words to you, in which true understanding would be lost and some that does not exist would be added, you would have to become conscious of others so that you can reach into their minds and feel what they feel, and see what they've seen. Maybe that is something that I do with this ability, and maybe it is something we will all one day learn. How is that for an answer? And I hope that my field of study, investigation, can be conformed to a real world series of tests and I will do all that I can to ensure that this can be done and that would help to bring what is my personal experience into the mutual world of experience that we all share.

volatile:
And the same thing Anita's done here -- "I wasn't feeling right", "I saw something but didn't tell you", all the rest. Will not happen in a real test. I promise.

Ashles:
But we only have your word for that. Why is that hard to understand?But I know that my anecdotal experiences that are listed on the observations page are not good enough as evidence! I have already stated that! All they are are what compel me toward further testing.
I'm afraid you'll have to get used to that. On this site unverified claims will be continually questioned.Yes but things like whether I think I am special or whether my friends think I am special, that are trivial, that are not even part of my claims!
Obviously it is not the end of discussion. Unveridfied claims will continue to be questioned.
Your new study, unless run with independent witnesses will also be questioned.
It's called skepticism.One, hopefully two, of the local skeptics will attend my study and write down their observations and comments on how the study takes place.
Feel free to stop making unverified claims at any point. Until then I (and others) will continue to question in, as I may have mentioned a few times, the continuing complete absence of any independent testing.What I am addressing is that trivial things such as my emotions or how I will respond to potential falsified ESP, the fact that I think a paranormal ability is just a label, whether my friends and family think I am special, or if I am really taking the classes I say I am taking, are not even part of my claim!
Parameters which, it now strangely appears you don't even know as you've never investigated them before? After all these years of experiencing this 'ability'? It actually feels like we are going backwards now. I can be very clear about what my ability does in real life situations, but it is an entirely different thing to take a real life experience and adapt it to a test setting. And that is what we are working on now. We are not going backwards, we are proceeding toward a formal test.

desertgal:
I don't accept anecdotal evidence, especially as fantastic as the claims you are making, when there is a continued lack of proven evidence to back it up. I believe you are delusional and self deceptive. You can proceed towards further tests, but I believe that all they will show is your proven ability to dismiss any findings that don't show your alleged ability with excuses, which is the nature of self deception. As well, I'm not impatient for the results of any of these tests, because I don't believe they will ever happen. I've seen folks here offer you very simple, solid, "yes or no" protocols, which you have dismissed out of hand for protocols of your own making which give you wiggle room. The only thing that baffles me is why you came here at all.I know that the observations are anecdotal evidence, if even that, and I have consistently described them as such, and I have never expected any of you to take them as evidence. They did however take place exactly as described, but you don't have to believe that. All I conclude from that is to proceed toward further testing, but I have already said that so many times. I am not delusional or self deceptive. I perceive medical information which has apparent good accuracy, and the only thing I conclude is to proceed toward proper tests. To conclude toward proper tests is not a delusional or self deceptive conclusion, rather it should be encouraged.

I admit now that I need more experience with the perceptions to determine exactly what test conditions are acceptable and what are not, and to present a better list of what ailments to use in a test setting. It is one thing to be clear about how an "ability" works in an everyday situation, but to take that and adapt it into a test setting involves more work, because each condition that needs to be added and each condition that must be removed when transferring the environment from everyday to laboratory must be tested by me and approved before I can state whether the ability is going to be able to perform under those conditions. This is not a problem that I would have caused, it is simply the way a scientific test is approached.

I am here to discuss the perceptions and test design. If we all stop arguing about whether to me paranormal is just a label, or whether I am doing two B.S. degrees at the same time, we could make more real progress.
I believe you are unconsciously using cold reading/retained information/common perception techniques to get the results you want. Fair, I agree that unintended cold reading is possible. I also agree that I have had experiences where cold reading should not be possible which is why I proceed toward further testing. Where cold reading should not be possible anyway.
I did expect that type of response from you eventually, though. Maybe I'm psychic?If I am accused of negative things that are incorrect then yes it is very likely that eventually I will speak up for myself.
When? You have recited experiences on this forum, in several different threads, to support claims that, if true, would make you the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind. That is hardly an indication that you are attempting to remain rooted in reality. The skeptics, yes. You, no. I encounter several comments made by skeptics here that imply to me that they are not objective. To for instance state that one (not necessarily you, in this case, desertgal) believes that I am lying or deluded about things that I know for a fact but can not prove are not examples of lying or delusion prove to me that some form beliefs that are not true. I however try to remain open for all possibilities until proven otherwise.
In the end, all I can say is that I hope you do get psychiatric help for these continued delusions and the self deception that accompany them. Seriously. Regardless of what "tests" you perform, you've clearly stated that you will continue to believe in your alleged abilities. If so, and you continue to "diagnose" people based on that alleged ability (...)I have definitely not and absolutely not stated that I will continue to believe in an alleged ability, because I do not believe in an alleged ability now either. All I believe is that I perceive images that have apparent accuracy and to proceed toward further testing. I do not openly diagnose people nor do I have plans of doing so. I only do this with friends and family and always after offering a thorough disclaimer. I am very responsible in this. Maybe you should seek psychiatric help for believing things that are not true or part of reality, such as your belief that I would be diagnosing people, or your belief that I believe in having an ability.

Ashles:
Yet you still do not understand why the concerns of cold reading are repeatedly brought up?But of course I do! I bring them up a lot too! That is why I am arranging a study where I will try different test conditions that are designed to prevent the many forms of cold reading.
Careful, the delightful little science munchkin act is slipping.I didn't know I was a delightful little science munchkin? :blush:
Making out that you agree that your own anecdotes are of no use (which is what my post was about) is in strange contradiction to many of your other posts where we are instructed to accept your anecdotes as fact.But I have consistently stated that all my anecdotal experiences do is present examples of perceptions that I've had and their apparent accuracy, and to show what experiences compel me to further testing. I was specificly asked by members of this thread to begin documenting my perceptions, and so I have. Everything I do is wrong. Everything I don't do is wrong. When I do something, it is wrong. When I don't do it, it is wrong. Maybe I just have to learn how to determine which of my options is the least wrong? I do not expect you to accept my anecdotes as evidence! All I say is please accept that they are true to me, in which all you accept is that they are reasons why I am proceeding toward further tests.
Still I'm sure we all look forward to your next series of unverified anecdotes study.I hope to have two skeptics attend the study with me so that they can document and verify what takes place. This way the results of the study would not be considered anecdotal.

JoeyDonuts

23rd December 2008, 01:14 AM

I've been watching this thread for a while now.

You have got to understand that no one on THIS forum is going to take anything you say seriously in absence of testing. If your ability is real, then you would have had a much bigger impact if you had verified it scientifically first - and perhaps introduced it at a university or somehere else semi-legitimate rather than a public skeptic's forum. You certainly aren't the first one to make these sorts of claims. Whether or not you're the first one to actually have something behind them remains to be seen.

As for me, I place you in the giant "unverified" bucket right next to the Hutchison Effect. At least you're in good company.

VisionFromFeeling

23rd December 2008, 01:19 AM

volatile:
I'd skimmed over that bit. This, to my mind, absolutely guarantees that all that is at play here is cold reading. You need to see someone's face to "see" that they have a vasectomy? Really?The upcoming study will reduce influence of any various types of cold reading, and a real test should have eliminated the concern of cold reading entirely. Without arguing in defence for some of the experiences I've had where cold reading should not have taken place, it is necessary to provide documented examples of perceptions and only then can any of us properly discuss what cold reading could have been involved and whether it could or could not have lead to the conclusions that were made on health information.

Experience points that I need to see some part of exposed skin to obtain perceptions, although I do not have any example of trying otherwise. The upcoming study will answer many of these questions.
My word, Anita - you need to read more about Cold Reading. Try and get your hands on a copy of "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" by Ian Rowland... it will open your eyes.Of course I need to know more about cold reading. In fact I will get that very book, thank you for suggesting it.

Old man:
I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them.
Fixed it for you.Nonsense Old man. You are entitled to suspect so, but I know the truth about what took place because I was there.
It’s a case of the old (Arabic?) proverb – (paraphrasing)
“If one man calls you an ass, pay no attention. If ten men do, go look for a saddle.”And it's a case of my proverb, "If you weren't there, you don't know and can only speculate."
Anita, why did you seem to be denying knowledge of anatomy, earlier in this thread?Because I wasn't? The issue is that depending on how the question of my anatomy knowledge is asked, I realize that I have some anatomical knowledge, but that it is not as good as it could be. I do not deny any of my knowledge. Let me exaggerate to illustrate my point. If someone asks me if I have as much medical knowledge as a doctor, I would have to be humble and say no I don't have quite that much medical knowledge. If someone then asks if I have as little medical knowledge as the average person, I would have to be open and admit that I have more medical knowledge than the average person. The emphasis of my answer depends on how the question was asked, and it's been asked in more than one ways here. You guys are such a fun bunch. :p
And if I were running the test, I’d have to include the possibly that your ESP just wasn’t working at that time, since you do claim that it doesn’t always work. Failing to check that your ‘power’ is ‘on’ is a flaw in your testing procedure. On the contrary on real, formal tests I will always state my confidence level and whether I believe my abilities are working. And at that point no excuses can be made to disregard any incorrect answers.
Actually, the control readers should be skilled ‘cold readers’, not physicians, since cold reading (not medical knowledge) is what is likely to be the mechanism, here.Yes. But medical knowledge can be used to interpret external symptoms into corresponding health information that is not always obvious for someone who is able to cold read but has insufficient medical knowledge. How about persons who are good at both cold reading and medical knowledge?
However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?Yes I can choose to do a head-to-toe inspection to detect information that isn't already obvious or clear enough to get my attention on its own. I intend to apply my "on demand" skills on medical information tests.
I’ve suggested that you do this (as a control for any tests), and you rejected the idea. Why is it a good idea now?I'm sorry if I missed it. It is a good idea though to work on identifying possible, even if unintentional, cold reading, as such must be eliminated from formal tests.

I haven't had time to update my website yet. There is a lot of things I need to add, clarify, and also to change. I've been stuck here responding to the comments about me.
So, you should be able to go the mall tomorrow, and in an hour or two be able to come back to this thread and tell us whether any or all of the following - circumcision, vasectomy, appendectomy, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, cardiac surgery, dental bridge work - are suitable for testing. I look forward to the coming voyage of discovery that you’ve promised us!I absolutely love the idea of going out there and doing my thing, but I really need to consult legal council to find out whether the study I plan to do is in accordance with law first. I am not making excuses or trying to postpone the study, I am simply being responsible in my approach.

Moochie:
ETA: I notice you're repeating your site's address every so often. Afraid we'll forget?Actually no. I am thinking that people who haven't been following this entire (exhausting) thread may simply cut in on any of these pages and when I refer to "the observations page" they would not know what that means, so every now and then I add a link to that page.

Diogenes:
These skills are very precise and accurate, except when they are not ..
Even though Anita successfully uses these skills all the time, when it comes to testing them, they seem to shift to the ' not working ' end of the chart ..There is no such example. The problem here isn't that my skills would not be working on a test. The problem we deal with right now is how to establish the conditions under which a test can be done, and to gain more experience into the perceptions to identify the most suitable ailments for a test. So the study I am arranging is up next.
As I've mentioned before .. I believe I have these same abilities; however, so far, I seem to be stuck in the ' not working ' mode ....There is no case of "not working". The reason a test is not done at this point is because I need to become more clear about how to bring my claim into a laboratory, test, setting. Now before you criticize this, a person can be very clear about their claim and how it works in everyday situations. There is then more work involved in investigating how to take that claim out of the everyday environment and put it into a test environment. Can I write down my observations rather than speak them? What part of a person do I really have to see? Can a full screen be used? And although I could list many ailments that appear to work in the everyday environment, which ailments can be taken into the test environment? That is the stage our work is at now.

Hokulele

23rd December 2008, 01:23 AM

Just to be clear, do you plan to attempt the more rigorous version of the cereal test, or has that been completely abandoned?

VisionFromFeeling

23rd December 2008, 02:08 AM

Ashles:
So if Anita gets readings for roughly one in 20 people, would a sample of 60 people give enough to form any kind of conclusions?

Surely with the level of accuracy displayed for each time the ability is active, even three people analysed would give a reasonably large amount of data to work with?I suspect that these three would not be plenty enough to calculate the outcome of a test. I also suspect that I would detect information in more than 1 in 20 people. Perhaps the question is, how large could a pool of volunteers be before it is considered that the test can not be arranged. I expect to do better than that though, but the study should show.

UncaYimmy:
You're 26 and claim to have had this ability all your life. You started your website 18 months ago. You came here over a month ago claiming that your ability "seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia..." And yet you don't have even just one properly constructed test under your belt. To make it worse, you resist the testing protocols we have suggested. If you feel insulted, change your behavior. 1) I was assuming that it was my job as the claimant to trust that the testing organization (IIG) would arrange the test and all I do is wait and participate when contacted by them. From last week's meeting with the local skeptics group I realize that this is not the case, so now I can begin to take my own initiative and am arranging a study.
2) College.

Old man:
Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day.It can manifest many times a day depending on what people I meet on a particular day. I can of course not approach each person to check for the accuracy of my perceptions.
And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far? You bet. I don't know if I perceive information if I don't see the person, ie. a full screen because I have no such particular experience. I do not know if I can detect appendectomy because I have no such experience. And so on. The upcoming study will deal with some of these questions.

desertgal:
You notice the contradiction between this forum where I say that I have not concluded whether I have ESP or not, and my website saying that I have ESP. This was unintentional, but I stand by the statement that I have not concluded having ESP. It is a case of wording error, and my website needs to be updated. I've been here on the discussions thread for over a month now and have learned a lot that I want to add to my website. Thanks guys.

UncaYimmy:
She's utterly convinced what she is doing is real. She's just wondering whether it's ESP or synesthesia.And that was a natural assumption to make based on the fact that I had not encountered a single incorrect medical perception to date. Please have some understanding towards that. I am however open to encountering an incorrect perception on upcoming studies and tests. I have since making the early posts realized that it is too early to conclude that all perceptions including future ones would always be accurate. The complete accuracy was just what I came to this thread with and started with.

Miss Kitt:
On your ability and its prevalance: You suggest that, perhaps, 1 in 20 people "ping your radar" with a health issue. (I note that you said that may not be an accurate fraction, thank you for noting that.) Do you know what your percentage is for people who do have health issues? That is, when you go to see a doctor (or to the health clinic that undoubtedly is at/near your college for the students), about what fraction of the people in the waiting room do you see something from? I am not asking you to try to verify any reading, here, just if you do a walk-through of the lobby, how many do you see something in?The 1 in 20 refers to information that comes to me on its own. I can choose to do a head-to-toe reading in any persons at which I will detect something in every person. I do like your idea of going out and finding out what and how often I sense in a crowd of people, I do that sometimes.
You indicated in one of those lengthy posts that you know you have synesthesia, which may or may not be related to your medical perceptions. What form of synesthesia do you have? This is an important piece of information in regards your claim.In a general sense I associate all things with a feeling or character. Certain things are associated with color or shape, in ways that suggest to me some extent of synesthesia.
Have you thought about the possibility that you do not receive perceptions at all? That is, that what you do is have 'blips' of imagination that are not based upon what you are looking at, except very indirectly? All of your comments seem to pointed to the two options, A) It is ESP-based medical percpetion, or B) It is non-ESP medical perception. These are not the two only options.Of course. When I say "perceptions" I mean that it is the images I become aware of, and as such they are either based on true information from the real world or based on imagination. It was after a long discussion with Ashles about what words to use when we agreed to use "perceptions", as opposed to observations for instance, which would imply that the true source or accuracy of the images has not been established.
I don't want you to hear this as a slam, or accusing you of anything, because I have had experiences in my life that seemed to be real, but were not. What if, for instance, you did a test and (unbeknownst to you) there was an experienced actor in the group?--and you 'read' in him certain medical issues that he did not have, but was showing subtle symptoms of? And once again Miss Kitt says something that is absolutely brilliant. I fully expect to not be influenced by external symptoms, whether these external symptoms truly do depict actual ailments or are faked or hypochondriac. It is my claim to detect actual health information, and it is my claim to not be influenced by cold reading of external signals whether those external signals would be in my favor or not.
The most reasonable conclusion from such a result would be that you are performing some kind of mental modelling based upon subtle behavioral information...which means that your 'vision' of the tissues involved, etc. was purely created by your imagination. You would have NO ability to see into tissues or read vibrations for their information. Is that possibility one you are willing--and able--to allow for?Yes I am definitely aware of the possibility of influence of external signals on the perceptions. However I claim to not be influenced by external signals.
Take a few minutes to think about that, it's a tough concept. "Losing" my ability was quite disappointing and even painful, and took me a long time to process. I had to accept it, because--as a science student (I went to Harvey Mudd)--I knew the test was well-designed. I knew what it implied; and I knew that the test had "felt" just as usual. But the results clearly showed that I was unconsciously reacting to other people, not the target.I am prepared to possibly fail a test, and I like your suggestion of "actors" faking external signs and would welcome that to a test.

UncaYimmy:
I had been under the assumption that the testing organizations would do most of the work in arranging the tests, but from Thursday's lecture with Dr. Eric Carlson I learned that it is I as the claimant who must do most of the work and be the principal investigator into my own claim.
Did I not say this to you several times?If you did I apologize. Having things explained in person simply has more of an effect than text. Sorry.

:cry1 I'm so happy because I have finally caught up with my posts on this thread. I can finally tell you all about Thursday's meeting with the skeptics group, and all about my planned study. But I have to work fast because before I know it I'll be swamped with inaccurate assumptions that I have to respond to all over again.
:cry1 Now I'm crying because I realize that the thread has reached a point where I now have to start skipping questions and comments in order to keep up, and that is when I will become accused of selectively avoiding questions or for having something to hide, which won't be true at all! The times of when I've replied to every single comment might have come to an end.

ETA: I'd better work fast before y'all wake up.

VisionFromFeeling

23rd December 2008, 02:11 AM

Hokulele:
I focus all my efforts on arranging the medical information tests now.

Belz...

23rd December 2008, 04:39 AM

Oops, did I get carried away?

A little. But my point was that you have to expect some flak, here. The best way to silence your critics (other than shooting them in the head) is to agree to a test protocol as soon as possible and proceed with the test.

I am prepared to accept having my ESP falsified, but only when we are at that situation can we tell what in fact will be my reaction. I expect to thoroughly try out the test conditions before implementing them on a formal test, so at that point no excuses could be made.

Indeed. Making up excuses would make you seem dishonest, and you'd find it hard to have other opportunities to test your alleged abilities.

I honestly hope you truly are ready to accept that your claim is false, if the results of the test should show this. The alternative, that we've seen in so many others, is to ignore the result of the test and continue to convince yourself that you were right all along, anyway. But that wouldn't be very practical, would it ?

I do not have much formal medical training although I have interest in medicine and pick up information from media. But even with limited medical knowledge it is possible to describe a health problem at least to the extent where a condition can be identified. What part of the body is affected, what organs and tissues, what feeling is associated with the problem, and in many cases I do recognize it from having encountered it before to know it by name. Even if I had extensive medical knowledge there should be plenty of health information that can be used in a test without concern that I would be using medical knowledge for their detection.

Okay... but could you tell emphysema from any other lung condition, for example ? And, if so, what's helping you make a diagnostic. If I had X-ray vision, for instance, how could I identify cavities in somebody's teeth if I don't have the necessary medical knowledge ?

And I only remember hits because there have only been hits

I strongly suggest you retract that statement. Even the best professionals make mistakes in their field, so it's very hard to believe that you would be 100% correct. As I told you about cloud-busting, those folks also think they only get hits because they tend not to notice the misses, or explain them away. Test or no test, the best thing you could do is to start noticing the misses.

And if you still think you've got a 100% success rate, then you should be in for quite a shock following the test.

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 05:33 AM

My closest family are aware of the ability to some extent, yes. And yes they are relatively unimpressed by it.Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds ? ( nice pun though )

Ashles

23rd December 2008, 06:32 AM

Whether what is even possible at my university? Why try to do so many different majors? Because I am headed toward research in Medical Physics and want to build new medical instruments that use engineered light structures to rearrange human tissue structure. That is why I am doing chemistry (for a fundamental understanding of human tissue), physics (understanding of light and radiation), electrical engineering (to build medical instruments). Many people who are dedicated toward a career combine the different fields of study that are part of their future work.
I'd like to build a hover car. Presumably if I study Physics (to deal with gravity), aerodynamics (so it's a good shape) and electrical engineering (so I can wire it all correctly) then I'll be able to build one?
The reason I have asked this is that your attitude towards science seems rather cavalier and without depth.

If you want to create entirely new devices based on new scientific concepts (which you can't describe or understand except referring vaguely to 'vibration') then there has to be some form of facts or discipline to build on. Without that your wishes are no different to me declaring I wish to build a hover car using 'ionising gravity reverse pulsations'.

And if you want an understanding of human tissue wouldn't biology or medicine be more appropriate than chemistry? Biochemistry or physiology perhaps? Anatomy?

(N.B. If you want to build these new devices based on known technology and theories then that's fine, makes sense and I apologise as I may have got the wrong end of the stick. That might be because you haven't detailed what specific devices or technology you would be using. Please, assume we can keep up with any scientific details you provide.)

Ashles

23rd December 2008, 08:09 AM

Ashles:
I have all intention of defending myself when criticized for things that are not correct, and to clarify and explain when false assumptions are made against me.
Still hasn't change our perceptions though. Doing a test might.

What ever. And I will defend myself when attacked with false assumptions.
But there is so much garbage here that just isn't true! Some say that I would not accept the conclusion of no ESP, when I am quite clear about embracing either outcome of the test.
And I was not not one of those. I asked you that question directly and deliberately and accepted your answer.

Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way. Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special.
But what they are saying is that they believe you are not being truthful when you say you do not see it as special. You say you are being truthful. I don't think anyone is going to alter anyone else's beliefs in that subject at the moment.

There is a lot of attack against me as a person and against how I feel about the perceptions. Criticism about my statements on anecdotal experiences that I have given with all intention of honesty, criticism against my educational background, and what else. I just tell you all how it is. How I really am feeling, and what really is going on. And the point is that some of the criticism concerns topics that are not of importance in the investigation. And I try to steer the conversation toward the discussion about the medical perceptions and their test design, as this thread was intended to be about.
Often with these claims (almost every time in fact) what the claimant is themselves perceiving and how they feel about the claim is very relevant.
A lot can be learnt by the descriptions of the sensations, the feelings, emotional weight attached to abilities etc.

I have a degree in Experimental Psychology and a large section of the degree concerned perception, memory, perceptual processes, mechanisms and systems and how they could malfunction. This is one of the reasons I am always so interested in paranormal claims, and why I have focused on what you perceive and how you describe it (it's not just you - I have asked similar questions of other claimants before).

Well I have to respond when people say things about me that aren't true. I don't want lies circulating on my discussions thread. People would read them and get the wrong idea about me.
We have opinions and can air them. And you can respond to those opinions. But ultimately only independent testing will be convincing either way in the long run.

To test my ability I need volunteers to participate in the attempted psychic medical diagnose. This is the hardest thing to arrange with regard to my tests.
Yes but I am explaining to you that my perceptions are as normal to me as vision and hearing is to you. In that way the analogy I used is quite appropriate.
This is almost cut and pasted from the previous discussions. I genuinely cannot understand why you cannot understand why this is clearly not the case.

And I hope that you understand that I was saying that my perceptions are part of how I perceive the world and as such are normal to me.
See every single response I have made previously.

The perceptions are normal to me, yet I understand that they are not part of other people's experience. That is why I am investigating whether the perceptions are true ESP or formed by my imagination. And in either case they still remain part of what is my perception, like vision and hearing.
Please do not lie about my emotions.
My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight. At the same time I understand that my perceptions are not as normal to others as their eyesight. That is why I on one part consider my perceptions normal, and on the other hand I made a website and an investigation into my perceptions. What I have said is the truth about what I think about this.
It is not rude to ask that the discussion be steered away from personal attacks against me as a person.
My analogy about eyesight was most appropriate. To me my perceptions are as normal and no big deal as my eyesight is to me or as your eyesight is to you.
The perceptions are normal to me, yet I also understand that they are not normal to others.
Mundane to me, not mundane to certain others.
Yet again and again the same statements. I can only assume your refusal to understand why the analogy does not work is simply deliberate.

Let me be clear. I do not believe you really think such an ability is or would be considered mundane or normal, and your behaviour reinforces my stance.
Repeating the analogy over and over will not change my opinion.

Only independent testing could do that.

I am arguing against when skeptics make incorrect assumptions about what I feel about my perceptions, then I say that I in fact am describing how I feel about my perceptions and you argue against that. Let me feel the way I feel and stop arguing against that.
But I don't believe you are being entirely truthful in your descriptions of how you feel about your claimed ability.
I could be wrong, and I accept that. At the moment only independent testing is going to change my opinion, not requests or instructions to accept your statements as true.
Let's just accept you have your position and I have my opinion (which could of course be incorrect) and in the absence of further testing neither is likely to change at the moment.

I have never demanded belief or acceptance from you skeptics. I was just saying stop assuming that I am lying about every single thing that I say, even the trivial things like my educational background. I am wearing a white shirt today. Let's spend two pages arguing about the credibility of that.
The credibility of claimants is very relevant.
Again you must understand we have had many, many claimants visit these forums claiming abilities beyond science.
A certain amount of research or questions regarding the claimant have been known to quickly call their credibility into question to a degree that it has meant less time was wasted in trying to form protocols that were unlikely to happen.

The fact that it has been verified that you are at the college you say you are, have some training in science, have used machines relevant to the challenge etc. means that we believe you are sincere to the extent we are stilll trying to get you to carry out testing. That should be considered a good thing.
We have had claimants before who have been shown to be lying about themselves very quickly and that is obviously a very useful thing to know when trying to ascertain whether paranormal claims are worth investigating or not.

I was shocked to find that skeptics are not always as open-minded or objective as I expected you to be. And I was shocked about all the personal attacks done against me here, about trivial things like "paranormal ability or no paranormal ability is just a label to me", "I am not trying to be special", or "you can't do two B.S. degrees at the same time". Yes this thread was meant to be about test design. But you guys can not say untrue things about me and expect me to not correct things that are incorrect. I want truth and clarity here.
I think you are shocked that skeptics could turn out to be so... skeptical.
Convincing us that a paranormal claim is real is going to be an uphill struggle - you will have to do the work because the default position is always that the claim is not true untl demonstrated otherwise.
We are open-minded - we are all encouraging you repeatedly to get independent testing carried out and have made several suggestions as to how to create a tight protocol.
Close minded would be to say we don't believe you and you can't convince us otherwise. Please be clear on open vs close minded - many people make the same mistake.
A refusal to instantly accept extraordinary claims is not an example of a closed mind, but a sensible one.

According to Dr. Carlson's lecture about how to test paranormal claimants, the testing groups are not to involve themselves in anything less than a formal test of the claim, excluding things such as demonstrations, studies, and informal tests. That is why I am expecting to conduct the study on my own, however I have asked for two of the local skeptics to participate somewhat. I will post the specifics of the study soon and only then will you be able to discuss its scientific rigour. The study will not be a test but it serves its own purposes that will be of benefit for a test.
Nope. It's hard to arrange for volunteers. I will have to advertise for volunteers for my study, but first I have to find out whether my study is legal.
When we see the specifics of the study we might be able to suggest ways it could be turned into a proper test.

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 09:16 AM

I fundamentally have two choices: ESP ability, or no ESP ability. Either case, the perceptions continue in the exact same way as before. Neither outcome of a test has me lose anything, since I have not attached myself to either outcome.

How you are going to disprove ESP while at the same time maintain your belief that you are actually having perceptions? I'm continually amazed that you are not considering that your "perceptions" could be your imagination.

Ashles

23rd December 2008, 09:39 AM

How you are going to disprove ESP while at the same time maintain your belief that you are actually having perceptions? I'm continually amazed that you are not considering that your "perceptions" could be your imagination.
This is sort of a tricky area on this thread. I have pushed for clarity on that several times.

To be fair Anita has said quite clearly she does accept that the perceptions may be entirely imaginary.

But it muddies the water when Anita also posts sentences like that that sort of give the impression that the perceptions are definitely real, but the only question is whether they are ESP or not.

I believe this is just a language issue as Anita has stated she accepts the ability might turn out not to actually be yielding real information.

I think she is saying that, even if she failed the tests, the sensation or perception itself would continue, which she enjoys, and she would understand it wouldn't actually be showing real medical information, just some form of imagined effects.

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 10:36 AM

desertgal:
I know that the observations are anecdotal evidence, if even that, and I have consistently described them as such, and I have never expected any of you to take them as evidence.

Yes, you did. You did so by even beginning this thread. You had the expectation that you could come here, post a link to your website, and people here would offer you analysis on those "observations" and help you develop a protocol for testing. If you didn't expect any of us to take them as evidence, since they were all you had to offer, you wouldn't have come here in the first place.

I am not delusional or self deceptive. I encounter several comments made by skeptics here that imply to me that they are not objective. To for instance state that one (not necessarily you, in this case, desertgal) believes that I am lying or deluded about things that I know for a fact but can not prove are not examples of lying or delusion prove to me that some form beliefs that are not true.

I beg to differ. I think most people have remained objective. However, ALL your claims, taken together, strain credulity to the breaking point. As well, you contradict yourself repeatedly. You only wish for your claims in this thread to be taken into consideration regarding your ability, but ALL your claims point towards your credibility.

Post #10 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4179901&postcount=10)
"I have not tried telepathy with the person in another room. I expect that true telepathy would be more difficult with increasing distance, and, again, I would not be seeing the person and it seems that I need to see the objects in order to use my ability."

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience-Post #81 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4259686&postcount=81)"Suddenly I pick up the perception of a being...I try to ignore it because although a clear perception it makes no sense. I detect that it is miles away from us deep in the forest, and our consciousnesses have reached one another and we are aware of each other. I know what it thinks.. We never did see it, nor do I want to."

"I am confident that if I were in American Bigfoot territory I could connect with it and if I win its trust I might be able to meet them. I have a good way of communicating with beings when we connect mind to mind. I always know what to say, how they respond and how to win their trust. I am quite confident that if I ever undertook such a mission, I could venture out into the woods of America with a camera and be able to encounter the Bigfoot. Unless I detect that they are dangerous that is, then I'd stay far away. Good thing is I know exactly what a creature perceives and does. I love looking at the thoughts and perception of various animals, especially frogs and vultures whose thoughts are especially beautiful."

Post #33 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4182425&postcount=33): "By the way, another aspect of the ability is that I perceive what others perceive from their point of view."

Post #68 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187708&postcount=68): "Plus I feel what a person is feeling and that can not be acchieved by vision"

"Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #62 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247220&postcount=62), Post #63 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247254&postcount=63), Post #64 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247303&postcount=64), Post #65 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247326&postcount=65)

Post #66 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247360&postcount=66): "I would love to be invited to haunted scenes across America and believe that I could be an interesting psychic to speak with the spirits and to find out some historical information from the past. I could give good descriptions of historical American events, speak with the person who were involved. If I am ever invited to the White House I can speak with Abraham Lincoln because I see him there. If anyone has a haunted home you can invite me to investigate. There are two kinds of ghosts: victims, and offenders. Victims died in a fire, by drowning, starving, murder, rape, or disease, and it is very important to find these people and to help them. I can not guarantee that anything of the ghostly kind is a real part of what the world is, even though I suspect that the world is not just our physical world of atoms. There exist negative areas, where bad things have happened, and I think that a part of clearing up in this world is to visit these sites and to heal the past. Even though most of you are happily unaware of this, I believe that everyone is affected by the world's energies.

As for the ghosts of offenders, I am almost as scared of these as if I had to face them in life. Ghosts see me and can attack. Good thing is I've developed a way of speaking to them and can often talk them into leaving. I live with these perceptions, and often they are not perceptions of my own. Other people independent of me, as well as cats and dogs and animals, experience these together, and there is often historical evidence that can suggest that these events took place. What ever it is, to me it is a non-material world that is not made of atoms that exists superimposed with this one. I do not need to make statements about whether it is really here or not, I just see it and feel it and can interact with it, and it interacts with me. "

Post #406 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4265685&postcount=406): "I tried to join The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/ but believe it or not they ask "Are you human?" and you have to answer "Yes" in order to register, so I couldn't do that and asked myself where is an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus supposed to go and luckily Randi welcomes the opinions of all forms of life."

I have definitely not stated that I will continue to believe in an alleged ability

You haven't? This is just from the first five pages of this thread:

Post #13 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4180009&postcount=13): "I will always have and use this ability." "I do not question whether I have these abilities." "Whether this is a form of synesthesia or ESP in either case it is what it is and I continue to use it and to enjoy the benefits of it, and I do not favor one label over the other."

Post #42 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4182850&postcount=42): "I've always taken it for granted and for my personal use and experience with it I do not need any kind of confirmation of its authenticity. Whether a scientific test of it shows that it is ESP, or shows that it is something else such as synesthesia would not matter to me or change much of anything. The ability will be the same, and the observations the same."

Post #47 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4182919&postcount=47): "To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before."

Post #59 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4184814&postcount=59): "Whether a test shows that I appear to have ESP, or shows that it is something else like synesthesia, doesn't really change anything in my world. I will continue to perceive the very same information."

"I am not worried about either outcome of the test, like I've said, I will continue to experience the same ability whether it is ESP or synesthesia."

Post #68 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187708&postcount=68): "I can not claim to know what the ability is and can not believe that it is ESP or believe that it is not. No matter what the results of a test will be my beliefs about the ability will remain the same..."

Post #72 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187753&postcount=72): "I want to understand the ability for what it is, yet I will continue to experience it no matter what it turns out to be. Whether it is ESP or something quite normal I would not favor one over the other. The ability itself remains exactly the same."

"I will continue having the ability no matter what the outcome of the test is."

"If I fail the test I will still receive information and will still believe that I receive information. What I refer to as "ability" is the receiving of information. The "ability" does not refer to ESP since I do not even know if it is ESP. If it were synesthesia, I would still call this the "ability" since I receive information."

Post #72 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187753&postcount=72): "I think synesthesia is just as awesome as any ESP and no matter what the label for why I receive information is nothing changes in my world of things."

Post #82 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4188512&postcount=82): "I was just saying that no matter what the results of the tests are, the ability that I have will stay the same and not go away, and for my own purposes of having the ability I do not need a test to confirm that I am making observations since I already know I am making observations."

Post #111 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4191630&postcount=111): "When I say "ability" I refer to being able to detect and make observations on health information when others, applying ordinary senses, can't. The ability works and exists."

Post #161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4199739&postcount=161): "When I say "I have an ability", I mean that I perceive information about health that others don't and can't. With "ability" I do not claim to know the cause of this information. If I fail the test I will continue to receive information in the same way as before however I might find out what the true origin of the information is."

"That is why I have the test, to find out why I have the observations. The observations will remain."

"Whether I pass or fail the test the ability remains the same."

"I have the ability of perceiving information that other people do not and can not perceive. The question is only whether that information comes from ESP or from down-to-earth causes such as synesthesia. In either case which ever it may be, the ability and the information continues to come to me. Nothing changes in my world."

"Let's just see what the test will reveal. It will not bother me if I fail the test, since I get to keep my ability"

"What I refer to as my "ability" is the fact that I make observations. If the test results show that my ability does not consistently lead to correct observations, and that it is not the case of ESP or anything interesting like that, then nothing would change in my world."

Do you want me to go on? I can quote more examples, if you like.

...because I do not believe in an alleged ability now either.

Fine. NOW. But, my opinion (and others here) wasn't based on what you are stating NOW. It was based on your prior statements. Don't say you have definitely not when you definitely have.

I do not openly diagnose people nor do I have plans of doing so. I only do this with friends and family...

Post #161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4199739&postcount=161): "If I were to receive plenty of requests from people to come and see them and tell them what I sense in them, first of all I would have to tell them that I am not licenced to dispense medical information, and that my information might be incorrect, and I would have to take great care so that a person could not be injured by what I say."

"I do not intend to charge money for my services." What difference does that make? If you're not a doctor, you're not a doctor.

Post #72 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187753&postcount=72): "Your prediction that I will be dispensing medical information is nonsense. I will never do such a thing

You already HAVE done such a thing.

Post #40 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4182797&postcount=40): "One day when I met a friend of mine I was stunned because there was something highly unusual about him <snip>"

Post #68 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187708&postcount=68) It is along the lines of..."You have damage to the esophageal valve of the stomach." <snip> Information that a person can check with themselves right away and does not need a doctor or hospital to confirm."

Post #72 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187753&postcount=72): "In the specific case of the esophageal valve"...<snip>

Post #68 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187708&postcount=68)"The only health information I dispense to people is to my closest friends and family...

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #81 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4259686&postcount=81): "I'd love to meet your wife and I am sure I could describe her ailments to her in the exact way as she perceives them. If I detect an alternative treatment I can suggest it however I am not entitled to take the place of conventional medicine."

From Your website (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html): "Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."

"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him."

...and always after offering a thorough disclaimer.

Do Psychics Have The Right To Practice Skill - Post #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4262369&postcount=1): "I always give a lengthy disclaimer to persons before I give them the information I sense. I say "Although I have never been confirmed incorrect yet, this time might be it. I can not guarantee that what I see is correct unless you are able to confirm with me based on your knowledge of your health..." <snip>

Somehow, I find it really doubtful that you go into this whole long spiel every single time a family or friend 'nonchalantly' comes to you for a 'diagnosis'. In any event, when you get the chance, take a look at http://www.stopsylvia.com A waiver doesn't dictate human emotion or pain when a "psychic" makes a wrong observation. You can have all the waivers you want - it isn't going to stop someone, somewhere, from getting hurt when they 'nonchalantly' trust what you are saying, and it turns out not to be accurate.

Please people stop saying that I would make medical diagnose publicly when nowhere I have stated that I would.

Do Psychics Have The Right To Practice Skill - Post #1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4262369&postcount=1): "I am very interested in meeting with persons to give them readings, mainly to continue to determine the accuracy of the information, and I am sure that there are many who would be interested in volunteering for this. More for entertainment purposes on my behalf and theirs, but also when I describe ailments in the way that a person perceives them it does them good to receive confirmation, and perhaps my information could be of some benefit to their health."

I am very responsible in this.

You might very well be. You offer no proof of that, other than quoting an oral disclaimer that we have only your word for that you've actually given.You've also asked people on this forum to help you put together a lists of do's and don'ts for sharing your alleged ability. Irregardless, again, a disclaimer, printed or otherwise, offers no control over human emotion and distress.

Maybe you should seek psychiatric help for believing things that are not true or part of reality, such as your belief that I would be diagnosing people, or your belief that I believe in having an ability.

Can you honestly read all of the above and NOT see the discrepancies, the backpedaling, the total absence of anything credible in your statements and claims? I don't believe what isn't true, Anita. Kindly don't suggest that I need psychiatric help, in light of the above.

My opinion remains that you are delusional and self deceptive. It's not a condemnation. The human mind is a complex software, and it's also fallible. Everyone suffers breaks from reality - sometimes big, sometimes small. There's no shame in seeking help. But, please, don't state that my opinion is unfounded. It isn't.

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 10:53 AM

volatile

23rd December 2008, 10:59 AM

Perhaps this has been pointed out before: if so, how did she rationalize her way out of it ?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little circular reading and a dollop of cognitive diossonance. The power only works when it's correct. When it's incorrect, she knew all along that it wasn't working, but tried guesing anyway, just in case.

When she's right, she's right. When she's wrong, she's definitely not wrong.

Belz...

23rd December 2008, 11:11 AM

Hence "there have been only hits".

Cloud-busters and such.

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 12:05 PM

Great synopsis desertgal! We have reached the point in this exercise where pointing out the contradictions, is far more entertaining that the original premise, which is clearly losing steam ..

Entertaining...and unsettling. One has to wonder if Sylvia Browne started out this way. "I see ghosts. I talk to animals. Hey, you, over there! You feel that funny tingling at the back of your neck? I know what you're thinking. You've had a vasectomy. Sign this waiver, and take some l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. And your dog thinks he wants Alpo for dinner."

Probably not so far fetched as it sounds.

I was working on something similar, but see no point in continuing.. Thanks for putting your time into that ..

You're welcome.

Old man

23rd December 2008, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Miss Kitt
Do you "see people's insides" all the time, or not? Is it a daily occurance? When you find a person you can "read", can you read them all the time, or only on some occasions?

Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. If I am busy with other things I am less likely to notice such images, just like when you are busy and there is music playing in the background, you might not be aware of the sound at all. When I am more relaxed and attention is not on other things, I tend to perceive more of the medical images. But yes it is a daily occurrence. Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. I can read a person all the time except if I become very tired which is when most abilities of any kind would be harder to do. I can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time. And, although you did not ask this specificly, I also see inside myself and I do this very often to check on things.

It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person. It’s “so clear that they are hard to ignore”, it’s “a daily occurrence”, you “can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time”, but you “only rarely … choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person”? Say what?
I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy, which gives the appearance that I'd be less experienced than I in fact am. Which is also why I can not for instance state whether I can detect an appendectomy or not. I do not have the experience of checking accuracy as much as I have experienced perceptions. Don’t worry about ‘checking for accuracy’. ‘Checking for accuracy’ is unnecessary at this point. Do you think you get ‘vibrational info’ with respect to appendectomies, or not?

Originally Posted by Miss Kitt
If it is some form of physical perception, then it should work most of the time. (Most of us have perceptual difficulties when we are tired, overstressed, in a distracting environment, etc.) If only certain people produce a 'signal' she can 'read', then those people would, one expects, always be readable.

And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I ALWAYS can. I have NEVER come across a person who I wasn't able to read.
I am absolutely flabbergasted! You have NO excuse for not having a good, tight protocol set up.

Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way. In my specific case, I’m more skeptical of your perception that others do not find you ‘special’.

Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special. Anita, there is ‘something suspicious’ about that.

I challenge you to spend two weeks with me, getting to know me and my perceptions and perhaps you too would get used to it. Anita, if the above statement is true, you’d would have convinced us by now.

All I say is please accept that they are true to me, in which all you accept is that they are reasons why I am proceeding toward further tests. Anita, we know that they’re “true to you”, really we do. But you keep insisting that they’re REAL.

Originally Posted by Old man
I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them.
Fixed it for you.
Nonsense Old man. You are entitled to suspect so, but I know the truth about what took place because I was there. Then you now have another extraordinary power to add to your list – a 100% accurate memory! Congratulations! ;)

Originally Posted by Old man
And if I were running the test, I’d have to include the possibly that your ESP just wasn’t working at that time, since you do claim that it doesn’t always work. Failing to check that your ‘power’ is ‘on’ is a flaw in your testing procedure.
On the contrary on real, formal tests I will always state my confidence level and whether I believe my abilities are working. And at that point no excuses can be made to disregard any incorrect answers. But, the testers won’t be able to see that that is in fact true, absent a demonstration, will they? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Old man
However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?
Yes I can choose to do a head-to-toe inspection to detect information that isn't already obvious or clear enough to get my attention on its own. I intend to apply my "on demand" skills on medical information tests. Great. Thank you.

I haven't had time to update my website yet. There is a lot of things I need to add, clarify, and also to change. I've been stuck here responding to the comments about me. Thank you, again. That is what I expected. I do know that you’re been busy (especially since you’re so driven to respond to all of these posts (No way I could do what you’ve been doing!)).

Originally Posted by Old man
So, you should be able to go the mall tomorrow, and in an hour or two be able to come back to this thread and tell us whether any or all of the following - circumcision, vasectomy, appendectomy, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, cardiac surgery, dental bridge work - are suitable for testing. I look forward to the coming voyage of discovery that you’ve promised us!

I absolutely love the idea of going out there and doing my thing, but I really need to consult legal council to find out whether the study I plan to do is in accordance with law first. I am not making excuses or trying to postpone the study, I am simply being responsible in my approach. You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!

Originally Posted by Old man
Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day.

It can manifest many times a day depending on what people I meet on a particular day. I can of course not approach each person to check for the accuracy of my perceptions.
Originally Posted by Old man
And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far?

You bet. I don't know if I perceive information if I don't see the person, ie. a full screen because I have no such particular experience. I do not know if I can detect appendectomy because I have no such experience. And so on. The upcoming study will deal with some of these questions. No, Anita. If I suddenly thought that I could detect breast implants (in women, Locknar!), for a quick and dirty test I’d just go to the mall, look at a number of women, write down how many I looked at and how many I was sure had had implants, and post that info here tomorrow. If I didn’t ‘see’ any implants, I post that either there were in fact none to be seen, or that I may have been wrong about my ‘power’. Simple, easy, and something that you just refuse to do.

The 1 in 20 refers to information that comes to me on its own. I can choose to do a head-to-toe reading in any persons at which I will detect something in every person. I do like your idea of going out and finding out what and how often I sense in a crowd of people, I do that sometimes. And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do! :jaw-dropp ARRRGGGHHH!!11!

Locknar

23rd December 2008, 12:30 PM

Desertgal - I've said this before, but it is worth repeating....nicely done.

VFF - I think it fair to say, as Desertgal has excellently pointed you have no idea what you are saying/claiming; to many contradictions. My suggestion is you overhaul your website, state in plain English what your claim is, loose all the anecdotal stories (ie. campfire stories) since they are pure "woo woo", and go from there.

This would far more helpful to your claim (what ever your claim is) then replying with a giant "neener neener your wrong desertgal."

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 12:38 PM

Entertaining...and unsettling. One has to wonder if Sylvia Browne started out this way. "I see ghosts. I talk to animals. Hey, you, over there! You feel that funny tingling at the back of your neck? I know what you're thinking. You've had a vasectomy. Sign this waiver, and take some l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. And your dog thinks he wants Alpo for dinner."

Probably not so far fetched as it sounds.

Finishing the education, and having a Masters or two in a scientific discipline, can't hurt on the talk-show circuit, either..

I'm looking forward to the book.. The adventures at JREF should make an interesting chapter..

We can all say we knew her when ..

roger

23rd December 2008, 12:39 PM

Great synopsis desertgal! We have reached the point in this exercise where pointing out the contradictions, is far more entertaining that the original premise, which is clearly losing steam ..

I was working on something similar, but see no point in continuing.. Thanks for putting your time into that ..

I have been re-reading the early pages and noted some incongruities in the discussions of a test protocol.. VFF was saying :

" If I miss an ailment that is considered to be there, yes I can say that "the ailment was not strong enough for me to sense". That is why I am allowed to pass on a person when I do not detect an ailment. I will only lose points when I make an incorrect observation."

When your claimed ability is " detecting ailments ", wouldn't failing to detect an ailment when there is one, a clear failure of the claimed ability ?

To state otherwise is ludicrous and inarguable in the context of this claim ..

Perhaps this has been pointed out before: if so, how did she rationalize her way out of it ?"I can hit a major league baseball pitch" - I hope you don't expect this claimant to achieve 100% success.

"I can find lost golf balls on the golf course" - I hope you don't expect the claimant to find every ball on the course.

Or take my claim when this was brought up earlier in this thread - "I can identify a pit bull". A lot of pit bulls are poorly bred and very low conformance. It does not follow from my claim that I can identify a low conformance pit bull as a pit bull. My claim is merely, when made wordier, "I know what a high conformance pit bull looks like, and when presented with one, it's very likely that I will call it a pit bull. I make no claim for identifying every dog, nor for being able to divide any/every dog into pit bull/non pit bull categories." Take the dog in my avatar. He's been called a pit bull; personally, I have my doubts about that. But, who knows? My inability to ID him has no bearing on my ability to ID my very high conformance pit bull Koa.

A pretty reasonable claim. If you watched Crufts, you could probably identify the standard poodle with 100% success. That doesn't mean that you might misidentify a poorly bred poodle as, say, a mutt with part Porteguese water dog in it.

edit: and, of course, just about any medical test has false positives and negatives. Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 12:55 PM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little circular reading and a dollop of cognitive diossonance. The power only works when it's correct. When it's incorrect, she knew all along that it wasn't working, but tried guesing anyway, just in case.

When she's right, she's right. When she's wrong, she's definitely not wrong.

And a file drawer effect that even Rhine would have been ashamed of.

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 01:01 PM

"I can hit a major league baseball pitch" - I hope you don't expect this claimant to achieve 100% success.

Your analogy is flawed.
The correct analogy would be to say when you miss a major league baseball pitch,
you don't count it as a miss.. How does that work ?

Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.

Why not ? Her claim goes beyond normal medical tests ..

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 01:08 PM

Look, Anita, if you really believe that you have this ability, then I think you need to do the following:

For one thing, as Lochnar suggested (thanks, Loch), overhaul your website. You've proposed conducting a study while you are waiting for a formal test. Fine, do that. Anecdotal evidence has it's place - but it needs to be thorough. Do as UncaYimmy suggested - be as specific as possible. Where did you meet the person, under what circumstances, was there prior knowledge of any medical conditions, were there outward signs of any medical conditions, smoker/non smoker, height, weight, age, etc, etc. You could easily develop a basic criteria for assessing an individual. If you make a correct perception, then, if you can, have the person offer a corroborating statement for your site. And DON'T, whatever you do, put anything that even hints at postdicting. That'll kill your credibility right there.

Be prepared to acknowledge all sources of your diagnosis-stored information, common perception, uncommon perception. For example, if a subject is 200 pounds overweight and acknowledges that he drinks, and you diagnose heart disease, then be willing to say that that might have contributed to your diagnosis. Don't cling obdurately to your "ability" to "see" into his heart and "visualize" the problem.

Put your waiver in writing and post a copy. If possible, post signed copies for each episode. Back yourself up. Saying that you recite an oral waiver doesn't mean squat to anyone, and it certainly isn't proof that you take cautionary measures seriously.

Refine your claim. You say have this ability, then you say you don't. You say that you don't care if it is ESP or not-but you have made other claims that relate to ESP, so the unspoken interpretation is that, regardless of any test results, you do think it is ESP. As well, it doesn't cover this or that medical condition, or it does cover this or that medical condition, or it works with chemicals, or it doesn't work with chemicals, etc, etc, etc...sit down, write it out, edit it, edit it some more, and refine it. Simplify the bejeebers out of it. Right now, nobody is sure what you are claiming.

From there, you can move towards a workable protocol. Keep it simple. Don't allow yourself wiggle room. If your ability is real, or isn't real, it will come out in the wash. There's several folks here who are obviously willing to hep, if you can refine your claim so they know what they are helping with.

And if it does turn out to be a delusion, or your imagination...then, you'll be able to move on with a lighter step and a clear mind.

Those are my suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 01:42 PM

Due to the sheer volume this thread has become hard to follow. There's also a lot of confusion because of seeming contradictions and misunderstandings. And because of the nature of the forum, it's hard to follow a single train of thought to get anything resolved.

Therefore, I have requested from the moderators that they create a moderated thread with just Anita and myself. It will be an interview style thread that I hope will allow us to clear up the misunderstandings, clarify positions, and come up with a plan of action. Anita has agreed to this and is willing to have me be the interviewer.

It's important to note that the reason I want it to be one-on-one has nothing to do with anyone else personally. Lots of people in this thread have asked great questions and made excellent points. It's all about continuity. We're all jumping all over the place, and Anita is doing her best to answer. It just seems that we're not getting anywhere.

Why me? It was my idea, I'm willing to spend the time, Anita is okay with me doing it, and I didn't want to get involved with holding some sort of election (too many skeletons in my closet). :) I do ask that people send me private messages with questions they'd like answered and/or suggestions for what needs more exploration. Of course, there's a wealth of information already here, so I have plenty with which to get started.

I will make a post here when the interview thread is started assuming everything goes smoothly with the moderators.

Miss_Kitt

23rd December 2008, 03:34 PM

Miss Kitt:
Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. ... Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. ...
...It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person. I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy. .. And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I always can. I have never come across a person who I wasn't able to read. bolding added

I cannot make this agree with prior statements. If every person can be read, than why is there all this allowance in the proposed testing protocol for "passes" for not getting any information? Since doing a focussed reading can be done on any person, how can there be anyone who will not show something on a viewing? (Unless somehow someone is in perfect health and has never had a surgical intervention or broken bone.) VFF's ability cannot be able to work, X-ray-like, to show tissues, and then somehow fail to find some surgical incisions/removals and not others.

Anita, can you see why I am puzzled by this? It just does not logically follow that you can always see people's insides, but somehow be wrong for some conditions but not others. You say, for instance, you can see formerly broken bones, would you wish to alter that to say, "I can see a broken fibula, but not a tibia?" or "I can see a once-broken arm, but not a collarbone?" Those kinds of limitations would apply to seeing things that make visible, if minute, changes in the shape or motion of the area of the body, but not to seeing inside.

I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.
I see you still fail to include the possibility that there is no ability, just a healthy dollop of imagination and some subconscious processing. This is different from an untestable claim.

Actually I do not conclude whether I have ESP or not until a test suggests which is the case. I believe my perceptions are real perceptions, but I do not conclude that the perceptions are images formed from actual information in the real world until proven so, regardless of what I would come to believe from my perspective. I am remaining open-minded, and I suggest you skeptics here do the same. italics added

This paragraph seems to be in direct contradiction to your comment above. ??You have stated clearly and repeatedly that you know your perceptions exist and are 'real'; you have said that every time you have checked, they are accurate. But at the same time, you say that you have not concluded that the images are formed from actual information??

And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.

Once again, the bald declaration of superb imaging -- if this is true, how can there be conditions you don't perceive? Specifically, how can there be some surgical removals (vasectomy) that you perceive, and some that you don't?

By the way, I would also like to know--squeamish folks, skip to the signature--if you can detect hemorrhoids? An easy place to test this is on any park playground. Look at the mothers of small (under age 2) children, and see if any of them show one. Statistically, you are tremendously likely to encounter at least one; especially in mothers with one baby and a couple of young kids. Trust me, this is (A) abnormal to the body, (B) intermittantly very painful, and (C)commonplace.

I am quite at a loss to make the different aspects of your claim work into one consistent whole.

Hoping you can de-confuse me, Miss Kitt

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 03:41 PM

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 03:52 PM

Ashles

23rd December 2008, 04:23 PM

Good idea ..
Anita seems to go to great pains to address all comments, even when they are clearly rhetorical ..
She seems more concerned about being accused of not responding, rather than addressing the issues that have been raised.

Perhaps the interview format can relieve some of the pressure ..
Agreed. This claim needs focus and one person asking the questions makes sense.

Only one further comment, everything else aside, I have to slightly disagree with a couple of previous posters - although there has been confusion I do feel Anita has on at least a couple of occasions stated she would accept that a failed test might indicate that the sensations she is experiencing were not yielding real information and were either imagination or an error in her visual processing.

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 06:01 PM

Now I see the Xtra special thread is up and the uninvited cannot comment without PMing one of the duo.
Isn't that special. This forum allows a new format to meet a poster's "special needs" to focus on some concrete questions about the claim and to answer people who pose questions about the inconsistencies and weasel escape clauses?
Sometimes you people are so wimpy you're pathetic.

wardenclyffe

23rd December 2008, 06:12 PM

I like the idea of the special thread. It might yield more useful information. Meanwhile, non-pathetic non-wimps are still free to post here. Anita's still free to post here. I sincerely doubt that the new thread spells doom for this one. Post away.

Ward

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 06:24 PM

Why should a closed conversation be of any value? The person making the claims has not responded to a number of direct questions about the claims from a number of people. Why should restricting the questioner to one person with no special qualifications or reason to be asking the questions work better than a free for all? I would hope that people let them have their own tete a tete in private. No peeking, please.

wardenclyffe

23rd December 2008, 06:31 PM

They are having a conversation. You are allowed and encouraged to whisper in the ear of either participant. Peeking is encouraged. It wasn't my idea, but I don't see it as harmful. It's an experiment. There's an excellent chance that the experiment will yield nothing of value, but we can't know until we try.

Ward

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 06:40 PM

Anita's still free to post here.
Ward

To what purpose? Anita is hardly likely to post in a free for all thread when she has a protected thread in which she only has to answer selected questions by one poster.

wardenclyffe

23rd December 2008, 06:44 PM

She seems to enjoy posting both here and elsewhere. I don't know what purpose those posts served either. But whatever that purpose was/is, I think she'll still be around here. I could be completely wrong, but she likes posting----a lot.

Ward

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 06:55 PM

Ward, here's the deal. The OPer spouted a number of tells buried in the huge mass of dreck spewed early on. The tells were caught and pointed out by a bunch of posters. They were ignored and the dreck continued.
So they can have a conversation. The OPer lays another one. I point it out to the converser, who has no idea what I am talking about, for instance.
Does the converser then PM me to ask what the frigg I'm yakking about or not? Doesn't this whole process strike you as a bit cumbersome and having the potential for censoring questions that are potentially valuable?

wardenclyffe

23rd December 2008, 07:02 PM

desertgal

23rd December 2008, 07:20 PM

There's no guarantee that the right questions will be asked in the new thread. There's no guarantee that your suggested questions will be asked.
Ward

I guess that's the downside, right there.

Other claimants have come on here with wild, unsubstantiated claims, and inconsistencies. They all had to sink or swim in free for all threads. They could answer questions, or not answer questions, but everyone was free to ask those questions.

Oh, well. Change is inevitable. As I said, good luck, UncaYimmy. :)

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 07:42 PM

Your description might be exactly how it works out and the whole thing ends up being a bust...
Trust me, I've had these perceptions or strange feelings for over 60 years now. I get these aura type sensations that smell bad. There's something in the air. The OPer is either jerking you all around or is seriously deluded. I'm getting a B sound and a definite S. In my twelve year BPS program at Whatsmatta U. I have never been wrong about the things I was right about and this time I definitely predict that I will be right. Or maybe wrong, but if wrong, I will have predicted that it was a case that I would have been wrong about.
So sorry I can't communicate with you anymore right now, I have to take my final exam in Psychic Proctology, it's a no hands on lab test.

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 08:13 PM

Your description might be exactly how it works out and the whole thing ends up being a bust. On the other hand, in a conversation with a single person, it's harder to hide from an important question. I'm certain that there are people in this thread who feel that their questions have gone unanswered. Anita can write and write and write and answer a whole bunch of questions, but never answer the important ones. There's no guarantee that the right questions will be asked in the new thread. There's no guarantee that your suggested questions will be asked. I'm proposing that the format will not allow anyone to hide under mountains of text and page after page of posts. It may not work. It may be a disaster. I just think it's worth a try and I see very little downside.

Ward

I think you've explained it very well. I know I have been frustrated by the mountains of text. I have seen important questions ignored or responded to in only a cursory way while ancillary points are covered in overwhelming detail. I can't say that it's intentional on her part because anybody would struggle answering so many questions and accusations at one time.

Will this work to get us the answers we're after? I dunno. I do know that a month and 700+ posts later in this thread we're no closer than when we started, so I can't make things any worse.

If I do a decent job, then any deliberate evasiveness will be revealed. Contradictions will either be explained or exposed. And in the end I hope to have an agreement about testing and judging the results. I think that's what we all want.

Jeff Corey

23rd December 2008, 08:23 PM

Fair enough. Give us a heads up when you're finished.

Skeptical Greg

23rd December 2008, 08:28 PM

( with no animosity toward you UncaYimmy )
I dunno. I do know that a month and 700+ posts later in this thread we're no closer than when we started...Do tell ? And why do you think that is ?
The violin player refuses to play ..

There is an old Chinese proverb that says " Take a dump or get off the pot . "

Something smells, and it ain't the pot ...

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 09:16 PM

Jeff,

First off, the request for a special thread was made by me, not Anita. She's not getting special treatment. If anyone is, *I* am. Why me? Because I took the initiative to ask for it (see the Forum Management forum under "Unusual Request").

Why didn't I just conduct the interview off-line and post the results? For one thing, I wanted it to be entirely in the open. I also wanted input from people here as the interview progressed. I didn't want to hear, "you should have asked her..." or "why didn't you catch this contradiction..." type of questions (counting on you, DesertGal).

Second, there's no censorship whatsoever. You can ask whatever you want whenever you want, just not in one particular thread. Anita can choose to answer or not answer. She already does that in this thread and others. The difference is that in this thread non-answers and incomplete answers are lost and often forgotten in a deluge of text. That will be much more difficult in the proposed format.

Will Anita stop participating in other threads once this one starts? Who knows? I seriously doubt it based on her past behavior. If she does, it won't be because I am pitching her softballs and not asking her the hard questions.

Will I ask every question suggested to me? Of course not. That would defeat the purpose. I'm not going to be a conduit. I will use my best judgment based on my own ideas and that of others. If I fail in my job as interviewer, it will be because of my poor judgment, not because I simply repeated every question anybody suggested. I'm hoping people here will support my efforts.

This, of course, leads to the inevitable question of, "who the heck are you to be asking the questions?" Like I said, I came up with the idea and asked if it could be done. Nobody else did. That's why I am doing it. Also, Anita believes I will be fair.

What I think people might be wondering is how good of a job am I gonna do? My first reaction is, "Does it matter? The wheels are in motion. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Why fuss over it now?"

My second reaction is to suggest that you look at my posts in this thread and the Vision From Feeling Protocol thread. I was one of the first to write a detailed protocol for Anita's chemical tests. I submitted several pictures of myself and challenged her to read them. In the process I shared a lot of personal information about my health.

In the protocol thread I took it upon myself to create a two-page health questionnaire with over 100 ailments so that Anita could use it at the skeptics meeting she was attending the next day. I've also suggested a number of other ways she could confirm or disprove her abilities without great expenditures of time and effort.

None of that makes me the most qualified person here to conduct the interview, but I think it demonstrates a thoroughness on my part and a pit bull like approach to cutting to the chase. I think those are two important qualities in conducting the interview.

I'm sure there are others here who could do just as well or better than I. What was I supposed to do? Call for an election and ask people to campaign? And since Anita would have had to agree to her interviewer, that would have sparked another round of discussions. Would that have made things any better?

Let's just see how it goes, shall we?

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 09:36 PM

Other claimants have come on here with wild, unsubstantiated claims, and inconsistencies. They all had to sink or swim in free for all threads. They could answer questions, or not answer questions, but everyone was free to ask those questions.

Look at it this way: I could do the same interview technique via private messages and nobody else could ask any questions there. I could then post the results. Or not. I might post the whole exchange or edit it to suit my fancy. The claimant could stop posting in other threads or not.

What I have proposed is similar to a private interview except that all correspondence is done out in the open. Instead of looking at it as a public thread taken private, think of it as a private thread taken public. You're not being kept out - you're being let in. And you have the added bonus of being able to whisper in my ear.

Oh, well. Change is inevitable. As I said, good luck, UncaYimmy. :)

Thanks. I hope it's productive. And I hope you are among the people whispering in my ear.

Uncayimmy

23rd December 2008, 09:37 PM

In case anyone missed it, here's the link to the interview thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4292683#post4292683

desertgal

24th December 2008, 03:47 AM

Look at it this way: I could do the same interview technique via private messages and nobody else could ask any questions there. I could then post the results. Or not. I might post the whole exchange or edit it to suit my fancy. The claimant could stop posting in other threads or not.

What I have proposed is similar to a private interview except that all correspondence is done out in the open. Instead of looking at it as a public thread taken private, think of it as a private thread taken public. You're not being kept out - you're being let in. And you have the added bonus of being able to whisper in my ear.

Thanks. I hope it's productive. And I hope you are among the people whispering in my ear.

Fair enough. :)

You'll have to wait on the whispering, though - I think I climbed the Everest of contradiction comparisons yesterday. :D

desertgal

24th December 2008, 04:18 AM

desertgal:
Honey bring me the quote where I say that most people in the town where I grew up were aware of the alleged ability, because this is untrue and I would need to go back and change the statement.

Just to clarify, since you did ask:

Post #555 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4273981&postcount=555): "Don't forget that I am from a humble little town in Sweden. People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual, they are used to it."

My interpretation was that you mentioned this humble town to indicate most people there were aware of your alleged ability, and unimpressed by it. I know the thread has moved on, and I don't mean to backtrack, but I realized that I may have misinterpreted that statement, and wanted to apologize if I did.

(And, please, don't call me "Honey". No offense intended, it just bugs me.)

Moochie

24th December 2008, 05:58 AM

Yes, you did. You did so by even beginning this thread. You had the expectation that you could come here, post a link to your website, and people here would offer you analysis on those "observations" and help you develop a protocol for testing. If you didn't expect any of us to take them as evidence, since they were all you had to offer, you wouldn't have come here in the first place.

<snip>

Yes, great work, desertgal. Good analysis and cogent conclusion.

M.

Locknar

24th December 2008, 06:02 AM

Just to clarify, since you did ask:

Post #555 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4273981&postcount=555): "Don't forget that I am from a humble little town in Sweden. People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual, they are used to it."

My interpretation was that you mentioned this humble town to indicate most people there were aware of your alleged ability, and unimpressed by it. I know the thread has moved on, and I don't mean to backtrack, but I realized that I may have misinterpreted that statement, and wanted to apologize if I did.

(And, please, don't call me "Honey". No offense intended, it just bugs me.)I dunno..like everything else it needs to be clarified (ie. cleaned up).

If VFF had left it at "People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual" I'd agree that you may have misinterpreted what she said.

However, the "they are use to it" is the kicker that needs to be clarified. If folks in general are not witting to the ability - what exactly are they use to in the context of what VFF wrote?

desertgal

24th December 2008, 06:19 AM

I dunno..like everything else it needs to be clarified (ie. cleaned up).

If VFF had left it at "People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual" I'd agree that you may have misinterpreted what she said.

However, the "they are use to it" is the kicker that needs to be clarified. If folks in general are not witting to the ability - what exactly are they use to in the context of what VFF wrote?

She was responding to this:

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, come on. You’re actually trying to convince us that nobody you’ve ever confided in about this ‘ability’ thinks that it’s “anything special”?!!?!! You live in a strange, strange world.

By "humble town", I thought she meant that, since the town was small, most people there would have been aware of and supposedly accustomed to her alleged ability, since she grew up there.

I grew up in a very small town, and, believe me, the smaller the town, the more people know their neighbors' business. I could go home tomorrow, and the "old timers" could recite most of my history there back to me. Clairvoyance, ESP, whatever - nothing remains secret in a small town. (On the plus side, if your kid goes outside, he has 20 babysitters watching him through their windows.)

It was a natural assumption, but, again, if I was wrong, Anita, I apologize.

I do have to add, though, that I have to join the chorus of those who find your claim that people "get used" to your alleged ability more than a little disingenuous-whether intentional or not, I can't say. I have raised six kids, and, more significantly, my middle child is an autistic savant (think Rain Man with a piano). When a parent has a child with a remarkable ability, they don't "get used" to it. It remains as remarkable after 20 years as it was on the first day.

You claim an alleged ability that is unlike any other in the history of mankind. Speaking as a parent, I would not treat that as mundane as eyesight at any point. I would also have had every kind of test possible done, simply because an ability such as you are describing would warrant not only astonishment, but concern. It's the nature of a parent.

Soapy Sam

24th December 2008, 09:28 AM

Anyone who thinks eyesight is mundane is probably wrong about esp too.

calebprime

24th December 2008, 09:49 AM

... I have raised six kids, and, more significantly, my middle child is an autistic savant (think Rain Man with a piano). ...

(off topic)

fascinating. I'd love to know more, if there's a way to inquire without being rude. I went to music school where there were several savants, as well as lots of people all along the spectrum of talent and of personality...

roger

24th December 2008, 10:21 AM

Your analogy is flawed.
The correct analogy would be to say when you miss a major league baseball pitch,
you don't count it as a miss.. How does that work ?No, if she says roger has a vasectomy, and he doesn't, and then she doesn't count that as a miss, then that would be wrong. But if she can't tell if I have one or not, it's not a miss.

And, once again, just about every medical test in existence has false negatives and positives. And many tests are not conclusive. That is not an analogy.

desertgal

24th December 2008, 10:59 AM

(off topic)

(off topic)

fascinating. I'd love to know more, if there's a way to inquire without being rude. I went to music school where there were several savants, as well as lots of people all along the spectrum of talent and of personality...

He was diagnosed at 2 1/2 with autism, after a regression in his communication development alerted us. By the time he was 5, his verbal communication skills had not advanced, so I went searching for alternative outlets. We tried several things at once - art, music, and sports - and he took to music like a duck to water. He tried several instruments, and settled on the piano - by the time he was eight, his instructor told me he had the proficiency of a youth twice his age. When he was nine, he was also diagnosed with ADHD - so the piano became not only a communication outlet, but also a means to calm his hyperactivity. He learned to read music extremely rapidly - his teacher likened it to "snapshot comprehension", and he also plays by ear-he can hear a new piece three times and then pick it out, note by note. He graduated from instructor to instructor over the years, as his proficiency increased, and he's now 14, and attending an arts high school, and also attends a master class. I'm hoping he'll progress into composing, but he hasn't seemed interested so far.

His verbal communication and socialization skills are still extremely limited, at the level of an eight year old, but the music does stimulate them, so they aren't as low as they might have been. They tell me his IQ is likely quite high, but he hasn't responded to standardized testing to find out the exact score.

Skeptical Greg

24th December 2008, 11:44 AM

No, if she says roger has a vasectomy, and he doesn't, and then she doesn't count that as a miss, then that would be wrong. But if she can't tell if I have one or not, it's not a miss.It is when you claim to have vision that is superior to X-ray photography ..

And, once again, just about every medical test in existence has false negatives and positives. And many tests are not conclusive. That is not an analogy.I didn't say it was. I said the baseball example ; which you did not re-address, was flawed. You switched over to the flawed vasectomy example..

You need to explain false negatives and positives to Anita, not me .
She claims to have never been wrong.

Moochie

24th December 2008, 01:07 PM

It is when you claim to have vision that is superior to X-ray photography ..

I didn't say it was. I said the baseball example ; which you did not re-address, was flawed. You switched over to the flawed vasectomy example..

You need to explain false negatives and positives to Anita, not me .
She claims to have never been wrong.

I have a strong feeling we won't see much of "Anita" hereabouts for a while.

M.

calebprime

24th December 2008, 01:29 PM

(off topic)

He was diagnosed at 2 1/2 with autism, after a regression in his communication development alerted us. By the time he was 5, his verbal communication skills had not advanced, so I went searching for alternative outlets. We tried several things at once - art, music, and sports - and he took to music like a duck to water. He tried several instruments, and settled on the piano - by the time he was eight, his instructor told me he had the proficiency of a youth twice his age. When he was nine, he was also diagnosed with ADHD - so the piano became not only a communication outlet, but also a means to calm his hyperactivity. He learned to read music extremely rapidly - his teacher likened it to "snapshot comprehension", and he also plays by ear-he can hear a new piece three times and then pick it out, note by note. He graduated from instructor to instructor over the years, as his proficiency increased, and he's now 14, and attending an arts high school, and also attends a master class. I'm hoping he'll progress into composing, but he hasn't seemed interested so far.

His verbal communication and socialization skills are still extremely limited, at the level of an eight year old, but the music does stimulate them, so they aren't as low as they might have been. They tell me his IQ is likely quite high, but he hasn't responded to standardized testing to find out the exact score.

It's a great thing that he has a passion and talent. Sounds like you're giving him just the opportunity and encouragement he needs.

That is, neither denying him the opportunity nor pushing him...

Composing is, first, all about one thing: wanting to. Then, habit.

If he goes to a music school, he might fit right in. Many of us were extremely odd ducks in one way or another, and nobody minded--it was expected.

It has to be the right music school, though--the main thing is a good connection with at least one teacher, and time to do what he wants.

If it's not the right school (Berklee wasn't, for me, but NEC was) he may feel lost, and need time to recover, but it sounds like his passion is strong. Urban setting may be stressful--noisy, crowded, hectic. Some place like Oberlin is out of the city...

Bless you, if I may say so.:)

Old man

24th December 2008, 01:35 PM

Post #555 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4273981&postcount=555): "Don't forget that I am from a humble little town in Sweden. People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual, they are used to it."

My interpretation was that you mentioned this humble town to indicate most people there were aware of your alleged ability, and unimpressed by it. I know the thread has moved on, and I don't mean to backtrack, but I realized that I may have misinterpreted that statement, and wanted to apologize if I did. Desertgal, I think almost everyone who’s fluent in American English would have made a similar interpretation. I certainly did, and I don’t feel that I need to apologize.

By "humble town", I thought she meant that, since the town was small, most people there would have been aware of and supposedly accustomed to her alleged ability, since she grew up there.

I grew up in a very small town, and, believe me, the smaller the town, the more people know their neighbors' business. I could go home tomorrow, and the "old timers" could recite most of my history there back to me. Clairvoyance, ESP, whatever - nothing remains secret in a small town. (On the plus side, if your kid goes outside, he has 20 babysitters watching him through their windows.) It’s my experience that people in ‘humble little towns’ tend to more impressed with the abilities of their neighbors, rather than less so.

“My uncle Jim’s the best shot in five counties!"

“Why, Mary’s aunt Kay is so good, she should be playing for the New York Philharmonic!”

Little Anita oughta go to the city and show those hotshot doctors what for. She can see people’s insides!”

Anita’s posts and web page show a pretty consistent use of hyperbole. I don’t think you need to apologize. I think she should.

roger

24th December 2008, 01:44 PM

It is when you claim to have vision that is superior to X-ray photography .. That is your claim, not hers (your claim that she should be held to higher standards then she says she can meet, not the x-ray part, which is of course here claim).

I didn't say it was. I said the baseball example ; which you did not re-address, was flawed. You switched over to the flawed vasectomy example..Baseball is an example where you don't have to have a 100% success rate, that's all. Why do people on here, when presented when an analogy, always go to where the analogy doesn't match(and there will always be a mismatch)? You used the analogy of playing violin. Shall I point out where that doesn't match Anita's claims? No, because your point is clear - if somebody says they can do something, they should be able to do it. And my point was equally clear - that being able to do something doesn't always mean being able to do it 100%. Baseball in one way, detecting pit bulls in another way, medical tests (the most apt, since it isn't an analogy) in another.

You need to explain false negatives and positives to Anita, not me .
She claims to have never been wrong.I, like, you, doubt her claims (to put it mildly). That in no way means we/she should design experiments that don't test what she claims. She does notclaim to detect every vasectomy in existence, she does claim that when she detects one, she is never wrong. I'm not even sure if her claims extend to the point of being able to say that somebody does not have a vasectomy. So, we test that, and only that - hit/miss on detected vasectomies.

Skeptical Greg

24th December 2008, 02:19 PM

.......she does claim that when she detects one, she is never wrong.You do understand the implications of " counting hits and ignoring misses " ?

Or do you ?

JWideman

24th December 2008, 04:44 PM

No, if she says roger has a vasectomy, and he doesn't, and then she doesn't count that as a miss, then that would be wrong. But if she can't tell if I have one or not, it's not a miss.

And if she says you have had one, and you say "Actually, one of my testicles is a prosthetic due to a rather awkward to explain injury.", she'll say "Ah ha! Testicles! A hit!"

Senex

24th December 2008, 07:08 PM

I don't trust UncaYimmy for a second (just look at his name) to represent my interests in a conversation with VFF. I'm trying to flirt and he thinks he can stop me by insisting I get his personal approval to speak. Well thank god for Malcolm in the Middle and I now have the self confidence to say ...

You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

Life is a test, but I confess
I like this mess I've made so far
Grade on a curve and you'll observe
I'm right below the horizon

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

desertgal

24th December 2008, 07:40 PM

Desertgal, I think almost everyone who’s fluent in American English would have made a similar interpretation. I certainly did, and I don’t feel that I need to apologize.

Thank you. :)

It’s my experience that people in ‘humble little towns’ tend to more impressed with the abilities of their neighbors, rather than less so.

I was thinking, in Anita's case, her townsfolk might be apprehensive of her, more than anything. Think of all the unwed pregnancies, tummy tucks, and breast implants she could detect with just one glance.

And if she truly "senses what other people are feeling", then so much for keeping mental illness a secret. Or emotions. Or, really, anything.

Maybe they weren't indifferent. Maybe they were just too scared to say anything. :D

desertgal

24th December 2008, 07:47 PM

It's a great thing that he has a passion and talent. Sounds like you're giving him just the opportunity and encouragement he needs.

We're sure trying to. :)

If he goes to a music school, he might fit right in. Many of us were extremely odd ducks in one way or another, and nobody minded--it was expected.

It has to be the right music school, though--the main thing is a good connection with at least one teacher, and time to do what he wants.

If it's not the right school (Berklee wasn't, for me, but NEC was) he may feel lost, and need time to recover, but it sounds like his passion is strong. Urban setting may be stressful--noisy, crowded, hectic. Some place like Oberlin is out of the city...

Someday, I hope. It depends on how well he advances in the other areas. But, even if he doesn't go further past high school, as long as he continues to find pleasure and solace in his music, that will be enough for me.

Bless you, if I may say so.:)

Thank you. :)

Happy Holidays to everyone here. :cool:

Uncayimmy

24th December 2008, 07:51 PM

You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

First off, yes, I *am* so big. Second, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Third, no give-backs.

Moochie

25th December 2008, 12:54 PM

Thank you. :)

I was thinking, in Anita's case, her townsfolk might be apprehensive of her, more than anything. Think of all the unwed pregnancies, tummy tucks, and breast implants she could detect with just one glance.

And if she truly "senses what other people are feeling", then so much for keeping mental illness a secret. Or emotions. Or, really, anything.

Maybe they weren't indifferent. Maybe they were just too scared to say anything. :D

"Anita's" use of the English language appears superior to that of many of the native English-speakers here, so I don't accept that she's from some "humble little town" in Sweden until I see some evidence.

M.

Uncayimmy

25th December 2008, 07:38 PM

"Anita's" use of the English language appears superior to that of many of the native English-speakers here, so I don't accept that she's from some "humble little town" in Sweden until I see some evidence.

What's the point of even saying something like that? What do you expect her to do? Produce a birth certificate and affidavits attesting to the humbleness of her small town? All because you think her English is better than many of the native speakers you know?

Here's a clue: lots of Europeans are taught English as a second language. Those who move here and attend college usually know it very well. And because they are taught it properly, they don't exhibit the same carelessness as native speakers.

My wife is from the humble little town of Ocseny, Hungary (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ocseny,+Hungary&sll=33.493248,-112.032958&sspn=0.011202,0.019312&g=2234+E+Fairmount+Ave,+Phoenix,+AZ+85016&ie=UTF8&ll=46.311011,18.748684&spn=0.074227,0.154495&z=13). She didn't come to the USA until she was an adult. I have several other close friends who as adults moved to the USA from non-English speaking European countries. All of them use English better than most people except that they don't get cultural references and miss some of the slang.

If you have a good ear/eye, you can recognize subtle things that sometimes indicate English is not their first language. One thing I've noticed is that while they can construct complex sentences, they don't always punctuate them properly. Anita definitely has some issues in that regard.

They also construct their sentences a bit differently. For example, Anita wrote, "All on my own and independently by using this ability I have obtained information..." Does that sound like a native speaker of English?

I take her word for it that she came from Sweden.

TheSkepticCanuck

25th December 2008, 08:29 PM

"Anita's" use of the English language appears superior to that of many of the native English-speakers here, so I don't accept that she's from some "humble little town" in Sweden until I see some evidence.

M.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I was in Turkey quite a few years ago, and the native tour guide spoke English fantastically. Better than most of the native English speakers I knew at the time, and even since. When asked about this, he said that their school system was such that everyone learned their native language, plus one other, and many chose English. It was just how the school system was set up. There are many in Europe who learn several languages. Switzerland is one that has several native languages, and many learn more than one. I think this is likely because most, if not all, European countries are so small, from our perspective.

Most countries are about the size of a US state, if not smaller. Imagine every state having its own language. People close to each other would naturally want to learn other languages, to communicate outside their own little part of the planet.

We won't even get into the Canadian perspective, since most of the Canadian provinces are bigger than a large percentage of Europe itself. Heck, even Texas is not terribly big as us Canucks measure such things. :D

Thus, I have no problem believing that she is from Sweden and communicates in English well, and more than I have a problem believing that someone from Canada or the US of A can't communicate well in English.

VisionFromFeeling

26th December 2008, 12:55 AM

Belz:
The best way to silence your critics (other than shooting them in the head) is to agree to a test protocol as soon as possible and proceed with the test.I am working on it. I must explain my perspective in this paranormal challenge application. I sent what I thought to be a well-thought through test protocol suggestion to the IIG (with whom I am arranging the test), and we are now still in the protocol negotiations stage. Progress is very slow. There is no "handbook for psychic claimants". It is I as the psychic claimant who has to design the test procedure. It is challenging to take a real-life experience or phenomenon and find a way to adapt it to a laboratory test setting, and this is where the work is at now. I need to test every single test condition to get experience with each specific detail of the test before I can answer whether it can be included on a test. Even if I may be quite clear as to how the perceptions work in real life, the test will take place in an environment that is entirely different. So I am now arranging to have a study sometime after the holidays to experience various test conditions and to gain more clarity into how to apply my everyday experience in a test setting. There is more work involved than I had thought at first, applying especially with a claim such as mine is not a straight forward process, but that does not make it an untestable claim. I am working on it, I promise.
I honestly hope you truly are ready to accept that your claim is false, if the results of the test should show this. The alternative, that we've seen in so many others, is to ignore the result of the test and continue to convince yourself that you were right all along, anyway. But that wouldn't be very practical, would it ?My objective in this investigation is to determine the source of the perceptions and the actual accuracy which will be revealed in a test setting. So I am fully prepared to accept any conclusion of the test. I am a scientist, there is nothing to be gained by holding on to misconceptions.
Okay... but could you tell emphysema from any other lung condition, for example ? And, if so, what's helping you make a diagnostic. If I had X-ray vision, for instance, how could I identify cavities in somebody's teeth if I don't have the necessary medical knowledge ?What helps me make a diagnose is to see the image of the illness, as well as perceive a feeling of the illness. What little I know about medical conditions is often enough to let me make the connection and describe what I see. In other cases I give a description of the illness if I do not know it by name. If you had my vision you would definitely identify cavities in the teeth if you saw it.
I strongly suggest you retract that statement. Even the best professionals make mistakes in their field, so it's very hard to believe that you would be 100% correct. As I told you about cloud-busting, those folks also think they only get hits because they tend not to notice the misses, or explain them away. Test or no test, the best thing you could do is to start noticing the misses.

And if you still think you've got a 100% success rate, then you should be in for quite a shock following the test.I will not take back that statement. I have often come across medical perceptions that seemed unlikely and impossible to me logically when I thought about it, or seemed so when I looked at the person with my eyesight to try to confirm the perception, so I have definitely been open to being incorrect, yet it has never happened. The upcoming study and tests will give plenty of opportunity for incorrect perceptions to be documented and revealed as such.

Diogenes:
When I said that my family is aware of the ability to some extent yet relatively unimpressed by it,
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds ? ( nice pun though ) Well then that is criticism aimed toward my family and not me, I can not control how others react. But I can imagine if I knew someone who gave accurate medical information and I couldn't do this myself, then over time I would get used to it as well and consider it just a part of who that person is and how they perceive. There is nothing to be gained by being in disbelief toward how I describe others react to my ability, when all I can state time after time is that I am being honest.

Ashles:
I'd like to build a hover car. Presumably if I study Physics (to deal with gravity), aerodynamics (so it's a good shape) and electrical engineering (so I can wire it all correctly) then I'll be able to build one?
The reason I have asked this is that your attitude towards science seems rather cavalier and without depth.And if you attended a good school they would encourage you to have creative ideas in physics. As you study your courses you would realize whether to drop your idea or perhaps to focus on some detail aspect of it, such as levitation technologies. I have a fellow optics student whose dream project is to build teleportation technologies. No one is discouraging him, he will find out for himself whether it is a plausible research interest in this time. Besides my research ideas are very interesting and encouraged, there is plenty of work being done in the rearrangement of physical structures with the use of light.
If you want to create entirely new devices based on new scientific concepts (which you can't describe or understand except referring vaguely to 'vibration') then there has to be some form of facts or discipline to build on. Without that your wishes are no different to me declaring I wish to build a hover car using 'ionising gravity reverse pulsations'.What I refer to vibration will be supplied by radiation, light, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic fields, and maybe other concepts as well. All of these can be constructed to contain structured variations that yield complex effects in the matter with which they interact.
And if you want an understanding of human tissue wouldn't biology or medicine be more appropriate than chemistry? Biochemistry or physiology perhaps? Anatomy?I think chemistry will give me a fundamental foundation for my understanding of what tissue is composed of, and the interaction between light and matter on the quantum physics level which is where some of it takes place. I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.
(N.B. If you want to build these new devices based on known technology and theories then that's fine, makes sense and I apologise as I may have got the wrong end of the stick. That might be because you haven't detailed what specific devices or technology you would be using. Please, assume we can keep up with any scientific details you provide.)I won't deny that my research ideas in science come from the perceptions I have, however I will apply a pure scientific approach to these ideas. Much of the science and technology that will be applied to my research is available and established (even if without depth), but I believe I will attempt to introduce new concepts, such as vibrational information, light structures, etc, and of course in a manner that is pure and acceptable science.
Often with these claims (almost every time in fact) what the claimant is themselves perceiving and how they feel about the claim is very relevant.
A lot can be learnt by the descriptions of the sensations, the feelings, emotional weight attached to abilities etc.In that case take what I say to you about my feelings about the perceptions as my honest attempt of truth and do not argue with what I have said, trying to get a different answer from me or making me admit to something else. No progress comes from that, just wasted thread-space.
I have a degree in Experimental Psychology Very good, I'm glad we have you here.
Let me be clear. I do not believe you really think such an ability is or would be considered mundane or normal, and your behaviour reinforces my stance.
Repeating the analogy over and over will not change my opinion.And I will not change my opinion that to me, the perceptions are a normal part of how I perceive, just like vision and hearing. However I do understand that my perceptions are not normal to others, who do not have them. I think we are both right.
But I don't believe you are being entirely truthful in your descriptions of how you feel about your claimed ability.
I could be wrong, and I accept that. At the moment only independent testing is going to change my opinion, not requests or instructions to accept your statements as true.All I can say is that I do my best to be as honest as I can.
A certain amount of research or questions regarding the claimant have been known to quickly call their credibility into question to a degree that it has meant less time was wasted in trying to form protocols that were unlikely to happen.Well I understand if that is what you are doing. I hope you can all see that so far I have shown no reasons for having poor credibility. Of course my claim is unconventional, however I am totally sincere in the perceptions I have. Also every aspect of my personal life that has been brought up here, such as my educational background, has all been thoroughly scrutinized by everyone and I think nothing has come up to give reason to seriously doubt my sincerety.

UncaYimmy:
How you are going to disprove ESP while at the same time maintain your belief that you are actually having perceptions? I'm continually amazed that you are not considering that your "perceptions" could be your imagination.After a long discussion with Ashles several pages ago we both concluded that "perception" would be the word that refers to the images and information I perceive, whose origin and accuracy are to be determined by the test. We also agreed that "perception" would also imply that it has not been determined whether the perceptions are based on information from our real, mutual world or whether they are constructed by some form of subjective imagination. That is what is meant by the word. The perceptions will continue no matter what the outcome of the test is, but a test should give understanding as to what the perceptions are. This is a wording issue, UncaYimmy.

Ashles:
But it muddies the water when Anita also posts sentences like that that sort of give the impression that the perceptions are definitely real, but the only question is whether they are ESP or not.The perceptions are real in the sense that I see and feel them, that is what I have meant. As to what their origin is, whether they are "real" as being part of our real, mutual world, or whether they are totally subjective to me, does not change the fact that the perceptions remain and are "real" to me in the sense that I perceive them. I hope this clarifies the issue.

desertgal:
Yes, you did. You did so by even beginning this thread. You had the expectation that you could come here, post a link to your website, and people here would offer you analysis on those "observations" and help you develop a protocol for testing. If you didn't expect any of us to take them as evidence, since they were all you had to offer, you wouldn't have come here in the first place. Incorrect. I document the perceptions I have on my website since I was specifically asked by Forum members to do so, so that we could have examples of what I perceive. We have all thoroughly agreed that those anecdotal experiences do not count as formal evidence toward an ability. Those anecdotes can however be used as background with which to better construct a test protocol, since they show some of the specifics of my claim. I am here so far without any documented, official evidence toward my claim, and I am here anyway.
I beg to differ. I think most people have remained objective. However, ALL your claims, taken together, strain credulity to the breaking point. As well, you contradict yourself repeatedly. You only wish for your claims in this thread to be taken into consideration regarding your ability, but ALL your claims point towards your credibility. True, yet I have said that the other aspects of the perceptions occur less frequently and that I consider them to not be testable to the degree that the main part of my claim is.

Speaking of my ghost experiences (which you quoted from other threads), I am planning to start an investigations group into haunted sites, where I will participate both with the electronic equipment and mainly as the psychic. Our investigations will be made available on film over our website (which will be set up shortly). It is not intended to be taken as scientific fact, since it will not always be possible to verify our experiences in the investigation, such as whether we in fact felt a hand or a cold presence move by, and also since any measurements made with what "equipment" we will have, such as EVP, E.M., or thermal, can perhaps not be assumed to have a connection with the presence of human consciousness from people of the past. I will however do my best to collect historical data which can be checked against records. It will mainly be intended for entertainment purposes and as an interesting investigation into historical sites and into the lives of people of the past. I will keep you all updated.

Some of the contradiction you try to point out, where it appears that I say both that I will always believe that I have ESP, and that I would accept if I didn't have ESP, arise from the fact that I state that I will always continue to have the perceptions and therefore will always believe that I have the perceptions, but that their origin, source, and accuracy might become established. There is no contradiction going on, just a misunderstanding on your part perhaps since I have not been clear enough.

And no, I do not dispense medical information based on these perceptions to people. I only do this with friends and family. What I meant was that I do not publicly do this and am not tempted to because of my strong sense of responsibility.
Somehow, I find it really doubtful that you go into this whole long spiel every single time a family or friend 'nonchalantly' comes to you for a 'diagnosis'. In any event, when you get the chance, take a look at http://www.stopsylvia.com A waiver doesn't dictate human emotion or pain when a "psychic" makes a wrong observation. You can have all the waivers you want - it isn't going to stop someone, somewhere, from getting hurt when they 'nonchalantly' trust what you are saying, and it turns out not to be accurate.You are arguing at me for the wrong reason. I do not dispense medical information to people, especially since I am humble enough to realize that I could be wrong. And people don't come to me for a diagnose. I am the one who asks them if I could practice an attempt of psychic medical diagnose with them, because I am curious about what I am perceiving, so I do it in the comfort and safety of my home, with people and in situations where no one can get hurt.

I have expressed interest in doing this with people, however I am reluctant to do so. There is no discrepancy as I see it.
My opinion remains that you are delusional and self deceptive. It's not a condemnation. The human mind is a complex software, and it's also fallible. Everyone suffers breaks from reality - sometimes big, sometimes small. There's no shame in seeking help. But, please, don't state that my opinion is unfounded. It isn't.My opinion to proceed with an investigation into my perceptions is also not unfounded. And this investigation is why I am here. I perceive medical information to an apparent good accuracy and intend to investigate their source and actual accuracy. I don't see what I am doing wrong in any of this.

Diogenes:
When your claimed ability is " detecting ailments ", wouldn't failing to detect an ailment when there is one, a clear failure of the claimed ability ?I don't think so, but why don't you guys tell me? My claim is not to detect every case of an ailment that is considered to be there, so when I do not detect something in a certain case I should still be within my claim. I claim that there is a possible ability for detecting ailments, but that it is not a super ability since it can only detect the "strongest" and "clearest" cases of ailments. Kind of like a metal detector. What if you had a metal detector that can find the larger objects, but not the very insignificantly small ones, it would still be a metal detector, albeit a bad one. I might be a psychic, who knows, but a bad one! ;) The accuracy of what I do claim to perceive will be checked, and in a test will be ailments that are not detectable by ordinary means of perception, and the paranormal claim is then falsifiable.

Skeptical Greg

26th December 2008, 05:50 AM

You don't think so ?
Of course you don't...

How good is a gas leak detector that fails to detect most leaks ?

A Geiger counter that doesn't detect some radiation ?

You claim to have superior resolution to an MRI .. That would be easy to verify, yet you refuse to actually be tested for such
an ability under controlled conditions. That makes you a liar .

...you guys tell me?

We have told you..

What you claim is a super ability.. One that you clearly don't have.

That is why we will never see the results of a controlled test; or if we do, we will be hearing rationalized excuses from you, about why you failed.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 07:30 AM

desertgal:
Incorrect. I document the perceptions I have on my website since I was specifically asked by Forum members to do so, so that we could have examples of what I perceive. We have all thoroughly agreed that those anecdotal experiences do not count as formal evidence toward an ability. Those anecdotes can however be used as background with which to better construct a test protocol, since they show some of the specifics of my claim. I am here so far without any documented, official evidence toward my claim, and I am here anyway.

No, not incorrect. My point was that you always intended for members here to take those anecdotes as evidence. Your claim that you never expected anyone here to believe them is pure ********. That was exactly your expectation. You can twist words as much you want, Anita. In plain English, it always comes back to the same thing - you came here with the expectation that people here would accept your anecdotes as evidence. How many more times would you like me to say that?

And no, I do not dispense medical information based on these perceptions to people. I only do this with friends and family.

Wrong. I mean, how many times do I have to point this out, Anita? Your very own words contradict that statement.

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #81 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4259686&postcount=81): "I'd love to meet your wife and I am sure I could describe her ailments to her in the exact way as she perceives them. If I detect an alternative treatment I can suggest it however I am not entitled to take the place of conventional medicine."

From Your website (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html): "Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."

"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him.

And, it doesn't matter WHO you dispense medical information to. It's irresponsible that you do it at all. Period.

What I meant was that I do not publicly do this and am not tempted to...

I have expressed interest in doing this with people, however I am reluctant to do so.

Yeah, those two sentences don't contradict each other at all. :rolleyes:

...because of my strong sense of responsibility.

If you had a strong sense of responsibility, you would have never and would not dispense medical information, based on this alleged ability, to anyone. Period.

Speaking of my ghost experiences (which you quoted from other threads), I am planning to start an investigations group into haunted sites, where I will participate both with the electronic equipment and mainly as the psychic. Our investigations will be made available on film over our website (which will be set up shortly)...

Oh, let me guess. You are gonna call it the Winston Salem Paranormal Society (http://wsparanormalsociety.com/), right?

Couldn't care less about your "ghost experiences", Anita. I quoted them to point out how deeply delusional you actually are, even if you are the only one here who can't see that.

I will keep you all updated.

Yeah, because that's what everyone here is looking for. How your paranormal society is going. :rolleyes:

I do not dispense medical information to people, especially since I am humble enough to realize that I could be wrong. And people don't come to me for a diagnose. I am the one who asks them if I could practice an attempt of psychic medical diagnose with them, because I am curious about what I am perceiving, so I do it in the comfort and safety of my home, with people and in situations where no one can get hurt.

More contradictions. You "don't dispense medical information to people", but you do "attempt psychic medical diagnose...in the comfort and safety of your own home, with people and in situations where no one can get hurt?"

Yeah. Right, Anita. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

There is no contradiction going on, just a misunderstanding on your part perhaps since I have not been clear enough.

Oh, that's right. You don't offer contradictions - it everyone else's misinterpretation. The battle cry of woo claimants everywhere. :rolleyes:

UncaYimmy has offered you a great opportunity to avoid being misinterpreted with the interview thread. It would certainly help you clarify your claim. Perhaps you should take it, and avoid the morass of alleged misunderstanding this thread has become.

In other words, quit debating minutiae and get down to your claim itself.

Pup

26th December 2008, 08:05 AM

Concerning Anita's claims that people who know her don't think her abilities are remarkable...

I can understand that. Most people in the world, I think, have a vague sense that there are all these "unexplained things" like ESP, psychics, ghosts, gods, the power of prayer, and so forth, which might be true, you never know. They don't react as skeptics do, with the immediate comprehension that if this is the one time this ability is real, it'll change our understanding of the world forever, and therefore they don't have a desire to find out if it's real by testing it under increasingly stricter circumstances. Their understanding of the world already includes the possibility of this stuff. So they just shrug it off. Oh, so-and-so knows about ghosts. So-and-so will say a blessing for you. And so forth.

When I had blistered and swollen feet after a multi-day hike, a friend and I ran into a "psychic healer" who offered to treat me as a favor. She sat me down, had me put my feet up, and did the usual woo woo waving of hands and so forth. I told her that I felt absolutely nothing beyond the benefit of having my feet up, which I'd already been doing whenever I had a chance. Several times, I saw she was trying to lead me to give her credit for natural phenomenon, such as my feet feeling cooler and less swollen when elevated. Obviously, if she'd been able to affect my feet solely by waving her hands a few inches away and thinking about them, the world as we know it would be changed.

I asked the fellow with me if he believed what she claimed. He shrugged and said there are a lot of things that can't be explained, but didn't seem to think it a big deal one way or the other. The healer's friend also seemed skeptical of her, but mildly benign, kinda like, that's not my thing but that's her thing.

For some people, paranormal claims are like religion: they're taught not to confront someone's paranormal beliefs anymore than they'd suggest a double-blind study to the neighbor who offered to pray for their sick relative.

I picture that Anita's friends probably have similar reactions.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 08:34 AM

For some people, paranormal claims are like religion: they're taught not to confront someone's paranormal beliefs anymore than they'd suggest a double-blind study to the neighbor who offered to pray for their sick relative.

I picture that Anita's friends probably have similar reactions.

Okay, that's fair. I don't think anyone here would argue that that is quite likely to be the case.

What we have disagreed with is Anita's claim that her friends and family (and a small town in Sweden) apparently believe in her ability 100%, come to her often for psychic medical diagnose...and yet are indifferent to the fact that she has this ability. You must admit, THAT point of view is pretty nonsensical.

Jeff Corey

26th December 2008, 08:52 AM

Belz:
I am working on it...

What happened to that discussion with Unca Jimmy? He asked some questions two days ago on that special thread (way down the page) and you are wasting time responding here?

Moochie

26th December 2008, 10:25 AM

Thus, I have no problem believing that she is from Sweden and communicates in English well, and more than I have a problem believing that someone from Canada or the US of A can't communicate well in English.

Feel free to "burst my bubble"! Until the age of 6 and a half I spoke only German. From 1956 onward I learned to speak and write in English, and I have been making a living at correcting others' written English for the past three decades.

I frequently IM with relatives in Germany, in English; that and the fact that I live in a cosmopolitan city in Australia which is teeming with people whose second language is English makes me well aware of how many Europeans and others learn English as a matter of course.

And to complicate matters even more for those who would "educate" me, my wife is from Canada, but doesn't speak French. Instead, she speaks German, which is her second language.

M.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 10:39 AM

Feel free to "burst my bubble"! Until the age of 6 and a half I spoke only German. From 1956 onward I learned to speak and write in English, and I have been making a living at correcting others' written English for the past three decades.

I frequently IM with relatives in Germany, in English; that and the fact that I live in a cosmopolitan city in Australia which is teeming with people whose second language is English makes me well aware of how many Europeans and others learn English as a matter of course.

And to complicate matters even more for those who would "educate" me, my wife is from Canada, but doesn't speak French. Instead, she speaks German, which is her second language.

M.

Well, in Anita's case, it's an easy enough question to answer. She hasn't been here many years, so she would, likely, still have an accent. There are two people who post here who have met her personally. They could certainly say one way or the other.

Moochie

26th December 2008, 10:54 AM

Well, in Anita's case, it's an easy enough question to answer. She hasn't been here many years, so she would, likely, still have an accent. There are two people who post here who have met her personally. They could certainly say one way or the other.

You're right, of course. Not that it's a big issue. The only issue, really, is that this person submit to a proper test of the claimed "ability." With every further post from this person my BS meter nudges further into the red. That last post positively made me laugh out loud.

M.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 11:15 AM

The only issue, really, is that this person submit to a proper test of the claimed "ability." With every further post from this person my BS meter nudges further into the red. That last post positively made me laugh out loud.
M.

I'm surprised the needle on your BS meter hasn't broken off from sheer overuse. :D

The problem, I think, is this: While Anita pays lip service to the suggestion that her alleged ability is merely imagination/hallucinations/delusions, if a test should indicate that, she isn't going to believe it. So, all the discussion about protocols and tests and "studies" is fruitless. She "sees" what she "sees".

My dad suffered from Alzheimer's, and a side effect was that he also suffered from delusions. For example, about a year before his death, I came home from work to find him very upset because, he said, two men had come over the back fence, broken into the house, and stolen his computer tower. Point of fact, I had taken his tower into my office to repair it. Another time, he insisted that my mother had come in and helped him choose some clothes. Point of fact was that my mother had been dead for years.

He "saw" what he "saw". He may have, like Anita, paid lip service to it being an hallucination, but he still would have continued to believe that what his mind told him was true. I see the same thing happening here. It's one of the reasons the goalposts keep moving, and why she fails to look at her perceptions objectively. Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her.

Moochie

26th December 2008, 11:46 AM

I'm surprised the needle on your BS meter hasn't broken off from sheer overuse. :D

Yeah, I didn't want to seem to be exaggerating. :)

The problem, I think, is this: While Anita pays lip service to the suggestion that her alleged ability is merely imagination/hallucinations/delusions, if a test should indicate that, she isn't going to believe it. So, all the discussion about protocols and tests and "studies" is fruitless. She "sees" what she "sees".

My dad suffered from Alzheimer's, and a side effect was that he also suffered from delusions. For example, about a year before his death, I came home from work to find him very upset because, he said, two men had come over the back fence, broken into the house, and stolen his computer tower. Point of fact, I had taken his tower into my office to repair it. Another time, he insisted that my mother had come in and helped him choose some clothes. Point of fact was that my mother had been dead for years.

He "saw" what he "saw". He may have, like Anita, paid lip service to it being an hallucination, but he still would have continued to believe that what his mind told him was true. I see the same thing happening here. It's one of the reasons the goalposts keep moving, and why she fails to look at her perceptions objectively. Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her.

That opens up a rather unfortunate possibility, which I sincerely hope isn't the case.

M.

Uncayimmy

26th December 2008, 12:02 PM

What happened to that discussion with Unca Jimmy? He asked some questions two days ago on that special thread (way down the page) and you are wasting time responding here?

There's no knowing how long it will take a moderator to approve a post, so for all we know she could have replied already. I know it took several hours for mine to make it.

At least the fears of her not posting in this thread have been alleviated.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 12:50 PM

That opens up a rather unfortunate possibility, which I sincerely hope isn't the case.
M.

What? Sorry, you lost me. I can think of several unfortunate possibilities, but not sure which you are referring to.

Moochie

26th December 2008, 01:13 PM

What? Sorry, you lost me. I can think of several unfortunate possibilities, but not sure which you are referring to.

The possibility that the author of these posts is stark raving bonkers.

M.

desertgal

26th December 2008, 01:37 PM

The possibility that the author of these posts is stark raving bonkers.
M.

In fairness, I can think of a lot of people I know who wouldn't be willing to believe their mind might be playing tricks on them.

I don't know if Anita is stark raving bonkers. Given all her claims, and how far she has taken them, though, I do think she's lost touch with reality. I doubt she will admit that, either.

JWideman

27th December 2008, 11:33 AM

You don't have to be crazy to be deluded, but it helps.

Jeff Corey

27th December 2008, 11:40 AM

Still waiting to see that discussion with Unca Yimmy. Three days and counting...

Moochie

27th December 2008, 12:14 PM

Still waiting to see that discussion with Unca Yimmy. Three days and counting...

I guess "Anita" does have some sort of life away from here. Probably doing some Christmassy medical "diagnose" for friends and family. Oesophageal reflux anyone?

M.

VisionFromFeeling

27th December 2008, 05:53 PM

Old man:
It’s “so clear that they are hard to ignore”, it’s “a daily occurrence”, you “can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time”, but you “only rarely … choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person”? Say what?When the perceptions come from health information that is more severe, the information is often so strong and clear that it is hard to ignore. I detect something in persons every day, even though not necessarily a health problem. And other than the information that comes to me on its own, I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely.
Don’t worry about ‘checking for accuracy’. ‘Checking for accuracy’ is unnecessary at this point. Do you think you get ‘vibrational info’ with respect to appendectomies, or not?I have never been under the impression of detecting appendectomy, but I will need to meet a person who has had an appendectomy in order for me to find out if I am able to detect these. This is most likely among the information that I will detect only when I make a conscious effort, or the "head-to-toe" reading, since it is not a health problem that would be bright on its own. An appendectomy involves a medical procedure which does not disturb the body once it has been done. I hope that the study I am planning will answer some of these questions about what I can and can not do.
In my specific case, I’m more skeptical of your perception that others do not find you ‘special’.Oh well.
Anita, we know that they’re “true to you”, really we do. But you keep insisting that they’re REAL.They're real in the way that I really perceive them, and they're real in the sense that the accuracy has so far appeared to be good. That does not say that they'd be real ESP, until proven so.
Then you now have another extraordinary power to add to your list – a 100% accurate memory! Congratulations!Especially when it comes to the "anecdotes" on my observations page, I made sure to document all results of apparent accuracy, whether in favor toward ESP or not, and was not documenting them from memory long ago, but right away shortly after they had taken place.
You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!What you are suggesting sounds to me more like what I would call a survey, rather than the study I am planning. You suggest that I collect information about what types of ailments I detect and how often I detect them relative to the number of people I read, but without the opportunity of checking with the persons in whom I have sensed the health information what the accuracy would be. It is a good idea and would surely be a step in the right direction toward a test, however I intend to go ahead with the study instead, in which the apparent accuracy of the perceptions will also be noted. A study however requires a little more planning than a survey. For the study I intend to do, I would first have to find out whether it is legal to involve personal health information of volunteering persons in a study of this form.
No, Anita. If I suddenly thought that I could detect breast implants (in women, Locknar!), for a quick and dirty test I’d just go to the mall, look at a number of women, write down how many I looked at and how many I was sure had had implants, and post that info here tomorrow. If I didn’t ‘see’ any implants, I post that either there were in fact none to be seen, or that I may have been wrong about my ‘power’. Simple, easy, and something that you just refuse to do.This what I call a survey is a very good idea, I do not refuse it. However I am planning something beyond a survey: a study, in which an attempt to establish the accuracy of perceptions is included.
And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do!Working on it, planning it, not intentionally postponing it.

Locknar:
VFF - I think it fair to say, as Desertgal has excellently pointed you have no idea what you are saying/claiming; to many contradictions. My suggestion is you overhaul your website, state in plain English what your claim is, loose all the anecdotal stories (ie. campfire stories) since they are pure "woo woo", and go from there.My claim is to detect health information that is considered to be not detectable by ordinary senses of perception which include any combination of vision, hearing, sound, scent, or cold reading of body language etc. I have learnt a lot from participating in this Forum and the website will be updated. I will not remove the anecdotal examples of perceptions, because I was specificly asked by Forum members to document examples and also because I consider the anecdotes to be a contribution in the investigation. I do realize that the anecdotes are not formal evidence, however they are not pure woo since, although so far they are without formal evidence to back it up, they are accurate representations of real life experiences.

roger:
edit: and, of course, just about any medical test has false positives and negatives. Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.The degree to which I do not detect health information has not been established, but I hope to do so with the upcoming study. I prepare myself and those that will arrange the test with me to a possible wider range of limit than what will actually turn out to be necessary, so that I will not come back with new information and be requesting freer ranges than what I had initially asked for. This way, the better I come to understand how to conform the perceptions to a test setting can only end up simplifying the test procedure, and not the other way around.

desertgal:
I agree that the documentation of the anecdotal experiences of perceptions can be improved on.
Refine your claim. You say have this ability, then you say you don't. You say that you don't care if it is ESP or not-but you have made other claims that relate to ESP, so the unspoken interpretation is that, regardless of any test results, you do think it is ESP. As well, it doesn't cover this or that medical condition, or it does cover this or that medical condition, or it works with chemicals, or it doesn't work with chemicals, etc, etc, etc...sit down, write it out, edit it, edit it some more, and refine it. Simplify the bejeebers out of it. Right now, nobody is sure what you are claiming.The claim I want to have tested is the perception of health information from people I look at, in cases where the information should not be accessible by ordinary senses. Regardless of the test results I will still think I have the perceptions since they continue no matter how they come to be described by conclusions of a test. Depending on the test results I might find out whether the source of the perceptions is ESP or something else. I am not entitled to conclude as to whether it in fact is ESP or not and have not labeled it as ESP. Not all things considered to be medical conditions are equivalent in that which makes them what they are.
Those are my suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em.Taking them.

Miss Kitt:
This is the post where Anita learns to hate meNot at all. Still love you.
If every person can be read, than why is there all this allowance in the proposed testing protocol for "passes" for not getting any information? Since doing a focussed reading can be done on any person, how can there be anyone who will not show something on a viewing? (Unless somehow someone is in perfect health and has never had a surgical intervention or broken bone.) VFF's ability cannot be able to work, X-ray-like, to show tissues, and then somehow fail to find some surgical incisions/removals and not others.It is true that I detect some health related information in all persons, but that does not necessarily include all information, or the information that I was supposed to find on a test. All information is different in the "vibrational signature" which I think the perceptions are based on. And each case of the same type of information is different in different cases and different people. All persons I view will reveal some information, but not necessarily the information I am requested to find on a test. I have not yet established the extent of what I do and do not detect and hopefully the upcoming study will bring insight into this. The ability is not quite like X-ray technology. I believe to be detecting vibrational information, and every fractured bone is different from another, each having a vibrational signature to different extents.
Anita, can you see why I am puzzled by this? It just does not logically follow that you can always see people's insides, but somehow be wrong for some conditions but not others. You say, for instance, you can see formerly broken bones, would you wish to alter that to say, "I can see a broken fibula, but not a tibia?" or "I can see a once-broken arm, but not a collarbone?" Those kinds of limitations would apply to seeing things that make visible, if minute, changes in the shape or motion of the area of the body, but not to seeing inside.I have not established a comprehensive list of all health information I do and do not detect. Although all fractured bones go by the same name "fractured bones", they are each unique. I would not say that one bone is easier to detect than another, but each fracture has occurred to a different extent. I haven't established the extent of when the perceptions work and when they don't. I am simply stating that I might not detect something sometimes just in case I don't on a test. All cases of ailments that are involved in a test will be considered undetectable by ordinary means of perception.
I see you still fail to include the possibility that there is no ability, just a healthy dollop of imagination and some subconscious processing. This is different from an untestable claim.No it is definitely among the possible explanations of the medical perceptions. Don't make me search the records and present plenty of quotes where I have stated this.
You have stated clearly and repeatedly that you know your perceptions exist and are 'real'; you have said that every time you have checked, they are accurate. But at the same time, you say that you have not concluded that the images are formed from actual information??My perceptions exist and are real in the sense that I experience them. That does not mean to imply that their origin has been established. And yes every time I have checked they have appeared to be accurate. But that is not to say that there can not be inaccurate perceptions in the future. And the origin of the perceptions has not been concluded; whether they are based on information from our real, mutual world, or from my subjective imagination.
And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.
Once again, the bald declaration of superb imaging -- if this is true, how can there be conditions you don't perceive? Specifically, how can there be some surgical removals (vasectomy) that you perceive, and some that you don't?When I do have medical perceptions the quality of them is beyond the capabilities of X-ray imaging. The image involves not only bone but all tissues and in great detail, and with information about texture, temperature, feeling, etc, which an X-ray does not do. Each medical perception is unique. I would love to elaborate but I have been specificly told by Forum members not to present theories about how the ability works. :confused: I will eventually post an elaborate description on my website.
By the way, I would also like to know--squeamish folks, skip to the signature--if you can detect hemorrhoids? An easy place to test this is on any park playground. Look at the mothers of small (under age 2) children, and see if any of them show one. Statistically, you are tremendously likely to encounter at least one; especially in mothers with one baby and a couple of young kids. Trust me, this is (A) abnormal to the body, (B) intermittantly very painful, and (C)commonplace.I do not recall having been under the impression of detecting this ailment. It would possibly fall under the type of ailments that do not catch my attention on their own. Such are ailments that I detect only when I search the body in what I call a "head-to-toe" reading to detect anything that is out of the ordinary. I hope to establish in the upcoming study exactly what ailments I do and do not detect.

Jeff Corey

27th December 2008, 06:06 PM

desertgal

27th December 2008, 06:15 PM

Locknar:
I do realize that the anecdotes are not formal evidence, however they are not pure woo since, although so far they are without formal evidence to back it up, they are accurate representations of real life experiences.

They most certainly are not "accurate representations". You don't "document" anything. You simply repeatedly claim that you "envisioned" this or that medical ailment and that your "perception" was "accurate". You provide absolutely no background information which might indicate that your anecdotes are nothing but fantasy.

Woo. Pure woo.

desertgal

27th December 2008, 06:17 PM

Now it's about 2300 words here and you still haven't answered UncaYimmy.
I don't think you are as crazy as some other people here do, I have worked with real ******** crazy people. I think you are merely a liar.

She won't answer UncaYimmy. His questions require specific answers, with no wiggle room. She wouldn't want to tie herself down to anything she can't wall o'text herself out of.

This whole thing has gone beyond ridiculous. You are a fraud, Anita. Whether you realize it or not, you are a fraud. Nobody has the type of vision you describe. Not you, not anyone. It is absurd to even suggest that you do. Your "perceptions" are nothing more than hallucinations conjured up by a mind that lost touch with reality long ago. You will just continue to attempt to yank everyone's chain while you blabber on endlessly about your fantasies of medical diagnosis, dinosaur ghosts, and talking with the animals.

TheSkepticCanuck

27th December 2008, 06:58 PM

This whole thing has gone beyond ridiculous. You are a fraud, Anita. Whether you realize it or not, you are a fraud. Nobody has the type of vision you describe. Not you, not anyone. It is absurd to even suggest that you do. Your "perceptions" are nothing more than hallucinations conjured up by a mind that lost touch with reality long ago. You will just continue to attempt to yank everyone's chain while you blabber on endlessly about your fantasies of medical diagnosis, dinosaur ghosts, and talking with the animals.

If her claims were real and verifiable, she'd be rich by the new year, from the sale of the movie and television rights alone! The CW network would be all over that potential show! Think House MD meets Ghost Whisperer meets Dr. Doolittle. The storylines would be incredible!

Akhenaten

27th December 2008, 10:02 PM

Clearly, what's needed is a study of the tests carried out so far, including a survey of the trials which have been conducted. Is there any way to work in an analysis?

Miss_Kitt

27th December 2008, 11:51 PM

I would like to wish the Happiest of Holiday Seasons to all who have persevered through this thread!

The patience, persistance, and overall kindness of the posters--those who suspect ESP and those who suspect imagination gone wild alike--has made me proud of the Forum and the value it represents.

It's also excellent entertainment, especially when we're snowed in.

Excelsior! Miss Kitt

PS To Anita/VFF -- I now understand the agreed value of "perceptions" as a term, and I won't nag about it anymore. In your posts, the term "perceptions" means the visions/feelings you experience, with no implication of their cause or veracity. I think if we all agree to that definition, it will simplify things a bit.

Locknar

28th December 2008, 06:56 AM

My claim is to detect health information that is considered to be not detectable by ordinary senses of perception which include any combination of vision, hearing, sound, scent, or cold reading of body language etc. That's a start, though I'd suggest also inaccurate. If you insist you must view the person in order for you to do what claim you can do (along with everything else, you have waffled on this point)...you can not summarily rule out "cold reading". But of course you knew this already.

We have talked in PMs several times on the topic of being specific & quantifying your statements/claims. After our conversations, and this thread, the best you can do is "my claim is to detect health information"?

Specifically what health information in whom, how often can you do this (ie. at will, several times a day, etc.), under what specific conditions, etc. to start with. This is a power you claim to have always had...surly these are easy questions given a lifetime of this "power."

I will not remove the anecdotal examples of perceptions, because I was specificly asked by Forum members to document examples and also because I consider the anecdotes to be a contribution in the investigation.While forum members may have asked, your website had these campfire stories long before you came here. To claim or otherwise imply you posted your stories soley because of Forum member requests is false.

I do realize that the anecdotes are not formal evidence, however they are not pure woo since, although so far they are without formal evidence to back it up, they are accurate representations of real life experiences.For someone who proclaims themselves a scientist, your mis-perceptions in this area are staggering.

Your website/bloged anecdotes are nothing more then campfire stories, based on your perception and interpretation of events that may have occurred. They are not accurate nor are they evidence of anything.

Senex

28th December 2008, 08:37 AM

First off, yes, I *am* so big. Second, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Third, no give-backs.

I was just checkmated by someone who may not be as smart as me. That's the story of my life.

Reno

28th December 2008, 08:46 AM

re the 'replies from page blah-blah' style of posting from VFF: I love my mouse scroll wheel.

skeen

28th December 2008, 09:51 AM

When you step outside of the box, it's really quite hilarious isn't it? I can type on a keyboard - this is easy to prove. I can think of thousands of ways to prove it is true. I can do it, so I can do it, so I can do it.

When it comes to woo woo's (and I think we can very well classify Anita as one of those by now!), it's utterly impossible to prove their abilities. She has all the opportunities open to her in the world to prove them, but it hasn't happened.

Instead, she posts excruciating ramblings in this thread, resulting in absolutely nothing whatsoever. They serve only to prolong her delusion. I told you - there will be no real test.

Anita: no-one believes you. Moreover, I think you're a liar. And you do not have synaesthesia.

Gord_in_Toronto

28th December 2008, 10:24 AM

re the 'replies from page blah-blah' style of posting from VFF: I love my mouse scroll wheel.

If you find your fingers getting numb, try using the auto-scroll function ("3rd" mouse button + scroll wheel) and (at least in Mozilla) you can get the text to scroll up the screen at a comfortable reading speed.

Oh, and I see nothing has happened yet. And I seem to be out of appropriate quotes.

biomorph

28th December 2008, 10:51 AM

VFF....

I'm not sure about what you've posted here, some questions...if you please.

I am working on it.

Great. Be nice to see some results at some point...

I must explain my perspective in this paranormal challenge application.

Why, it won't change the results, will it?

I sent what I thought to be a well-thought through test protocol suggestion to the IIG (with whom I am arranging the test), and we are now still in the protocol negotiations stage. Progress is very slow.

Maybe you might have consulted them first.
You might need to re-define the meaning of "well thought out".

There is no "handbook for psychic claimants".

I thought there were a few previous tests?
Claiments also usually have access to the "terms and conditions". Always.

It is I as the psychic claimant who has to design the test procedure.

Depends.

It is challenging to take a real-life experience or phenomenon and find a way to adapt it to a laboratory test setting, and this is where the work is at now.

You shouldn't have to adapt it. Otherwise you might miss something. Maybe you should devise tests that don't need that adaption? Dunno. Maybe thats what you mean..

I need to test every single test condition to get experience with each specific detail of the test before I can answer whether it can be included on a test.

Thats a lot words and saying nothing.
Except at some point you'll give up saying you hav'nt the time etc get out? Eh? All those tests.!

Even if I may be quite clear as to how the perceptions work in real life, the test will take place in an environment that is entirely different.

Not so much as to stop the thing you think you can do from working, remember.
Should it be real in the first place, ....

The test must show it either works , or it doesn't.

So I am now arranging to have a study sometime after the holidays to experience various test conditions and to gain more clarity into how to apply my everyday experience in a test setting.

Putting off the inevitable, won't change the result.

There is more work involved than I had thought at first, applying especially with a claim such as mine is not a straight forward process, but that does not make it an untestable claim. I am working on it, I promise.

sure?

My objective in this investigation is to determine the source of the perceptions and the actual accuracy which will be revealed in a test setting.

Not to see if it works in reality then?

I mean to test that the perception exist to start with?

Source? Of what?

Test to see if it is there first, then were it might come from.

should save you some time.....

So I am fully prepared to accept any conclusion of the test. I am a scientist, there is nothing to be gained by holding on to misconceptions.

I 'll hold you to that, and claiming you are one is not proof of being so....somehow I detect dissapointment looming..

What helps me make a diagnose is to see the image of the illness, as well as perceive a feeling of the illness.

Which is correlated how? what mechanism ties in what you think it is, compared to what it actually is. Linkage.

How? If cholera is "yellow", why?

What little I know about medical conditions is often enough to let me make the connection and describe what I see.

Inverse snobbery.
No it's not enough for me., the little you know.

You might get it wrong.

In other cases I give a description of the illness if I do not know it by name. If you had my vision you would definitely identify cavities in the teeth if you saw it.

right

I will not take back that statement. I have often come across medical perceptions that seemed unlikely and impossible to me logically when I thought about it, or seemed so when I looked at the person with my eyesight to try to confirm the perception, so I have definitely been open to being incorrect, yet it has never happened.

Always a first time. Are you ready?

The upcoming study and tests will give plenty of opportunity for incorrect perceptions to be documented and revealed as such.

Glad you are willing to be so honest about where you may have gone wrong. However you've stated earlier you are never wrong...perhaps you mis-spoked.

Diogenes:
When I said that my family is aware of the ability to some extent yet relatively unimpressed by it,

funny that , me to, so far.

Well then that is criticism aimed toward my family and not me, I can not control how others react. But I can imagine if I knew someone who gave accurate medical information and I couldn't do this myself, then over time I would get used to it as well and consider it just a part of who that person is and how they perceive. There is nothing to be gained by being in disbelief toward how I describe others react to my ability, when all I can state time after time is that I am being honest.

Irrelevant.

Ashles:
And if you attended a good school they would encourage you to have creative ideas in physics. As you study your courses you would realize whether to drop your idea or perhaps to focus on some detail aspect of it, such as levitation technologies. I have a fellow optics student whose dream project is to build teleportation technologies. No one is discouraging him, he will find out for himself whether it is a plausible research interest in this time. Besides my research ideas are very interesting and encouraged, there is plenty of work being done in the rearrangement of physical structures with the use of light.
What I refer to vibration will be supplied by radiation, light, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic fields, and maybe other concepts as well. All of these can be constructed to contain structured variations that yield complex effects in the matter with which they interact.
I think chemistry will give me a fundamental foundation for my understanding of what tissue is composed of, and the interaction between light and matter on the quantum physics level which is where some of it takes place.

Ah, quantum, man.........of course. Why didn't I think of that eh? not much new there then. You have the equations to back that up I'm sure.

Feel free to post your quantum math here.

I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.

That should delay things nicely.

I won't deny that my research ideas in science come from the perceptions I have, however I will apply a pure scientific approach to these ideas.

Good luck
<snip>

ReverendClog

28th December 2008, 11:37 AM

Having laboured through this thread, I wish to offer a chance to resolve this once and for all. I propose myself as a subject for vision from feeling to diagnose.
I will provide independent verification from at least three physicians of the serious and incurable ailment I have just recently been diagnosed with to whichever testing commitee JREF deems able.
This will include test reports and c.a.t. scan and x-ray media. I will then allow Vision from feeling to 'examine' me with her ability.
I have no outwardly visible signs of illness, and ten other volunteers who have been independently examined and declared 'healthy' by medical doctors, (If this is acceptable by JREF, I will pay any and all medical expenses incurred in this process.), will also be examined by vision from feeling.
If she can identify and diagnose my ailment in detail, (and me of course), then, if JREF awards her the prize I will also add $10,000 us dollars to vision from feelings award.
I am by the way entirely serious about this and additionally will, if vision from feeling is successful, reimburse any expenses she incurs be they travel or loss of earnings etc incurred by attending the test.
BTW, I am able to do this because a sickness/life insurance policy has paid me out in view of the nature of my illness, and I have no dependents or beneficiary's and to be honest reading about peoples claims has given me a great deal of pleasure.
Anyhow if anyone would like to propose any modification to my suggestion or simply trash it, then feel free to my friend.:)

tsig

28th December 2008, 12:20 PM

Senex

28th December 2008, 05:40 PM

VisionFromFeeling

28th December 2008, 07:44 PM

Jeff Corey:
Now I see the Xtra special thread is up and the uninvited cannot comment without PMing one of the duo.
Isn't that special. This forum allows a new format to meet a poster's "special needs" to focus on some concrete questions about the claim and to answer people who pose questions about the inconsistencies and weasel escape clauses?
Sometimes you people are so wimpy you're pathetic.In my defense I was not the one who set up the "special thread" nor did I request one. :covereyes
Why should a closed conversation be of any value? The person making the claims has not responded to a number of direct questions about the claims from a number of people. Why should restricting the questioner to one person with no special qualifications or reason to be asking the questions work better than a free for all? I would hope that people let them have their own tete a tete in private. No peeking, please.This thread is flooded by a multitude of comments and criticism all taking place at the same time. A closed conversation might be easier to follow. And I have responded to every single question on this very thread! I have made very sure to do that! In my opinion UncaYimmy is qualified for this position in having presented both serious and aggressive skepticism as well as kindness and tolerance, communicative skills of both polarities. Also he spends plenty of time on this thread and has been with us all along. Not to say that some other members of this Forum would not also be qualified, but UncaYimmy is among those that I would personally qualify from my own position as both a skeptic and as a claimant. It is not to be a private conversation between two persons, the "special thread" is shared material.

desertgal:
To what purpose? Anita is hardly likely to post in a free for all thread when she has a protected thread in which she only has to answer selected questions by one poster.I am definitely not abandoning my very own thread! I need this thread!

wardenclyffe:
She seems to enjoy posting both here and elsewhere. I don't know what purpose those posts served either. But whatever that purpose was/is, I think she'll still be around here. I could be completely wrong, but she likes posting----a lot.I enjoy posting here. It's a lot of work but I need skeptics involved in my investigation.

Jeff Corey:
Doesn't this whole process strike you as a bit cumbersome and having the potential for censoring questions that are potentially valuable?In such a case PM your comments to me and I will post them on your behalf and address them on the thread. I still believe in the possible benefits of a less overflooded discussions thread. Besides if I am successful in the tests I will be interviewed by many up ahead, conversations which you will not be able to participate in, so what's the harm of me and UncaYimmy talking?

wardenclyffe:
I'm certain that there are people in this thread who feel that their questions have gone unanswered. Anita can write and write and write and answer a whole bunch of questions, but never answer the important ones. If there are questions that have not been answered please ask again, I do not intend to avoid any questions.

desertgal:
They could answer questions, or not answer questions, but everyone was free to ask those questions.The intention of the thread is not to avoid questions. I believe it is to ensure that questions that are asked do get answered.

Jeff Corey:
Trust me, I've had these perceptions or strange feelings for over 60 years now. I get these aura type sensations that smell bad. There's something in the air. The OPer is either jerking you all around or is seriously deluded. I'm getting a B sound and a definite S. In my twelve year BPS program at Whatsmatta U. I have never been wrong about the things I was right about and this time I definitely predict that I will be right. Or maybe wrong, but if wrong, I will have predicted that it was a case that I would have been wrong about.
So sorry I can't communicate with you anymore right now, I have to take my final exam in Psychic Proctology, it's a no hands on lab test. :) I certainly hope I did not come across that way! :)

Diogenes:
Do tell ? And why do you think that is ?
The violin player refuses to play ..I absolutely do not refuse to demonstrate the alleged ability or to perform in a test. :( I have done what I thought a paranormal challenge applicant was to do, which ended up being "wait, and wait, and wait". I am now taking initiative toward a study that I plan on my own. It's a lot of work! Meanwhile I have college to worry about, and all else!

UncaYimmy:
Anita can choose to answer or not answer. She already does that in this thread and others. The difference is that in this thread non-answers and incomplete answers are lost and often forgotten in a deluge of text. That will be much more difficult in the proposed format.And I was doing such a good job trying to answer every single question that was asked on this thread... :( And now you're all telling me I haven't. What questions are they? If we can stop talking about whether I am studying two B.S. degrees at the same time or not, whether my family thinks I am special, whether I think I am special, whether to have women on a vasectomy detection test, and other topics that lead nowhere, more time and effort would be dedicated to discussion that leads to progress.
Will Anita stop participating in other threads once this one starts? Who knows? I seriously doubt it based on her past behavior. If she does, it won't be because I am pitching her softballs and not asking her the hard questions. I will stay in this thread at least until a conclusion has been reached in my investigation. I'm not going anywhere. What I have proposed is similar to a private interview except that all correspondence is done out in the open. Instead of looking at it as a public thread taken private, think of it as a private thread taken public. You're not being kept out - you're being let in.UncaYimmy and I had a private conversation a while back which I think we both felt was very productive. I have not done this with other Forum members. UncaYimmy is definitely showing taking initiative, and since it was his idea to begin the private thread there is no reason to deny him from being the interviewer if he wants to dedicate himself to this initiative.

desertgal:
"Don't forget that I am from a humble little town in Sweden. People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual, they are used to it."
My interpretation was that you mentioned this humble town to indicate most people there were aware of your alleged ability, and unimpressed by it. I know the thread has moved on, and I don't mean to backtrack, but I realized that I may have misinterpreted that statement, and wanted to apologize if I did.No, most people in my home town are not aware of that I have medical perceptions. I was just describing the type of persons that we are in my home town. That people who are my friends and family are "humble little town" people. No need to apologize, a lot of misconceptions take place on this thread, sometimes because people are quick to make assumptions, and sometimes because I was not clear enough with what I meant. I should equally apologize for being unclear, however it is not possible to give very elaborate answers at all times.

Locknar:
However, the "they are use to it" is the kicker that needs to be clarified. If folks in general are not witting to the ability - what exactly are they use to in the context of what VFF wrote? People who know me well are used to me giving health descriptions to them.

desertgal:
By "humble town", I thought she meant that, since the town was small, most people there would have been aware of and supposedly accustomed to her alleged ability, since she grew up there.I only share this ability with people who know me well.
Clairvoyance, ESP, whatever - nothing remains secret in a small town.Well things that I keep secret and only confide with people who are closest to me remain secret.
It was a natural assumption, but, again, if I was wrong, Anita, I apologize.Don't apologize, although thank you for clearing out misunderstandings with me. It was also I who wasn't clear enough with what I meant.
I do have to add, though, that I have to join the chorus of those who find your claim that people "get used" to your alleged ability more than a little disingenuous-whether intentional or not, I can't say. I have raised six kids, and, more significantly, my middle child is an autistic savant (think Rain Man with a piano). When a parent has a child with a remarkable ability, they don't "get used" to it. It remains as remarkable after 20 years as it was on the first day.

You claim an alleged ability that is unlike any other in the history of mankind. Speaking as a parent, I would not treat that as mundane as eyesight at any point. I would also have had every kind of test possible done, simply because an ability such as you are describing would warrant not only astonishment, but concern. It's the nature of a parent. The medical perceptions are just part of who I am. My friends and family are used to it.

Diogenes:
It is when you claim to have vision that is superior to X-ray photography .. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a vasectomy can not be detected with X-ray imaging. Remember that I claim to detect accurate health information, and that I do not claim to detect all information that is considered present. The precise limitations of when I do and do not detect information has not been established but hopefully will be with the study I am planning.
She claims to have never been wrong. I do not recall a single case of having presented inaccurate health information based on my medical perceptions. I often expect to be wrong, and I am always open to the possibility, yet, not once so far. I apologize if that's difficult to accept. At least an upcoming study and future tests will give plenty of opportunity for inaccurate perceptions to be documented and presented here for everyone to see. I am not intentionally hiding inaccuracy, nor am I trying to compromise the quality of this investigation by trying to avoid encountering inaccuracy.

Moochie:
I have a strong feeling we won't see much of "Anita" hereabouts for a while.?? I'm still here.

Diogenes:
You do understand the implications of " counting hits and ignoring misses " ?When I claim to detect health information, it is then available to be checked for accuracy and if I am wrong, it will count as a miss and will not be ignored.

JWideman:
And if she says you have had one, and you say "Actually, one of my testicles is a prosthetic due to a rather awkward to explain injury.", she'll say "Ah ha! Testicles! A hit!" No. I am much more specific than that. If your example here would occur it would count as a miss.

desertgal:
I was thinking, in Anita's case, her townsfolk might be apprehensive of her, more than anything. Think of all the unwed pregnancies, tummy tucks, and breast implants she could detect with just one glance. The medical perceptions are not common knowledge in my home area. I was just describing the type of people.
And if she truly "senses what other people are feeling", then so much for keeping mental illness a secret. Or emotions. Or, really, anything.Exactly. But I respect each person's privacy and integrity in the best and most honorable way possible.

Moochie:
"Anita's" use of the English language appears superior to that of many of the native English-speakers here, so I don't accept that she's from some "humble little town" in Sweden until I see some evidence.Skeptics... I've been entirely honest, again, and now this. Thanks for the compliment though. :)

skeen

28th December 2008, 07:50 PM

More of the same. Even Ghandi would have lost patience by now.

VisionFromFeeling

28th December 2008, 07:52 PM

UncaYimmy:
I take her word for it that she came from Sweden.If anyone has any doubt of my origins and are bothered by it they can PM me and get my phone number and give me a call and hear my Swedish accent. :)

Miss_Kitt

28th December 2008, 10:56 PM

Anita -- When will you answer UncaYimmy's questions on the "interview" thread?

I assure you, most of us are more interested in that than in reading any more of your comments here. If you really use that other thread, it will be a boon to all concerned.

Best wishes, MK

Hokulele

28th December 2008, 11:01 PM

No. I am much more specific than that. If your example here would occur it would count as a miss.

You behaved exactly as JWideman suggested with your reading of UncaYimmy.

Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!

Uncayimmy

29th December 2008, 12:52 AM

Anita, you have been wrong about medical information. You said that you can "sometimes" detect information in photos. You attempted that here at least twice as I recall. You failed. Does this at all call into question your prior belief about detecting conditions in photos or on TV? You *did* say you could do it sometimes.

On your website you describe a problem with the small intestine in a specific location immediately below the sternum. That's not where the small intestine is located. Thus, you are wrong. Period.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/8940.jpg

You also stated that someone's heart "absorbed" some kind of oil, possibly peanut. To the best of my knowledge no organs "absorb" any oils directly. Fats are broken down during digestion into other forms. What you're saying really doesn't make any sense. There could be fat in the heart muscle, but there's no "oil" that could be recognized as peanut or otherwise.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2005/Castle/page3.htm

You also describe how "vertebrae do not slide freely from each other and are locked." The exact phrase vertebrae slide freely doesn't show up at all in Google. It's not clear at all what you're saying. Are you implying that his vertebrae are somehow fused?

In regards to the vasectomy you said you "saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed." How could you possibly tell that? The vas deferens is always cut and cauterized. A small section *may* be removed, but how could anyone possibly tell? If I cut a string in half or take 1/2 inch out of the middle with two cuts, there's no way anyone could know unless they knew how long the string was originally. There's plenty of slack there.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/01/health/adam/10330.jpg

As for your claims about stroke volume in the heart, that doesn't smell right to me. From my research it seems that normal people have a stroke volume of about 66%. SV x heart rate determines blood volume. If this guy's SV was 1/3 of normal, then his heart rate must have been going dangerously or even inhumanly fast to compensate *or* he was heading into shock. I'm no doctor, so I can't be certain. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

You said that some person's "threshold from the stomach to the pyloric valve was set much higher than in most people." What the heck does that mean? Food passes from the stomach to the intestines via the pyloric sphincter.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/images/ency/fullsize/19223.jpg

You also said "I also saw that the kidneys were significantly larger than most people." Are you saying that you can see kidneys in every person you meet? How do you know?

desertgal

29th December 2008, 04:03 AM

desertgal:
I am definitely not abandoning my very own thread! I need this thread!

You need this thread? For what? :confused:

desertgal:
I only share this ability with people who know me well.

Once again, that is an outright lie. I keep pointing this out to you, and you continue to ignore it, but that doesn't make it less of a lie.

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #81 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4259686&postcount=81): "I'd love to meet your wife and I am sure I could describe her ailments to her in the exact way as she perceives them. If I detect an alternative treatment I can suggest it however I am not entitled to take the place of conventional medicine."

From Your website (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html): "Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."

"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him."

As well, you have set up a website, and posted about this alleged ability on several forums now, and offered diagnoses (which turned out to be wrong). That is NOT "only sharing this ability with people who know me well."

Moochie:
Skeptics... I've been entirely honest

You have NOT been entirely honest. See above.

Exactly. But I respect each person's privacy and integrity in the best and most honorable way possible.

Except when you need a campfire story for your website.

Ashles

29th December 2008, 05:13 AM

Ashles:
And if you attended a good school they would encourage you to have creative ideas in physics.
Up to a point. There has to be some realistic way to study or investigate your 'creative ideas' otherwise you should probably head over to the Creative English school and start writing fiction.

As you study your courses you would realize whether to drop your idea or perhaps to focus on some detail aspect of it, such as levitation technologies. I have a fellow optics student whose dream project is to build teleportation technologies.
But it's one thing to study specifics involved with such matters, another to just be interested in the concept.
One can study the uncertainty principle, entanglement, local realism etc. which are real areas of research. Teleportation at the moment is completely impossible.
If somebody told me they were interested in teleportation I would think that sounded a bit childish unless they went into detail regarding the specific barriers they were interested in overcoming.
Scientists don't just dream about exciting technologies, they study in detail the information that leads to reaching those technologies.

No one is discouraging him, he will find out for himself whether it is a plausible research interest in this time.
Dreaming is all nice and good but I have a bit more interest in hearing from people who have a decent amount of research and information behind them who then announce - "My work (which you can read at X,Y,Z) may lead me to develop technology that might lead to teleportation. For example... [X,Y,Z]"
rather than someone who says
"I am interested in developing teleportation. I think I'll go study physics."

Studying science is great and always to be encouraged, and whatever enthuses someone to go out and get a degree is wonderful.
But it doesn't lend any validity to your knowledge of or ability to create currently non-existent technologies just because that dream inspired you to study science.

Besides my research ideas are very interesting and encouraged, there is plenty of work being done in the rearrangement of physical structures with the use of light.
I would much, MUCH rather hear you talk about that (and how it might relate to the test) than yet another description of a non-independent unverified claim about another anecdotal reading of a person we don't know and can't check with.

What I refer to vibration will be supplied by radiation, light, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic fields, and maybe other concepts as well.
That's rather poorly defined. It's like coming up with a vibrational theory that refers to light and sound. Just because they share one aspect (some form of vibration or oscillation) doesn't mean they are comparable concepts.
Are you including anything imaginable that in some way pulses, oscillates, vibrates or alters state rhythmically?
All your descriptions are far too vague to be of any use scientifically.
As I said above, don't worry about going into high level detail with us. Certainly some on these boards will be able to keep up with extremely advanced levels of physics.

If your theory and understanding is literally no more developed than
"I am interested in vibrational energy in general and think it might lead to other scientific things but cannot elaborate beyond that"
then please say so as it would prevent us wasting any more time discussing that aspect.

If you genuinely have no understanding of the mechanism behind your claimed ability then would it not make sense to stop all reference to the mechanism? Just detail what the ability can and can't do.
The first step is to clarify if it really exists. If it does then many people will come up theories of mechanisms. Specialists in relevant fields.
If you are implying an ability to detect vibrations of subatomic particles then that would affect how we understand a huge variety of scientific disciplines.

All of these can be constructed to contain structured variations that yield complex effects in the matter with which they interact.
This is a rather vague sentence. Are you saying that the different wave interactions of different vibrational concepts can interact in... er... ways?
So anything that can in any way be interpreted as vibration (light, sound, radiation, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields, and general other concepts) can affect other things in a way which is complex?
Again that is too vague and generic to be helpful as clarification.

We know things affect other things in complex ways - it is detailed specifics we are enquiring about.

I think chemistry will give me a fundamental foundation for my understanding of what tissue is composed of, and the interaction between light and matter on the quantum physics level which is where some of it takes place.
You think chemistry is the best basis for learning how light will affect subatomic particles of matter at a quantum level? I really do not understand why.

I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.
I won't deny that my research ideas in science come from the perceptions I have, however I will apply a pure scientific approach to these ideas.
Imagination is an important start point to scientific theories (especially ones that create entirely new technologies or world views) but my difficulty is in understanding where any of your 'research ideas' are grounded in specific theories or directions. It seems so unfocused.
All you ever refer to is 'vibration' without any further clarification (other than a list of concepts which might in some way involve 'vibration').

For example can you describe an experiment that you would conduct to demonstrate (or at least investigate) your direction of research?
I am really trying to get a handle on this.

Much of the science and technology that will be applied to my research is available and established (even if without depth), but I believe I will attempt to introduce new concepts, such as vibrational information, light structures, etc, and of course in a manner that is pure and acceptable science. [.quote]
Can you describe an experiment you would carry out that would be relevant?
Or at least an experiment that has been done in the area of technology that will be applied to your research and how it would be applied.

[quote]In that case take what I say to you about my feelings about the perceptions as my honest attempt of truth and do not argue with what I have said, trying to get a different answer from me or making me admit to something else. No progress comes from that, just wasted thread-space.
I reiterate my request for proper testing. Only that will alter my opinions about your feelings and descritons of them. I could pretend to believe your statements about how you feel about your ability and how others have reacted to it, but there wouldn't be much point in that.

Very good, I'm glad we have you here.
And I will not change my opinion that to me, the perceptions are a normal part of how I perceive, just like vision and hearing.
:rolleyes:

However I do understand that my perceptions are not normal to others, who do not have them. I think we are both right.
All I can say is that I do my best to be as honest as I can.
Well I understand if that is what you are doing. I hope you can all see that so far I have shown no reasons for having poor credibility. Of course my claim is unconventional, however I am totally sincere in the perceptions I have. Also every aspect of my personal life that has been brought up here, such as my educational background, has all been thoroughly scrutinized by everyone and I think nothing has come up to give reason to seriously doubt my sincerety.
On the whole, no, except the resistence to certain types of test and the continuing non-occurrence of proper testing.
Don't just blame IIG, find another group. This is your claim, you need to make the testing happen.
If I believed I had the ability you believe you have I would be harassing the biology and physics department of my and other universities. I would be contacting the media. I would have contacted several skeptical organisations. I would be open to try all my different claimed abilities.
In short, I would have had some proper testing done by now.

Also I would spend all my time trying to find out more about this ability which, by your own statements, you believe could generate a whole new field of technology and medical treatment.
But instead you decide to spend more time... ghosthunting?

You want to distinguish yourself as different from other claimants but you continually fall into almost cliched claimant behaviour. A wide range of paranormal involvement is fairly typical of the genre.
Your failure to concentrate on this incredible ability is, I have to be honest, harming your credibility.

If you encountered someone who claimed they could sometimes predict the future and avert disasters, and they had ways of studying this ability, but, instead of investigating this ability they went hunting for the Loch ness Monster, how would you perceive the credibility of that claimant?

The perceptions are real in the sense that I see and feel them, that is what I have meant. As to what their origin is, whether they are "real" as being part of our real, mutual world, or whether they are totally subjective to me, does not change the fact that the perceptions remain and are "real" to me in the sense that I perceive them. I hope this clarifies the issue.
Yes it does, thank you.
I don't think anyone should be in doubt that you have clearly expressed openness to the possibility of the perceptions being "subjective" as opposed to "being part of our real, mutual world" (I think that is a nice and way of putting it).
You have expressed that very clearly and, in my opinion, unequivocally.
Hopefully we can all agree on that point now. :)

biomorph

29th December 2008, 06:15 AM

The perceptions are real in the sense that I see and feel them, that is what I have meant. As to what their origin is, whether they are "real" as being part of our real, mutual world, or whether they are totally subjective to me, does not change the fact that the perceptions remain and are "real" to me in the sense that I perceive them. I hope this clarifies the issue.

Not at all.

I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions".

Just don't seem to have much clarity in my mind about what that actually might be.

If anything I'm now more confused than ever......

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia)
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

Some results would be nice too, at some point..

Not sure I see the point of the "other" modded thread. I suppose she needs to somewhere to retreat to when no evidence turns up.

I'll wait and see what happens.....

Sorry, that was a bit of a derail....................

Ashles

29th December 2008, 06:30 AM

Old man:
When the perceptions come from health information that is more severe, the information is often so strong and clear that it is hard to ignore. I detect something in persons every day, even though not necessarily a health problem. And other than the information that comes to me on its own, I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely.
Wait a minute. Now I am confused again.

You state here
I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely

To clarify:
Can you do that at will?
Can you perform a head-to-toe reading whenever you like?
What is the accuracy of such readings?

(Please note I am not asking how often you choose to do this. I am also not asking about details of instances when the information comes on its own - I am only asking about the times when you consciously choose to analyse somebody.)

Ashles

29th December 2008, 06:36 AM

I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions".
Just don't seem to have much clarity in my mind about what that actually might be.
If anything I'm now more confused than ever......
I struggled with that too. After some direct questions I feel I have got a clear answer from Anita on that. I think it may have been a language error.

In my opinion she has stated clearly that by 'perceptions' she is referring to the sensations she is experiencing (without any implication attached to cause).
She has, as far as I can understand, clarified that the tests are indeed inntended to ascertain whether the sensations she experiences are actually related to real-world external information (such as genuine medical information of another person) or whether the sensations exist only within her perceptual system/imagination and are not yielding real external information.
Which seems fair enough.

Old man

29th December 2008, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Old man
You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!
What you are suggesting sounds to me more like what I would call a survey, rather than the study I am planning. You suggest that I collect information about what types of ailments I detect and how often I detect them relative to the number of people I read, but without the opportunity of checking with the persons in whom I have sensed the health information what the accuracy would be.
Bingo!
Originally Posted by Old man
And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do!
Working on it, planning it, not intentionally postponing it.
People have been begging you for a list of what you think you can detect! That’s what you’re postponing!

Originally Posted by Diogenes
Do tell ? And why do you think that is ?
The violin player refuses to play ..
I absolutely do not refuse to demonstrate the alleged ability or to perform in a test. I have done what I thought a paranormal challenge applicant was to do, which ended up being "wait, and wait, and wait". I am now taking initiative toward a study that I plan on my own. It's a lot of work! Meanwhile I have college to worry about, and all else!
And a ‘survey’ as you would chose to call it, would be a lot less work, and, at least, give the impression that you’re serious about defining your power.

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

Quote:
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.
Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11! :D

Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up.

Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?

Moochie

29th December 2008, 10:03 AM

<snip>
Studying science is great and always to be encouraged, and whatever enthuses someone to go out and get a degree is wonderful.
But it doesn't lend any validity to your knowledge of or ability to create currently non-existent technologies just because that dream inspired you to study science.

I would much, MUCH rather hear you talk about that (and how it might relate to the test) than yet another description of a non-independent unverified claim about another anecdotal reading of a person we don't know and can't check with.

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/two-minds-on-one-track-in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html

M.

Ashles

29th December 2008, 11:14 AM

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/two-minds-on-one-track-in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html

Now that is inspirational.

JWideman

29th December 2008, 11:24 AM

JWideman:
No. I am much more specific than that. If your example here would occur it would count as a miss.

Well, it did occur, and you did count it as a hit. If this is an indication of a pattern of behavior for you, then your accuracy rate is much closer to 0% than 100%.

TheSkepticCanuck

29th December 2008, 11:32 AM

Here are a couple of young women whose research might actually lead to something of enormous benefit to humans. No "special abilities" here, just the application of real knowledge to real problems.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/two-minds-on-one-track-in-cancer-riddle-discovery-20081227-75xk.html

M.

This is exciting news indeed! Some cancer research institution somewhere should recruit BOTH of them!

desertgal

29th December 2008, 11:35 AM

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?

Quote:
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

I'll take "Calling It Closer To The Truth" for $500, Alex. ;)

calebprime

29th December 2008, 11:43 AM

desertgal

29th December 2008, 11:51 AM

Because Vision From Feeling obviously isn't schizophrenic,

I think we should avoid that.

Otherwise, we're using it as an insult, which is in poor taste.

(You may think her stance has problems, and these problems match some dictionary definition of schizophrenia, but the fit is at best superficial, and at worst completely wrong)

Well, I disagree that she "obviously" isn't schizophrenic - since none of us know her, we can't make that call either way. There are some indications that she has lost touch with reality, and is delusional to some degree.

But, fair enough. I was being facetious, and I apologize, Anita.

calebprime

29th December 2008, 12:59 PM

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 01:14 PM

This post moved from other thread, as it was off topic there. VfF, please do not derail other threads with your own challenge, which already has this thread, and your interview thread for you to use.

9 out of 16 statements on the Forer effect applied to me, which is 56% and far from a passing score.

THANK YOU for bringing up this topic, you see I am a psychic claimant and am planning to do a study to gain more experience with my possible psychic medical diagnose, to gather a better understanding of it in order to apply the paranormal claim from its everyday experience to a test setting environment.

The study is done before a test, and is not a test itself, although depending on results, it can conclude "no ESP ability" and terminate the investigation, but can not conclude "ESP ability" if results seem to indicate good accuracy because the entire study is not done under proper test conditions.

One of the things I consider trying in the study is preparing cards with health descriptions for each out of a number of people. We would have to ensure that the cards contain no unintended hints that would make the person relate to the right card, such as in a very clear but unlikely example, "you have brown hair". The cards should only list health information that is considered to not be detectable by ordinary perception. Several test conditions will be tested, such as using a full-body screen. Each person would see a number of cards and choose the one that best fits with their health. This is not what I expect the test format to be, because I identify many problems with this type of test, however with the study I want to try different things.

Could we discuss the drawbacks with this type of tests? Is there a way to design this type of test in a way that is acceptable for a test protocol?

desertgal

29th December 2008, 01:50 PM

You'd see some tangentiality, some klanging, some inappropriate silliness, some overly-concrete thinking, if she was a schizophrenic in high gear,

and, if she were medicated, or a chronic schizophrenic, you wouldn't see the long, carefully-worded replies, you'd see a dull, flatter quality,

almost by definition, but certainly by "feel."

(I grew up with a schizophrenic sister, and have read many books on the subject as well. I'm aware that there's a completely different "flavor" of schizophrenia when it's paranoid schizophrenia, but that's for all intents and purposes a different illness, and there's no sign of that, either. )

Fair enough. Not schizophrenia or paranoid schizophrenia.

Schizotypal disorder, possibly?

DSM IV Definition: "A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)
2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
6. Inappropriate or constricted affect
7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

Professor Yaffle

29th December 2008, 01:55 PM

Can we please stop the amateur online diagnoses? I really don't think it is appropriate.

Old man

29th December 2008, 02:00 PM

Because Vision From Feeling obviously isn't schizophrenic,

I think we should avoid that.

Otherwise, we're using it as an insult, which is in poor taste.

(You may think her stance has problems, and these problems match some dictionary definition of schizophrenia, but the fit is at best superficial, and at worst completely wrong)
And I was responding to the question - "Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?" posed by biomorph.

Really, people try to read too much into what should be seen as joking behavior.

But, I do agree with you, and will try to refrain from making jokes that cut too close to the bone.

desertgal

29th December 2008, 02:31 PM

Can we please stop the amateur online diagnoses? I really don't think it is appropriate.

Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.

But, okay, point taken, I'll stop there. :)

Skeptical Greg

29th December 2008, 04:20 PM

Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.

We are still waiting for that to happen .. We will deem it inappropriate when it does..;)

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 07:24 PM

Diogenes:
How good is a gas leak detector that fails to detect most leaks ?

A Geiger counter that doesn't detect some radiation ?

You claim to have superior resolution to an MRI .. That would be easy to verify, yet you refuse to actually be tested for such
an ability under controlled conditions. That makes you a liar .The question is, "do I have ESP?", not "do I have very good ESP?". Bad ESP is also ESP. :( I have no idea as to how many health conditions I would not detect on a test. I have merely stated this disclaimer in case I do not detect all health conditions that were considered to occur. Many health conditions occur to different extents, possibly having a signature to different extents.

I have never refused to have a test. I have contacted the IIG West a year and a half ago and they have not set up a test for me yet although I have been very cooperative and agreed to all of their conditions so far. I've contacted the local skeptics group about arranging a test and they told me we need better understanding of what test conditions I can agree to, so I am now planning a study. I am working as fast as I can. I am not a liar. :)
What you claim is a super ability.. One that you clearly don't have.One that I clearly don't have? When I look at people I perceive images of tissues and health, which when I describe them to the persons they report good accuracy. That is all we have at this point, and none of that has indicated no ability. If something indicated no ability I could terminate this investigation.
That is why we will never see the results of a controlled test; or if we do, we will be hearing rationalized excuses from you, about why you failed.I can not set up a test all on my own, because as a claimant if I did my involvement and reliability would be heavily questioned. I am arranging a study which will involve two skeptics, and the results of the study will be documented by them and made official. I will not make excuses, I am rational about what things really mean. Of course I could speculate about why I failed, and that is done on the study where we try to establish what test conditions to use. Once I have agreed to test conditions, after that I can not make any excuses based on those test conditions as to why I fail a test. For instance if I agree to having a full-body screen on a test, then if I fail a test that uses a full-body screen I can not make any excuses about why a full-body screen did not work in my favor. Why don't you wait for me to make excuses and to actually exhibit some of this behavior that you criticize me for, before actually criticizing me for it?

desertgal:
No, not incorrect. My point was that you always intended for members here to take those anecdotes as evidence. Your claim that you never expected anyone here to believe them is pure ********. That was exactly your expectation. You can twist words as much you want, Anita. In plain English, it always comes back to the same thing - you came here with the expectation that people here would accept your anecdotes as evidence. How many more times would you like me to say that?Well I don't want you to have to say that again. I will however state as many times as is necessary, that I do not expect the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. The purpose of the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html was for me to document examples of what perceptions I have and under what conditions. They were never intended to be as evidence. What they are are examples. For instance, the fact that I claim to have detected vasectomy teaches us that vasectomy is probably a good candidate to include on a test. The anecdotes surve to further clarify the specifics of my claim. That's all.
And no, I do not dispense medical information based on these perceptions to people. I only do this with friends and family. Wrong. I mean, how many times do I have to point this out, Anita? Your very own words contradict that statement. Again I wasn't being clear enough, however I was not lying about anything. What I meant was that so far I have only attempted psychic medical diagnose on friends and family. I admit that I have begun to show interest in trying psychic medical diagnose on strangers, and that is because it is the natural next step to gain more understanding into the perceptions as well as to try this in situations that are more reliable. It is always better to have volunteers that I have not met before, than to do this with family and friends who I have some prior knowledge of. However still I have never attempted psychic medical diagnose on persons other than friends and family. I detect plenty of medical information in all persons, but only with friends and family have I decided to check for accuracy, because I realize the responsibility involved with this type of information. The upcoming study should give me opportunity to try this with volunteers I have not met before.

When I said;
"Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."This person was a new friend I had just met. We are still friends and became good friends. So it is still within my statement that I've only done this with friends and family. I apologize for not having been clear enough and I see where this confusion comes from.
"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him.This is also a new friend I met. These are not strangers who would not become part of my life. Sorry about not having been clear enough. It is difficult to be exhaustive in details in every case when I say something.
And, it doesn't matter WHO you dispense medical information to. It's irresponsible that you do it at all. Period.I agree with that. However I am interested in finding out what the source, and actual accuracy, of my medical perceptions are. Medical information will be dispensed with a thorough disclaimer and only on a study or on a test. A lot of scientific investigation involves practices that are not going to be done outside of laboratory.

When I said;
What I meant was that I do not publicly do this and am not tempted to... I have expressed interest in doing this with people, however I am reluctant to do so.
desertgal said;
Yeah, those two sentences don't contradict each other at all.Both express that I am curious about having more experience with the perceptions, and to find out what the accuracy really is, and in both I also express my concern with the moral issues involved.
If you had a strong sense of responsibility, you would have never and would not dispense medical information, based on this alleged ability, to anyone. Period. I am far too interested in investigating a possible case of ESP, or a possible case the use of an interesting skill in reading information that is usually not accessible or interpreted, to not conduct this investigation. I believe that the study and tests can be conducted properly without inflicting harm to the volunteers. I for instance am rational enough that if I were asked to participate in a study or a test of possible extrasensory perception in psychic medical diagnose, and I would be given a disclaimer that I sign to have understood, that states among other things that the information presented is not to be taken as truth and is to be disregarded by me as the participant, with a reminder that only information that was in my own prior knowledge or is derived by conventional medicine is to be taken as truth, I could participate in the study or the test and after the test I would leave unharmed.

There are ways to avoid the possible harm for volunteers. Volunteers can for instance be presented with many health descriptions or health ailments and be told that according to the psychic, most of them or all of them do not apply to them, and that they are to pick the ones that they already came to the test believing that they have, or having medical documentation that they have. We can also use information that is not disturbing to persons, such as whether a man has had a vasectomy or not. I believe there are ways to design a study and a test in ways that would not distress the volunteering participants.

Give me some credit here, I bet a lot of people who would suddenly realize that they seem to perceive accurate health descriptions would right away start to offer their services to people and for a fee. I have shown no such interest and I do my best to be responsible in my investigation.
Oh, let me guess. You are gonna call it the Winston Salem Paranormal Society, right?I've joined the Winston Salem Paranormal Society, but I'm thinking of starting my own smaller group for our unique form of investigations.
Couldn't care less about your "ghost experiences", Anita. I quoted them to point out how deeply delusional you actually are, even if you are the only one here who can't see that. Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry. Even in my childhood I was able to accurately describe crime scenes based on how I see them act out when I'm at those sites. Besides due to the complications in actually proving hauntings, me and my group will conduct investigations in the purpose of providing entertainment and some insight into historical sites and into the lives of people from the past.
Yeah, because that's what everyone here is looking for. How your paranormal society is going.We have our next meeting January 26. By then I hope to have gotten started with my study, in which two of the members will participate.
More contradictions. You "don't dispense medical information to people", but you do "attempt psychic medical diagnose...in the comfort and safety of your own home, with people and in situations where no one can get hurt?"

Yeah. Right, Anita. Whatever you say. I guess I wasn't being clear enough again. What I meant was that I do not publicly offer this "service" to people, and I do not tell people to take my information seriously. What I tell friends when I do this, is that I want to try psychic medical diagnose, and that they are not to take any of it as truth just in case I'd be wrong, and that they must state my accuracy as reliably as they can. I do not openly offer psychic medical diagnose.
Oh, that's right. You don't offer contradictions - it everyone else's misinterpretation. The battle cry of woo claimants everywhere. There are a lot of quick assumptions made here on this Forum, and I do admit that often it is because I wasn't exhaustively clear on many points, but in many cases it is not reasonable for me to do so. I am trying to explain things as clearly as I can, but I realize that that is often not good enough. I don't mind if you bring up apparent contradictions, because that way I have a chance of explaining myself, so thanks.
UncaYimmy has offered you a great opportunity to avoid being misinterpreted with the interview thread. It would certainly help you clarify your claim. Perhaps you should take it, and avoid the morass of alleged misunderstanding this thread has become. I will participate in both threads, and I will stay in this thread because I will be posting new results here as soon as they become available. I want us to discuss the outcome of the study soon, because as the claimant I can not allow myself to analyze and conclude on the study all on my own, because no matter how well I'd intend to do that I am the claimant and one can not study oneself.
In other words, quit debating minutiae and get down to your claim itself. Sorry, if someone says things about me that aren't true, I respond. That's just what I am.

Pup:
(...) For some people, paranormal claims are like religion: they're taught not to confront someone's paranormal beliefs anymore than they'd suggest a double-blind study to the neighbor who offered to pray for their sick relative.

I picture that Anita's friends probably have similar reactions. I do admit that the reliability of the accounts of accuracy from persons in the past must be questionable, but there have also been cases where my accuracy has been confirmed by other means, none of which is evidence but is what compels me toward a test. I understand what you wrote and have listened to it carefully, and can say that that is why I look forward to involving skeptics in future experiences with the perceptions. The upcoming study and the tests will try to eliminate the risk of obtaining false accuracy from when a person might be inclined to agree with me. Good point, thank you.

By the way I just asked my boyfriend whether he feels excited or whether he feels it is normal when I accurately describe his health and how he is feeling, and he said that he feels excited about it. So I may be wrong. I think we just had different definitions of excited. To me, excited would be jumping up and down and being beyond oneself excited. They just don't quite express excitement, in the physical sense of the word. I still feel that they are used to it in either case.

desertgal:
What we have disagreed with is Anita's claim that her friends and family (and a small town in Sweden) apparently believe in her ability 100%, come to her often for psychic medical diagnose...and yet are indifferent to the fact that she has this ability. You must admit, THAT point of view is pretty nonsensical. Goodness you people try to read between and underneath and above the lines and put all kind of nonsense there that just isn't true and that I don't think I even implied. Of course what you here said is pretty nonsensical, because half of it isn't true! My friends and family are inclined toward believing in the ability because of the fact that I have expressed apparent accuracy. (I say "apparent" to account for the fact that in some cases there is no way for me to conclude that a person was not gullible to end up agreeing with me.) Townspeople have not experienced my ability at all. No one comes to me for psychic medical diagnose, not even friends and family. That has never happened, with the only exception that some people here on the Forum have offered to participate in study and tests. Your false conclusions are sometimes nonsensical, I admit to that.

Jeff Corey:
What happened to that discussion with Unca Jimmy? He asked some questions two days ago on that special thread (way down the page) and you are wasting time responding here? Christmas happened. I am sorry if you think that I take on my pile of work in the wrong order of sequence. I have responded to the private thread yesterday. :confused:

desertgal:
Well, in Anita's case, it's an easy enough question to answer. She hasn't been here many years, so she would, likely, still have an accent. There are two people who post here who have met her personally. They could certainly say one way or the other. I have offered to give any of you my phone number if you PM me, so that you can hear whether I have a Swedish accent or not. Care to take me up on the challenge? :)

Moochie:
You're right, of course. Not that it's a big issue. The only issue, really, is that this person submit to a proper test of the claimed "ability." With every further post from this person my BS meter nudges further into the red. That last post positively made me laugh out loud.Oh Moochie! The reason I keep posting a lot of nonsense is because I am responding to nonsense! (Accusations and misunderstandings.) If we all could focus on the claim itself, rather than if I really came from Sweden or not (which is totally irrelevant to my paranormal claim) we would make far more progress and have a much more enjoyable thread. I feel sorry for the people coming in to read this thread because any bits of real progress are buried amidst nonsense.

desertgal:
The problem, I think, is this: While Anita pays lip service to the suggestion that her alleged ability is merely imagination/hallucinations/delusions, if a test should indicate that, she isn't going to believe it. So, all the discussion about protocols and tests and "studies" is fruitless. She "sees" what she "sees".The perceptions will continue no matter what tests conclude about the source and actual accuracy of the perceptions. The word "perceptions" was discussed for many pages between Ashles and me, and we agreed that "perceptions" does not imply about the actual accuracy or origin of the perceptions. I will definitely accept a test result that proves no ESP ability. My objective is to find out the source and accuracy of the perceptions, and I am not in favor of one outcome over another, because if I were that would put me at risk of becoming attached to something I will not receive and I would end up getting disappointed and hurt. So I remain open to either possibility.
He "saw" what he "saw". He may have, like Anita, paid lip service to it being an hallucination, but he still would have continued to believe that what his mind told him was true. I see the same thing happening here. It's one of the reasons the goalposts keep moving, and why she fails to look at her perceptions objectively. Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her. I understand that the origin and actual accuracy of the medical perceptions has not been established, and I realize that I may come to find out that they are just the automatic play of a creative imagination of my mind, and I would be very happy with that conclusion as well. My perceptions do not disturb my life, thoughts, or functioning. I do not project my perceptions into the physical world, I do however intend to investigate them because of the apparent accuracy.

Moochie:
Anita is clinging to an unwillingness to believe that her mind might be playing tricks on her.
That opens up a rather unfortunate possibility, which I sincerely hope isn't the case.I don't think I am unwilling to accept that I do not have ESP, or that the perceptions would not be based on actual information from the real world. I could live with the perceptions and images even if they were just creative imagination, because they do not interfere with me or my life, they are not overwhelming, or confusing, or disturbing. Well, they were disturbing in the very beginning, because I like many other people was uncomfortable with images of "blood" and "intestines" but over the years I've come to truly appreciate the human body and can't wait to study Histology on the graduate level. As far as I can describe at this point, I feel fully prepared to accept that I do not have an extrasensory ability. Of course we will only know once that day comes.

desertgal:
In fairness, I can think of a lot of people I know who wouldn't be willing to believe their mind might be playing tricks on them.The fact that I perceive medical information, as visual images and also as relating to feeling and understanding, are not disturbing to me and I would not define them as delusions. If for instance they are a form of expression of synesthesia, it is not defined as something disruptive to a person's life, but more of a creative mind that gives impressions and association. The perceptions themselves are not linked to conclusions or belief, although are to understanding. Rather than immediately believe in the reality of the perceptions, I consider them merely as images and am interested in confirming their accuracy rationally.
I don't know if Anita is stark raving bonkers. Given all her claims, and how far she has taken them, though, I do think she's lost touch with reality. I doubt she will admit that, either. I see and feel medical information, which when I describe to persons seems to be accurate. I am therefore interested in finding out the source and actual accuracy of these perceptions. I consider this to be a scientific inquiry and do not think that I've lost touch with reality by doing this.

Jeff Corey:
Now it's about 2300 words here and you still haven't answered UncaYimmy.
I don't think you are as crazy as some other people here do, I have worked with real ******** crazy people. I think you are merely a liar. Patience! It's been Christmas! And I've replied now. It took me two hours, I sat up from midnight until two a.m., knowing that if I don't post now I'll never hear the end of it. So there. By the way I am not a liar. Everything I have said represents the truth as best as I can account for it. Everything I've said has been thoroughly scrutinized by these people, and have we come across a single case of me lying? I don't think so. :confused:

desertgal:
They most certainly are not "accurate representations". You don't "document" anything. You simply repeatedly claim that you "envisioned" this or that medical ailment and that your "perception" was "accurate". You provide absolutely no background information which might indicate that your anecdotes are nothing but fantasy. Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations. In each case as far as I have been able to at each time, the accuracy was not falsified. I was asked by Forum members to provide examples of the perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page is. You don't have to read it if it bothers you. All they are, are examples. I'm sorry if I didn't have a team of scientists with me and proper testing procedures available when I was out and met with new friends. :rolleyes:
She won't answer UncaYimmy. His questions require specific answers, with no wiggle room. She wouldn't want to tie herself down to anything she can't wall o'text herself out of.!!! I've replied!!! I think I've exposed you as someone who just keeps stating things that aren't true. I guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon. You're not participating in a true skeptics manner. There is usually no evidence or reason behind your statements, and many are expressed, in my opinion, in a slightly negative manner.
This whole thing has gone beyond ridiculous. You are a fraud, Anita. Whether you realize it or not, you are a fraud. Nobody has the type of vision you describe. Not you, not anyone. It is absurd to even suggest that you do. Your "perceptions" are nothing more than hallucinations conjured up by a mind that lost touch with reality long ago. (...)I think what we are all frustrated by is the time it takes to get progress. Setting up a study or a test of this sort of claim takes time and work, and involves people other than just me. I am working on it. And we don't know whether I have ESP or not, all I know is the apparent accuracy of the medical perceptions and I think I have every right to engage in a scientific investigation into these perceptions, regardless of what the conclusion will be. If this bothers you you don't have to participate, not that I am throwing you out because I'm not.

TheSkepticCanuck:
If her claims were real and verifiable, she'd be rich by the new year, from the sale of the movie and television rights alone! The CW network would be all over that potential show! Think House MD meets Ghost Whisperer meets Dr. Doolittle. The storylines would be incredible! Wonderful! Unfortunately setting up studies and tests takes time. This is not a straightforward claim like many others would be, but I'm working on it and expect to conduct the study early in 2009.

Akhenaten:
Clearly, what's needed is a study of the tests carried out so far, including a survey of the trials which have been conducted. Is there any way to work in an analysis?No tests have been done on my claim of psychic medical diagnose in live persons. Analysis of the results will be possible for the study and tests that are up ahead.

skeen

29th December 2008, 08:15 PM

Anita: this doesn't have to be so long and drawn out. Your first step should be to suppose you do not have this ability, and then to proceed toward confirming that.

Do you know how long that would take? 60 seconds. At most. Merely walk outside, and when you see inside of someone, so long as their ailment is not embarrassing, or anything like that, confirm with them that they have it.

You are not allowed to tell them about an ailment they don't know they have, because that's useless.

So long as you are being honest with yourself, you will discover once and for all, and for sure, whether you have, or do not have this ability. You will fail, and I don't think you're prepared for that.

Do you know how much time you're going to save? You could have done this 3 times whilst I typed this out. But you're not going to do it, are you? Ask yourself why.

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 08:41 PM

Locknar:
If you insist you must view the person in order for you to do what claim you can do (along with everything else, you have waffled on this point)...you can not summarily rule out "cold reading". But of course you knew this already.I only have what my everyday experiences have been with the perceptions. In the upcoming study I intend to try different type of screens that reduce and hopefully eliminate possible cold reading. I do realize the concern of cold reading and I know that a test will not be set up in which cold reading would in any ways be possible, so I have every interest in testing different test conditions in the upcoming study. There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example.
We have talked in PMs several times on the topic of being specific & quantifying your statements/claims. After our conversations, and this thread, the best you can do is "my claim is to detect health information"?After the upcoming study I should hopefully have some experience so that I can make a clearer claim, which specifies the health information that will be included in the test.
Specifically what health information in whom, how often can you do this (ie. at will, several times a day, etc.), under what specific conditions, etc. to start with. This is a power you claim to have always had...surly these are easy questions given a lifetime of this "power."These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out.
While forum members may have asked, your website had these campfire stories long before you came here. To claim or otherwise imply you posted your stories soley because of Forum member requests is false.I have always had interest in posting examples of what my perceptions are. I have not expected these anecdotes to be taken as evidence. Surely I realize that they do not qualify as evidence.
Your website/bloged anecdotes are nothing more then campfire stories, based on your perception and interpretation of events that may have occurred. They are not accurate nor are they evidence of anything.And I know that they are not evidence. They are however accurate descriptions of what I have experienced. They are examples that give specific insight into my claim.

Reno:
re the 'replies from page blah-blah' style of posting from VFF: I love my mouse scroll wheel. If I did that I'd be under attack for avoiding questions and comments. Bear with me here, I'm working hard. I'm just trying to clear out misconceptions and to keep up with everybody. :xwink

skeen:
When you step outside of the box, it's really quite hilarious isn't it? I can type on a keyboard - this is easy to prove. I can think of thousands of ways to prove it is true. I can do it, so I can do it, so I can do it. When it comes to woo woo's (and I think we can very well classify Anita as one of those by now!), it's utterly impossible to prove their abilities. She has all the opportunities open to her in the world to prove them, but it hasn't happened. Unfortunately my test involves other people. I've contacted two skeptics groups. One is very slow in progress, bless their hearts. The other quickly pointed out for me what the next step is to come closer toward an actual test, and I have now taken initiative in planning a study to meet that requirement. This test is not as simple as typing on a keyboard. My test needs the involvement of scientists and/or skeptics, as well as plenty of volunteers who can involve their health information in a test. Besides these issues from the involvement of other people on a test, my specific claim involves a phenomenon that needs to be lifted out of its everyday experience and into a controlled laboratory setting - and this adaptation involves work, which will be addressed in the upcoming study.

You could play the keyboard in any environment and there would be no suspicion that you might be gaining this skill because of any environmental factors in your surroundings. With my claim, however, there are many possible explanations such as cold reading that need to be taken care of for a test. I must however be able to test each test condition before I can agree to whether my ability works under those conditions or not. This claim does not make test arrangements straightforward, but I believe it is testable and work is on its way.
Instead, she posts excruciating ramblings in this thread, resulting in absolutely nothing whatsoever. They serve only to prolong her delusion. I told you - there will be no real test.If you look carefully, my ramblings are responses to y'alls ramblings. I'm just engaging in a conversation. I do agree that the ramblings are excrutiating and also that they result in nothing whatsoever. There will be a real test.
Anita: no-one believes you. Moreover, I think you're a liar. And you do not have synaesthesia.Of course no one believes me. There has been no real evidence yet. I'd be disappointed if someone believed me without evidence. Not even I believe that I have ESP yet, because I haven't received real, laboratory quality evidence. But I am not a liar. And I do have synesthesia to some extent, I just don't know whether that is what the perceptions are made of.

biomorph:
Great. Be nice to see some results at some point...I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions.
Why, it won't change the results, will it?I explain my perspective in part to avoid misunderstandings and in part because it should make it easier to design a test according to what my claim is.
You shouldn't have to adapt it. Otherwise you might miss something. Maybe you should devise tests that don't need that adaption? Dunno. Maybe thats what you mean..My claim definitely needs to be adapted from everyday to laboratory setting. Scent and sound need to be masked, and screens need to be tested, and I will need to present my perceptions in a different format than what I have done in everyday experience. Of course I must test each condition before I can state whether my claimed ability works under those conditions.

About me arranging the study;
Putting off the inevitable, won't change the result.The study will benefit test arrangements since I will be able to know what test conditions I can allow, and we can have a test that is as uncomplicated as possible. Of course it won't change the end result.
Test to see if it is there first, then were it might come from.And that is exactly the plan.
Glad you are willing to be so honest about where you may have gone wrong. However you've stated earlier you are never wrong...perhaps you mis-spoked.What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition). I am open to encountering incorrect perceptions if they occur and are revealed as inaccurate on the study or the test.
Irrelevant.A lot of the things discussed here are irrelevant.
I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.
That should delay things nicely.The fact that I will study Histology in my career has got nothing to do with this paranormal investigation, so don't be concerned with any delays due to my studies. Histology will be valuable in the research in my career and I do not consider it a waste of time or a significant delay.

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 09:38 PM

ReverendClog:
Having laboured through this thread, I wish to offer a chance to resolve this once and for all. I propose myself as a subject for vision from feeling to diagnose.
I will provide independent verification from at least three physicians of the serious and incurable ailment I have just recently been diagnosed with to whichever testing commitee JREF deems able.
This will include test reports and c.a.t. scan and x-ray media. I will then allow Vision from feeling to 'examine' me with her ability.
I have no outwardly visible signs of illness, and ten other volunteers who have been independently examined and declared 'healthy' by medical doctors, (If this is acceptable by JREF, I will pay any and all medical expenses incurred in this process.), will also be examined by vision from feeling.
If she can identify and diagnose my ailment in detail, (and me of course), then, if JREF awards her the prize I will also add $10,000 us dollars to vision from feelings award.
I am by the way entirely serious about this and additionally will, if vision from feeling is successful, reimburse any expenses she incurs be they travel or loss of earnings etc incurred by attending the test.
BTW, I am able to do this because a sickness/life insurance policy has paid me out in view of the nature of my illness, and I have no dependents or beneficiary's and to be honest reading about peoples claims has given me a great deal of pleasure.
Anyhow if anyone would like to propose any modification to my suggestion or simply trash it, then feel free to my friend.:)Thank you for your offer and interest in participating in the investigation. I am of course very interested and would like to begin to make plans with you for arranging this at your earliest convenience.

I have not made arrangements with the JREF to set up tests of my paranormal claim yet, since they place additional demands on their applicants such as media presence which I do not have. I have applied with the IIG West of Hollywood (www.iigwest.com) and am also involved with a local skeptics group locally here in North Carolina. I am sure that there is a local skeptics group near you who might be willing to participate in our test. I would like to send you a private message asking where you are located, or alternatively, where we would set up the test, so that I can begin by contacting a skeptics group local to that area.

I am glad that my investigation has been able to provide someone with some entertainment and here's hoping that our test will be a lot of fun for everyone involved.

ReverendClog: Since you are a new member of the JREF Forum, you might not know this, but you can see my private message to you in the upper right corner, and can also respond to me in the same place.

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 11:03 PM

Hokulele:
You behaved exactly as JWideman suggested with your reading of UncaYimmy.

Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it! My claim was not to detect medical information from pictures, so I apologize for that. I was keeping track of the hits and misses for myself, and was merely glad to compare what I'd sensed with the facts, but I shouldn't have thought out loud should I. You've got to see me "in action" with live persons. And you will, soon. I hope to be able to video record the upcoming study and tests. Recording is more likely to take place now that I've decided that most likely the persons will be viewed from a back-view and not front in order to avoid unintentional eyecontact or other forms of communication, and this way their privacy is better respected and recording is more likely to take place.

UncaYimmy:
Anita, you have been wrong about medical information. You said that you can "sometimes" detect information in photos. You attempted that here at least twice as I recall. You failed. Does this at all call into question your prior belief about detecting conditions in photos or on TV? You *did* say you could do it sometimes.What I claimed was that I have sometimes detected health information from pictures with good accuracy. They were pictures I saw in life, and they were cases that were not made by effort. In my study with you and the pictures I had to make the effort to obtain the information. None of this was part of my claim, yet I wanted to see what the results would be anyway and also to please the curiosity of Forum members. What ever test results would be from things that are not my claim, do not account towards proof for or against my actual claim. That's like saying that just because I happen to burn the cookies in the oven for Christmas (which I didn't) it would reduce my reliability in my paranormal claim.
On your website you describe a problem with the small intestine in a specific location immediately below the sternum. That's not where the small intestine is located. Thus, you are wrong. Period. I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception. However even from a very skeptics point of view I am unable to completely dismiss this specific perception, nor the possible ESP ability itself, since I have asked the person again, and pressed him for truth. He states that he has had a very significant ailment that is exactly as I described, in that area. I can not say that the feeling of strain in that region is not somehow connected to the small intestine. It sounds far fetched but there is nothing to conclude against that. You see, I was absolutely correct about the description of the ailment as it is perceived by the person, as well as the very specific location of the ailment, and there is nothing to tell us that that particular ailment is not related to the small intestine. I don't think this case is very obvious in whether it was accurate or inaccurate, especially since two thirds of the description were definitely accurate and highly unlikely to be concluded from guessing or cold reading.
You also stated that someone's heart "absorbed" some kind of oil, possibly peanut. To the best of my knowledge no organs "absorb" any oils directly. Fats are broken down during digestion into other forms. What you're saying really doesn't make any sense. There could be fat in the heart muscle, but there's no "oil" that could be recognized as peanut or otherwise.Ahem. Different sources of fat and oil are digested by the human body to yield different types of derivatives. Being different for instance in the extent of hydrogenation. It is not impossible to speculate whether an oil derivative could be identified and traced back to its food source. Fats and oils are chemically not alike. In my sense of the word, the heart can absorb oil derivatives, but if this is all again the result of a wording error, then pardon my Swedish. When I see the heart in my perceptions, very often people have a significant outer layer of orange-yellow fat tissue. Some people don't. Of course I mean oil derivatives and not "pure peanut oil floating about in the body"!!! The explicitness and detail that I am required of in this Forum is paranormal in itself!
You also describe how "vertebrae do not slide freely from each other and are locked." The exact phrase vertebrae slide freely doesn't show up at all in Google. It's not clear at all what you're saying. Are you implying that his vertebrae are somehow fused?Well pardon my Swedish. What I was describing is the natural mobility of vertebrae with respect to each other. According to how I see it in my perception, when the spine is bent, typically one or a few vertebrae will move the most, but adjacent vertebrae adopt some of this movement but to less extent the further they are from the area that is being bent, and that there is something that looks like horizontal movement (movement parallel to the base of a vertebrae), or 'sliding'. In a spine that has a portion that is 'locked', the vertebrae lack this freedom of movement, so that when one vertebrae should be moved, and each adjacent vertebrae move to a lesser extent the further it is from the main area of movement, instead in the locked spine, several vertebrae in a row move together as if they were a rigid one piece. Which reduces overall mobility. Vertebrae sliding freely refers to them each being able to move in different ways, to different extents with respect to one another. Vertebrae that are locked together all try to move as one. And that is what I was describing.
In regards to the vasectomy you said you "saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed." How could you possibly tell that? The vas deferens is always cut and cauterized. A small section *may* be removed, but how could anyone possibly tell? If I cut a string in half or take 1/2 inch out of the middle with two cuts, there's no way anyone could know unless they knew how long the string was originally. There's plenty of slack there.How I could possibly tell that sections of each vas deferens had been removed? Because I was seeing it and describing my medical perception. The person in question confirmed that yes he had had vasectomy and yes it had involved the removal of a portion of the vas deferens. Prior to this medical perception I was under the belief that a vasectomy involves an incision and not the removal of tissue, because of how the procedure is described in everyday language can have one assume that it involves simply an incision. I clearly saw that there was a portion missing, like a "gap" between the two ends, but I understand what you are saying with the string. Either case, my description of vasectomy and tissue being removed are either 2 hits or 1 hit and 1 unknown, and we can not confirm inaccuracy with the removal of tissue.
As for your claims about stroke volume in the heart, that doesn't smell right to me. From my research it seems that normal people have a stroke volume of about 66%. SV x heart rate determines blood volume. If this guy's SV was 1/3 of normal, then his heart rate must have been going dangerously or even inhumanly fast to compensate *or* he was heading into shock. I'm no doctor, so I can't be certain. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.Well Honey the stroke volume of the heart can be measured and established by medical procedures. What I said was that this person has a significantly lower stroke volume than most people, and that could be checked by a medical professional. I counted the stroke volume as neither a hit or a miss since this information could not be checked for accuracy by us. Of course there are people who have a low stroke volume!!!!!!! Stroke volume is one of the things that are improved on by exercise, for instance. It is definitely not impossible for a person to have an unusually low stroke volume.
You said that some person's "threshold from the stomach to the pyloric valve was set much higher than in most people." What the heck does that mean? Food passes from the stomach to the intestines via the pyloric sphincter.Well I meant the pyloric sphincter. And what I meant was that the diagonal portion of the wall of the stomach that runs between the pyloric sphincter to the bottom of the stomach was significantly higher than usual.
You also said "I also saw that the kidneys were significantly larger than most people." Are you saying that you can see kidneys in every person you meet? How do you know?How on earth do you conclude from this statement that I'd be saying that I see kidneys in every person I meet? This was an example of when I see the kidneys in one person that I met! UncaYimmy! What I obviously implied was that his kidneys were larger than most of the kidneys that I've actually seen with medical perception. This is like when Locknar started to talk about including women on a vasectomy detection test because I said "people" and not "men". Of course I haven't seen ALL PEOPLE in the whole world! To try to take my statements absolutely literally is sometimes just silly. :rolleyes:

desertgal:
You need this thread? For what? :confused:To discuss test design and to analyze the results of the upcoming study and tests.
I only share this ability with people who know me well.
Once again, that is an outright lie. I keep pointing this out to you, and you continue to ignore it, but that doesn't make it less of a lie. Are you just stupid or what? Why on earth would that be a lie, when it is not a lie? What kind of accusations are these? So you are suggesting that I share that I have medical perceptions with all of my fellow students at school? With roommates at school? With people at the store and in the mall? With my hairdresser? I certainly do not! And stop making ridiculous and perfectly incorrect accusations against me and then trying to turn them against me. :mad:
"I'd love to meet your wife and I am sure I could describe her ailments to her in the exact way as she perceives them. If I detect an alternative treatment I can suggest it however I am not entitled to take the place of conventional medicine."This involves the study and tests.
"Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."This was a new friend.
"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him."This was a new friend.
As well, you have set up a website, and posted about this alleged ability on several forums now, and offered diagnoses (which turned out to be wrong). That is NOT "only sharing this ability with people who know me well."The website and Forum discussions are part of my investigation. They are not about me offering my "psychic services" publicly to people. I have not "offered diagnoses that turned out to be wrong" in accordance with my claim. The photography tests were not part of my claim and in them I pushed myself to try when I wasn't perceiving information like I do in real life. When I say "share this ability with people" that does not include this investigation. I do not share this ability with "people", with which I mean people in my life. I share this with you skeptics as part of my investigation, but that has got nothing to do with what I do in my life otherwise. What I have said is all true.
You have NOT been entirely honest. See above.I have been absolutely honest. You've just misunderstood what I've said.
Exactly. But I respect each person's privacy and integrity in the best and most honorable way possible.
Except when you need a campfire story for your website.No. The examples on my website are from my attempts of psychic medical diagnose, with friends, and for the purpose of conducting this investigation. They are not examples of me "sharing this with strangers", nor are they examples of me "offering psychic readings to people just for the sake of using the ability". In accordance with what I have said, in my everyday life outside of this investigation, I only share this with friends and family, and outside this investigation I do not openly offer psychic readings.

VisionFromFeeling

29th December 2008, 11:46 PM

Ashles:
Up to a point. There has to be some realistic way to study or investigate your 'creative ideas' otherwise you should probably head over to the Creative English school and start writing fiction.My research ideas in the rearrangement of physical structures with light, and in the creation of light structures are highly acceptable research interests within the field of optics.

Thank you for expressing interest in my research ideas. My research ideas are much more elaborate and in depth than what I have expressed here. Of course I can not share top secret information here in public. You will be reading about it in scientific publications like everyone else.
You think chemistry is the best basis for learning how light will affect subatomic particles of matter at a quantum level? I really do not understand why.I want a thorough understanding of what tissues are made of, first on a fundamental level that is beyond the study of biology. I want to understand chemical bonds and chemical structure and how these could be influenced by light and radiation. Most of my B.S. Chemistry degree will not be applicable to my study of Medical Physics but I decided to stay committed to this degree after switching from aspiring towards Osteopathic Medicine to Medical Physics.
I reiterate my request for proper testing. Only that will alter my opinions about your feelings and descritons of them. I could pretend to believe your statements about how you feel about your ability and how others have reacted to it, but there wouldn't be much point in that.The point is, that none of us can prove how I am feeling, and I am the only one who knows how I am feeling, and that how I am feeling is rather irrelevant in this investigation, and that I do not appreciate being accused of lying when I in fact have told the truth about how I am feeling. When how I am feeling is not even of interest here. It's just a waste of thread-space and I feel sorry for the people reading and trying to make some sense of this thread.
On the whole, no, except the resistence to certain types of test and the continuing non-occurrence of proper testing.I have not resisted testing my claim. The continuing non-occurrence of proper testing is not my fault.
Don't just blame IIG, find another group. This is your claim, you need to make the testing happen.And I did. And now I am planning a study.
If I believed I had the ability you believe you have I would be harassing the biology and physics department of my and other universities. I would be contacting the media. I would have contacted several skeptical organisations. I would be open to try all my different claimed abilities.
In short, I would have had some proper testing done by now.I will not involve my university in this investigation since they might not want association to paranormal topics and I don't want to entangle this with my career since many areas of science do not like this kind of thing and I am very serious about my career. The work to be done right now is to establish what test conditions can be used, and that is why the study is probably the best next step. I did contact a newspaper asking if they would write about me (this was when I wanted to apply with the JREF and arrange media presence) but they declined. I have contacted two skeptical organizations, and soon a third one in my test with Forum member ReverendClog.
But instead you decide to spend more time... ghosthunting?In between replies from persons involved in the investigation, why can't I have other interests and activities as well? Investigations of haunted sites do not require expense of time or effort. That's like telling me not to watch TV. I would miss all my shows. :)
You want to distinguish yourself as different from other claimants but you continually fall into almost cliched claimant behaviour. A wide range of paranormal involvement is fairly typical of the genre.
Your failure to concentrate on this incredible ability is, I have to be honest, harming your credibility.On the contrary I am focusing on my main claim: psychic medical diagnose from live persons. It is all of you who want me to test the other aspects of the perceptions that I have said are less frequent and less testable.
If you encountered someone who claimed they could sometimes predict the future and avert disasters, and they had ways of studying this ability, but, instead of investigating this ability they went hunting for the Loch ness Monster, how would you perceive the credibility of that claimant?Poorly. I would be very disappointed that they wouldn't just set up the test and have the test already. However, if turns out the claimant had done what they thought possible and could not progress in their investigation at the moment, I might understand and adopt patience. My claim is more difficult to test than this one because among other reasons, it involves the participation of volunteers with health problems. And again, my haunted investigations are not big projects. They are like a day-trip. They divert no time from my investigation here.

VisionFromFeeling

30th December 2008, 12:49 AM

biomorph:
I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions"."Perception" is the term we use here for what is under the study of this paranormal investigation. When I look at people with my eyes, images of the insides of their bodies form in my mind. These images are life-like and from them I can describe health information both ones that are structural in nature (such as a broken bone, or tumor) and ones that are described by a feeling (such as pain, or discomfort). That is what is meant by perceptions.
Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. I have not withdrawn from reality. These perceptions are not invasive to my life or functioning. The perceptions or anything that would be derived from them do not leak into what is otherwise my life unless I choose to tell a person what I saw or felt about their health in order to check whether there is some correlation between my perceptions and our mutual world. If the perceptions are not the case of extrasensory perception, then they are a form of automatic creativity or imagination, or perhaps a form of synesthesia. I would definitely not define them as a mental problem, especially since they are just impressions. Just like when some artists look at a field and can envision a beautiful painting out of that, but it doesn't mean that they start to live in that image or try to impose that image onto the world that is.

I don't think my patterns of thinking are illogical. On the contrary I am very devote to science, which is logical in nature. I love to find logical explanations to my ideas from science for instance, so I don't think that applies to me.

I would not define my medical perceptions as delusions, since this word has a negative emphasis and my perceptions do not. Besides, a lot of people process a lot of random thoughts in their minds that they can not control, for instance when a song starts playing in their mind and they can not stop it, and especially experienced when going to sleep. Years ago I did a meditation to focus the mind and got rid of my random thoughts and in this regard I would have less delusions than most people. My mind is very clear. I just see medical images when I look at people.

Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.
Well, it is still to be determined whether my perceptions are things that are or are not "there". So far it seems that the images "are there". And if not, then they are just images. I would believe that in order to classify as a hallucination, one would have to experience the perceptions as reality. To me the perceptions are like images but I do not experience them in the same way as I do reality. I just see and feel them, but I don't relate to them in the same way as I do with reality.

Emotional disturbances, I am unusually caring and un-greedy but that's about it.

Behavioral disturbances, none.

Intellectual disturbances, if I do say so myself I'm absolutely brilliant. I have a 4.0 GPA and am doing tremendously well academically and intellectually. But actually, it is because I relate to logical information in terms of association to images, colors, patterns and shapes, which is a little unusual.
Some results would be nice too, at some point..I agree. I'm working on it.
Not sure I see the point of the "other" modded thread. I suppose she needs to somewhere to retreat to when no evidence turns up.Thanks for turning that against me.:duck:I wasn't the one who suggested the private thread.

Ashles:
To clarify:
Can you do that at will?
Can you perform a head-to-toe reading whenever you like?
What is the accuracy of such readings?I do the head-to-toe reading at will. What it is is when I choose to search through very carefully the vibrational feeling of a person's body to detect even the less obvious information that did not catch my attention on its own. That is when I detect information that is not a severe health problem but is simply something "unusual", such as vasectomy or missing molars. The accuracy of such readings, as with all readings so far, has been very good. If my perceptions turn out to have less than perfect accuracy, then the accuracy of these readings may be lower than that of the perceptions that come on their own, because they involve weaker vibrational signature.

Old man:
People have been begging you for a list of what you think you can detect! That’s what you’re postponing! I posted a list earlier, although it is not exhaustive and some of the ailments listed are not good enough to be used on a test. The upcoming study should bring a larger list of ailments for us.
Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11! :DSo you think I am schizophrenic do you? Why's that? *insulted*
Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up. Yup. Set it up for me. The study up ahead will give some experience with this too.
Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?I meant to spend time with me in person.

JWideman:
Well, it did occur, and you did count it as a hit. If this is an indication of a pattern of behavior for you, then your accuracy rate is much closer to 0% than 100%.And what exactly is an example of where I counted a miss as a hit in psychic medical diagnose in live persons? Oh you guys need to see some real life examples of my perceptions so very badly! We need it now!

desertgal:
There are some indications that she has lost touch with reality, and is delusional to some degree.When did I lose touch with reality because when I look at persons I perceive images of the insides of bodies that detail health information, and when I describe the health information to people they report good accuracy, and all I conclude is to proceed with scientific tests to determine the actual accuracy of the perceptions? And even if the perceptions would turn out to not be actual depictions of the insides of people, I would not call myself delusional. Like I said earlier, a lot of people have random thoughts they can't control and by that are more delusional than me.
"A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)Ideas of reference Definition: Ideas of reference involve the belief that casual events, people's remarks, etc. are referring to oneself when, in fact, they are not.
No.
2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)Yes.
3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusionsYes.
4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)No.
5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideationNo.
6. Inappropriate or constricted affectDefinition: Affect type that represents mild reduction in the range and intensity of emotional expression.
No.
7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiarOther than my white hair, no.
8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relativesNo.
9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self No.

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it? :confused:
Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.I do not openly offer diagnose. I am conducting a test and that is different, and less inappropriate since measures will be made to ensure no harm to participants.

skeen:
Do you know how long that would take? 60 seconds. At most. Merely walk outside, and when you see inside of someone, so long as their ailment is not embarrassing, or anything like that, confirm with them that they have it.I will not do such a thing until I have confirmed that this is in accordance with the law and given careful consideration to how to conduct this morally and responsibly. The upcoming study will be something similar to this.
So long as you are being honest with yourself, you will discover once and for all, and for sure, whether you have, or do not have this ability. You will fail, and I don't think you're prepared for that.Please be objective. I have presented nothing that would indicate that I will fail. Your suspicion that I will fail is based on generalization from other psychic claimants, or your assumptions, and should not apply to me. Can't we be objective.
Do you know how much time you're going to save? You could have done this 3 times whilst I typed this out. But you're not going to do it, are you? Ask yourself why.I need to prepare the study properly, both to ensure that I get the most out of it, and to ensure that no one gets hurt.

Uncayimmy

30th December 2008, 01:32 AM

What I claimed was that I have sometimes detected health information from pictures with good accuracy. They were pictures I saw in life, and they were cases that were not made by effort. In my study with you and the pictures I had to make the effort to obtain the information. None of this was part of my claim, yet I wanted to see what the results would be anyway and also to please the curiosity of Forum members. What ever test results would be from things that are not my claim, do not account towards proof for or against my actual claim. That's like saying that just because I happen to burn the cookies in the oven for Christmas (which I didn't) it would reduce my reliability in my paranormal claim.

Sorry, Anita, but your cookie metaphor fails miserably. Your claim about photos is directly related to your claim about doing it person. They are not the same, but they are similar. But that's irrelevant.

What I asked you and what you failed to answer is whether failing at PICTURES makes you rethink your claim that you could sometimes read PICTURES. You said you couldn't always do it, but you never mentioned if you failed while attempting to do it. I took you to mean that sometimes you got no readings.

So, once again, how did this failure affect your belief about PICTURES. Do you still think you can do it?

I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception.

You are mistaken. Your website reads, "I count each of these as a total of two cases of "unverified as neither correct or incorrect"." Your site also reads, "He said that it is right below the breastbone (sternum) and defined the exact same region as I had. Exactly the same region. " The emphasis is yours. There is no mention whatsoever that the small intestine is nowhere near there.

You see, I was absolutely correct about the description of the ailment as it is perceived by the person, as well as the very specific location of the ailment, and there is nothing to tell us that that particular ailment is not related to the small intestine.

It's located in the esophagus area and nowhere near the small intestine. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence his ailment is not related to his big toe.

This is about disclosure, which goes to credibility.

In my sense of the word, the heart can absorb oil derivatives, but if this is all again the result of a wording error, then pardon my Swedish. When I see the heart in my perceptions, very often people have a significant outer layer of orange-yellow fat tissue. Some people don't. Of course I mean oil derivatives and not "pure peanut oil floating about in the body"!!! The explicitness and detail that I am required of in this Forum is paranormal in itself!

You have repeatedly called yourself a scientist, so we expect you to use precise language. If you had said his tissue absorbed copper, I would not assume that he grew copper cells. I would assume that copper is present in the cells. So when you say the tissue absorbed an oil and make a fuss about which type of oil, I don't assume you meant that it grew fat cells. If you see fatty tissue, say you saw fatty tissue.

Is it too much to ask that you be precise?

Well pardon my Swedish. <snipped the explanation about vertebrae>

As evidenced by your description, it seems you ARE capable of explaining things clearly. Please take care to do so the first time around.

How I could possibly tell that sections of each vas deferens had been removed? Because I was seeing it and describing my medical perception. The person in question confirmed that yes he had had vasectomy and yes it had involved the removal of a portion of the vas deferens.

In my mind this disproves your notion of vibrational information because no vibrational information exists for that which is not there. You can certainly detect a lack of vibrational information but only when you know something should be there such as a missing tooth. I can conceive of no possible way to detect that a small piece of the vas deferens is missing unless it was not possible for the two ends to meet.

Did you detect the cauterization? You didn't mention it. Did you detect whether either was tied off or not? I assume you didn't ask. You should and report the results. You should also ask him how he knows that a piece was removed because it's not something that always happens and probably not something worth mentioning to a patient.

Well Honey

The use of "honey" is at best unscientific and at worst condescending.

the stroke volume of the heart can be measured and established by medical procedures.

That's not in question.

What I said was that this person has a significantly lower stroke volume than most people,

You said that it was at times 20%. I presented the math that indicates that this could be an acute medical condition if a person is only pushing out 1/3 of what a normal person does.

It is definitely not impossible for a person to have an unusually low stroke volume.

I never said it was.

Well I meant the pyloric sphincter. And what I meant was that the diagonal portion of the wall of the stomach that runs between the pyloric sphincter to the bottom of the stomach was significantly higher than usual.

How on earth do you conclude from this statement that I'd be saying that I see kidneys in every person I meet?

These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.

UncaYimmy! What I obviously implied was that his kidneys were larger than most of the kidneys that I've actually seen with medical perception.

I feel I am qualified to say that someone has a big nose or big boobs because I have seen thousands of noses and boobs. In fact I notice both in every person I see. If you are going to make claims about what is abnormal, then you must expect to be questioned about how you know what is normal.

Furthermore, you claim that you almost automatically see things that are abnormal and that you need to concentrate to detect things that are healthy. You also claim that you have really only read family and friends.

Thus it would seem that you would have only seen "normal" kidneys in those people you have focused upon for a detailed reading. This, of course, begs a few questions:

How many abnormal kidneys have you seen?

How many normal kidneys have you seen?

In percentage of people you have read have you even seen kidneys at all?

Of course I haven't seen ALL PEOPLE in the whole world! To try to take my statements absolutely literally is sometimes just silly.
I never said anything about the whole world. I made the reasonable deduction that if someone is able to determine an enlarged kidney that they must have some form of reference. When that person claims to see inside the bodies of humans, then the natural assumption is that they have seen a large number of kidneys.

This is what skeptics do, Anita. We ask questions. The more extraordinary the claim, the tougher the questions. The longer you go without a decent test or study, the less credible you become.

Note: I don't make the rules. I just explain them.

Akhenaten

30th December 2008, 03:14 AM

<-------- VfF

Plot --------->

desertgal

30th December 2008, 03:39 AM

Are you just stupid or what?

Well, we all can't be "absolutely brilliant" now, can we? In one sentence you say: "I only share this ability with people who know me well.", and in the next instance, someone you just met that very day is a "friend". Someone you just met that day can't "know you well", can they? Stop contradicting yourself, for God's sake.

I have been absolutely honest. You've just misunderstood what I've said.

The battle cry of psychic claimants the world over. "It's not me-it's you!"

They are not examples of me "sharing this with strangers", nor are they examples of me "offering psychic readings to people just for the sake of using the ability". In accordance with what I have said, in my everyday life outside of this investigation, I only share this with friends and family, and outside this investigation I do not openly offer psychic readings.

Yeah, right. Whatever you say, Anita. :rolleyes:

desertgal

30th December 2008, 03:49 AM

desertgal:
When did I lose touch with reality because when I look at persons I perceive images of the insides of bodies that detail health information, and when I describe the health information to people they report good accuracy, and all I conclude is to proceed with scientific tests to determine the actual accuracy of the perceptions? And even if the perceptions would turn out to not be actual depictions of the insides of people, I would not call myself delusional. Like I said earlier, a lot of people have random thoughts they can't control and by that are more delusional than me.

You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it?

I dunno. I scored 0. Let me check with the spirit of my late aunt Sophie's Bigfoot, and I'll get back to you.

desertgal: I have offered to give any of you my phone number if you PM me, so that you can hear whether I have a Swedish accent or not. Care to take me up on the challenge?

Well, I realize that you are "absolutely brilliant" and I am "stupid", but, since you seem to have missed it - I wasn't the one doubting that you are from Sweden. In fact, I never said that at all. What I said was that, for those who might have that doubt, since two posters have met you in person, it would be fairly easy to confirm that you are, in fact, from Sweden simply by asking them.

Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry.

Fine. Show me some evidence, and I'll conclude otherwise. It's rather the nature of a skeptic to remain skeptical when no evidence has been presented to back up a claim.

Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations. In each case as far as I have been able to at each time, the accuracy was not falsified. I was asked by Forum members to provide examples of the perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page is. You don't have to read it if it bothers you. All they are, are examples. I'm sorry if I didn't have a team of scientists with me and proper testing procedures available when I was out and met with new friends.

Nonsense, that isn't what I said at all. You provide no background information on your subjects at all. There is no way for anyone to decipher whether your conclusions are based on your alleged ability, or retained information, or simple observation. You don't need a team of scientists to collect background information after the diagnosis to help verify the accuracy. The repeated "I came, I saw, I diagnosed" does not render your anecdotes valid examples of your alleged ability.

!!! I've replied!!! I think I've exposed you as someone who just keeps stating things that aren't true. I guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon. You're not participating in a true skeptics manner. There is usually no evidence or reason behind your statements, and many are expressed, in my opinion, in a slightly negative manner.

A) Unfair of you, since I posted that before you replied, but I apologize for the confusion, and b) you offer no evidence to back up your statements, either, Anita. In fact, you've offered up several contradictions and some wild assertions. I realize you have to arrange testing, and that takes time, but when you contradict yourself, is it wrong to question that?

If this bothers you you don't have to participate, not that I am throwing you out because I'm not...

Throwing me out?

guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon.

Okay. See you later. Good luck.

biomorph

30th December 2008, 03:59 AM

biomorph:
I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions.
I explain my perspective in part to avoid misunderstandings and in part because it should make it easier to design a test according to what my claim is.
My claim definitely needs to be adapted from everyday to laboratory setting. Scent and sound need to be masked, and screens need to be tested, and I will need to present my perceptions in a different format than what I have done in everyday experience. Of course I must test each condition before I can state whether my claimed ability works under those conditions.

I understand that.
However I have some doubts that this is the way forward timewise.
Surely many of the "sight, sound" type stuff can be bundled together? They are "knowns"
You think of as many thing as you can that to prevent any physical consequences getting through.
In one test.

There are lots of examples of these tests..

However any real evidence will show some sort of mechanism.
Even without controls, or tests, you ought to be able to make a simple claim, and have the real physical evidence that there is something happening to start with. Basic observational evidence yeah?

About me arranging the study;
The study will benefit test arrangements since I will be able to know what test conditions I can allow, and we can have a test that is as uncomplicated as possible. Of course it won't change the end result.

Look, its all here, on the forum somewhere.

So far I find the plan you are devising to be as complicated as you can make it.

And that is exactly the plan.
What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition). I am open to encountering incorrect perceptions if they occur and are revealed as inaccurate on the study or the test.

Ok whatever...

A lot of the things discussed here are irrelevant.

you said it.....

The fact that I will study Histology in my career has got nothing to do with this paranormal investigation, so don't be concerned with any delays due to my studies. Histology will be valuable in the research in my career and I do not consider it a waste of time or a significant delay.
Thats put my mind rest thanks, and of course your career is important.

good luck

biomorph

30th December 2008, 04:02 AM

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it?

You don't need all five.

One can be enough.

I think you may need to reconsider that reply.:)

Do you have it?

No, but I scored zero, not 2......?

Ducky

30th December 2008, 04:16 AM

You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.

I dunno. Let me check with the spirit of my late aunt Sophie's Bigfoot, and I'll get back to you.

I wonder if she would have picked a white dwarf star had she known that they are also referred to as "degenerate dwarf" stars.

Pup

30th December 2008, 04:44 AM

Anita, if I recall correctly, you're somewhere near Charlotte, NC, right? I just found out I'll have a two-hour layover in Charlotte, in the late evening on a Friday, during a trip in early March (assuming everything's on schedule and goes as planned). I'm a 49-year-old male who wouldn't mind having his health "read" and discussed under these circumstances. I'm a complete stranger to Anita in real life.

Would that be useful?

Professor Yaffle

30th December 2008, 04:46 AM

You don't need all five.

One can be enough.

I think you may need to reconsider that reply.:)

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

biomorph

30th December 2008, 05:50 AM

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

******************************************
I apologise VFF, Ive most probably got that bit wrong.
********************************************

If one needs all five, then yeah you and I both clear of that one I guess.

So um......is there some condition that the two that are there describe, PY?

Maybe not.

desertgal

30th December 2008, 06:14 AM

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

In that regard, I owe Anita an apology. I should never have posted that description of schizotypal disorder, Anita, or even come close to making the assumption that it applies to you. I am, in no way, qualified to have made that assumption, and I sincerely apologize.

As well, I sincerely apologize if other assumptions I have made have caused you distress. That was not my intention. Some contradictions may seem picayune to others, but I've raised six kids, and I've worked as a researcher for true crime authors for many years - questioning small contradictions has become second nature to me. :D

While I still believe that your claims, taken altogether, do point towards delusional, I should have afforded you the opportunity to complete your testing and/or offer solid evidence before expressing my doubts. Given that, I shall refrain from further comment in this thread.

I know I have been sarcastic at times, and I am sorry, but this type of claim has a negative effect on me. We've all seen it with Sylvia Browne, et al. To act on this type of alleged ability is never harmless, regardless of the context in which you 'perform' it. Family, friends, testing, studies, surveys - what have you - it still has the potential for inflicting emotional damage, regardless of waivers and the like.

Anyway...again, I apologize, Anita, and I wish you the best of luck. :)

Locknar

30th December 2008, 08:04 AM

There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example.I seem to recall (mentioned in another thread), you've "detected" a vasectomy once?

Out of all the people you've examined with your "power" and given a 1:6 ratio of men with vasectomies (in the US)...nothing special. Unless, of course, you've asked ALL the men you've used your "power" on and confirmed things?

After the upcoming study I should hopefully have some experience so that I can make a clearer claim, which specifies the health information that will be included in the test. A lifetime of this "power" and you need yet more time to study before quantifying your claim?

Sounds like the typical "delay and stall" tactic to me, given this has been going on since 2007 with ZERO credible testing/results.

These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out.
Same comment as above, "delay and stall."

I have always had interest in posting examples of what my perceptions are. I have not expected these anecdotes to be taken as evidence. Surely I realize that they do not qualify as evidence.
And I know that they are not evidence. They are however accurate descriptions of what I have experienced. They are examples that give specific insight into my claim. You state above you know your anecdotes are not evidence...then describe them as "accurate descriptions."
IF you truly understand that anecdotes do not qualify as evidence then stop presenting them as such or anything other then YOUR undocumented and uncorroborated perception of events.

Scientists keep written notes/diaries of events, noting observations, controls, variables, etc. A blog of anecdotes, written after the fact, without corroboration, detail (such as controls, variables, etc) is well...nothing more than a collection of campfire stories and of no merit.

My test needs the involvement of scientists and/or skeptics, as well as plenty of volunteers who can involve their health information in a test. Besides these issues from the involvement of other people on a test, my specific claim involves a phenomenon that needs to be lifted out of its everyday experience and into a controlled laboratory setting - and this adaptation involves work, which will be addressed in the upcoming study.
By making the entire process overly complicated, this sounds more like "delay and stall."

Rather then work on a far simpler aspect, such as detecting elements/chemicals as you've claimed to have done, you've chosen to focus on "health issues" - convenient as health claims are virtually impossible to verify in your current (undefined, unquantified) context.

With my claim, however, there are many possible explanations such as cold reading that need to be taken care of for a test.You've stated you must see the individual, summarily ruling out cold reading seems unlikely unless you focus on something with no visible/overt clues; ie. tonsillectomy, appendectomy, etc.

And I do have synesthesia to some extent, I just don't know whether that is what the perceptions are made of. So you have been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have synesthesia?

I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions. If this study is as undefined/unquantified as everything else involving your claim, should it actually happen it will do nothing more then feed your own belief.

What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition). This is exactly the kind of "wiggle" you leave open with "detecting" health issues in a undefined/unquantified fashion. You were wrong, just as you were wrong in the picture diagnoses you did here...and yet your attempting to exlain it as a "hit"...again.

skeen

30th December 2008, 08:09 AM

skeen:
I will not do such a thing until I have confirmed that this is in accordance with the law and given careful consideration to how to conduct this morally and responsibly. The upcoming study will be something similar to this.
Please be objective. I have presented nothing that would indicate that I will fail. Your suspicion that I will fail is based on generalization from other psychic claimants, or your assumptions, and should not apply to me. Can't we be objective.
I need to prepare the study properly, both to ensure that I get the most out of it, and to ensure that no one gets hurt.

Nonsense. That's just a transparent copout. And I think I can generalize about scientific impossibilities. I should also say you cannot fly, am I still generalizing?

You're wasting everyones time and I think you know it. Just quickly, and swiftly confirm the ability does not exist, and it's all over. But you don't want that, do you? You want to fool yourself into thinking you have it.

No one should have any patience with you anymore. There will be no test, there will be no nothing. It all could have ended at the skeptics meeting, you could have just said what you saw. Forget about "opportunity" - that's like saying, "I didn't have the opportunity to fly around and show people I can fly" - erm, I'm pretty sure that effectively rewriting Science would have been worth just going for it.

Your very reasoning is flawed. I question your very intelligence, and I do not believe you have any scientific qualifications whatsoever, unless you got them from the Bible belt or some kookie newage university.

Uncayimmy

30th December 2008, 02:28 PM

On the contrary I am focusing on my main claim: psychic medical diagnose from live persons. It is all of you who want me to test the other aspects of the perceptions that I have said are less frequent and less testable.

I don't recall you saying they were less testable. In fact you were all enthusiastic about the chemical testing until your methods were called into question. You then abandoned that line of inquiry.

You told us this:
For the sake of this forum more so than for my own purposes I'll arrange tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on so that we can see if I can make the same observations under controlled settings. I want to design tests that as closely as possible resemble what the actual real-life observations were. I am considering having the cereal test, which should be very simple to set up. If I was able to detect the Lactobacillus cereal from rows of otherwise plain brands of cereal then surely by placing different samples of cereal with and without the bacterial supplement, in identical boxes of the same material, then according to the observation I should be able to detect it. Most likely this test will be done today with a friend.

You also said
As is typical when I have a chemical identification test, in the beginning I have good results, but after a while I begin to feel very drained, tired and get a headache.

Saying "as is typical" implies that you have done the tests before. In the paragraph before that you pledged to continue to run the chemical tests.

So, why did you abandon testing chemical detection? Please don't come back with your standard line about how you want to test your primary claim (not that you have actually made a claim anyway). That's just like saying "Just because."

You said you would continue to do it. You implied you have done it before. Why did you stop? Why would you spend hours verbally defending this when you could easily quiet us all by taking the test?

Actions, not words, are what we need at this point.

skeen

30th December 2008, 02:36 PM

Actions, not words, are what we need at this point.

Oh, there will be words. Lots, and lots of words. I think she knows she doesn't have it.

Uncayimmy

30th December 2008, 08:50 PM

What progress, if any, have you made regarding checking to see if you can detect circumcisions and breast implants from behind?

Miss_Kitt

31st December 2008, 12:40 AM

Ooooooohhh--Kay.

I'm outta here. The numerous "accurate" seances /ghost connections / crime site readings have now taken me across the line of Reasonable Doubt.

It's sad, really. I thought we had someone who honestly wanted to see what was going on with an anomalous experience in their life. I've had those; I believed that "something was going on"; I did some limited testing with friends; and BOOM! Game over, no ability. If I didn't have someone in the room that knew the "right" answer, I didn't get it. Some kind of unintentional reading coupled with psychomotor effect (if that's the right term).

It's too bad Anita isn't willing to do the simple and obvious self-test of going to a mall or the student union building and--without trying to verify if they are correct or not--see what kind of non-obvious physical issues ping her radar. As, tonsillectomies (there should be plenty in a college population); appendectomies; broken bones that have healed. She seems to be able to simultaneously claim that she has always been correct when she's been able to verify, AND that she doesn't know what she can see. If she has been infallible to date, then if she sees it she should consider it testable.

Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy that the refusal to continue doing "cereal testing" is an obvious dodge. It would take less than 30 bucks and 3 psych students (no need to involve other students in her program if she's afraid of tainting her rep) to set up a solid test.

Buy a set of those paper-plate-style bowls; put numerals in pencil on the bottom of each one. Measure 3/4 cup of cereal in to each of eight of them.

Have aid #1 put the lactobacillus into one bowl and record the number of that bowl; add a teaspoonful of water to all of the bowls; put a sheet of plain paper on top of each one. (Some form of random selection should be used, such as rolling an eight-sided die for each bowl and putting the lacto into the one with the highest "score" would work.)
A 2nd aid--who did not see the preparation of the bowls or the record sheet--then comes in and re-arranges the bowls randomly, using an 8-sided die to determine where in the line the bowl they are currently moving ends up. This person also straightens up the papers and bowls to be as identical as possible (for instance, aligning the bowls with a yardstick on the table or counter, and the back edge of the paper with the wall behind). This person also leaves.
The 3rd aid and Anita--who have been unable to see or hear the prep so far--enter the room together. Anita scans the bowls from at least a few feet away (to lessen the likelihood of scent being an issue) and indicates which one(s) she thinks contains the lactobacillus. The third aid indicates which bowl Anita has selected, perhaps by setting a quarter directly in front of it. She asks Anita to confirm if that is the correct bowl(s), and when Anita is satisfied it is, she calls the other testers on her cellphone and asks them to come in.
The marked bowl(s) are then turned over, and their number(s) written down in the column beside the original bowl number.

Anita, aid #3, and aid #2 leave the room. Aid #1 pitches the bowl and contents of the bowl(s) that were inverted, and creates two new bowls with 3/4 cup of cereal and the teaspoon of water. Now we're back to 8 functionally identical bowls, with different numbers on the bottom. Put the lactobacillus in one, add a teaspoon of water, and we're ready to start again.

Do this 4 times, and if she pegs the lactobacillus every time, we're looking at some kind of detection of something (or a run of luck that would break the bank at the Rio).

The cereal and bowls might set you back 10 bucks; the 8-sides are, at max, a buck apiece at the local comic shop or gaming store (and a college town will have one). The rest of the expense is for the lactobacillus and the fries and soft drinks for the aids' Thank You gifts.

There, I knocked a non-perfect but reasonable screening test scenario out in less than 10 minutes without consulting a reference. It really isn't that hard...unless you're trying not to come up with a wiggle-proof scenario.

The only question I have left is, is she lying to us or simply herself?

Thanks to the thread participants, and we'll see you someplace else in the Forum. MK

stanfr

31st December 2008, 01:21 AM

Ashles

31st December 2008, 04:14 AM

Bravo, Miss Kit--that is the action that is really needed--stop the inquisition--no more words! These lengthy lengthy sets of questions for Anita
are pointless, because it should be quite obvious that she will always have a response, and it will always be unsatisfactory, which will lead to even more questions!
Actually that is a really good point. One of the most common traits of applicants is a desire for attention. At the moment I think that is the only purpose this thread is serving.

Anita - I don't have any more questions for you, and, despite your lengthy responses I don't think we are receiving particularly useful information any more.

Until you conduct some independent testing I don't think you have anything further to add on the subject of your claim.

(If you wanted to start a new thread to discuss your theories around optics and how they affect tissue then please do so and I would be interested in that, but the claim discussion is pretty much moribund at the moment)

It is quite ridiculous that a proper test is still not happening. The lactobacillus test, even if imperfect (and not considered a challenge test in itself), might have yielded useful information and would at least be a demonstration that Anita is genuinely acting in good faith and keen to rtesearch the 'ability' in all its aspects.

It does not appear that way any more.

As it stands this claim should be considered pretty much over as it looks like no test will ever happen.

Locknar

31st December 2008, 04:57 AM

Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy that the refusal to continue doing "cereal testing" is an obvious dodge. It would take less than 30 bucks and 3 psych students (no need to involve other students in her program if she's afraid of tainting her rep) to set up a solid test.Exactly. Why pursue a fairly easy, conclusive test of a ability already claimed?

Pursuit of (vague and otherwise undefined) "health" issues is allows for all kinds of what I've refereed to as "wiggle" and does nothing but feed her belief she has "powers."

What is most disappointing in all this is folks she has told, such as teachers, friends, etc., have done nothing to dissuade her.

If I had told my Advanced Physics teacher (for example) I had the ability VFF claims (ie. able to "see" things at a atomic level)...assuming he did not die from laughter...it would have been a quick "let's go check it out now", over and done with.

Old man

31st December 2008, 08:32 AM

Desertgal, I have to disagree (a little) with your position about medical advise from non-MDs. IANAMD, but people often ask my advise about health problems (sometimes I even volunteer my opinion). Am I ‘evil’, too?

I detect plenty of medical information in all persons… Anita, please, stop exaggerating.

Originally Posted by desertgal
Couldn't care less about your "ghost experiences", Anita. I quoted them to point out how deeply delusional you actually are, even if you are the only one here who can't see that.
Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry. Even in my childhood I was able to accurately describe crime scenes based on how I see them act out when I'm at those sites. Besides due to the complications in actually proving hauntings, me and my group will conduct investigations in the purpose of providing entertainment and some insight into historical sites and into the lives of people from the past. Anita… you’re shooting yourself in the foot, here!

By the way I just asked my boyfriend whether he feels excited or whether he feels it is normal when I accurately describe his health and how he is feeling, and he said that he feels excited about it. So I may be wrong. I think we just had different definitions of excited. To me, excited would be jumping up and down and being beyond oneself excited. Finally!

Originally Posted by desertgal
What we have disagreed with is Anita's claim that her friends and family (and a small town in Sweden) apparently believe in her ability 100%, come to her often for psychic medical diagnose...and yet are indifferent to the fact that she has this ability. You must admit, THAT point of view is pretty nonsensical.
Goodness you people try to read between and underneath and above the lines and put all kind of nonsense there that just isn't true and that I don't think I even implied. Of course what you here said is pretty nonsensical, because half of it isn't true! My friends and family are inclined toward believing in the ability because of the fact that I have expressed apparent accuracy. (I say "apparent" to account for the fact that in some cases there is no way for me to conclude that a person was not gullible to end up agreeing with me.) Townspeople have not experienced my ability at all. No one comes to me for psychic medical diagnose, not even friends and family. That has never happened, with the only exception that some people here on the Forum have offered to participate in study and tests. Anita, I mentioned your use of hyperbole in an earlier post. Maybe DG is trying to get you to TELL THE TRUTH, without all of YOUR exaggerations!

Your false conclusions are sometimes nonsensical, I admit to that. And, your exaggerated claims are sometimes nonsensical, too.

Everything I have said represents the truth as best as I can account for it. Maybe we’re making progress. Are you admitting that it’s possible that your anecdotes might be just a little, (oh, how should I put this?) exaggerated?

Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations. Nope. No progress.

In the upcoming study I intend to try different type of screens that reduce and hopefully eliminate possible cold reading. I do realize the concern of cold reading and I know that a test will not be set up in which cold reading would in any ways be possible, so I have every interest in testing different test conditions in the upcoming study. There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example. Anita, you are really, really determined to drag this fiasco out just as long as you can, aren’t you?

The simplest way to ‘study’ your ability will be to just do what you normally do, using some volunteers and your two ‘skeptic’ witnesses. Then, after you do that, all you’ll have to do is tell us that you now realize you really don’t have this power, and you can move on to ghost hunting!

These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out. No, just show us that you can do anything at all, even if it’s indistinguishable from cold reading!

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
On your website you describe a problem with the small intestine in a specific location immediately below the sternum. That's not where the small intestine is located. Thus, you are wrong. Period.
I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception. However even from a very skeptics point of view I am unable to completely dismiss this specific perception, nor the possible ESP ability itself, since I have asked the person again, and pressed him for truth. He states that he has had a very significant ailment that is exactly as I described, in that area. Anita, it’s called GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). Damn near half of the people in the US suffer symptoms occasionally. You guessed right on ONE coin flip! WOW!

I can not say that the feeling of strain in that region is not somehow connected to the small intestine. I can. Wanna bet on who’s right?

I don't think this case is very obvious in whether it was accurate or inaccurate, especially since two thirds of the description were definitely accurate and highly unlikely to be concluded from guessing or cold reading. No, you had a high probability of guessing right.

Here, I’ll save you some time. Just quote this - “I’ve NEVER, EVER, met ANYONE who was suffering from this!11!!” (And - never listened to the radio, never saw a TV commercial, never saw any ads for antacids, blah, blah, blah.)

Originally Posted by Old man
Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11!
So you think I am schizophrenic do you? Why's that? *insulted* Your claims, Anita, and your postings, are what’s indistinguishable from the posted definition of schizophrenia. That’s what biomorph asked you about, and that’s what I responded to. I don’t know enough about you, or psychiatry, to hold an opinion about you.

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up.
Yup. Set it up for me. The study up ahead will give some experience with this too. When I get a few minutes, sure, I could right up a protocol.

Originally Posted by Old man
Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?
I meant to spend time with me in person. You know, my eyes are getting old! When I first read the above, I saw the word ‘prison’. I doubt that that can arranged!

But, you know damned well that I meant in person, don’t you? Stop the ‘silly little airhead girl’ act, OK? You’re ‘brilliant’, remember? You’re a ‘serious scientist’. Act like one.

4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
No. Yes.

desertgal

31st December 2008, 09:18 AM

Desertgal, I have to disagree (a little) with your position about medical advise from non-MDs. IANAMD, but people often ask my advise about health problems (sometimes I even volunteer my opinion). Am I ‘evil’, too?

No, that isn't what I meant, and I don't think you are evil. :)

I don't think Anita is evil, either. Just irresponsible as hell, and completely bogus.

Actually, I didn't use the term "evil" to describe anyone.

We all volunteer medical advice to other people. The difference, of course, is that we all don't pretend (or believe) to have a super ability to be able to "see" into other people's bodies in order to diagnose medical problems, and we don't claim a 100% accuracy rate on previous conclusions based solely on that "ability".

For example, I was babysitting the three year old child of a friend recently. The girl had an ongoing sore throat, and this single mom needed to work in order to keep her job, so I offered to care for her. I noticed the child's breath had a peculiar, sickly sweet odor that I recalled from the bouts of tonsillitis that my own kids went through when they were little. I told her mom that I thought the child might have tonsillitis, based on my experience as a mom, and she should take her to the pediatrician as soon as possible. I think most of us have done something similar, and I don't think that kind of advice is irresponsible.

If I had said, "I 'see' your child's tonsils, and they are inflamed-trust me, I've never been wrong", that's a different story. That's not suggesting a possible medical diagnosis - it is making a certain one. In my opinion, that IS irresponsible.

As well, if we claim this super ability, and we test it on people with the primary objective of proving it exists, as opposed to the interest of their health being the primary objective, isn't that also irresponsible? Whether the perception is accurate or not, and whether they sign a waiver or not, the person may still have the anxiety and worry over a negative 'diagnosis' until they can get to a doctor and confirm it either way.

In other words, Sylvia Browne doesn't tell people that their child has been abducted into the Oriental slave market because she has the best interests of the child at heart - she does it to "prove" that she is psychic. It's just wrong.

skeen

31st December 2008, 09:22 AM

Wait, I've been largely ignoring her walls of text, but now she's communicating with spirits?! Oh for **** sake. I'm done with this loon. This thread should be closed. This woman is ******* insane.

desertgal

31st December 2008, 09:33 AM

Wait, I've been largely ignoring her walls of text, but now she's communicating with spirits?! Oh for **** sake. I'm done with this loon. This thread should be closed. This woman is ******* insane.

She's been communicating with spirits and mythical creatures since she first started posting on this forum. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4247220#post4247220) That's what I meant when I said I believe she is delusional based on ALL her claims. Like others here, I was willing to give her "super ability" the benefit of the doubt, but, put in context with her other claims, it's just too much.

skeen

31st December 2008, 10:08 AM

She's been communicating with spirits and mythical creatures since she first started posting on this forum. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4247220#post4247220) That's what I meant when I said I believe she is delusional based on ALL her claims. Like others here, I was willing to give her "super ability" the benefit of the doubt, but, put in context with her other claims, it's just too much.

Geez. At least she was trying to shoehorn her ability into pseudo-science, but you're right, amidst her other claims, it is too much. So much for a science student!

She is literally exactly the same as the other woo's, isn't she? All this talk about vibrations, and quantum mechanics - how can they all be so astonishingly similar? It boggles the mind.

This woman needs help, and I don't think this thread is helping.

Moochie

31st December 2008, 12:15 PM

If you read "Anita's" entire output as a work of fiction, and put the word "pulp" before "fiction," you may begin to understand the author.

M.

Sasha

31st December 2008, 12:24 PM

I figured out she was either a chain-yanker or quite deluded after she said she was sincere when she posted:

I tried to join The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/ but believe it or not they ask "Are you human?" and you have to answer "Yes" in order to register, so I couldn't do that and asked myself where is an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus supposed to go and luckily Randi welcomes the opinions of all forms of life.

Uncayimmy

31st December 2008, 01:19 PM

Desertgal wrote, "Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy..." Wow. Somebody thinks I am long suffering!

desertgal

31st December 2008, 02:08 PM

Desertgal wrote, "Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy..." Wow. Somebody thinks I am long suffering!

Well, I'll agree that you are long suffering-at least, in regards to this thread - and your patience is astounding!-but I didn't say that originally. That was Miss Kitt. :)

desertgal

31st December 2008, 03:37 PM

She is literally exactly the same as the other woo's, isn't she? All this talk about vibrations, and quantum mechanics - how can they all be so astonishingly similar? It boggles the mind.

(L. Ron) Hubbard Syndrome. :D

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 04:09 PM

UncaYimmy:
What I asked you and what you failed to answer is whether failing at PICTURES makes you rethink your claim that you could sometimes read PICTURES. You said you couldn't always do it, but you never mentioned if you failed while attempting to do it. I took you to mean that sometimes you got no readings.

So, once again, how did this failure affect your belief about PICTURES. Do you still think you can do it?The picture tests we had here on the Forum lead me to conclude that I can not obtain accurate health information from pictures over the internet to an acceptable extent. I can not conclude based on a test over the internet whether I can or can not perform with pictures in life. Why would it make a difference whether a picture is seen in life or is seen over the internet? I do not know, but I can not conclude one way or the other. If this ability exists, we do not know at this point that the stuff that conveys the information is made of or how it is conveyed. I am not interested in testing with pictures, since I have a far more frequent and interesting claim to test: with live persons. Sorry if I seem like I'm acting evasive on this subject, it's just that there is nothing more for me to conclude based on our internet picture tests.
You are mistaken. Your website reads, "I count each of these as a total of two cases of "unverified as neither correct or incorrect"." Your site also reads, "He said that it is right below the breastbone (sternum) and defined the exact same region as I had. Exactly the same region. " The emphasis is yours. There is no mention whatsoever that the small intestine is nowhere near there.Will be updated. I have learnt a lot from my time here on the Forum and had a chance to discuss my abilities and my entire website will be updated. And that's why I came here. To gain insight into this claim and experiences.:)
It's located in the esophagus area and nowhere near the small intestine. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence his ailment is not related to his big toe.What I'm saying is that I acknowledge that the small intestine is not in the region specified. In this particular perception, I pointed out the area just below the sternum as having significant sensation of rigidness, and with this perception of this area and this feeling I saw the small intestine. I conclude that the small intestine is not in this area, and I conclude that I can not conclude that the small intestine was not somehow linked to this health issue. I realize that there is a very possible inaccuracy involved, but I realize that this can not be confirmed as such. I also acknowledge that if this perception involved three bits of information: 1) the region affected, 2) the sensation experienced by the person, 3) the image of the small intestine, that two thirds of this perception was accurate. I do not count the detail of the small intestine as a hit, nor can I count it as a miss because I do not know that it is not related to the health problem.

It would be below my dignity to try to talk my way out of a miss and try to rationalize a miss, but I seriously can not conclude that the small intestine was not part of the condition. A test will involve ailments where no interpretation is possible and discussions of this sort will not take place. The answers on the test will be clearly a hit or a miss. The test will not involve descriptions where multiple information is involved in one condition. If a test asked (not that it would) where the location of the small intestine is, it would easily be checked as correct or incorrect, and not be involved with other details.
You have repeatedly called yourself a scientist, so we expect you to use precise language. If you had said his tissue absorbed copper, I would not assume that he grew copper cells. I would assume that copper is present in the cells. So when you say the tissue absorbed an oil and make a fuss about which type of oil, I don't assume you meant that it grew fat cells. If you see fatty tissue, say you saw fatty tissue.

Is it too much to ask that you be precise?I can be very precise. I was just trying to avoid overly technical terminology because then I'll get questions about what the words mean. I'll switch over to overly technical now.:)
In my mind this disproves your notion of vibrational information because no vibrational information exists for that which is not there. You can certainly detect a lack of vibrational information but only when you know something should be there such as a missing tooth. I can conceive of no possible way to detect that a small piece of the vas deferens is missing unless it was not possible for the two ends to meet. :mad: I don't agree with this conclusion. Of course I detect the absence of vibrational information. Also, there are often other indicators of the presence of a condition. A missing tooth is not only detectable by the absence of the vibrational information of the tooth, but also by the presence of the vibrational information of the difference in the socket and gums.

By observing symmetry, it is often possible to describe health information that I encounter for the first time. Had I never seen teeth before, and there was a perfect row of teeth but suddenly one is missing on one side, then based on the asymmetry I would be tempted to speak out about something being unusual in that part of the body.

Very often, when something has been altered in the body, the tissues do not look or feel "normal" after that. Surgical procedures probably always leave behind an abnormality whether it is observable on a larger tissue level, or the smaller cellular level, or the even smaller fiber or molecular level. Such as scar tissue. Many things that alter the body from how it was meant to be, leave traces that look and feel abnormal and I can in some cases detect those.

In this particular case, the two ends of the vas deferens appeared to not meet end to end and I clearly perceived the image that tissue had been removed. I saw a gap.
Did you detect the cauterization? You didn't mention it. Did you detect whether either was tied off or not? I assume you didn't ask. You should and report the results. You should also ask him how he knows that a piece was removed because it's not something that always happens and probably not something worth mentioning to a patient.Cauterize: 1. To burn or sear with a cautery. 2. To deaden, as to feelings or moral scruples; callous. I did not perceive that the tissue would have been burned away. Define tied off? I will try to be more extensive in details with future experiences and especially on the upcoming study.
The use of "honey" is at best unscientific and at worst condescending.It was intended in a positive manner and was not intended to be scientific or condescending.:)
These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.My definition of "normal" in this case refers to the perceptions I have made in people and the general average of what I have seen. In this is also weighed in any references that I encounter in for instance literature or television.
Furthermore, you claim that you almost automatically see things that are abnormal and that you need to concentrate to detect things that are healthy. You also claim that you have really only read family and friends.The perception of health information that is more severe, such as liver worms, certain types of pathogen infections, significant cysts, inflammation, and more, appear automatically yes. Different information and in different cases are associated with a different vibrational signature that I detect, and so are detectable to varying strength, where the strongest are perceived without any effort from me, and the weaker they are, the more time I must spend to locate them and to form the perceptions, and there may be a dividing line beyond which are the very weakest that I do not perceive at all.

To perceive healthy tissue is always done by choice and I make the effort to reach into the information to form the images, yes.

I perceive information from a lot of people, but only with friends and family have I told the person about the perceptions I've had of them. So I have plenty of experience of perceiving, but less experience of telling the person or of making it possible for me to ask about the accuracy. The accuracy of perceptions has in many other cases however been confirmed by other means, where I did not tell the person about the perception, and where I did not ask about it to try to establish the accuracy myself.
Thus it would seem that you would have only seen "normal" kidneys in those people you have focused upon for a detailed reading. This, of course, begs a few questions:

How many abnormal kidneys have you seen?

How many normal kidneys have you seen?

In percentage of people you have read have you even seen kidneys at all?I regret that I don't keep count of every perception, I will have to estimate. I have seen less than five cases of abnormal kidneys. I have seen perhaps 50 to 100 normal kidneys.

When I do a head-to-toe reading to search for abnormal information, kidneys are typically not among the health problems, so kidneys are actually organs that I have seen less frequently than other organs such as the liver, which is why I've seen kidneys perhaps 100 times but read people perhaps 1000 times (I don't know how accurate these estimated numbers are so do not conclude too much based on them). When I read people, there are a lot of organs and structures that do not show up because to my perception they pass as healthy.

I can choose to look at specific organs even if they do not show up on the head-to-toe reading. Typically to do a quick-scan of a person's health I only focus on what I most often experience health problems in, and only look at liver, heart, lungs and prostate in men, and liver, heart, breast, and internal reproductive system in women, and kidneys are not part of this quick-scan either. I hope to gain more experience with kidneys and all forms of things on the upcoming study. Can't wait to have it.:)
I never said anything about the whole world. I made the reasonable deduction that if someone is able to determine an enlarged kidney that they must have some form of reference. When that person claims to see inside the bodies of humans, then the natural assumption is that they have seen a large number of kidneys.And my reference is all the kidneys that I've seen as well as any reference from literature or television.
This is what skeptics do, Anita. We ask questions. The more extraordinary the claim, the tougher the questions. The longer you go without a decent test or study, the less credible you become.And as the claimant, I answer questions. Please don't blame me for the delay, I spent a year and a half waiting for the IIG West to "do something". And as soon as it was suggested to me I joined a local skeptics group and quickly realized what my next steps are and am now planning a study. I don't think the delay should affect my credibility, since I don't think it is my fault. I have chosen to be somewhat careful in how I approach this investigation, partly because I thought I was supposed to put this in the hands of others, partly because I'm modest and humble about it, and partly because I realize this is a provocative subject and that it might hurt my career if I do not handle this carefully. I'm working on it.

skeen

31st December 2008, 04:19 PM

You are not working on it. No-one believes that anymore, and you have lost all credibility in your transparent stalling, and copping out of the most basic of things that would immediately dismiss this alleged ability.

You may be able to fool yourself into thinking you're cooperating, but I don't think that even them most patient of us believes that anymore. I think you're a liar.

Jeff Corey

31st December 2008, 04:48 PM

...It would be below my dignity to try to talk my way out of a miss and try to rationalize a miss...
Is your dignity located beneath your vocabulary, which is below your colon? Or is this an outright confabulation, since we have seen you doing it before?

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 05:57 PM

desertgal:
In one sentence you say: "I only share this ability with people who know me well.", and in the next instance, someone you just met that very day is a "friend". Someone you just met that day can't "know you well", can they? Stop contradicting yourself, for God's sake.I have only told friends and family about perceptions that I've seen in them. This also applies to the two persons "I recently met", who were recently met friends and fall under this category. What I meant was that I do not share the perceptions with strangers who I have never met before and will not meet again or who I do not know well enough. If I meet a friend recently it won't take long for them to know me, I'm pretty open when I meet someone I want to keep in my life.
The battle cry of psychic claimants the world over. "It's not me-it's you!"Well, in my case the misunderstandings and the reading between the lines doesn't always seem to be my fault. I don't think we should be blaming anyone anyway, how about some better communication and none of the hostilities. I believe it should be possible to question a paranormal claimant in a positive or even neutral manner.
You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.Well let's focus on the claim I want to have tested. Besides I've never said I'm a reincarnated white dwarf star.
I wasn't the one doubting that you are from Sweden. In fact, I never said that at all. What I said was that, for those who might have that doubt, since two posters have met you in person, it would be fairly easy to confirm that you are, in fact, from Sweden simply by asking them.Alright, I'll show them my Swedish passport. It will be photographed and that will be signed by two witnesses.:rolleyes:
Nonsense, that isn't what I said at all. You provide no background information on your subjects at all. There is no way for anyone to decipher whether your conclusions are based on your alleged ability, or retained information, or simple observation. You don't need a team of scientists to collect background information after the diagnosis to help verify the accuracy. The repeated "I came, I saw, I diagnosed" does not render your anecdotes valid examples of your alleged ability.The documentation of anecdotes will be done much better in the future. The study should supply plenty of examples of what I claim to perceive and their apparent accuracy, and skeptics will be present to document, verify, and to ensure that all material is presented regardless of its accuracy.
A) Unfair of you, since I posted that before you replied, but I apologize for the confusion, I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things.
and b) you offer no evidence to back up your statements, either, Anita. In fact, you've offered up several contradictions and some wild assertions. I realize you have to arrange testing, and that takes time, but when you contradict yourself, is it wrong to question that?So far I have explained each of the so called contradictions as merely inaccurate assumptions made by skeptics, or as due to me not being specific enough, so there were no real contradictions. What contradictions?
Throwing me out? I said that I was not throwing you out, meaning blocking your posts. I would never do that, your comments are as welcome as any other's.

biomorph:
However I have some doubts that this is the way forward timewise.
Surely many of the "sight, sound" type stuff can be bundled together? They are "knowns"
You think of as many thing as you can that to prevent any physical consequences getting through.
In one test.

There are lots of examples of these tests..With "sight, sound type stuff" are you referring to my perceptions, or to the possible sources of cold reading? Would you give an example of these tests? Thank you.
However any real evidence will show some sort of mechanism.
Even without controls, or tests, you ought to be able to make a simple claim, and have the real physical evidence that there is something happening to start with. Basic observational evidence yeah?Well I have made the claim that when I look at a person I have perceptions from which I can describe health information that should not be accessible to ordinary perception. If the test will involve health information that we can all agree is not accessible by ordinary perception, such as whether a man (a man, Locknar!!) has had a vasectomy, then there should be less concern with designing a test that prevents any means of cold reading. Cold reading I believe is when you can get some information with your ordinary senses and not a paranormal ability, such as by observing posture, skin color, the movement of a person, or other signs. Some have even suggested that some health information can be concluded based on subliminal scent, or sound. Even if we arrive at a test that involves information such as vasectomy which should eliminate the concern of cold reading, I will still need to conduct the study to establish whether it is a perception that I am confident in to an extent to involve others to arrange and conduct a real, formal test with me. I think you made a very important point, thanks.
So far I find the plan you are devising to be as complicated as you can make it.biomorph, you are brilliant. I see now that you are absolutely right. Perhaps I should not consider health information that could be cold read and only focus on finding ones that could never be cold read, and to then establish whether I claim to detect these. I think the problem is that I am conducting this investigation because I want to learn more about it, and only secondarily is my objective to actually establish whether it is ESP or not. Whereas the objective of a test made by skeptics would be to determine whether it is ESP or not. I think I need to align my objective with that of the testing organization in order to be on the same page.

I think you are one of the most brilliant posters here. Many other posters are entangled in irrelevant topics that put everyone off course. I've realized a lot from you right away, please don't go anywhere.

Pup:
Anita, if I recall correctly, you're somewhere near Charlotte, NC, right? I just found out I'll have a two-hour layover in Charlotte, in the late evening on a Friday, during a trip in early March (assuming everything's on schedule and goes as planned). I'm a 49-year-old male who wouldn't mind having his health "read" and discussed under these circumstances. I'm a complete stranger to Anita in real life.

Would that be useful? That would be very useful! How wonderful! Especially since I think we can all agree that your assessment of the accuracy of my readings will be more reliable than those of my friends. Thank you! Please keep in touch with me and send me a friendly reminder when that day approaches, I will write this down in my calendar. Just a thought: in case you consider your health information to be private we do not have to share specific details with others but at the very least you can describe the accuracy and make other comments and conclusions on what you have experienced with me. Thank you!!

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 06:54 PM

desertgal:
Given that, I shall refrain from further comment in this thread. There is no need for you to refrain from posting comments. As long as we stay on topic. Comments that relate to the actual claim and investigation will lead to progress.
To act on this type of alleged ability is never harmless, regardless of the context in which you 'perform' it. Family, friends, testing, studies, surveys - what have you - it still has the potential for inflicting emotional damage, regardless of waivers and the like.When I look at people I perceive images and understanding of their health, and whether I've chosen to check with the person or had it confirmed by other means, the correlation with actual health conditions has been compelling and leads me to want to investigate the actual accuracy of these perceptions. I 'perform' this in a scientific context and will do my best to minimize the potential harm. There are ailments to test with that would not inflict harm, such as vasectomy and pains. I will ensure that I am very careful, but thank you for reminding everyone. I will let all of you critique my actual plans before I follow through to actually meet with persons in a study or a test.

Locknar:
Out of all the people you've examined with your "power" and given a 1:6 ratio of men with vasectomies (in the US)...nothing special. Unless, of course, you've asked ALL the men you've used your "power" on and confirmed things? I've only detected vasectomy once, but that does not imply anything about how well I would detect this or how often I might miss it. That is what the study is for. Even if there were a 1 in 6 chance of "guessing" that a man has had a vasectomy, the point is that I've never "guessed" wrong. But I can not prove that anecdotal fact. The upcoming study will document the accuracy.
A lifetime of this "power" and you need yet more time to study before quantifying your claim?I'm afraid so. I've rarely given myself the opportunity to ask a person to obtain the accuracy of my perceptions. And that is what the study is for.
Sounds like the typical "delay and stall" tactic to me, given this has been going on since 2007 with ZERO credible testing/results.The fact that nothing of importance has happened since I applied with the IIG West is not my fault. I am now involved with a local skeptics group, and arranging the study. And I have at least two persons (Pup and ReverendClog) who are planning to meet with me for a test. I'm working on it, I really am.
You state above you know your anecdotes are not evidence...then describe them as "accurate descriptions."
IF you truly understand that anecdotes do not qualify as evidence then stop presenting them as such or anything other then YOUR undocumented and uncorroborated perception of events. What I'm saying is that the anecdotes are not formal evidence, but I also assure that I've presented the truth and that they are what compel me personally to proceed toward a test. We are both right in this regard.
Rather then work on a far simpler aspect, such as detecting elements/chemicals as you've claimed to have done, you've chosen to focus on "health issues" - convenient as health claims are virtually impossible to verify in your current (undefined, unquantified) context.If my study finds that I am confident in detecting for instance vasectomy or heart bypass surgery then we have a perfectly testable claim.
You've stated you must see the individual, summarily ruling out cold reading seems unlikely unless you focus on something with no visible/overt clues; ie. tonsillectomy, appendectomy, etc.I think you have a point. Rather than trying to find ailments that I am confident in, but including ones that could possibly be cold read and then worrying about designing a test that eliminates cold reading, we should only involve ailments that can never be cold read. I think this is a very good point.
So you have been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have synesthesia?No, but I recognize some of its defining characteristics in the way that I experience things and process information.
If this study is as undefined/unquantified as everything else involving your claim, should it actually happen it will do nothing more then feed your own belief.The study will begin taking place in the exact same way as my everyday experience is. I will then change one condition at a time toward an acceptable test protocol, and if my ability fails I will know what test condition caused it.
This is exactly the kind of "wiggle" you leave open with "detecting" health issues in a undefined/unquantified fashion. You were wrong, just as you were wrong in the picture diagnoses you did here...and yet your attempting to exlain it as a "hit"...again. Not at all. I realize that the perception of the small intestine was a possible case of inaccuracy, but in all seriousness I can not conclude that this condition which I otherwise described fully correctly was not somehow associated with the small intestine. The test will only involve yes or no answers that do not involve descriptions or other information entangled with it. See my reply to UncaYimmy about this, briefly upthread.

skeen:
Nonsense. That's just a transparent copout. And I think I can generalize about scientific impossibilities. I should also say you cannot fly, am I still generalizing?

You're wasting everyones time and I think you know it. Just quickly, and swiftly confirm the ability does not exist, and it's all over. But you don't want that, do you? You want to fool yourself into thinking you have it.So can you tell me whether it is according to North Carolina law to engage willing participants in a study of possible psychic medical diagnose, in which participants will be disclosing personal health information and in which there is possible harm to persons who obtain accurate or inaccurate health information regardless of whether the participants claim to understand and to be able to handle this potential risk? I'm just ensuring a) I don't break the law, b) I don't hurt anyone.
No one should have any patience with you anymore. There will be no test, there will be no nothing. It all could have ended at the skeptics meeting, you could have just said what you saw. Forget about "opportunity" - that's like saying, "I didn't have the opportunity to fly around and show people I can fly" - erm, I'm pretty sure that effectively rewriting Science would have been worth just going for it.There will be a test, unless my study falsifies the hypothesis of extrasensory perception. This investigation has not shown indication of no test happening up ahead, all we have that makes us impatient is that this is all taking very much time. Yes it could very well have ended at the skeptics meeting, if we would have had the opportunity to put my claim to the test but there was no time available. If you said you could fly, you could show it right away. If you say you can detect health information in people, you need people, and that is what I haven't got.
Your very reasoning is flawed. I question your very intelligence, and I do not believe you have any scientific qualifications whatsoever, unless you got them from the Bible belt or some kookie newage university. I will not involve my career or university in this investigation, for reasons you have shown now. My credibility as a becoming scientist and that of my school has got nothing to do with this investigation, and I have tried to make that perfectly clear.

UncaYimmy:
Saying "as is typical" implies that you have done the [chemical identification] tests before. In the paragraph before that you pledged to continue to run the chemical tests. I've had a few chemical identification tests and none have falsified the possibility of ESP with regard to chemical identification. But those tests are exhausting to me and cause headache and nausea. I'm concentrating on the main claim now.
So, why did you abandon testing chemical detection? Please don't come back with your standard line about how you want to test your primary claim (not that you have actually made a claim anyway). That's just like saying "Just because."Just because.

desertgal

31st December 2008, 07:18 PM

desertgal:
Well let's focus on the claim I want to have tested.

What you don't get is that ALL your claims affect your credibility where the claim you want to have tested is concerned-and right now, your credibility score is zero. Zilch. Nada.

Nobody. believes. you.

Besides I've never said I'm a reincarnated white dwarf star.

My mistake. An "extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star". Another hallucination. :rolleyes:

Alright, I'll show them my Swedish passport. It will be photographed and that will be signed by two witnesses.:rolleyes:

What part of "I wasn't the one doubting you are from Sweden" don't you understand? Are you really that stupid? Are you hallucinating again? When I said that there were two posters here who had met you in person and could verify your accent, I was defending you from the allegation that you aren't from Sweden.

Since this is your response, then you know exactly where you can stick your Swedish passport.

I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things.

What part of "I apologize for the confusion" don't you understand?

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 08:29 PM

skeen:
Oh, there will be words. Lots, and lots of words. I think she knows she doesn't have it. All the words are from when I reply to all the words coming to me from accusations and questions. When I don't reply, I get criticized for that as well. Everything I do is wrong.

UncaYimmy:
What progress, if any, have you made regarding checking to see if you can detect circumcisions and breast implants from behind? I am arranging a study in which I will get to view volunteers who I have not met before.

Miss Kitt:
It's sad, really. I thought we had someone who honestly wanted to see what was going on with an anomalous experience in their life. I've had those; I believed that "something was going on"; I did some limited testing with friends; and BOOM! Game over, no ability. If I didn't have someone in the room that knew the "right" answer, I didn't get it. Some kind of unintentional reading coupled with psychomotor effect (if that's the right term).? What? Disregard the other topics and let's focus on the claim I am here to have tested. I do honestly want to see what's going on with an unusual experience in my life. What do you mean "no ability"? I haven't shown that? I've detected plenty of perceptions that were confirmed as accurate by means other than me asking the person, so I have not falsified possible ESP yet, and if you have then please let me know what grounds you have for that and share it with us. Unintentional reading and psychomotor effect? What?
It's too bad Anita isn't willing to do the simple and obvious self-test of going to a mall or the student union building and--without trying to verify if they are correct or not--see what kind of non-obvious physical issues ping her radar. As, tonsillectomies (there should be plenty in a college population); appendectomies; broken bones that have healed. She seems to be able to simultaneously claim that she has always been correct when she's been able to verify, AND that she doesn't know what she can see. If she has been infallible to date, then if she sees it she should consider it testable.But I'm willing to do that! Good point though, that if I think I can see it, then it should be testable as such. I think I might have to adopt that reasoning in order to make better progress in this claim. I've been working under the reasoning that once I identify what I appear to be able to do, that I then have to gain experience with the accuracy of those perceptions known before I can say anything about how I claim to be able to perceive accurate information. I want to confirm first that I feel confident that it will perform on a test as well as it did in everyday experience. Claiming to have medical perceptions is nothing, but claiming to have accurate medical perceptions is interesting.

If I think I can detect vasectomy that alone would never have compelled me toward a test. The fact that it was confirmed accurate is what moves me toward a test. Otherwise the claim would be, "I think I can detect health conditions". I want my claim to be "I believe I can detect health conditions". I'd rather have the study to gather experience where accuracy has been established before I make a very specific claim.

Thank you for a well-thought of cereal test procotol. I will consider taking up the Lactobacillus tests again.

stanfr:
Anita can simply go to a group of skeptics (as she has already apparently done) and demonstrate her ability to them. If they are convinced, which they surely will be if she actually can do what she says she can do, she won't even need to defend herself, cause there will be a group of skeptics who will be her biggest advocates! Maybe at our next local skeptics meeting there will be the chance of demonstrating my claim.

Ashles:
Actually that is a really good point. One of the most common traits of applicants is a desire for attention. At the moment I think that is the only purpose this thread is serving.It's not my fault that my claim involves other people. I have already made plans to go to a mall and write down the perceptions I have. It is a good idea and at least some form of progress.
Anita - I don't have any more questions for you, and, despite your lengthy responses I don't think we are receiving particularly useful information any more.PHEW, and agreed.
Until you conduct some independent testing I don't think you have anything further to add on the subject of your claim.I couldn't agree more. I've just been replying to everyone else's talk. I'm glad it's finally over and we can concentrate on the claim and the tests. No more false accusations, no more off-topic discussions about my credibility, whether I'm from Sweden, whether I'm studying two B.S. degrees, whether to include women on a vasectomy detection test. I couldn't be happier.
It is quite ridiculous that a proper test is still not happening. The lactobacillus test, even if imperfect (and not considered a challenge test in itself), might have yielded useful information and would at least be a demonstration that Anita is genuinely acting in good faith and keen to rtesearch the 'ability' in all its aspects.I wanted to focus on my main claim which I am working on having tested. I've confirmed with the cereal tests what I already knew, that the other perceptions such as bacteria occur much less frequently than medical perceptions, and I've found that I get very uncomfortable headache and nausea from the effort in chemical identification tests. I also found that my skill is reduced proportionally as the headache and discomfort appear and forcing these perceptions and for the time it takes to have an entire test was uncomfortable. Medical perceptions are never as infrequent or difficult to form.
As it stands this claim should be considered pretty much over as it looks like no test will ever happen.I have not terminated my investigation yet. I am proceeding toward a test in the way that I know how. I'm sorry if that is not fast enough.

Locknar:
Pursuit of (vague and otherwise undefined) "health" issues is allows for all kinds of what I've refereed to as "wiggle" and does nothing but feed her belief she has "powers."My belief is not that I have powers. My belief is that I have medical perceptions with apparent accuracy and my belief is that a proper test will establish the actual accuracy. There will be no wiggle room on a test. A person either has had heart bypass surgery or hasn't. No room for interpretation.
What is most disappointing in all this is folks she has told, such as teachers, friends, etc., have done nothing to dissuade her. And that's because I've made accurate health descriptions and no reason has appeared to conclude no ability. I think the only thing we're all upset about here (including me) is the time it takes to make any progress in this investigation. I am seriously interested in testing my main claim.

Old man:
I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…
Anita, please, stop exaggerating.Plenty of health information, such as in this hypothetical case, bad eyesight, discomfort from swallowing, an injury to the right shoulder which makes some specific movement painful, slow heartbeat, past case of asthma, the presence of certain medical derivatives in the liver, enlarged prostate, bad knees... I also detect plenty of less interesting information that I never even mention, plenty of details which, if I told them, would "prove" nothing since everyone has them to some extent, like if I said "mild vitamin A deficiency". When it comes to significant health information that could be useful for a test, I do not detect plenty of those in all persons, maybe that's what you meant.
Anita, I mentioned your use of hyperbole in an earlier post. Maybe DG is trying to get you to TELL THE TRUTH, without all of YOUR exaggerations!Whoa!! When on earth did I exaggerate! Give me ONE example! My statements might be unusual or outrageous, but I'm not exaggerating.
And, your exaggerated claims are sometimes nonsensical, too. How rude. Give me one example.
Maybe we’re making progress. Are you admitting that it’s possible that your anecdotes might be just a little, (oh, how should I put this?) exaggerated?No that is not possible. My anecdotes are absolutely not exaggerated. Not even a little. :mad: :mad:
They've happened exactly as I said.
Anita, you are really, really determined to drag this fiasco out just as long as you can, aren’t you?Fiasco? I'm investigating my medical perceptions. I'm proud of myself. Some of you are just impatient. And I intend to reach a definite conclusion as soon as I can, but without compromising the quality of tests. I will not involve my local skeptics group in arranging a test until I am clearer about what ailments and what test conditions to use, because that's the advice they gave me. This is all about taking the everyday experience of my claim and trying it out in new ways so that I can take it into the laboratory setting. No fiasco there. Just impatience.
The simplest way to ‘study’ your ability will be to just do what you normally do, using some volunteers and your two ‘skeptic’ witnesses. Then, after you do that, all you’ll have to do is tell us that you now realize you really don’t have this power, and you can move on to ghost hunting! The study serves this purpose, although we must allow either outcome and not be biased toward one outcome over the other.
No, just show us that you can do anything at all, even if it’s indistinguishable from cold reading!You've got it! I'll show you. Patience.
Anita, it’s called GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). Damn near half of the people in the US suffer symptoms occasionally. You guessed right on ONE coin flip! WOW!Guessing doesn't account for the majority of my medical perceptions. The fact that some of my perceptions could be guessed with high odds in a guesser's favor does not conclude that it was the case of a guess. That is where statistics comes in. Just wait and see study and test results. You're getting ahead of yourself.
No, you had a high probability of guessing right. What are the odds of guessing a 0.0006 m2 affected area out of the entire 1.9 m2 average surface area of a man? Is it about 1 in 3100? What about guessing the type of discomfort experienced there, out of all possible discomforts? One in many many. If it was a guess, it was a very good one.
Here, I’ll save you some time. Just quote this - “I’ve NEVER, EVER, met ANYONE who was suffering from this!11!!” (And - never listened to the radio, never saw a TV commercial, never saw any ads for antacids, blah, blah, blah.)What? How would that be useful in a paranormal investigation? I know this is probably pun, but try to refrain from it to keep things clear here.
When I get a few minutes, sure, I could right up a protocol.No. I meant set up the test for me. Participants and all. That's the real work involved.
But, you know damned well that I meant in person, don’t you? Stop the ‘silly little airhead girl’ act, OK? You’re ‘brilliant’, remember? You’re a ‘serious scientist’. Act like one. Do you realize that you're insulting a real person here? Maybe because this is all taking place over the internet and in typed words it somehow doesn't seem real to some of you, but I'm a somebody here who came to get some help in discussing how to arrange a test for a paranormal claim, and there's been too many hostile and negative comments, accusations, and personal attacks. What on earth makes you say such negative things? What's wrong with you? Why do I feel like I'm being under attack? I've opened myself up to you guys and done my very best to be fully honest, I've answered every question and I've been polite and friendly throughout. Would you really speak to me like this in person? :confused:

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 09:30 PM

desertgal:
I don't think Anita is evil, either. Just irresponsible as hell, and completely bogus.What makes me irresponsible? The fact that I do not offer psychic readings openly and for a fee even though I'd be good at acchieving the type of apparent accuracy that clients would be very happy with? Or that I'm willing to openly analyze my perceptions according to the scientific method and prepared to accept the conclusion of no ESP? Or that I'm spending time planning how to conduct the study and the test in a way where no participants are at risk of getting hurt? And, there's nothing "bogus" about perceiving medical images. Most people for instance experience times where they have random thoughts in their head that they can't control, or hear music playing in their head that they can't stop. I have neither. And the fact that I am interested in investigating these perceptions is because they have had apparent accuracy, not because I'd want them to be accurate if they were not. I think I'm being rational about an experience that on its own compels me toward investigating it further.
We all volunteer medical advice to other people. The difference, of course, is that we all don't pretend (or believe) to have a super ability to be able to "see" into other people's bodies in order to diagnose medical problems, and we don't claim a 100% accuracy rate on previous conclusions based solely on that "ability". I don't pretend to see inside people. I believe that I might, but I have not allowed myself to conclude that I do. The only reason I claim a 100% accuracy so far, is because that is what I have experienced. With that I do not claim that I will never encounter inaccuracy up ahead, or that the actual accuracy would always be 100% up ahead. I am open to experiencing inaccuracy, would it happen.
If I had said, "I 'see' your child's tonsils, and they are inflamed-trust me, I've never been wrong", that's a different story. That's not suggesting a possible medical diagnosis - it is making a certain one. In my opinion, that IS irresponsible.I see what you mean. The type of medical information you might give is all based on external perception and signs that you can detect, such as the scent of tonsillitis, which then other people can confirm on their own. The problem is that my perceptions are ones that others do not have and can not confirm in the same way.

I never express my medical diagnose in the way you suggested. I NEVER say TRUST ME, I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG. What I say, is that I think I see a medical condition, I describe it. Once I've done that I check with the person whether they have any awareness of it themselves, or whether there are any detectable symptoms. I ALWAYS say, that "Although I've never been wrong, we can not take this as truth, just in case this time I'm wrong. Treat what I say as nonsense, and trust what you've already known about your health, and trust your own knowledge and what conventional medicine can tell you. Do not take any of what I say as truth. Just tell me what you can about the accuracy of my descriptions as you know it." That is what I say. Please do not waste time accusing me of not saying this because this is the truth of what I say.

The way I handle my attempts of psychic medical diagnose is in my opinion very responsible. You haven't seen how I do it. You are speculating and getting carried away with your imaginations of how it might take place. Now who's delusional?
As well, if we claim this super ability, and we test it on people with the primary objective of proving it exists, as opposed to the interest of their health being the primary objective, isn't that also irresponsible? Whether the perception is accurate or not, and whether they sign a waiver or not, the person may still have the anxiety and worry over a negative 'diagnosis' until they can get to a doctor and confirm it either way. Why don't you listen to what I'm saying before you make conclusions about how I act? That would avoid some of the misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions you then throw at me and argue at me about. My objective is not to prove that I have ESP. My objective is to find out whether I do. Please don't make me find plenty of quotes from where I state this very explicitly. Of course the interest of people's health is my objective! You're talking to a girl who wanted to become a doctor of medicine just to help people, not to make a ton of money! You should hear most of the pre-meds, all they want is money! :rolleyes: I'm very responsible with how I express my medical perceptions. I will elaborate on this if necessary.

skeen:
Wait, I've been largely ignoring her walls of text, but now she's communicating with spirits?! Oh for **** sake. I'm done with this loon. This thread should be closed. This woman is ******* insane.You don't know that. You don't have to stay if that bothers you, but let's stay on topic.
Geez. At least she was trying to shoehorn her ability into pseudo-science, but you're right, amidst her other claims, it is too much. So much for a science student!I'm very professional and responsible as a science-student, and none of my unusual perceptions affect how I perform as a student or in my career.
skeen]You are not working on it. No-one believes that anymore, and you have lost all credibility in your transparent stalling, and copping out of the most basic of things that would immediately dismiss this alleged ability.

You may be able to fool yourself into thinking you're cooperating, but I don't think that even them most patient of us believes that anymore. I think you're a liar. I am working on it. I'm waiting for a response from the IIG West, I'm eagerly anticipating our next meeting with the local skeptics group, I'm typing up the procedure of the study, I'm discussing with y'all guys, I'm planning to go to the mall to document perceptions, I'm considering asking a hospital or something similar whether it is possible for me to conduct a study there even though I expect a negative answer. The only thing I'm not doing is standing on a soapbox and asking everyone to come and let me do a psychic reading on them in the purpose of a study or test. I don't know yet whether that is legal, and I'd make a fool of myself and do damage to my life. I am not a liar.

desertgal:
Nobody. believes. you.Of course not. I haven't even presented any evidence yet. It's just the belief that I'd not have ESP that gets me. I've presented no evidence against ESP. Why can't we be objective?
What part of "I wasn't the one doubting you are from Sweden" don't you understand? Are you really that stupid? Are you hallucinating again? When I said that there were two posters here who had met you in person and could verify your accent, I was defending you from the allegation that you aren't from Sweden.

Since this is your response, then you know exactly where you can stick your Swedish passport. How absolutely rude, what's wrong with you?
I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things.
What part of "I apologize for the confusion" don't you understand?I was merely explaining why I hadn't answered to UncaYimmy's post in the other thread like 5 minutes after his had been posted.

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 09:46 PM

Happy New Years 2009 everyone!
May all your dreams come true this year!

desertgal

31st December 2008, 09:47 PM

No more false accusations, no more off-topic discussions about my credibility

Your credibility IS part of the topic. Why can't you understand that? WE don't know you. We only know what we read. To make a fair assessment of ONE thing you say, we have to take EVERYTHING you say into consideration - and what we've read here, in total, appears, to a logical mind, to be nothing more than fantasy spinning. Delusions. Hallucinations. Whatever you want to call it. ALL your claims, taken together, remove any reasonable doubt, and gives no one here one single, logical reason to believe anything you say about your "main claim". You've offered no proof, no documented examples, no videotapes, no corroborating statements - nothing. On ANY of your claims. Only some campfire stories that are backed up with...nothing.

The picture you present of yourself - and we look at the WHOLE picture that you present with all your words, not just the part you want us to - is that you are the most extraordinary being in the history of mankind. You commune with ghosts, you solve crimes, you medically diagnose people with one look, you communicate telepathically with animals and mythical creatures, and you are an extraterrestrial incarnation. It's all so unbelievably delusional that it would be funny if it didn't make it so apparent that you, as Skeen and I have both pointed out, need help.

Are these false accusations? Not hardly.Is your credibility off topic? No, because it is relevant to your claim. Do you have any credibility left? No.

Uncayimmy

31st December 2008, 09:52 PM

Of course not. I haven't even presented any evidence yet. It's just the belief that I'd not have ESP that gets me. I've presented no evidence against ESP. Why can't we be objective?

ESP has never been proven to exist. Therefore, no test exists to *disprove* it. No flying pig with mind control powers has been proven to exist. Therefore, we cannot disprove that a flying pig is controlling your mind.

Think of it this way. Magnetism is known to exist. Suppose I demonstrate that I can make an object slide several inches across the table into my hand. I can disprove that I am using magnetism by moving a wooden object. To prove that nothing magnetic is hidden in the wood, we can use a very strong magnet to move a piece of iron. Under the same circumstances we can demonstrate that my wooden object doesn't move.

Thus we have disproved magnetism.

The objective scientist knows that ESP has never been repeatedly demonstrated under properly controlled conditions. So, objectively, how can ESP even be a consideration? Why should it get equal billing with known explanations?

Please answer this question: Do you need to rule out by either deductive reasoning or experiment all possible known explanations before considering that you have discovered a new force?

desertgal

31st December 2008, 09:55 PM

desertgal:
What makes me irresponsible? <snip>

Those comments weren't addressed to you. They were in response to a question from Old Man to me. I've stated several times why I believe you are irresponsible. I'm not doing it again. If you don't agree with it, tough. As for "now who's delusional", you wouldn't recognize delusional if it walked up and smacked you upside the head, so you are hardly someone to be attaching that label to anyone else.

How absolutely rude, what's wrong with you?

What is wrong with me? I defended you on an issue, and, twice in response now, you attacked me for making an accusation that I didn't make. That's pretty rude in itself.

Please. Talk to a doctor. With college, with this, that, and the other-your stress level is probably sky high. Delusions can be manifestations of stress or they could be an indication of a more serious problem. There are ways to help. Please. It won't hurt you, and it might help you.

VisionFromFeeling

31st December 2008, 10:56 PM

chillzero

1st January 2009, 01:46 AM

Everyone, please keep your posts civil.

Locknar

1st January 2009, 05:49 AM

If I think I can detect vasectomy that alone would never have compelled me toward a test. The fact that it was confirmed accurate is what moves me toward a test.As you've mentioned you claim to have done this one time; hardly impressive. More on this below.

My belief is not that I have powers. My belief is that I have medical perceptions with apparent accuracy and my belief is that a proper test will establish the actual accuracy.You have made vague medical "perceptions" and then interpret them to fit reality; just as you have done here and been wrong (ie. the "small intestine" discussion).

There will be no wiggle room on a test. A person either has had heart bypass surgery or hasn't. No room for interpretation. No room for interpretation? Hardly true; "medical issues" are rarely cut and dry (where the "cereal test" would be) but I think you realize this and are using the "wiggle" it introduces as a buffer.

For example....

On the topic of vascetomy...lets say, for the sake of argument, your campfire story (ie. YOUR recounting of a uncorroborated event based on YOUR perception) actually happened. Vasectomy is a rather generic term applying to a number of surgical/medical techniques to sterilize a man.

These procedures include no-scalpel (keyhole) vasectomies, "open ended", "normal" (which has several variations such as the use of stitches, heat, clamps, section removal, etc.). (reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy))

Exactly what kind of vasectomy did he have, what exactly did you "see" that lead you to conclude a vasectomy had occurred? This is a rhetorical question, as anything you say now is well after the fact.

You mentioned heart bypass surgery; so you would NOT include angioplasty, stents, high blood-pressure, heart attacks, pace makers, heart transplant, or any other medical issue related to the cardio-vascular system?

As with "vasectomy", "heart bypass" is a generic term used to describe a wide array of procedures - specifically what would you claim to be able to "see", specifically what would you claim as a "hit" or "miss"?

Lastly...on the topic of your anecdotes/campfire stories. You persist in claiming they are (in effect) 100% accurate; this is simply not possible and I think you know this.

Your anecdotes are based on YOUR perception of events - by default YOUR perception taints the anecdote. This is why real scientists keep logs/diaries, corroborate events, etc.

For all you know...people have been forewarned of your "power" (ie. "my friend things she can "see" medical issues...just play along"), and are doing just that - playing along.

Of course you'll vehemently deny this, but without corroboration, specifics, etc. you can not summarily rules this out.

If you want your anecdotes to carry any weight above "campfire story" you need to include specficis...WHO are these people (or have they all conveniently asked you not mention their names)....for example.

desertgal

1st January 2009, 10:27 AM

desertgal:
I think that my claim will prove itself in tests, and the evidence from test results will speak for itself. No amount of good credibility will save me if I fail the test. No amount of bad credibility will take the passing of a test away from me if I pass the test.

You are missing the point. At this point, it doesn't matter to most people here whether you take the test or not. Your credibility is gone. Your claims are fantasy. As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, nearly everything you claim to do with this sooper power is equivalent to what most of us can do without a sooper power. A test will not reveal anything that most people here don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

You skeptics search for reasons to lower my credibility, even when reasons aren't there! That I'm lying about studying two degrees at the same time, that I'm lying about Swedisn origins, that I'm lying about who I've told about my perceptions, and all else!

Wrong. The damage to your credibility comes from YOUR claims. The allegation that you were lying about studying two degrees at once has been disproved-and it was a misunderstanding to begin with, which was almost immediately corrected. The allegation that you are not Swedish has been disproved. The confusion about who you who told about your perceptions does remain - largely because there is a difference of opinion over what constitutes "a close friend". Obviously, something we aren't going to agree on, so most of us have moved on.

But, the fantasy element in your claims is still solidly apparent. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

Can't we focus on the claim and testing the claim?

Why should "we" focus on YOUR claim and YOUR test, when it is apparent to most of us that your claim is nothing more than imagination gone wild? We've offered suggestions, we've offered protocols - and you've ignored them all. Proving YOUR claim in any direction is YOUR responsibility. Frankly, again, as evidenced by a multitude of posts, I don't think anyone here cares much anymore whether you get tested or not. As I already said, any test will not reveal anything most people here don't already know, and the test/study/survey protocols you keep coming up with, while ignoring everyone else's, are ones that give you plenty of wiggle room to continue perpetuating your fantasy. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

Who I am as a person, and whether I'm interested in ghost investigations on my spare time is irrelevant to this case!

When did I say it was? I said your claims, taken altogether, are relevant to your credibility, and your credibility is relevant to this claim. Not to be rude, but I don't care who you are as a person- I'm never going to meet you. I don't care if you go out hunting ghosts or deer or a three toed sloth. The interest of people here only extends as far as what you present on this forum-and what you have presented on this forum isn't credible. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

Even if my credibility were reduced to nothing in your eyes it would not change the way the study and the tests will be carried out and analyzed.

No, it won't, I agree. But, most people here don't care anymore how the study and the tests are carried out. That's YOUR responsibility. YOU are the only one here who wants answers-and I think the only answer you will find acceptable is that your sooper power truly exists. Most of US don't expect that a test will reveal anything we don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

That I have these perceptions is not a health problem.

Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a psychologist? How do you know? You are having a wide variety of fantasies and hallucinations, which is a pretty good indication that something isn't right. I'm not suggesting that you need to see a doctor to be cruel, Anita, but out of concern. I'm twice your age, I've learned a few things along the way that college doesn't teach you and I think you need help. I would say exactly that to any one of my kids if I heard them making the same outrageous claims that you have.

They occur most frequently and most easily when the stress level is the lowest.

So? That doesn't mean they aren't a manifestation of cumulative stress.

And they seem to accurately depict actual health information

No. According to you, and you only, "they" seem to accurately depict health information. The fact is, "they" are, most likely, as UncaYimmy has pointed out, NOT the source of your conclusions. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

and that is the only reason I'm bringing them out "into the world" at all to find out more about them.

To what purpose? You've shown a complete disregard to opinions, and suggestions, and protocols from everyone here that you have shared this alleged ability with. You appear to be only interested in proving that your alleged ability is what you already believe it is. Why share them with the world at all, since nothing will change your mind that this alleged ability exists?

By the way everyone, please stop being hostile. It's uncomfortable and does not lead to any progress. What if I spoke in that manner to you?

You HAVE spoken in that manner to me. Did I run and cry to a moderator? No. If you come on here and spin a fantasy, and then shoot down any and all opinions about it, then you have to expect a certain amount of exasperation in response. People don't have a lot of patience when it comes to being expected to feed someone else's fantasies.

desertgal

1st January 2009, 11:18 AM

These procedures include no-scalpel (keyhole) vasectomies, "open ended", "normal" (which has several variations such as the use of stitches, heat, clamps, section removal, etc.).

Bet every guy who reads that winces and covers their crotch with their hands. :eye-poppi

For all you know...people have been forewarned of your "power" (ie. "my friend things she can "see" medical issues...just play along"), and are doing just that - playing along.

This is a very good point, and, also, playing along can happen even without forewarning. For example, most folks here remember the Sylvia Browne segment on Montel which involved the widow of the 9-11 firefighter. At the end of the segment, when Browne made her outrageous allusion to the "water" she "saw" the man in being from fire hoses in the WTC, the widow didn't vocalize her scorn or her disbelief at the suggestion. She didn't castigate Browne for being completely incorrect. She simply gave a small nod and sat down.

Uncayimmy

1st January 2009, 11:53 AM

I said, "ESP has never been proven to exist. Therefore, no test exists to *disprove* it. No flying pig with mind control powers has been proven to exist. Therefore, we cannot disprove that a flying pig is controlling your mind."

You said, "And that's why none of you should conclude or believe that I do not have ESP."

That makes perfect sense. Based on your logic the following theories are still on the table.

* A flying pig is controlling your mind.
* Your mother implanted a chip in your head as part of an Illuminati plot. Her "sponsors" are controlling your mind with this chip.
* An extraterrestrial entity is using your body as a host. The last host body was a doctor, which explains the medical knowledge.
* You are not a human. You are an alien who is able to present human DNA, but in reality you have a special organ capable of detecting vibrational information. This organ is located in your sinuses, but is undetectable by human technology.

If you accept those theories as being on the table, then I will understand why you accept ESP as being on the table and stop bugging you about it.

skeen

1st January 2009, 12:33 PM

I said, "ESP has never been proven to exist. Therefore, no test exists to *disprove* it. No flying pig with mind control powers has been proven to exist. Therefore, we cannot disprove that a flying pig is controlling your mind."

You said, "And that's why none of you should conclude or believe that I do not have ESP."

How is it that we, who (presumably) have no background in Science, are able to grasp logic better than Anita, who claims to be studying it?

I have no idea how she could possibly think that was a logical line of thought. But in the context of everything else she has said, it makes perfect sense I suppose!

This is what woo woo's lack, the basic ability to think logically. It truly is what separates them from us. This is why they speak so much twaddle, and yet have convinced themselves they've raised proper arguments.

Ashles

1st January 2009, 03:15 PM

How is it that we, who (presumably) have no background in Science, are able to grasp logic better than Anita, who claims to be studying it?
I have to say this is why I asked the questions about Anita's degree. She is in her third year yet has demonstrated little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant.
Her answers have not struck me as different from someone who had read a little science on the internet and remembered a few buzzwords.

Is it time for recipes yet?

skeen

1st January 2009, 04:05 PM

I have to say this is why I asked the questions about Anita's degree. She is in her third year yet has demonstrated little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant.
Her answers have not struck me as different from someone who had read a little science on the internet and remembered a few buzzwords.

Is it time for recipes yet?
Yes, I have to say that given not only her ridiculous claims, her inability to think logically seriously, seriously calls into question whether she is studying Science. I conclude that she has not.

What woo woo's often do, is invent lies to reinforce their credibility, because they think that because what they're claiming is real (in their own minds), it won't hurt. But it is these little lies that, when taken apart, leave absolutely nothing.

Look at the way Anita has copped out of proving anything. She refuses to grasp that she is literally the most incredible person in the entire world, if what she is saying is true. I tell her that she should just merely ask anyone she walks into, if she can see through them, tell them what she sees.

She retorts with asking about the legality in doing this! That's just mental! She is performing a supernatural feat that will turn the entire world on its head. If I could fly, I won't worry about no-fly zones, and use that as an excuse not to just walk the hell outside, and show people that I can fly! Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to mind that I am invading airspace!

It's as if there's some kind of second personality in her mind, steering her away from inevitable defeat. As reasonable, rational people, we all know there is no possible way she can pass the test, which makes her steering all the more transparent to everyone but herself.

It's really a kind of psychological marvel, and if she is being serious in all of this, she desperately needs help. I would venture to say she hasn't told us an ounce of truth in this entire thread, and that would be a very reasonable conclusion to come to.

I am curious about the people who met her at the skeptics meeting. How did she come off? Woo woo's have that "look" about them, like Callahan and Geller, you can tell immediately tell there's something not quite right about them.

desertgal

1st January 2009, 04:45 PM

Yes, I have to say that given not only her ridiculous claims, her inability to think logically seriously, seriously calls into question whether she is studying Science. I conclude that she has not.

In fairness, there is an undergraduate named Anita Ikonen (http://search.uncc.edu/people/?p=search&role=1&refresh=0&firstname=Anita&lastname=Ikonen) listed in the Physics and Optical Science Department (http://physics.uncc.edu/people/undergraduates/undergraduates.html) at Univ. of North Carolina at Charlotte.This jibes with Vision for Feeling's statements through this thread.

That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.

skeen

1st January 2009, 05:21 PM

That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.

Well, this is highly baffling to me as well. Her train of thought is that of a 10 year old. What she said about not being able to conclude there's no ESP is crazy.

I believe that if any single one of us skeptics here had this ability, we could find a million ways to prove it in a heartbeat! I could prove the ability right now. Anita seems completely oblivious to common sense, even!

I can't imagine she's doing well in that class. That is, if it is her. Perhaps she just stole someone's name? If not, then she has a very, very, very serious psychological issue that desperately needs to be examined.

Or, she's just a liar. I'm sure it's a bit of both. Maybe she's a compulsive liar, and she desperately seeks attention or something like that? It's not uncommon. Either way, she clearly needs therapy and I don't think this thread is helping.

EDIT: I've searched for Anita on Google, and have come across a few scientific publications that cite her as being an assistant to lab work, and whathaveyou. If this is her, it is at least who she is claiming to be, then she certainly has a psychological disorder. Pretty creepy to be honest.

desertgal

1st January 2009, 06:01 PM

Well, this is highly baffling to me as well. Her train of thought is that of a 10 year old. What she said about not being able to conclude there's no ESP is crazy.

I believe that if any single one of us skeptics here had this ability, we could find a million ways to prove it in a heartbeat! I could prove the ability right now. Anita seems completely oblivious to common sense, even!

I think what I find most baffling is her continued insistence that many of her conclusions could not be reached by any other means than her alleged ability. Yet, even though she is a scientist, she keeps no diary of these events, or, as Locknar pointed out, no record of variables, controls, etc. I mean, as you say, it would be simple common sense to do so. If she can't rule out other sources for her information, then how can she possibly say it was ALWAYS her alleged ability?

As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, he can do pretty much what she claims to be able to do. Yet, in his case, it the result of proven techniques, and, in her case, it is ALWAYS the result of her sooper power. Makes no sense.

She simply recites anecdotes from memory and insists they are absolutely correct and she was 100% accurate each time. It's almost laughable. Human memory is one of the most fallible mechanisms on this planet, and she keeps no records for reference or to refresh her memory - yet her memory is ALWAYS correct and her conclusions are ALWAYS accurate? As my teenagers might say, no freakin' way.

In fairness, though, perhaps extraterrestrial incarnations of white dwarf stars have infallible memories. :p

Uncayimmy

1st January 2009, 09:24 PM

That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.

That doesn't baffle me at all. I've seen it countless times. Brilliant students are brilliant at being students. What baffles me is that so many people assume this will always translate into the world outside of academia. How many scientific studies have we seen that were royally screwed up even though they were executed by people with advanced degrees? How many "expert" scientists were fooled by Uri Geller?

I see nothing unusual with how Anita is behaving. It's not how I believe a scientist should behave, but she's not a scientist. She's a college student with paranormal beliefs. In that sense her behavior is expected. If a dog has three legs and you decide to call his tail a leg, how many legs does he have? Three. Just because you call his tail a leg it doesn't mean it is one.

Many of us have run out patience, but that doesn't mean we are impatient. We, including Anita, seem to agree that she needs to 1) come up with a testable claim and 2) test it. I say let's not worry anymore about why it hasn't happened yet and offer our assistance to make it happen ASAP.

How about it, team? Let's win one for the old Gipper!

And even if we win, if we win, HAH! Even if we win! Even if we play so far above our heads that our noses bleed for a week to ten days; even if God in Heaven above comes down and points his hand at our side of the field; even if every man woman and child held hands together and prayed for us to win, it just wouldn't matter because all the really good looking girls would still go out with the guys from Mohawk because they've got all the money! It just doesn't matter if we win or we lose. It just doesn't matter.

Sorry...I was channeling Tripper Harrison again...

VisionFromFeeling

1st January 2009, 11:55 PM

Alright everyone. I am now working on designing the study and would value your participation. We finally have things to talk about directly relating to our investigation. But first let me respond to your latest comments in my usual way. Here's a wall o'text in response to y'alls wall o'text:

Locknar:
As you've mentioned you claim to have done this [detected vasectomy] one time; hardly impressive. More on this below.And that is why I plan to have a study to gain more experience with specific health information.
You have made vague medical "perceptions" and then interpret them to fit reality; just as you have done here and been wrong (ie. the "small intestine" discussion).Of course if I were to be perceiving medical information there will be both vague as well as specific medical information. The tests will involve only specific, yes/no health information. I was specificly asked to document examples of the everyday perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html is for. It is not intended as evidence, or necessarily as substance for future tests. All they are are examples.
No room for interpretation? Hardly true; "medical issues" are rarely cut and dry (where the "cereal test" would be) but I think you realize this and are using the "wiggle" it introduces as a buffer.While a lot of medical information involves a combination of details, and vagueness due to the nature of them, there are still many simple yes/no ailments to test for. There will be no wiggle on an actual test, I assure you. No one would agree to such a test, not even me. :)
On the topic of vascetomy...lets say, for the sake of argument, your campfire story (ie. YOUR recounting of a uncorroborated event based on YOUR perception) actually happened. Vasectomy is a rather generic term applying to a number of surgical/medical techniques to sterilize a man.It did happen, although you are unable to believe me because the occurrence was not documented in a way to make it evidence, and the only thing we derive from it is that I gained another specific aspect to my claim, and a very testable one at that. Well, even if vasectomy were a general term, my perception was specific. I saw that portions of the vas deferens had been removed on either side, and thus vasectomy was correctly concluded.
These procedures include no-scalpel (keyhole) vasectomies, "open ended", "normal" (which has several variations such as the use of stitches, heat, clamps, section removal, etc.). Thank you for pointing that out, it is very important. Luckily my perceptions are more specific than "there was a surgical procedure done in that area", or even "the man has been sterilized". I can describe what I see, so that should alleviate some of this concern.
Exactly what kind of vasectomy did he have, what exactly did you "see" that lead you to conclude a vasectomy had occurred? This is a rhetorical question, as anything you say now is well after the fact.I saw the type of vasectomy where a portion of the vas deferens had been surgically removed on both left and right sides and where there was visibly a gap. I am sure that if we have men who have had any type of vasectomy, or just this type of vasectomy, on the test, and then ones who have had no procedures of sterilization, it should be a testable health information.
You mentioned heart bypass surgery; so you would NOT include angioplasty, stents, high blood-pressure, heart attacks, pace makers, heart transplant, or any other medical issue related to the cardio-vascular system?I hope to find out in the upcoming study whether I detect and distinguish these other types of heart conditions also. I don't think it is acceptable to test for simply "heart condition" as that is very common, affects most people to varying extent, and is too vague. Luckily I think I can be more specific than that.
As with "vasectomy", "heart bypass" is a generic term used to describe a wide array of procedures - specifically what would you claim to be able to "see", specifically what would you claim as a "hit" or "miss"?With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected. With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision. I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery. :confused:
Lastly...on the topic of your anecdotes/campfire stories. You persist in claiming they are (in effect) 100% accurate; this is simply not possible and I think you know this. When I checked these perceptions they were accurate. However this does not imply that they were cases of accurate ESP. They were accurate perceptions, but that does not say whether they were derived from cold reading or from ESP. Some of them I do not know how one would cold read them! And that is why we approach a study and then a test.
Your anecdotes are based on YOUR perception of events - by default YOUR perception taints the anecdote. This is why real scientists keep logs/diaries, corroborate events, etc.And, somewhat, that is what the observations page is: a log of perceptions. The anecdotes are based on what happened. Better documentation, and with reliable skeptics as witnesses, will be available at the upcoming study. So we can actually agree on the unreliability of past anecdotes and take them only as examples of the specifics of my claim, and look forward to properly documented examples up ahead.
For all you know...people have been forewarned of your "power" (ie. "my friend things she can "see" medical issues...just play along"), and are doing just that - playing along.Locknar, your comments are very valuable, but listen to me. I've accurately described medical information in people who were not forewarned about me. I've perceived information that was later confirmed as accurate by means other than me presenting what I saw. I've accurately detected information that no one could simply play along with, like the vasectomy and the heart bypass surgery, information that can be verified as accurate by the presence of marks or scars. There really are reasons to proceed toward tests.
Of course you'll vehemently deny this, but without corroboration, specifics, etc. you can not summarily rules this out. Of course I do not rule out cold reading effects as possible causes for some of the perceptions when cold reading could have taken place. However remember that there have been cases where cold reading did not seem to be possible. And that all we conclude is to proceed toward tests. Well-documented examples will be provided shortly. Patience. And then you can apply your excellent skepticism (no pun intended!) to these.
If you want your anecdotes to carry any weight above "campfire story" you need to include specficis...WHO are these people (or have they all conveniently asked you not mention their names)....for example. I will not reveal their identities because they are friends and family to me. I don't want the anecdotes to be taken as anything more than anecdotes. All I've asked us to conclude based on them is that they are a) examples of the specifics of what I claim, and b) examples of the reasons I have for proceeding toward tests.

desertgal:
You are missing the point. At this point, it doesn't matter to most people here whether you take the test or not. Your credibility is gone. Your claims are fantasy. As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, nearly everything you claim to do with this sooper power is equivalent to what most of us can do without a sooper power. A test will not reveal anything that most people here don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.We are not here to discuss who I am as a person, what my beliefs and experiences are or what I do besides talk to you guys. This thread involves the paranormal investigation of possible psychic medical diagnose, and whether I have credibility or not should not alter how this investigation is handled. My claims are not fantasy. So everyone can do this? Can you look at a man and confidently say that you see that he's had his vas deferens cut on? Or the major vertical cargilagenous tissue of a major chest surgery? Or the big dark brown patch in the field of vision of the right eye to the lower right side? I seriously doubt that most people can derive health information such as these. I really really have, and that is why I proceed toward a test. If you feel that you have lost your ability to take part in this investigation, I would hate to lose you because I'm sure you're a contribution. At this point there has been no real evidence for you yet, but there has been to me. If the credential for a person to be eligible for a paranormal investigation is that they behave credibly and do not reveal certain personal information then the JREF would have never happened.
Why should "we" focus on YOUR claim and YOUR test, when it is apparent to most of us that your claim is nothing more than imagination gone wild? We've offered suggestions, we've offered protocols - and you've ignored them all. Proving YOUR claim in any direction is YOUR responsibility. Frankly, again, as evidenced by a multitude of posts, I don't think anyone here cares much anymore whether you get tested or not. As I already said, any test will not reveal anything most people here don't already know, and the test/study/survey protocols you keep coming up with, while ignoring everyone else's, are ones that give you plenty of wiggle room to continue perpetuating your fantasy. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone in this Forum. If this is how you feel then I accept that. If everyone here feels the way you do then that would be unfortunate but they each make their own decision. No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild. And I am here to prove it. I'm working on having the study and will provide documented examples. And the claim I want to test is medical perceptions from live people. When I do chemical identification tests I get a really bad headache and nausea because I am forced to make tens of perceptions that normally take place like once a month. Medical perceptions are easier and more comfortable.

The purpose of the survey is to prepare a list of what I claim to perceive. The purpose of the study is to also prepare a list of what I claim to perceive, and to check for accuracy, and to give a non-ability the chance to be revealed as such at an earlier stage, and to try out various test conditions. The test will not have any wiggle room in its design. It will be straight-forward. I am not ignoring everyone's suggestions about how to test my claim of medical diagnose from live subjects. I listen very carefully to every single comment on this thread and I learn a lot. And again, some members here might probably think that you do not speak on behalf of everyone here.

The problem here seems to be a combination of impatience since it's taken so long without much progress in my investigation, and also some of the other comments I've made that are irrelevant to this investigation in the first place.
But, most people here don't care anymore how the study and the tests are carried out. That's YOUR responsibility. YOU are the only one here who wants answers-and I think the only answer you will find acceptable is that your sooper power truly exists. Most of US don't expect that a test will reveal anything we don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.Most of you here don't care anymore how the study and the tests are carried out? Of course you do, you all want to ensure that they are carried out properly. And I suspect that you don't speak on behalf of everyone here, so try to refrain from that. And in all honesty, as always, my objective is not to prove ESP. The perceptions remain unchanged no matter what label they get from the outcome of the test. I have experienced good accuracy in the past, yet I am prepared that I might encounter inaccuracy up ahead.
Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a psychologist? How do you know? You are having a wide variety of fantasies and hallucinations, which is a pretty good indication that something isn't right. I'm not suggesting that you need to see a doctor to be cruel, Anita, but out of concern. I'm twice your age, I've learned a few things along the way that college doesn't teach you and I think you need help. I would say exactly that to any one of my kids if I heard them making the same outrageous claims that you have. I perceive medical information and that in itself is not a health problem. They are a separate aspect of my mind and I do not perceive them as reality. They are just images, and impressions, that's all. They are not even projected in the world but only in my mind. And they've just happened to represent accurate health information in people. There's no reason to be concerned because I have these medical perceptions. They do not interfere with my life, I do not share them with others unless in a carefully and responsibly carried out study, and I would never blindly believe in them, I always place conventional information first.

As for my experiences of haunted sites, they have also been confirmed as possibly reality-based and never indicated any concern of otherwise. I've accurately described crime-scenes, I've accurately described specific historical details, others have experienced the same things as I on same sites and independently of my experience. There is nothing that indicates any reason for concern, besides our investigations into haunted sites will be done with the intention of entertainment. Not facts or truth.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.
So? That doesn't mean they aren't a manifestation of cumulative stress. We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.
No. According to you, and you only, "they" seem to accurately depict health information. The fact is, "they" are, most likely, as UncaYimmy has pointed out, NOT the source of your conclusions. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.That's right, according to me I've experienced good accuracy. Of course you can not take that as truth, and I've never expected you to. I'm just saying what I've experienced and why we're moving toward a study, tests, and some well-documented cases of perceptions. Well, since I've experienced medical perceptions that were accurate and where I can not imagine how they'd be derived from cold reading, I will proceed toward tests. And that's that.
To what purpose? You've shown a complete disregard to opinions, and suggestions, and protocols from everyone here that you have shared this alleged ability with. You appear to be only interested in proving that your alleged ability is what you already believe it is. Why share them with the world at all, since nothing will change your mind that this alleged ability exists?I consider every comment stated on this thread. You're making an incorrect conclusion again. My objective is not to prove ESP. I do not believe that I have ESP. I believe that I have medical perceptions that so far have appeared to be accurate. And I believe that a test can establish the actual accuracy in a proper test setting. And I believe that I may encounter incorrect perceptions up ahead, and I believe that ESP might be falsified and is falsifiable. And I believe that no matter what the outcome of the test, I will be happy because after all I get to keep the perceptions just like they are.
You HAVE spoken in that manner to me. Did I run and cry to a moderator? No. If you come on here and spin a fantasy, and then shoot down any and all opinions about it, then you have to expect a certain amount of exasperation in response. People don't have a lot of patience when it comes to being expected to feed someone else's fantasies. I've spoken to you in a hostile manner? When? :confused: I also want to make clear that I accept and consider all opinions expressed in this thread and the reason I contacted a Moderator was not because I did not agree with certain opinions or did not want to hear them, the reason was because I did not agree with the way they were expressed.
This is a very good point, and, also, playing along can happen even without forewarning. Of course a person might be inclined to simply agree with my medical statements, and that is why I've already stated that the reliability of my friends in the anecdotes is not good enough. Therefore people who do not know me, as well as skeptics, will be the volunteers up ahead. Can't wait to meet Pup, by the way. :D However I've had plenty of (anecdotal!!) experiences where the accuracy was confirmed in ways where a person's agreeing with me could not have been the cause. Usually when I read a person I throw in statements that I did not perceive, and I've asked the person to tell me whether they agree or not, and they disagree with those things. Of course that's nowhere near scientific quality, but the idea of doing this kind of thing is scientific. The study and test will also do this. My perceptions will be mixed in with things that I did not see and a person will be answering to this on a piece of paper without me present. I'm really trying, I am.

VisionFromFeeling

2nd January 2009, 12:24 AM

UncaYimmy:
If you accept those theories as being on the table, then I will understand why you accept ESP as being on the table and stop bugging you about it. Alright, then. The objective of the test is to determine whether the accuracy of my medical perceptions is statistically high enough to be determined as "accurate perceptions" when tested with health information that is not considered detectable by human perception. Whether there is ESP involved or not will not be discussed. (Even though shouldn't it be defined as ESP what ever it is I have or do, if I pass the test?)

So... if ESP has not been proven to exist, how come it then has been proven to not exist? Because some of you here say that you believe/know that I do not have ESP? Is that what you've said? Why is it wrong of me to say that ESP hasn't been proven to exist, and that it hasn't been proven to not exist? A flying pig has not been proven TO exist, but it has also not been proven TO NOT exist, so shouldn't we remain unconcluded? Of course we may say that we do not think flying pigs exist, but we can not say that we have concluded or that we know that they in fact do not exist. What's wrong with being open? No one has proven in a laboratory test that God exists, but no one has proven in a laboratory test that God does not exist? ... When did you prove that I do not have ESP? Simply by stating that ESP has not been proven to exist? :confused:

Of course we can say that we don't expect me to have ESP because it hasn't been proven before, but to say that you know, believe and conclude that I absolutely do not have ESP doesn't seem right. I do understand of course that we can start with the assumption that I do not have ESP, it can be the hypothesis (the main expected outcome of a test), but then the null hypothesis would be that I do have ESP.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 01:01 AM

So... if ESP has not been proven to exist, how come it then has been proven to not exist?

I have only stated that is has not been proven to exist. I have *repeatedly* stated that ESP cannot be proven not to exist. No one test can be devised to conclude that it doesn't exist.

But here's something that every scientist must understand: Each test that confirms the theory being tested adds to the confidence in that theory. Relativity has been subjected to countless tests, so we are very confident in its accuracy. Thus we have a practical certainty. However, we do not have an absolute certainty. There is no such thing in science.

Conversely, every test that fails to confirm a theory adds to our confidence that the theory is wrong. At some point we end up with a practical certainty that our theory is wrong. We cannot have an absolute certainty.

Practical certainty is something upon which we can rely. For example, if a GPS unit is failing, that doesn't mean we should reexamine relativity. It means we should look elsewhere.

ESP, whether you like it or not, has repeatedly failed to be scientifically confirmed despite thousands of years of testing. If you dispute that, start another thread and present your evidence.

Because we have a practical certainty that it does not exist, it is not on our radar of possible explanations for a phenomenon. A good scientist will look to explanations that are known to have a practical certainty to see if they can also explain what she observes.

She will then devise a test to eliminate that explanation as the cause. If she repeatedly fails to eliminate that explanation, then she will have a practical certainty.

Using my "making an object move without touching it" example, the first explanation might be magnetism. To prove it is NOT magnetism, she will make me move a piece of wood. There would be no sense in making me move a piece of iron.

If I could still move the piece of wood, she will eliminate magnetism and perhaps move on to air. So she makes me perform my "trick" inside of a vacuum chamber. Aha! It doesn't work! We repeat this several times, and I always fail. So, without changing anything else, she puts air in the chamber. I still can't do it. So she removes the chamber. Bam! I can do it.

So, now she has refined the phenomenon to be that I can make an object move in the presence of air and if there's no barrier surrounding my hand and the object. Her next step is try to figure out how I am making the air move enough to move the object.

The process will be the same: Look for explanations that have a practical certainty, then try to eliminate them one by one.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 01:18 AM

I do understand of course that we can start with the assumption that I do not have ESP, it can be the hypothesis (the main expected outcome of a test), but then the null hypothesis would be that I do have ESP.

Nope. That's called a false dichotomy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma for more details.

You don't understand the null hypothesis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis for more details.

If you pass the tests with flying colors, at best you will only have eliminated several possible theories and give cause to explore alternatives. Considering the extraordinary nature of your claim and the lack of an explanatory mechanism, the next logical step would be to re-examine the protocol. Many a faulty protocol has been uncovered this way.

So, please, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I guarantee you that if you ace a test based on a protocol developed and approved by the skeptics here, you will attract a large amount of attention. Every Tom, Dick and Jane on this board will chime in telling us (not you) what we did wrong in the protocol. I can't speak from Mr. Randi, but I'd be willing to bet he would sit up and take notice.

If you ace the revised test, I bet you'll get press coverage and become eligible for the Million Dollar Challenge. I'll even offer my marketing services to help you in this regard. The protocol will be revised again. Mr. Randi would definitely be involved.

But remember, time is running out on the MDC, so time is of the essence. Let's get that first protocol together ASAP.

VisionFromFeeling

2nd January 2009, 01:29 AM

Ashles:
I have to say this is why I asked the questions about Anita's degree. She is in her third year yet has demonstrated little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant.
Her answers have not struck me as different from someone who had read a little science on the internet and remembered a few buzzwords.Is that so? It's a little different testing one's own claim. I'm still mostly in the stage of trying to establish understanding into my perceptions, to better know how to adapt this into a test, because that's what we're working on with the IIG and also with the local skeptics group. How to take an phenomenon from its environment and into a test environment. Isn't that what a scientist does? Collects samples and observations before doing tests on them? I hug myself for staying here. :hug7

skeen:
Yes, I have to say that given not only her ridiculous claims, her inability to think logically seriously, seriously calls into question whether she is studying Science. I conclude that she has not. And why is my claim ridiculous? I think it is a fascinating and very worthy topic to engage in investigation.
What woo woo's often do, is invent lies to reinforce their credibility, because they think that because what they're claiming is real (in their own minds), it won't hurt. But it is these little lies that, when taken apart, leave absolutely nothing.I haven't invented lies, so that doesn't apply to me. But yes I do think that what I claim is real. What I claim is that I perceive medical perceptions, and, yes I do. And I claim that so far the accuracy has seemed to be good, and yes, it has. Hm, a lie would definitely hurt. How embarassed I would be if I were caught in a lie! Little lies... where? The absolutely nothing part is right though, no lies that is.
Look at the way Anita has copped out of proving anything. She refuses to grasp that she is literally the most incredible person in the entire world, if what she is saying is true. I tell her that she should just merely ask anyone she walks into, if she can see through them, tell them what she sees.I have? I thought I was going to have a study soon, with skeptics as reliable witnesses to document the results and the accuracy of perceptions! I thought that was going to prove something! Can I really ask any person to let me attempt psychic medical diagnose with them? I really wish I could, I would like nothing more than to be surrounded with willing volunteers!
She retorts with asking about the legality in doing this! That's just mental! She is performing a supernatural feat that will turn the entire world on its head. If I could fly, I won't worry about no-fly zones, and use that as an excuse not to just walk the hell outside, and show people that I can fly! Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to mind that I am invading airspace!So, I can just approach a perfect stranger and ask if they would let me try to detect what health problems they have? What if that is considered disturbing or violating? Skeen, wish you were here, you could come with me and we could blame it all on you if they don't like it! I don't want to break the law or disturb people. Come here, skeen, we could blame it all on you!
It's as if there's some kind of second personality in her mind, steering her away from inevitable defeat. As reasonable, rational people, we all know there is no possible way she can pass the test, which makes her steering all the more transparent to everyone but herself.I'm steering toward a test. I just don't want to disturb people by asking them to share personal information with me. That is why I want to advertise for volunteers instead. So that they come to me.
It's really a kind of psychological marvel, and if she is being serious in all of this, she desperately needs help. I would venture to say she hasn't told us an ounce of truth in this entire thread, and that would be a very reasonable conclusion to come to.I need help to carry out the tests! Come help me skeen! We need you! It has all been the truth though, and I'll show it on the upcoming study with repeated examples.
I am curious about the people who met her at the skeptics meeting. How did she come off? Woo woo's have that "look" about them, like Callahan and Geller, you can tell immediately tell there's something not quite right about them.That is a good idea. I would love for Forum members godofpie and ecarlson to answer this. Of course I would not take it personally and would allow any comments. I try to look at my investigation from an outside point of view together with skeptics. Besides it is my claim that is under question. Not me. I have now sent both of them a PM asking them to offer their comments about me here.

desertgal:
That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.Tell me what I should be doing right now toward testing my claim besides everything I'm doing already now.

skeen:
Well, this is highly baffling to me as well. Her train of thought is that of a 10 year old. What she said about not being able to conclude there's no ESP is crazy.So, when did we prove that I do not have ESP? That's like saying you've proven that God does not exist.
I believe that if any single one of us skeptics here had this ability, we could find a million ways to prove it in a heartbeat! I could prove the ability right now. Anita seems completely oblivious to common sense, even!And what would you do to prove it right now? Can I really just go out there and approach people and ask them to share personal health information? And no more comparisons with the ability of flying, my claim just isn't that simple, it involves people, and health problems, possible legal and moral complications. It is testable, but care must be taken.
I can't imagine she's doing well in that class. That is, if it is her. Perhaps she just stole someone's name? If not, then she has a very, very, very serious psychological issue that desperately needs to be examined.Straight A student. 4.0 GPA. :D
Or, she's just a liar. I'm sure it's a bit of both. Maybe she's a compulsive liar, and she desperately seeks attention or something like that? It's not uncommon. Either way, she clearly needs therapy and I don't think this thread is helping.Not a liar. Not here for attention. No need for therapy. And this thread is supposed to be all about my paranormal investigation.
EDIT: I've searched for Anita on Google, and have come across a few scientific publications that cite her as being an assistant to lab work, and whathaveyou. If this is her, it is at least who she is claiming to be, then she certainly has a psychological disorder. Pretty creepy to be honest. No! That is another person by my name! Those scientific publications are definitely not mine! And, why if that were me would that mean that I certainly have a psychological disorder? Explain?

desertgal:
I think what I find most baffling is her continued insistence that many of her conclusions could not be reached by any other means than her alleged ability. Yet, even though she is a scientist, she keeps no diary of these events, or, as Locknar pointed out, no record of variables, controls, etc. I mean, as you say, it would be simple common sense to do so. If she can't rule out other sources for her information, then how can she possibly say it was ALWAYS her alleged ability? I do not have an alleged ability. What I say is that I have medical perceptions. And that these seem to have a good accuracy. And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website. Even though I was not making enough of notes in past cases. I haven't said that it was always an alleged ability. I've said that I've always appeared to be accurate, but that this does not imply to conclude what the source of these perceptions were. I have said however that I've had many accurate perceptions where I do not know how cold reading could have concluded them. How does cold reading conclude vasectomy? :confused:
As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, he can do pretty much what she claims to be able to do. Yet, in his case, it the result of proven techniques, and, in her case, it is ALWAYS the result of her sooper power. Makes no sense. Really? How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery? Vasectomy? How? I have not concluded that the accuracy of my perceptions is due to a power. All I have said is that I have medical perceptions and that the accuracy is good. She simply recites anecdotes from memory and insists they are absolutely correct and she was 100% accurate each time. It's almost laughable. Human memory is one of the most fallible mechanisms on this planet, and she keeps no records for reference or to refresh her memory - yet her memory is ALWAYS correct and her conclusions are ALWAYS accurate? As my teenagers might say, no freakin' way. I do remember these cases well. I know that human memory is questionable, but especially the recent anecdotes from the observations page were recorded immediately after they happened. I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived, and that their accuracy is what compels me to have an actual test where cold reading and memory problems can not account for the accuracy.

Akhenaten

2nd January 2009, 02:51 AM

And what would you do to prove it right now? Can I really just go out there and approach people and ask them to share personal health information? And no more comparisons with the ability of flying, my claim just isn't that simple, it involves people, and health problems, possible legal and moral complications. It is testable, but care must be taken.

You haven't noticed at all, have you, that people here have time and again rejected this legal and moral smokescreen that you're trying to create?

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASK PEOPLE TO SHARE PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION TO TEST THIS ABILITY.

Is that more noticeable?

I can't tell you how to prove YOUR ability, because I don't share it, but here's how I'd go about testing an ability that I DO possess:

I believe I can detect redheads. I can test this by going to a public place and counting all the european people as they pass me, and noting the number of redheads that I perceive. If I achieve a figure of around 4% then I'll have some basis for continuing to believe my ability.

Now, I wouldn't claim to be infallible with my ability, since I accept that gray hair, hats, hair dye and wigs can fool my vision, but I'm sure I could still get within a bull's roar of the statistically correct answer.

That's what I'd do, alrighty.

Locknar

2nd January 2009, 07:11 AM

I saw the type of vasectomy where a portion of the vas deferens had been surgically removed on both left and right sides and where there was visibly a gap.This goes back to the issue on YOUR interpretations.

For the sake of arguement, lets assume that you did indeed "see" there was a visable gap in the vas deferens. You make no mention of scar tissue or being able to see any in the case of vasectomy - thus you would have no way of knowing the key question - why. Perhaps he was born that way, perhaps he had suffered a injury, perhaps perhaps perhaps.

With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected.See above. There are any number of reasons the vas deferens could be "disconnected". So...given the above definition of your claim, if there were ANY OTHER reason for the vas deferens being "disconnected" as you've described you would be wrong, or would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?

With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision. See above. There are any number of reasons someone may have a "vertical scar on the chest"...heart transplant, pace maker, injury, etc.

"large and significant" is ambiguous, so in that list you could also include stents, angioplasty, etc.

Same question as above...if someone has a "large and significant vertical scar" on their chest, but did NOT have bypass surgery....would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?

I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery.You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious.

When I checked these perceptions they were accurate. Wrong; that is your perception of events and nothing more; they could have just as eaisly "played along." Or, did these people under go medical testing to verify your claim?

Locknar, your comments are very valuable, but listen to me. I've accurately described medical information in people who were not forewarned about me. This is a assumption on your part. You have no way to prove or validate your contention that in every case people were not forewarned or were not otherwise just "playing along."

I've perceived information that was later confirmed as accurate by means other than me presenting what I saw. Exactly what "means" were used to verify your claims? See above, you can not summarily rule out that people are just "playing along."

I've accurately detected information that no one could simply play along with, like the vasectomy and the heart bypass surgery, information that can be verified as accurate by the presence of marks or scars. So you independently verified the presence of "marks or scars" wrt the vasectomy, specifically how did you do this?

Meaning...did you ask him and he said "yes" (and perhaps was just "playing along"), did he under go medical exam immediatly after your "vision", did he show you the scar, did others vouch for him having had this procedure (and perhaps were just "playing along"), etc.?

Of course I do not rule out cold reading effects as possible causes for some of the perceptions when cold reading could have taken place.Cold reading could have taken place in EVERY incident you have described. In fact, everything you have described can be attributed to cold reading and a over active imagination.

However remember that there have been cases where cold reading did not seem to be possible.Based on YOUR perception, which does not make it so.

I will not reveal their identities because they are friends and family to me.So? Have you asked them, and they all declined? How odd that everyone you have used your "power" on feels health information so private they'd decline to be mentioned.

I don't want the anecdotes to be taken as anything more than anecdotes.Which is why you've carried on about how accurate they are?

My claims are not fantasy. So everyone can do this? Can you look at a man and confidently say that you see that he's had his vas deferens cut on? Or the major vertical cargilagenous tissue of a major chest surgery? Or the big dark brown patch in the field of vision of the right eye to the lower right side? You have yet to even remotely validate that YOU can do this, let alone "everyone." See above; cold reading, people playing along, over active imagination can account for EVERYTHING you have described.

Medical perceptions are easier and more comfortable.
You claim to have a ability/"power" nobody else on the planet has ever had. Wouldn't a bit of discomfort be worth conclusively proving this ability, rather then carry on (since 2007) about your vague and ambiguous claims with no proof?

This could be over and done with...your local skeptic group (for example) could have already conducted the "cereal test", and you could be well on your way to collecting the $1M from the MDC (for example).

Given the context as you have outlined it is more accurate to say "medical perceptions" are vague and otherwise ambiguous (especially in the context you have outlined), and allow more "wiggle" to feed your belief.

Gmonster2

2nd January 2009, 07:49 AM

Let me be the 1st to call BINGO!

This is a direct quote from the VFF site.

I was born with this ability, but at the age of 14 I came across a store where I saw a quartz crystal for the very first time. I was immediately drawn to it without knowing what they were and it was love at first sight. I bought one and a book that taught how to use crystals. One of the exercises described how you can increase your sensitivity to crystals by spending time holding the tip of the quartz crystal over the palm of your hand until you feel something. I practised for many days, until suddenly one day I felt and saw a cool, blue beam coming from the tip of the crystal. I got other types of crystals of different colors and spent time holding them in my hands, and developed a sense of feeling that was distinct for each of them. Eventually I was so good at feeling the different crystals that I no longer felt a need to hold them, I would feel all of them just by knowing where they were.

My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions. :)

skeen

2nd January 2009, 08:25 AM

Oh gee. So, Anita admits that her "perceptions" don't even enter into reality, but are merely in her mind. Well, we knew that already, but that she knows it rules out any possibility that she's going to realize what she's doing - fantasizing.

Gmonster2, crystals, eh? In learning more about Anita, I am actually disappointed by just how much the same she is as other woo's. Spirits, crystals, vibrations, quantum things. Tut.

Yimmy, I think you raised a good point when you said good students are good at being students. You're right. You can learn Science, but learning how to think like a Scientist is something entirely different.

By what has been posted, Anita has clearly been involved in woo ever since she was little, and over many years has convinced herself that these things exist, and it has helped to shape her world. This is why, for instance, dowsers are unable to let go even when proven wrong.

I revoke what I said about her having psychological issues. I just think she's silly. And she does not have synaesthesia. Anita just needs to grow up. She's clearly the type of woman who hangs out in Arizona looking for "vortexes".

And I still believe no test will ever be performed.

EDIT: Just to add: I love her false sense of concern about going out and "perceiving" medical information in other people. As has been pointed out, she doesn't need to ask people to share their personal information with her. She can perform a simple yes or no. If she is correct, which she believes she will be, no-one is going to mind.

Also, she expressed this same silly concern when she claimed she knew medical information about celebrities through watching them on TV! But, of course, this ability was debunked, and she has since claimed this is not her "main" ability. So what then? These perceptions of celebrities are now wrong? Or they're still right, as we're unable to confirm them?

desertgal

2nd January 2009, 08:58 AM

This goes back to the issue on YOUR interpretations. <snip>

Thank you. You said everything I would have responded with, so you saved me a bunch of typing. :D

Except:

We are not here to discuss who I am as a person...

Didn't I say I don't care who you are as a person? I'm pretty sure I did.

...what my beliefs and experiences are, or what I do besides talk to you guys

Well, then, why are we here at all? Why did you start this thread, if not to discuss your "beliefs and experiences"? If you want to limit this conversation to the sole fact that you talk to us guys, then here you go: You talk to us guys. Thread over.

YOU brought these beliefs and experiences and your other activities to this forum. We didn't ask you. YOU threw it all on the table, and now you want to dictate what parts of it all we can discuss and what parts we can't. Rubbish to that.

I seriously doubt that most people can derive health information such as these...

I seriously doubt you are right.

...I really really have.

Oh, well, if you really really have, then it must be true. :rolleyes:

I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone in this Forum.

Show me where I said I did.

I said "most people". It's not an unfounded opinion. Read back through every page of this thread and you will see it for yourself. Many posters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over your fantasies and quit this thread. By comparison to the total number of folks who began with this thread, the remaining posters are a small number. Hence, "most people".

No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is. And it is very obvious.

I've accurately described crime-scenes

Well, what does this mean? I've visited a large number of crime scenes in my work - and I can accurately describe any of them while I am there. I can accurately describe the room I am sitting in, too, while I am sitting in it. Doesn't mean I have a sooper power.

If, though, you are saying that you have accurately solved crimes through ESP while you visited crime scenes as a child, then I am here to say that is total fantasy.

And one I take serious issue with. I've worked with a great many excellent law enforcement officers over the years, and your statement is a thumb of the nose to these fine men. They spend years honing their investigative skills. They collect and analyze evidence, they conduct endless interviews, and they often work round the clock for weeks at a time to solve crimes. You have no clue about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes hand in hand with investigating a crime.

That you claim to have walked into a crime scene, as a child and beyond, and solved instantly what grown men dedicate months upon months to solving is an absolute fantasy-and you should be ashamed of yourself for making that claim. And please don't respond to this. Whatever defense you might offer up won't change the fact that you said it, you meant it, and it is false. It may be a result of your endless fantasies, but it is still false.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.

Total fantasy.

We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.

Rubbish.

I consider every comment stated on this thread.

That isn't what I said.

And I believe that no matter what the outcome of the test, I will be happy because after all I get to keep the perceptions fantasies of ESP just like they are.

I've spoken to you in a hostile manner? When?

Post #904 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304551&postcount=904): "Are you just stupid or what?"

desertgal

2nd January 2009, 09:12 AM

Yimmy, I think you raised a good point when you said good students are good at being students. You're right. You can learn Science, but learning how to think like a Scientist is something entirely different.

I agree, that's a very good point.

My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability.

I know many humans are lacking in common sense, to varying degrees. It still baffles me when I run headlong into one, though. ;)

skeen

2nd January 2009, 09:17 AM

My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability.

I know many humans are lacking in common sense, to varying degrees. It still baffles me when I run headlong into one, though. ;)

Indeed. And almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I concur regarding what she said about crime scenes. It's disgusting, and distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

Moochie

2nd January 2009, 11:28 AM

<snip>

As for my experiences of haunted sites, they have also been confirmed as possibly reality-based and never indicated any concern of otherwise. I've accurately described crime-scenes, I've accurately described specific historical details, others have experienced the same things as I on same sites and independently of my experience. There is nothing that indicates any reason for concern, besides our investigations into haunted sites will be done with the intention of entertainment. Not facts or truth.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.
We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.

<snip>

I think I've figured it out -- "Anita" is actually one of the writers of Lost!

M.

Coveredinbeeees

2nd January 2009, 11:32 AM

I got other types of crystals of different colors and spent time holding them in my hands, and developed a sense of feeling that was distinct for each of them. Eventually I was so good at feeling the different crystals that I no longer felt a need to hold them, I would feel all of them just by knowing where they were.

My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions. :)

Better yet, have an assistant set up 10 paper cups upside down and place a crystal you can "feel" beneath a random cup. If you can deduce which cup the crystal is underneath in three or four consecutive trials you will have demonstrated a paranormal ability.

No legal hassles, no worrying about bacteria needing to be "activated", nothing, just a quick simple test. I'm sure that offering such a test would speed up negotiations with IIG considerably.

Of course, if an empty paper cup does not "feel" any different to a paper cup with a piece of quartz underneath it your assistant could place different crystals beneath each cup with your test being to deduce which cup contains the quartz.

Then again, could it be that what your crystal feeling ability really amounts to is that, when you know that you are looking at a piece of quartz, you are able to imagine a colour that you associate with quartz?

That would be rather less impressive.

Moochie

2nd January 2009, 11:51 AM

<snip>

Straight A student. 4.0 GPA. :D

<snip>

My, how standards have fallen... :rolleyes:

M.

Gord_in_Toronto

2nd January 2009, 11:59 AM

Femke

2nd January 2009, 12:29 PM

*delurking*
Hi Anita,

This thread continues to interest me, and I find you great, for sticking around despite everything. Although I would urge you not to feel attacked. Most people are sincerely trying to help; your (views on your) perceptions are fascinating, and I for one would really like to see a test being designed to see what they are.
You cannot blame us for wondering among us, how this can be true.

However, and please do not feel attacked, there is something that was asked before and you have as far as I know not answered:

You are a third year student in two Science subjects, and yet you do not seem to have had any training in statistics or the scientific method.
This puzzles me. In my first year in college (I am a biologist) we had courses in History of Science and Filosophy of Science, as well as Statistical Analysis. (Maybe more, but it has been a while. :rolleyes:) These courses taught us to distinguish between apparent correlations and statistical correlations, and showed basically how science works. And they were compulsory.

How come you do not seem to apply these basic subjects to your protocols? You must have gotten excellent grades on them, judging by your average.

Femke

Moochie

2nd January 2009, 12:35 PM

Gord checking in for progress.

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

Nope nothing yet.

I'll be back later. ;)

You're missing all the drama, the tragedy, the pathos and bathos, the sheer comedic witlessness...

M.

Old man

2nd January 2009, 01:11 PM

By observing symmetry, it is often possible to describe health information that I encounter for the first time. Had I never seen teeth before, and there was a perfect row of teeth but suddenly one is missing on one side, then based on the asymmetry I would be tempted to speak out about something being unusual in that part of the body.
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.
My definition of "normal" in this case refers to the perceptions I have made in people and the general average of what I have seen. In this is also weighed in any references that I encounter in for instance literature or television. What about fiddler crabs, then, or flounder? Would you see them as ‘abnormal’? You’ve made repeated claims that you almost invariably detect only ‘abnormalities’.

I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things. Anita, we’re just a bunch of nerds/geeks who don’t have real lives, and can’t understand people who do!

The study will begin taking place in the exact same way as my everyday experience is. I will then change one condition at a time toward an acceptable test protocol, and if my ability fails I will know what test condition caused it. Good. I’ve been trying right along to get you to do this. Now if you’d just DO it…:rolleyes:

But those tests are exhausting to me and cause headache and nausea… Could it be that the stress of impending failure is causing those symptoms?

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
What progress, if any, have you made regarding checking to see if you can detect circumcisions and breast implants from behind?
I am arranging a study in which I will get to view volunteers who I have not met before. But, have you done ANY checking ON YOUR OWN?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…
Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, please, stop exaggerating.
Plenty of health information, such as in this hypothetical case, bad eyesight, discomfort from swallowing, an injury to the right shoulder which makes some specific movement painful, slow heartbeat, past case of asthma, the presence of certain medical derivatives in the liver, enlarged prostate, bad knees... I also detect plenty of less interesting information that I never even mention, plenty of details which, if I told them, would "prove" nothing since everyone has them to some extent, like if I said "mild vitamin A deficiency". When it comes to significant health information that could be useful for a test, I do not detect plenty of those in all persons, maybe that's what you meant. “I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…”
“I do not detect plenty of those (medical information) in all persons…”
If your second statement is true, then does it not follow that the first is, at best, an exaggeration?

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, I mentioned your use of hyperbole in an earlier post. Maybe DG is trying to get you to TELL THE TRUTH, without all of YOUR exaggerations!
Whoa!! When on earth did I exaggerate! Give me ONE example! My statements might be unusual or outrageous, but I'm not exaggerating. See above. There are plenty more.
Originally Posted by Old man
And, your exaggerated claims are sometimes nonsensical, too.
How rude. Give me one example. "extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star"

Originally Posted by Old man
Maybe we’re making progress. Are you admitting that it’s possible that your anecdotes might be just a little, (oh, how should I put this?) exaggerated?
No that is not possible. My anecdotes are absolutely not exaggerated. Not even a little.
They've happened exactly as I said. Saying that you were “absolutely correct” about the small intestine ‘diagnosis’ was an exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Old man
No, you had a high probability of guessing right.
What are the odds of guessing a 0.0006 m2 affected area out of the entire 1.9 m2 average surface area of a man? Is it about 1 in 3100? What about guessing the type of discomfort experienced there, out of all possible discomforts? One in many many. If it was a guess, it was a very good one. Anita, if I walked up to any middle-aged, slightly paunchy man, and said “Sometimes you have pain/discomfort just behind/below the sternum” I’d be right more times than I’d be wrong, and my ‘location’ would be ‘amazingly’ accurate. You did that ONE time.

Originally Posted by Old man
Here, I’ll save you some time. Just quote this - “I’ve NEVER, EVER, met ANYONE who was suffering from this!11!!” (And - never listened to the radio, never saw a TV commercial, never saw any ads for antacids, blah, blah, blah.)
What? How would that be useful in a paranormal investigation? I know this is probably pun, but try to refrain from it to keep things clear here. RE: vasectomy. It’s the excuse you used that time.

Originally Posted by Old man
When I get a few minutes, sure, I could right up a protocol.
No. I meant set up the test for me. Participants and all. That's the real work involved. Maybe. Are you willing to spend a few days in the lovely Finger Lakes region of New York?

Originally Posted by Old man
But, you know damned well that I meant in person, don’t you? Stop the ‘silly little airhead girl’ act, OK? You’re ‘brilliant’, remember? You’re a ‘serious scientist’. Act like one.
Do you realize that you're insulting a real person here? Do you realize that deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ a legitimate, on-topic question in order to avoid answering it is also insulting? Or am I not a “real person”?

Maybe because this is all taking place over the internet and in typed words it somehow doesn't seem real to some of you, but I'm a somebody here who came to get some help in discussing how to arrange a test for a paranormal claim, and there's been too many hostile and negative comments, accusations, and personal attacks. What on earth makes you say such negative things? What's wrong with you?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m TRYING to get you to THINK about what your saying! Really, Anita, I’ve written up a protocol, I’ve respectfully asked questions, and I’ve defended you and your position. I’m on your side.

Why do I feel like I'm being under attack?
Because you keep making bold, contradictory statements, and give the impression that you’re just stringing us along.

Would you really speak to me like this in person? Probably. My friends are pretty tough, ego wise.

I never express my medical diagnose in the way you suggested. I NEVER say TRUST ME, I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG. But you DO say it here, in this thread, ALL the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that we find it hard to believe that you don’t say the same thing in other situations?

I ALWAYS say, that "Although I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG… So, you do say “I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG” to your ‘patients’, don’t you? Why can’t you see the above as contradictory?

Originally Posted by desertgal
As well, if we claim this super ability, and we test it on people with the primary objective of proving it exists, as opposed to the interest of their health being the primary objective, isn't that also irresponsible? Whether the perception is accurate or not, and whether they sign a waiver or not, the person may still have the anxiety and worry over a negative 'diagnosis' until they can get to a doctor and confirm it either way. Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”.

…You are not a human. You are an alien who is able to present human DNA, but in reality you have a special organ capable of detecting vibrational information. This organ is located in your sinuses, but is undetectable by human technology. Umm, she IS an "extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star", you know. ;)

I also want to make clear that I accept and consider all opinions expressed in this thread and the reason I contacted a Moderator was not because I did not agree with certain opinions or did not want to hear them, the reason was because I did not agree with the way they were expressed. I’m assuming that I’m part of the ‘contacting the Moderator’ situation. I don’t intend to be ‘mean’, or ‘rude’. Like I’ve repeatedly said, I’m on you side in this. I’d like to see you properly tested.

…And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website. Even though I was not making enough of notes in past cases. This is pertinent to the question I posted here - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4302382#post4302382. Could you address it, please?

You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious. Is that like, Spangolish for ‘friendly’? :D

…almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png Yea, me too.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 01:14 PM

With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected. With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision. I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery.

This paragraph is an indication of definite progress, but at the same time it illustrates the difficulty you have in making specific claims and developing reliable protocols.

Take for example your claim about heart surgery. The *only* claim you can make about detecting a scar is that, well, you detected a scar in a certain location. The reason for that scar is irrelevant. Just leave it at that.

As for vasectomies, what you have described so for is vague and no different than that expected from a layperson imagining what a vasectomy might look like. Since you didn't do the research, I'll explain what I mean.

There are two vas deferentia in the normal male, so referring to "the vas deferens" is imprecise. Maybe you know there are two but don't know the plural form. Maybe you think there's only one, which is not an uncommon assumption by many people.

Not all vasectomies result in the vas deferentia being cut. There exists a technique in which a special clamp is used to effectively crimp off the vas to prevent the flow of sperm.

In those vasectomies where the vas are cut, each is cut at least once. The two ends of the vas are heat sealed (cauterized), stitched, tied or clipped, before being returned to the scrotum. Some doctors remove a piece and some do not. Sometimes the piece that is cut was removed from the cauterized section. Sometimes small hemoclips remain in the scrotum.

So, if you are going to claim "vasectomy" you will have the additional burden of providing other important details. Vasectomies are relatively common (1:6 among men 35 and older). Specifying the existence of crimping, clamping, cauterization, and/or tying off will allow you to demonstrate a level of accuracy much better than you could with a simple yes/no about vasectomy based on a claim that a section is missing.

desertgal

2nd January 2009, 01:15 PM

Not a liar. Not here for attention. No need for therapy.

Not a liar, but definitely delusional. Here for attention. Therapy desperately needed.

No! That is another person by my name! Those scientific publications are definitely not mine!

Well, he didn't say those scientific publications were yours, did he? Learn to read carefully.

desertgal:
I do not have an alleged ability. What I say is that I have medical perceptions.

Perceptions from utilizing an alleged ability.

And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website.

No, see, I mean a real field diary, Anita. Includes variables, controls, background information, etc. What you have on your website is laughable.

How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?

How do I? With my eyes, Anita. The same way you do. Yes, yes, I know-you do it with your alleged ability sooper imagination.

I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived...

And that statement is even more hilarious the second time around.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 01:52 PM

I'm steering toward a test. I just don't want to disturb people by asking them to share personal information with me. That is why I want to advertise for volunteers instead. So that they come to me.

Then stop yacking about it and do it. Over two weeks ago I posted a protocol for you in another thread. I'll repeat it here with a minor addition:

Contact the local skeptics group by phone (you have the number). Ask them for a volunteer or two to assist you. Post an ad on Craigslist and at your school asking for volunteers. Arrange for everyone to show up a local restaurant (Taco Bell will do) at around 2:00 next Saturday afternoon (it won't be busy). Then proceed as follows:

Below are links to the original Word document and a PDF. It's not perfect, but I believe it is quite adequate for our purposes.

http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.doc
http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.pdf

The protocol is simple:
* One person acts as secretary.
* Anyone can participate.
* Volunteers complete the form and give it to the secretary first.
* The secretary copies the identifying information to a blank form.
* The secretary brings the blank form and the person to you.
* Without any conversation with the volunteer you make your reading and complete the form.
* All attempts must be made to keep you from seeing the person moving around the room, but this will be difficult to manage.
* You may not ask the volunteer to move around.
* You may not get up and move around the volunteer
* You must not say anything at all to the volunteer
* When done with your reading, you give the form back to the secretary.
* Results are not tallied until all readings are done.

When all is said and done, have the volunteer start a new thread and post the results like this:

Anita viewed X people.
Anita checked off N boxes as conditions she detected.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y times.
The volunteers checked off N2 boxes.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y2 times.

Also post the form with all of the conditions. For each condition list the following:

Anita detected this N times.'
Anita matched it Y times.
Volunteers checked this N2 times.
Anita matched it Y2 times.

This will give us a definitive study about with which conditions you are most and least accurate. If there's anything worthy of further study, we can design a protocol to test those conditions only. The experts in statistical analysis will help us with that.

Here it is, Anita. I'm handing it to you on a silver platter. You don't need to "design a study" - it's already done. Just do it.

skeen

2nd January 2009, 03:55 PM

I predict she will do it.

Joke! Can you imagine?

Gord_in_Toronto

2nd January 2009, 04:48 PM

You're missing all the drama, the tragedy, the pathos and bathos, the sheer comedic witlessness...

M.

I know. I know. But shortly after my first post in this thread my Lizard Person Overlord gave me the option of continuing to participate or have white hot steel needles pushed into my eyeballs. I went for the needles. As best as I can see, this was not a mistake. :D

Jeff Corey

2nd January 2009, 05:05 PM

Then stop yacking about it and do it. Over two weeks ago I posted a protocol for you in another thread. I'll repeat it here with a minor addition:

Contact the local skeptics group by phone (you have the number). Ask them for a volunteer or two to assist you. Post an ad on Craigslist and at your school asking for volunteers. Arrange for everyone to show up a local restaurant (Taco Bell will do) at around 2:00 next Saturday afternoon (it won't be busy). Then proceed as follows:

Below are links to the original Word document and a PDF. It's not perfect, but I believe it is quite adequate for our purposes.

http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.doc
http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.pdf

The protocol is simple:
* One person acts as secretary.
* Anyone can participate.
* Volunteers complete the form and give it to the secretary first.
* The secretary copies the identifying information to a blank form.
* The secretary brings the blank form and the person to you.
* Without any conversation with the volunteer you make your reading and complete the form.
* All attempts must be made to keep you from seeing the person moving around the room, but this will be difficult to manage.
* You may not ask the volunteer to move around.
* You may not get up and move around the volunteer
* You must not say anything at all to the volunteer
* When done with your reading, you give the form back to the secretary.
* Results are not tallied until all readings are done.

When all is said and done, have the volunteer start a new thread and post the results like this:

Anita viewed X people.
Anita checked off N boxes as conditions she detected.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y times.
The volunteers checked off N2 boxes.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y2 times.

Also post the form with all of the conditions. For each condition list the following:

Anita detected this N times.'
Anita matched it Y times.
Volunteers checked this N2 times.
Anita matched it Y2 times.

This will give us a definitive study about with which conditions you are most and least accurate. If there's anything worthy of further study, we can design a protocol to test those conditions only. The experts in statistical analysis will help us with that.

Here it is, Anita. I'm handing it to you on a silver platter. You don't need to "design a study" - it's already done. Just do it.
Unc,
As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 08:02 PM

As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way.

You're right to say it's not a way to test a claim, but you're wrong assuming that a claim is being tested. There is no claim to be tested. Yeh, I know what you're thinking: Two months and 900+ posts later and there's still no definitive claim? We're all thinking that.

All we have are some anecdotes and her assurances that when she *does* detect something, she is 100% accurate (no false positives). She has no definitive list of things she can or cannot detect. She has no idea how many times she has missed detecting something in one person that she has detected in another. She has not kept any records over the years. About a month ago she started noting "observations" but they are vague and incomplete.

What I put together is a study to put us further along to finding *something* that leads to an actual and testable claim. Her anecdotal evidence will be replaced with real information, which would be a big step in the right direction.

All of this should have been done before she ever asked to be tested by the IIG last year or came here to announce her abilities, but what's done is done. If you have a better suggestion to help discover the scope of her abilities, let's hear it.

Jeff Corey

2nd January 2009, 08:32 PM

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 10:38 PM

OK, . If the local skeptics can locate 20 volunteers that either have a condition she says she can detect, 10 who have it and 10 who do not., then under the tightly controlled conditions that you suggest (double blind) she gets to choose who has the condition without any feedback whatsoever.
The appropriate test would be Fisher's exact probability test.
For example, of the 10 who have it, suppose she gets 8 right, or hits and 2 false posititives. Of the 10 who don't have it, 6 false positives and 4 false alarms.
Signal detection theory could help us out here, because there is a tendency to say "yes" whether there is a signal or not.
However, there must not be any way she can say "I don't know" and not that have that counted as a miss or wrong response.
That's been her out all along.

You're jumping ahead. We don't have a condition we can test. What I devised was a quick and dirty way to reveal some possible conditions to pursue. Any ideas along those lines?

The "I don't know" has been a factor, yes, but it's not entirely fair to call it an out. It's a problem. I see two ways to overcome it. The first way is to get Anita to make a specific claim where "I don't know" counts as a miss. She has not done the legwork to come up with that claim. And since she's had this ability for over a decade, it's safe to assume that she needs some assistance in this regard. Hence my proposed study as a first step.

The second way to overcome the problem presents all sorts of logistical problems. First, it requires a condition with no visual cues (that includes demographics). Second, it could possibly require an incredibly large pool of subjects.

So let's say that we put together 1,000 people. We give them all a glass of water, but only 500 of them get water with lactobacillus in it (double-blinded, of course). Suppose we ask Anita to only pick those she believes to have taken the bacteria. If she says she "knows" 100 consumed the lactobacillus and gets all 100 correct, I'd crap my pants. Beyond such a magnificent feat we'd have to consult the experts in statistics to tell us what results would indicate that something there was worth investigating. It would *prove* nothing specific, but it would be worth looking into.

Is such a test feasible? Nope.

Is such a test reasonable? I think so. It would indicate that *something* seems to be going on. After years of research we might find that those 100 people all have a gene that makes the body convert lactobacillus to another chemical that is then excreted through the skin. Anita could have a gene that allows her to smell that chemical.

However, given Anita's descriptions of her abilities, I don't believe that such a test is in order. She needs to come up with a specific claim. Once that's done, the testing is the easy part.

Like I said, if her perceptions are as accurate as she claims, my study should help her find avenues to investigate. If on the other hand she has a bunch of false positives, that will force her to reassess her beliefs.

VisionFromFeeling

2nd January 2009, 11:22 PM

Today I conducted what I refer to as a survey at the local mall. A survey involves going out and looking at people and making notes of what medical perceptions I experience, as well as details of the conditions under which they take place, and other comments and conclusions that are learned along the way. Unlike what I refer to as a study, the survey offers no opportunity to check for the accuracy of the perceptions, but to merely account for what was perceived. Some of the benefits of a survey include to become better acquainted with the paranormal claim and to gather a list of what specific health information I claim to perceive. The conclusions of this survey will be posted eventually.

I sent an e-mail to the local skeptics group, the e-mail can be found here (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/4829579/), asking for their participation as skeptics on the upcoming study. The assignments I have in mind for the skeptics are listed on that e-mail. I forgot to mention and to emphasize in that e-mail that the study is not a test and that it can not conclude in favor of an extrasensory ability.

I am working on writing up the various documents that are involved in the study:
-An information sheet for the participating skeptics which describes my paranormal claim, the objective of the study, the procedure of the study, and the assignments I have in mind for participating skeptics.
-An information sheet for those who volunteer to let me look at them to attempt psychic medical diagnose, describing me as a person, the paranormal claim and what that means, the purpose of the study, how the study will be carried out, about who is eligible to volunteer, what the volunteer will do and what happens on the study.
-A thorough disclaimer for the volunteers that describes the concerns and potential risks that are involved in an exercise of psychic medical diagnose and how this study has been designed to avoid those, with a reminder that the information presented by the claimant is not to be taken as truth regardless. Volunteers must read through the disclaimer and sign it to state that they understand, before they are allowed to participate.
-The advertisement notices that will be published in newspapers, placed in shops and restaurants, which ever of these, or other, methods become available. The advertisement briefly describes the study and asks for volunteers.
-A legal representative will be contacted to ensure that the carrying out of this study is in accordance with law and to obtain a licence if one is required for this type of events. An information sheet is prepared for this purpose to be presented to them along with all the other material, in case written material is requested.

Once I have finished preparing the drafts of these documents they will be made available on my website, and I will then ask for the participation of you guys to improve on them until we agree that they are ready.

Uncayimmy

2nd January 2009, 11:58 PM

I applaud your efforts, but I feel I need to advise you that you are making it more difficult on yourself than necessary. Design the study so that you do not need any disclaimers or release.

* Print the medical questionnaires in pairs with a randomly generated five digit number. One copy is completed by the volunteer and one copy is completed by you.

* Have the volunteer complete one form and seal it in an unmarked envelope.

* Have them put the envelopes in an opaque box.

* They bring the other form to you so you can complete it. You seal that one and put it in another opaque box. Don't let the volunteer see it.

* Don't use the word diagnose. Ever.

* Don't provide your name or your website.

This way you do not give any information back to the volunteer. All information submitted by the volunteers is anonymous because you will never see their completed forms. The person analyzing the data will be blinded as to the identities of the volunteers.

No license is required. No disclaimer. No potential liability.

And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future.

desertgal

3rd January 2009, 07:48 AM

And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future.

I agree with you. But, I will give Anita credit for taking precautions now, even though she didn't before. She may not need to, but, at least, she's trying to do the right thing.

I am curious as to what she means by "legal representative", though. If you mean attorney, Anita, then say "attorney". For all we know, "legal representative" could mean a paralegal or a legal assistant - in which case, any advice they give would be suspect, since they aren't fully versed in the relevant laws.

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”.

No, that isn't what I meant, but I said it very poorly. I shouldn't have used the word "test". What I was trying to say is that, if someone makes a medical diagnosis with the primary objective of displaying their alleged psychic ability, rather than having the subject's health at heart, then I believe it is irresponsible. And I'm thinking of Sylvia Browne as an example, with her l-e-t-h-i-c-i-n, etc. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ashles

3rd January 2009, 11:30 AM

Ashles:
Is that so? It's a little different testing one's own claim. I'm still mostly in the stage of trying to establish understanding into my perceptions, to better know how to adapt this into a test, because that's what we're working on with the IIG and also with the local skeptics group. How to take an phenomenon from its environment and into a test environment. Isn't that what a scientist does? Collects samples and observations before doing tests on them? I hug myself for staying here. :hug7.
In your obsession with responding to absolutely every single sentence posted now ('last word' obsession perhaps?) you have apparently stopped actually even trying to be relevant to the actual comments.

I have just encoutered all this stuff in the moderated thread:

Oh yes. I love looking at their bodies and also at how they perceive the world, their thoughts and sensory perception. Amphibians and vultures have among the most beautiful thoughts. Both are non-aggressive animals.
Except when they aren't:
http://www.petplace.com/reptiles/how-amphibians-behave/page1.aspx
Amphibians can be aggressive. Perhaps the most aggressive amphibian is the horned (http://www.petplace.com/reptiles/how-amphibians-behave/page1.aspx#) or Pac-Man frog, a fist-sized ivory-with-brown blotched frog that conceals its plump body under leaf litter in its South American jungle habitat. When an appealing food item (an insect, mouse-sized mammal, bird, or another frog) wanders by, the horned frog roars out of its cover and grabs the food item. With a huge mouth, jaws strong enough to crush the skull of a mouse, and a pair of bony processes in the front of the jaw to make sure prey doesn't wriggle free, the horned frog packs an impressive bite.
More examples
http://www.livingunderworld.org/amphibianArticles/article0007.shtml

There is no difference in difficulty of perceiving human or animal tissue. I have less practical experience with animals but I think I could do just as well with them. One of the things that amazes me is that the alveoli in the lungs of the African clawed frog are proportionally MUCH larger than they are in the human lungs.
I love looking at the chemicals in the body fluids of insects and would love to study insect biology and find out exactly what those are. It is tremendously different from the internal chemistry of humans. I love reading the sensory perceptions of insects. For instance one black flying insect makes a sound with their wings that humans can't hear, but I hear it with these perceptions and can also decipher to understand what animals communicate. How? By taking in my mind a copy of the vibrational aspect of the communication and applying it to a copy of the vibrational aspect of the animal, I see how these combine and what the effects would be.
Yet more testable claims. Interpret insect communication then predict what the insects will do. Read a bee dance, identify the location they are describing etc. etc. etc.

I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.
Okay this is testable right here.
Please show an example of your vibrational algebra. You can use example data to demonstrate.
Go into as much detail as you like. You can do these calculations - please show us how.

Quote:
6b) How about insects and spiders?

Insects are my favorite animal to study. They are superior to humans in many aspects. I can look at a spider and perceive the extent of its venom in a human body, by combining the vibrational aspect of the chemical with the vibrational aspect of the human body in my mind, observing where "something happens" and looking closer.
How do you know. Have you done this? Studied someone who has been bitten by a spider? Where?

Don't forget that I also see bacteria.
Except when anyone tries to create a test protocol around this.
I love the way the claims are so fixed and clear on the general descriptions, yet whenever any of these are questioned it all becomes so vague and unreliable as to be untestable.

The interesting thing is that I can download the vibrational aspect of a bacteria and experiment in my mind by applying different types of vibrations to it to see for instance what would kill it. I can then translate the effective vibration into a corresponding light structure (to be generated with electronic instruments)
Give an example.
What 'electronic instuments'?

or a chemical medicine, or other large scale, "real" things (as if vibration weren't real, but some of you might think so). This way I've invented a hypothesis for a treatment method for the flesh eating bacteria that I want someone to study but to give me the credit of its discovery.
If you have enough details to run the experiment why don't you? Your University shgould have professors who would jump all over this.
Unless it's the ones who ruffle your hair, laugh and say "Oh yeah 'Vibrational information' well done" and carry on walking.

Quote:
6c) How about plants?

I perceive images of the cells of plants and perceive the vibrational aspect of their molecules. I can take those vibrational understandings of the molecules and in my mind apply them to a variety of theoretical situations, and have discovered for instance a plant that has a very potent cancer remedy.
Which plant, which chemical.

I've also seen a cancer remedy in an orange mushroom, except that this molecule would also destroy the human kidneys.
What's the plant, what's the molecule?

When I take the vibrational aspect of a plant's chemical and apply it to the full vibrational aspect of a human body, all the effects that the chemical would have are highlighted in the body and take place in animation for me to observe, and I can observe the theoretical effects that this chemical would have.
Obviously unless anyone suggests a test around this new 'ability' in which case the 'ability' will be once again relegated to 'unreliable'.

I can also look at medicines and apply their vibrational aspect to the one of a human body to see what the effects of the medicine are.
Obviously unless anyone suggests a test around this new 'ability' in which case the 'ability' will be once again relegated to 'unreliable'.

This leads to a lot of very interesting conclusions. I can very often by doing this figure out what the medicinal intention amidst all the harmful side-effects is. The very first thing besides crystals, that I perceived a vibrational aspect of was our houseplant, of this kind, the prayer plant,
Again no specific examples. This is like talking to a 14 year old playing an imagination game.

Add some real science to any of this. Real tests. Real calculations.

If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.

You have specifically said:
I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.
This is one thing you can do here on the forum.

Provide a proper worked example of this from initial data and values through to results that tranlate 'back into real worls physical things' and how they do so.

Let's try and introduce some real science and maths into all the vague generalisations.

VisionFromFeeling

3rd January 2009, 12:09 PM

UncaYimmy:
This way you do not give any information back to the volunteer. All information submitted by the volunteers is anonymous because you will never see their completed forms. The person analyzing the data will be blinded as to the identities of the volunteers.Oh my UncaYimmy you are brilliant! This makes everything uncomplicated! :)

Moochie

3rd January 2009, 01:00 PM

"Anita," when can we expect a denouement to this internet novel of yours? Interested readers of science fiction wish to know.

M.

VisionFromFeeling

3rd January 2009, 02:25 PM

UncaYimmy:
She's a college student with paranormal beliefs. With paranormal experiences. All I believe is that I have medical perceptions. I do not believe to know where the perceptions come from or their actual accuracy, and that is what the test is for.
I have only stated that is has not been proven to exist. I have *repeatedly* stated that ESP cannot be proven not to exist. No one test can be devised to conclude that it doesn't exist. And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have ESP. We can say that it is unlikely that I have ESP, or that we do not expect me to have ESP, but to say that I do not have ESP did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have ESP. And I was right about that.

Akhenaten:
You haven't noticed at all, have you, that people here have time and again rejected this legal and moral smokescreen that you're trying to create?I assure you that the reason I want to ensure that my study is in accordance with law is not to delay the process. It won't take more than a few minutes to ask a legal representative, and then I can proceed with good confidence. This will be done on Monday.
I believe I can detect redheads. I can test this by going to a public place and counting all the european people as they pass me, and noting the number of redheads that I perceive. My claim is not the same as claiming to be able to detect readheads. To test my claim we do need volunteers who disclose their health information.

Locknar:
I saw the gaps of the vas deferens and concluded that it was a vasectomy. I saw it in such detail to know that he was not born that way. Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way. It's a good point though, Locknar, you are right that symptoms of various health information could also have come about due to other causes. This will need to be taken into account on tests. All that we conclude on my accurate detection of vasectomy is that it might be part of my claim, that yet again I failed to falsify the claim, and to proceed toward a real test.
See above. There are any number of reasons someone may have a "vertical scar on the chest"...heart transplant, pace maker, injury, etc.Then that makes it simpler. The information to look for can be "vertical scar on the chest" and heart bypass can be disregarded. Unless the study gives me experience to state that I do detect heart bypass from perceiving symptoms that are found on the heart itself. I never got that far in this experience.
"large and significant" is ambiguous, so in that list you could also include stents, angioplasty, etc.True, that is why I can for instance draw what I see, or make a detailed description of its dimensions and placement. In this anecdotal case, I detected it in the same size that it was. Just an anecdote, I know it happened, and you don't know whether it happened, and we know that. It's just part of my claim, and all of this claim will be tested for.
Same question as above...if someone has a "large and significant vertical scar" on their chest, but did NOT have bypass surgery....would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?In this anecdotal case, I was able to conclude that it was a heart bypass surgery. On a test, if I detect the scar only, then I will write down that I only perceived a scar. I will be very specific and careful in my answers on the test.
This is a assumption on your part. You have no way to prove or validate your contention that in every case people were not forewarned or were not otherwise just "playing along."I have had many (anecdotal) experiences where the accuracy of my perceptions was confirmed by means that exclude the possibility of forewarning or playing along because the person did not know about my perceptions. And all that concludes is, "proceed toward a real test to find out the actual accuracy involved in my perceptions."
Exactly what "means" were used to verify your claims? See above, you can not summarily rule out that people are just "playing along."I know that people could be just wanting to agree with me. I have already acknowledged this risk earlier upthread, and that is why I look forward to having real tests.
So you independently verified the presence of "marks or scars" wrt the vasectomy, specifically how did you do this?I assumed that the person was not lying about having had a vasectomy. I didn't think a person would lie about such a thing, but then again, I do realize the concern that a person might be lying and that is why a proper test will be better at revealing the actual accuracy behind my medical perceptions. All I can say about my anecdotal experiences is that they have failed to falsify the claim of extrasensory medical perceptions.
Cold reading could have taken place in EVERY incident you have described. In fact, everything you have described can be attributed to cold reading and a over active imagination.No, I have had experiences where I do not know what the cold reading might have been. Regardless, the study and tests will give us the actual accuracy and provide us with documented and verified examples of the perceptions.
So? Have you asked them, and they all declined? How odd that everyone you have used your "power" on feels health information so private they'd decline to be mentioned.It is my choice not to involve these people in this discussion. I realize that that might place suspicion on my credibility, but I don't care. There will be real, documented examples of perceptions up ahead and I don't think it necessary to involve my family and friends.
Which is why you've carried on about how accurate they are?I do say that I have been honest in my description of the anecdotes, yet I have consistently agreed that they do not serve as formal evidence. They do compel me toward real tests, and that's all they are.
You claim to have a ability/"power" nobody else on the planet has ever had. Wouldn't a bit of discomfort be worth conclusively proving this ability, rather then carry on (since 2007) about your vague and ambiguous claims with no proof?Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know. I've had a hard time adjusting to American culture. Thankfully people who volunteer for the test know they will be looked at and will allow it!
This could be over and done with...your local skeptic group (for example) could have already conducted the "cereal test", and you could be well on your way to collecting the $1M from the MDC (for example).Perhaps. But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea. I'd prefer to work on my main claim, with the perceptions that occur the most frequently and comfortably. It really is a testable claim, even if a bit more complicated to arrange.
Given the context as you have outlined it is more accurate to say "medical perceptions" are vague and otherwise ambiguous (especially in the context you have outlined), and allow more "wiggle" to feed your belief. You've made some very important points. You are absolutely right, and the study and tests must take this into account.

Gmonster2:
My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions. :)Wonderful idea. I will try it with the crystals I have at home while I work on the main claim of medical perceptions. If in this I discover a claim that is easier to test, and that I am as confident in as the medical perceptions, I might switch the subject of the test.

desertgal

3rd January 2009, 02:59 PM

With paranormal experiences.

Paranormal beliefs. You haven't proven that any of your paranormal fantasies actually happened.

Locknar

3rd January 2009, 03:21 PM

I saw the gaps of the vas deferens and concluded that it was a vasectomy. I saw it in such detail to know that he was not born that way. Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way.There is that "wiggle" again; previously you said you saw the vas deferens had been severed (my paraphrasing) and mentioned NOTHING about scars, surrounding tissue, etc....now you mention "tissue that has been operated on looks different." This would be along the lines of a "after, after the fact" explanation.

All that we conclude on my accurate detection of vasectomy is that it might be part of my claim, that yet again I failed to falsify the claim, and to proceed toward a real test. "We"...who is "we", you and the parrot on your shoulder?

All that can be concluded is you had a 1:6 chance of guessing right, and that you may or may not have since (as you note) you did nothing to validate the claim and offer nothing to validate your campfire story ever took place.

The information to look for can be "vertical scar on the chest" and heart bypass can be disregarded. Unless the study gives me experience to state that I do detect heart bypass from perceiving symptoms that are found on the heart itself. I never got that far in this experience. Yet again, "wiggle" appears...you claim to see on a atomic level, yet the only apparent thing you can "see" related to heart bypass is a "vertical scar on the chest"? My...that seems awfully ambiguous.

All I can say about my anecdotal experiences is that they have failed to falsify the claim of extrasensory medical perceptions. EVERY single event you claim can be explained via other means; you simply choose to link them to "woo woo."

It is my choice not to involve these people in this discussion. I realize that that might place suspicion on my credibility, but I don't care. There will be real, documented examples of perceptions up ahead and I don't think it necessary to involve my family and friends. YOU already involved them.

So rather then ask family/friends to come forward and thus establish credibility AND be well on your way to claiming the MDC, you continue to waffle, delay, etc.

We are talking about validating a "power"/ability that has never been shown to exist in the entire existence of the human race...surly if asked at least one of them would be willing to step forward?

I do say that I have been honest in my description of the anecdotes, yet I have consistently agreed that they do not serve as formal evidence. Honesty is ambiguous; have you been factual...and the answer is no. "How can this be" VFF says...because you offer nothing in the way of corroborating facts. You don't keep a diary and thus by default - no diary, it didn't happen.

Real scientists keep written diaries, document corroborating information, etc.; a blog outlining your perceptions/memory of events is nothing more then fantasy (ie. campfire stories).

Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know.Just more "wiggle", and planting of explanations should you fail.

But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea. Excuses.

I'd prefer to work on my main claim, with the perceptions that occur the most frequently and comfortably. It really is a testable claim <snip>Not surprising, because pursuit offers enough "wiggle", delay, and excuses to perpetuate the fantasy (that is to say, attribute normal every day events to "woo woo").

VisionFromFeeling

3rd January 2009, 03:28 PM

skeen:
Oh gee. So, Anita admits that her "perceptions" don't even enter into reality, but are merely in her mind. Well, we knew that already, but that she knows it rules out any possibility that she's going to realize what she's doing - fantasizing. In the way that I experience the perceptions, when I look at a person I locate where the information is, and then feel the vibration patterns within the material. This information comes to me in the form of feeling. I do not see the images in the world itself, I do not take in the perceptions in the form of visual input. The input is feeling, in nature. A feeling not like when we touch things, but feeling things that are invisible and at a distance, like heat and temperature for instance. I experience that the vibration that I feel contains patterns in its structure, and that each unique pattern corresponds to a specific chemical element, the atoms. My mind distinguishes the different types of vibrational structures based on how their shapes are perceived by feeling them. My mind then automatically associates vibrational structures to corresponding atoms and presents to me the colored, non-solid spheres that are a perceived image of atoms. Now I have an image of atoms in my mind, even though my eyes never saw the atoms, and all I did was feel the vibration that I feel in things. If I stop on the atomic level, I can distinguish based on color, size, and distinct feeling, which of the elements they depict.

My mind quickly assembles the perceived atoms into molecules, which contain more meaning than their individual atoms. These visual and felt perceptions of molecules quickly assemble upward into the cells they compose. And these perceptions quickly build upward into the perception of tissue. So, based on feeling, I perceive vision from feeling, which is what I call it.

These images are formed in my mind. They are not images that are ready and floating around in the world around me. I do not see these images with my eyes. To have perceptions such as these is perhaps not interesting from a paranormal point of view in itself. What we are investigating is not the perceptions in themselves, but we are investigating to find out whether these perceptions have any correlation with the actual structures of the body that can not be perceived by ordinary senses of perception.
Gmonster2, crystals, eh? In learning more about Anita, I am actually disappointed by just how much the same she is as other woo's. Spirits, crystals, vibrations, quantum things. Tut.Crystals and vibration are very interesting from a strictly scientific point of view too. A few years from now I hope to use crystals in electronic instruments, to generate very detailed light structures and vibrational patterns. And I will do so in a strictly scientific manner, where all of my observations and conclusions are ones that are established based on instrumental readings or other results that are mutually observable by all scientists. My paranormal or just unusual perceptions and ideas will be nothing but inspiration and ideas and they do not reduce the quality of my professional work.
I revoke what I said about her having psychological issues. I just think she's silly. And she does not have synaesthesia. Anita just needs to grow up. She's clearly the type of woman who hangs out in Arizona looking for "vortexes".I do have synesthesia. I automatically associate things with colors, shapes, and character and based on how I know some of my friends, I do this to a greater extent than most people. The question is whether my perceptions are synesthesia or what they are. I normally do not look for these kind of experiences. They are part of how I perceive.
And I still believe no test will ever be performed.The study is up next, and if I fail to falsify the claim at that study then a test will definitely take place.
EDIT: Just to add: I love her false sense of concern about going out and "perceiving" medical information in other people. As has been pointed out, she doesn't need to ask people to share their personal information with her. She can perform a simple yes or no. If she is correct, which she believes she will be, no-one is going to mind.I am concerned with people because they could get hurt by participating in psychic claims and also I am concerned to ensure that the study and tests are in accordance with law. If I came here acting like I was not concerned with people's well-being with this investigation I'd be criticized for that too. Like I've said, to some of you guys, everything I do is wrong. :explodeSo I'll just do what I know is right.

desertgal:
When I said, "...what my beliefs and experiences are, or what I do besides talk to you guys", desertgal misinterpreted,
Well, then, why are we here at all? Why did you start this thread, if not to discuss your "beliefs and experiences"? If you want to limit this conversation to the sole fact that you talk to us guys, then here you go: You talk to us guys. Thread over.I said that I am on this thread to discuss the perceptions, and that the things that I do when I am not here, the things "I do besides talk to you guys", is not of interest here. This thread is not over, stop bullying around this thread and twisting the intent of this thread! If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.
YOU brought these beliefs and experiences and your other activities to this forum. We didn't ask you. YOU threw it all on the table, and now you want to dictate what parts of it all we can discuss and what parts we can't. Rubbish to that.This thread is about my paranormal investigation. The Ghost thread was about my ghost experiences. This one is not.

When I said, "No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild.",
In your opinion. In my opinion, it is. And it is very obvious. Opinions and expectations are fine, just remember that we haven't proven one way or the other yet.
Well, what does this mean? I've visited a large number of crime scenes in my work - and I can accurately describe any of them while I am there. I can accurately describe the room I am sitting in, too, while I am sitting in it. Doesn't mean I have a sooper power.I see the people and events that took place and everything I have described has either been confirmed as accurate, or seems likely, and none has been proven as inaccurate, or seemed unlikely. And these are sites that today show no record of what happened. If you want to discuss this topic, please see the Ghost thread, but I won't be there since I'm busy working on my paranormal claim.
And one I take serious issue with. I've worked with a great many excellent law enforcement officers over the years, and your statement is a thumb of the nose to these fine men. They spend years honing their investigative skills. They collect and analyze evidence, they conduct endless interviews, and they often work round the clock for weeks at a time to solve crimes. You have no clue about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes hand in hand with investigating a crime. And then it takes me one second to see everything that happened, oh boy. Not to disrespect their work. It's just easier to actually see it.
That you claim to have walked into a crime scene, as a child and beyond, and solved instantly what grown men dedicate months upon months to solving is an absolute fantasy-and you should be ashamed of yourself for making that claim. And please don't respond to this. Whatever defense you might offer up won't change the fact that you said it, you meant it, and it is false. It may be a result of your endless fantasies, but it is still false.And once again desertgal makes an incorrect assumption. I have never solved crimes. I've described them. I never made that claim. You should be ashamed of yourself for making an incorrect assumption again and for throwing it at me! OF COURSE I'LL RESPOND TO THIS! YOU'RE LYING ABOUT ME! I DID NOT SAY IT! I DID NOT MEAN IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT! And the only one who is false here is YOU! It is your false fantasy that I claimed to have solved crimes! You've made a fool of yourself, again.
My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability. You must understand that I come from a different perspective than everyone else. I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions, that is why I can approach this investigation in a different manner, from a different starting point, and you guys approach from your starting points, and all of us arrive at the same testing point. I know more about the claim than any of you. Besides you're the one making tons of incorrect conclusions that you place your belief on and then throw at me and judge my character based on.

skeen:
And almost every time Anita writes a wall of textWhen you guys write a wall of text, I write a wall of text. That is what happens when I answer questions. If I don't answer questions, I get criticized for that as well. Everything I do is wrong to you guys. :explode
I concur regarding what she said about crime scenes. It's disgusting, and distasteful, and really makes me quite angry. I have never solved a crime scene nor have I claimed to have solved a crime scene. I claim to have seen and perceived crime scenes. I think your false accusations, your strong belief in these false accusations, and your willingness to judge my character negatively on false accusations, is disgusting, distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

Coveredinbeeees:
Thank you for your proposed crystal detection protocol. I think it is a wonderful idea, and it would make for a test that is easy to arrange. I will look into it while I continue to work on this main claim. If I discover in crystals a different claim that I am more confident or equally confident in as the medical perceptions, I can change the specifics of my paranormal claim to crystals, and I would love that. I haven't worked with crystals for over ten years now and look forward to taking them out again. :)