Vision From Feeling

[Moochie]

I'm keeping a low profile on this one in the hope that everyone will forget that I was the one who originally couldn't do this and despite my almost 6,000 posts I never wondered what the little 'inverted commas button' under every single post did.


:D

Silly duffer!


M.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup,
I received the crushed medicine samples in the mail yesterday. Thank you for arranging this test. I have not had much time to dedicate to them yet (due to prioritating my studies) but already have some concerns: I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these. Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples. This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.

Are you able to still send me one uncrushed pill of each for reference so that I can attempt to match them to the crushed samples? Thank you, I find this test very interesting and fun, but do allow the time it will take before I get back with some conclusions as to how I think I do on the matching.

Everyone,
The study will not take place this weekend. I have not had the time to prepare the paperwork for it, and also the person who will take me there is not available this weekend but is the next. I hope to work some more on the papers this weekend and I hope to have the study next weekend. "Thank you for your patience."

[Locknar]

Everyone,
The study will not take place this weekend. I have not had the time to prepare the paperwork for it, and also the person who will take me there is not available this weekend but is the next. I hope to work some more on the papers this weekend and I hope to have the study next weekend. "Thank you for your patience."Right.....

[Coveredinbeeees]

Pup,
I received the crushed medicine samples in the mail yesterday. Thank you for arranging this test. I have not had much time to dedicate to them yet (due to prioritating my studies) but already have some concerns: I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these. Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples. This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.

Surely, knowing the effect each of these drugs has on the human body, you need only look at the crushed sample, look at a human subject, and then do a bit of vibrational algebra.

Why do that facts that the samples have different quantities and colours have any bearing on your ability to tell what effect they will have on a human body and hence which is which?

Are you able to still send me one uncrushed pill of each for reference so that I can attempt to match them to the crushed samples? Thank you, I find this test very interesting and fun, but do allow the time it will take before I get back with some conclusions as to how I think I do on the matching.

Looking back I see that Pup has already pointed out why sending you uncrushed samples of the medicines he sent would compromise the experiment and suggesting a free method for you to sample them. You even replied to the post in which he did so. I am baffled as to why you are asking again. :confused:

In their commercial form, these are common medicines, all available in any drugstore, so if you're not aware of them already from everyday life, it would be simple to look at someone's bottle of aspirin or Zyrtec or Rolaids, or take a "look" at them in a drugstore through the cardboard boxes, like the cardboard-enclosed cereal you saw. True, you might not be seeing the same brand (my samples are all store generics so might not be the same size or color or flavor as others), but it's not about identifying brands, it's about identifying their effects on the human, body, right?

I don't mean you'd deliberately try to guess through appearance, odor, etc. I think that using those clues subconsciously is what's happening, and asking for examples of the pills is a way of helping yourself, subconsciously, tip the odds a little more in your favor.

[Jonquill]

Maybe Anita should identify three of them and just leave the two shes not sure of for later, getting three of them right would still be pretty good, and if she even just guessed the last two she would have a 50% chance of getting them right if she had correctly identifed the other three.

[Uncayimmy]

Pup,
I received the crushed medicine samples in the mail yesterday. Thank you for arranging this test. I have not had much time to dedicate to them yet (due to prioritating my studies) but already have some concerns: I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these. Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples. This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.

What possible difference could the amount, dimensions and color make to someone sensing vibrational information down to the atomic level? Please explain. You *do* know that pills are not 100% whatever it is they say they contain, right? They Sudafed tablet probably has 10mg of the chemical and a whole lotta milligrams of other stuff. 10mg is very, very small. And the pills probably already contain some sort of coloring anyway.

The reason you are having "significant difficulty" is that you, in fact, do not have any special ability to sense vibrational information. You requires clues in the real world in order for your imagination to come up with something, just like I have been saying all along.

Are you able to still send me one uncrushed pill of each for reference so that I can attempt to match them to the crushed samples? Thank you, I find this test very interesting and fun, but do allow the time it will take before I get back with some conclusions as to how I think I do on the matching.
Funny, you've never mentioned needing a reference before.


Everyone,
The study will not take place this weekend. I have not had the time to prepare the paperwork for it, and also the person who will take me there is not available this weekend but is the next. I hope to work some more on the papers this weekend and I hope to have the study next weekend. "Thank you for your patience."

What is the protocol? You *do* realize that every test you've done on your own has, well, sucked from a scientific standpoint. Why don't you run it by us first before you do anything. If you don't and we find flaws in it afterwards, then you will have wasted everyone's time.

Also, have you contacted a mental health professional and presented the full contents of the moderated thread?

[Akhenaten]

Pup,
I received the crushed medicine samples in the mail yesterday. Thank you for arranging this test. I have not had much time to dedicate to them yet (due to prioritating my studies) but already have some concerns:


By an amazing coincidence, so do I, and the time that you must dedicate to this test is the first of them.

If someone sent me an envelope containing 5 different coloured cards which I was to identify by colour using my normal vision, how long do you think it would take me to do? My estimate is about 3 seconds, and I'm a little curious about how much more slowly your vision from feeling operates, and why this would be so. MRIs, ultrasound scans and x-rays all work instantaneously, and VfF is supposed to better than these.



I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these.


If one is comparing the physical properties of things, this preference would be understandable, but why is it a requirement for a chemical analysis? Are crime scene investigators unable to process crime scenes if the blood samples are different sizes? Does a gallon of ice cream have a different chemical composition to a pint of the same stuff?

Why doesn't vibrational algebra enable you to solve this problem? It seems to me that it must come into play in terms of your main claim to be able to diagnose medical conditions in live subjects, since people and their working parts come in a wide variety of sizes.



Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples.


How do you know that?

Phenylephrine is the most common over-the-counter decongestant on the market in the US and Cetrizine is an antihistamine marketed all over the world as Zyrtec or Reactine.

Is this the peanut oil defense revisited?

BTW, you snipped my question about malaria in that exchange. Remind me to ask you about it again.



This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.


Did you use Wikipedia like I did? Do the pretty pictures of the molecules differ from what you see, and if they do, which would you say is a better representation of the real thing.


In any case, this reference business is a contradiction to this quote from Post # 8 of this thread:

In terms of the other forms of information I obtain besides health, I am always curious to check my conclusions against known facts, by looking it up in a book or on the internet. All on my own and independently by using this ability I have obtained information about chemistry, materials, plants, animals, bacteria, foods and medicines that I did not know prior and that could not have been guessed to such detail. What compels me is also that I am so certain of the information when I perceive it. I do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect.


Although, admittedly, the above is contradicted by Post #17:

There is no obvious way to relate the information from literature about chemical elements or molecules to what it is I am observing, so in terms of chemical identification I need to experience a known reference to learn how to identify the name of the atoms or molecules I am seeing.


Which in turn seems to be contradicted by Post #19:

I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab. We were given four unknown compounds that we had to identify through various chemical testing, melting point, IR and NMR spectra. By looking into the molecules, I could for instance clearly see biphenyl, and the nitrogen that was involved in two of the others was clearly detectable and a helpful clue.


It's a bit hard to follow sometimes, and that was 1500 posts ago.


As to the cost, I believe it was mentioned when the test was proposed that all you need do is go to a chemist pharmacy drug store place where Americans buy pills, and LOOK at a packet of Sudafed and a packet of Zyrtec. You can have your reference lookies and you don't need to purchase anything, although the chemist pharmacist druggist pill-selling person might look at YOU with some curiosity.


Further still why complain about cost now when you said in Post #1280:

Of course I have no such intention, and can easily acquire at least most of these pills that you are sending me if I wanted to, I was just thinking it would be easier for you to do so. You can choose to not include original samples if you wish.


And even more further yet, it had been explained to you in Post #1230


Unfortunately, I don't have access to any pure samples of the medicines. Not sure where one would find them, outside of a pharmaceutical manufacturer's lab.

But I'm guessing you mean the original pills with all their fillers and colorings, and not the actual pure medicines. The first thing that occurs to me is that wanting to be aware of the size, odor and perhaps texture or appearance of the original pills might help you sense which is which through normal means


and further in Post #1291:

I don't mean you'd deliberately try to guess through appearance, odor, etc. I think that using those clues subconsciously is what's happening, and asking for examples of the pills is a way of helping yourself, subconsciously, tip the odds a little more in your favor.


Yet you still ask:

Are you able to still send me one uncrushed pill of each for reference so that I can attempt to match them to the crushed samples?


I think "No."


Thank you, I find this test very interesting and fun, but do allow the time it will take before I get back with some conclusions as to how I think I do on the matching.


Again I have to ask, how long does it take to look at something? "A quick glance to locate the object is all that it takes and the information is downloaded" doesn't sound like it would take very long. Is your VfF on dial-up?



Everyone,
The study will not take place this weekend. I have not had the time to prepare the paperwork for it, and also the person who will take me there is not available this weekend but is the next. I hope to work some more on the papers this weekend and I hope to have the study next weekend. "Thank you for your patience."


Since we have no idea what this paperwork consists of, or where you're going, and we weren't expecting a study this weekend anyway, this is somewhat less than shattering news. What's the latest on the attending sceptics that The Study™ required?

Please stop mentioning our patience. Nobody is in that much of a hurry. Take your time and answer all the other questions that have been asked since your last visit.


ETA: Oh rats! I should have refreshed the page before I replied. The brilliant Coveredinbeeees and UncaYimmy (bless his heart) beat me to most of what I had to say. Curse you, time zones.



This Wall o' Text brought to you by Amarna Publishing Inc. and Ahklon's Stelae and Monuments.

[volatile]

So when you're not under test conditions, the vision comes quick and easy, but when you are, all of a sudden it's difficult?

Why do you think this might be?

The longer you take to answer, the more suspicious we will be of any eventual result, given that there are non-paranormal methods of determining the composition of the samples (chemical analysis) to which you obviously have some access.

[Miss_Kitt]

By an amazing coincidence, so do I, and the time that you must dedicate to this test is the first of them.
...

(snippage of much excellent stuff)
ETA: Oh rats! I should have refreshed the page before I replied. The brilliant Coveredinbeeees and UncaYimmy (bless his heart) beat me to most of what I had to say. Curse you, time zones.


This Wall o' Text brought to you by Amarna Publishing Inc. and Ahklon's Stelae and Monuments.

Akhenaten, I laughed so hard at the closing comments I almost peed myself. I don't know if anyone else caught the refs, but it just slew me. If you're ever at the same TAM I am, I owe you a drink.

Miss Kitt

[Belz...]

I received the crushed medicine samples in the mail yesterday. Thank you for arranging this test. I have not had much time to dedicate to them yet (due to prioritating my studies)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608049707c4fbceb2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14898)

[EHocking]

...but already have some concerns: I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these. Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples. Why would you need reference samples.
You have previously stated that you "see" the molecular structure without need of a reference:
Post 17 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4180349&postcount=19)
I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab. We were given four unknown compounds that we had to identify through various chemical testing, melting point, IR and NMR spectra. By looking into the molecules, I could for instance clearly see biphenyl, and the nitrogen that was involved in two of the others was clearly detectable and a helpful clue.
Post 1164 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4331948&postcount=1164)
What I said was that during an assignment of identifying unknown chemical species, I perceived the 6-carbon ring, and the presence and location of nitrogen.
This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference. [/quote]The photo above seems to be quite apt.

[Sideroxylon]

This reminds me of James Hydrick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc) staring at the telephone book after Randi had poured packing beads around it. You can see him wondering how on earth he’s going to get those pages to turn without the telltale movement of the beads. I’m not suggesting that Anita is using any tricks, it’s just I’m seeing the same deer-in-the headlights thing we often see when woo claims are put to the test.

[Locknar]

Obviously she has no time for skeptical or critical thinking.... Set course the "woo woo" planet, in the denial nebula Mr Data, Warp 9...engage!

[Ashles]

already have some concerns: I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these.
What. The. Hell?
Where have these brand new requirement come from?
How many of Anita's previous claims does this contradict?
Would Anita like them all labelled too, just to be really helpful?

This is her claim! This is what she is supposed to be able to do! Identifying different chemicals from vision!
Except whan any actual controls are introduced.

Anita, THIS is why IIG cannot test you.
THIS is why the delays have been happening. It's not their fault, it is yours.
THIS is why independent testing of your claim will never happen.
You are NEVER clear and upfront about what you can and can't do, and under what circumstances.
There is always some secret further restriction which no-one ever knows about until they try to do any testing. And then you pull the latest issue out of the hat.

Do all the medical subjects have to be of equal weight, size, colour etc?
What number of new restrictions can be dreamed up to avoid any testing?

This is pathetic. The claim is to be able to see at a molecular level, yet now the samples have to be similar sizes? I just can't believe this. Even from her.

It's like someone claiming they can levitate. They have done so loads of times under all conditions. They have never failed to be able to levitate in any one of a load of times described in unverified stories.
Then when it comes to actually being tested they ask if they could possibly just omit the actual 'levitating' part of the test.

Look, Anita, just take the smallest sample, and make similar sized samples from the others. How on earth is the sample size a problem?

In fact it sounds like you realised that the colour conformity was an issue (you were clearly hoping for more readily visually identifiable samples), so you wanted a couple more issues to make it look like there were several different issues. So you added "amount" and "sample size".
Either you are using two words for exactly the same thing just to make it sound like more issues.
Or you are referring to "sample size" in terms of number of different samples. Which would be ludicrous as you already knew what was coming.

This is truly ridiculous.
If you want more help with making them identifiable (a whole tablet please) just forget it - your claim has disappeared to nothing.

Just so you are clear, as this is obviously very complicated for you:
the colour conformity and not sending you the tablets is a form of control so YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE SUBSTANCES WITH THE ORIGINAL!

Also I have significant difficulty with two of the compounds, Phenylephrine HCl and Cetirizine HCl, as I have never encountered these as reference samples. This would require me to purchase each of these, and at the time being my funds are low. :( I looked up the molecular structure of each, as well as their medicinal effects and side-effects, but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.
And now we compare this to the claim that you could identify the effects of marijuana from a photograph where you didn't even know what the photo was of, and you had never experienced the effects of marijuana yourself!

How about we send you a list of chemicals, you read back the list to us and declare it a successful test.
That appears to be what you want.

If you are this terrified of failing in a test (even one that would have been considered to not have a particular amount of weight on either side) it's time to take a good long hard look at how much you really do believe in your ability.
Don't repeat it to us, you already know where we stand.
Right now the only person you stand any chance of changing their opinion of the ability is yourself.
It may be uncomfortable but if you are really interested in truth it's time to start doing tests or accepting you don't really believe this nonsense yourself.

Everything else is just evasion.

[Christian Klippel]

...but this information is only partially helpful when I lack having seen the reference.

Are you able to still send me one uncrushed pill of each for reference so that I can attempt to match them to the crushed samples? ...

<Looking around>

Damn, where is that goalpost? I swear, it was right next to me not that long ago. Either one of my cat's ate it, or someone has moved it around.

<Continues searching the goalpost>

[Pup]

Well, I log in for the first time since yesterday afternoon, and discover that everyone has already said pretty much what I'd say, so I'll just add the following:

I would prefer for each of the five samples to more closely resemble one another in terms of their amount, sample dimensions and color, as they are significantly different in regard to these.

For what it's worth, each sample was either a whole pill of the smaller pills, and an unmeasured guess at a portion of the larger pills that was similar in size to the smaller pills. Because they became a thick liquid when mixed with the gel-texture food coloring, they smeared when I put them in the ziplock bags and therefore probably appear even more diverse in quantity than they really are. The variation in color is because I added a dab of red and/or green food coloring by eye.

But I'm curious what on earth the color or quantity would have to do with anything. What if I'd only sent one pill for you to identify? Its color or quantity in relationship to others would have been moot.

This shows that you couldn't have identified even one pill, either, and therefore I'd call this test a definite fail. You cannot sense the effect on the human body of a medicinal substance merely be observing it.

I am impressed by your honesty, though, and I want to commend you on that. Knowing you were at a university with access to a chemistry department, I would have worried that a good result might have been due to some helpful mundane analysis. Saying that you can't do the test as it stands, shows integrity.

But now, I hope you'd think about the past examples you've related, where you believed you were able to sense the results of medicines on the human body, and realize that in an objective test, the ability has failed. Why do you think that is? I don't believe it has anything to do with the size or color of the samples.

By the way, I was concerned about one of the samples, the antacid, but included it anyway. It had a subtle odor, since it was a generic equivalent for the very common antacid Tums and was berry-flavored. Someone familiar with Tums might recognize the odor if the ziplock bag was opened for a closer look. I was possibly expecting a result that the antacid was identifiable but none of the others were.

[Christian Klippel]

What number of new restrictions can be dreamed up to avoid any testing?

Hello Ashles,

in my opinion, and from my reading about testing woo claims, i have to conclude that this number is somewhere very close to infinity.

Besides, i don't think that sending 4 samples to her makes much sense. If she really studies what she says, she has access to lots of stuff to analyze the substances in regular ways. Unless, of course, the samples are sealed in something, like glass vials, and sent back after identification to check if there was any tampering with the containers/vials. Assuming that the used seals are unique so that she cant replace them once they are broken.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: I just see that Pup beat me to it re: analyzing the samples.

[Ashles]

Thank you, I find this test very interesting and fun, but do allow the time it will take before I get back with some conclusions as to how I think I do on the matching.
Why "conclusions" aas to how you "think" you do? Again this is unclear. And frankly I've had enough of assuming it is because of language issues. Anita's English is perfectly good and these aren't examples of specific words that might be mistranslated, but whole sentences that seem intended only to confuse, and we have seen many of these already.

Writing "I will post the results of the test" is well within Anita's ability. She is avoiding clear language deliberately.

Anita, we aren't looking for your opinions on how you "think" you might do or how you "think" you did do.
We are looking for the actual results.
Analysis and opinion will come after that.

Everyone,
The study will not take place this weekend.
Who thought it would?

I have not had the time to prepare the paperwork for it, and also the person who will take me there is not available this weekend but is the next.
Why have just one excuse when two sounds more convincing?
How much damn paperwork does this study require? I don't remember the part of Unca Yimmy's protocol that required three weeks of documentation preparation.

To be honest I have pretty much no clue what this 'study' is even going to consist of anymore.

I hope to work some more on the papers this weekend and I hope to have the study next weekend. "Thank you for your patience."
Or you could delay the study and actually describe the results of the "survey". Remember that?

Or are you trying to delete that from our collective memory?

[Professor Yaffle]

Hello Ashles,

in my opinion, and from my reading about testing woo claims, i have to conclude that this number is somewhere very close to infinity.

Besides, i don't think that sending 4 samples to her makes much sense. If she really studies what she says, she has access to lots of stuff to analyze the substances in regular ways. Unless, of course, the samples are sealed in something, like glass vials, and sent back after identification to check if there was any tampering with the containers/vials. Assuming that the used seals are unique so that she cant replace them once they are broken.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: I just see that Pup beat me to it re: analyzing the samples.

She would only be cheating herself... If she was going to do that she could have just mad up stunningly good results for the cereal tests.

If she does well on any vaguely controlled tests, she will have no excuse for not using that for her test with the IIG.

[skeen]

I don't mean to sound crude, but Anita is so stupid that I must raise my doubts about her education again. Someone should contact her University - I wouldn't consider it inappropriate, all the contact details are freely available, even a simple email would do.

[Belz...]

Anita, THIS is why IIG cannot test you.
THIS is why the delays have been happening. It's not their fault, it is yours.
THIS is why independent testing of your claim will never happen.
You are NEVER clear and upfront about what you can and can't do, and under what circumstances.
There is always some secret further restriction which no-one ever knows about until they try to do any testing. And then you pull the latest issue out of the hat.

Do all the medical subjects have to be of equal weight, size, colour etc?
What number of new restrictions can be dreamed up to avoid any testing?

This is pathetic.

Indeed.

I said so from the get-go. I knew VfF would weasel out of any problem or negative result. It's pretty much what happens with all of those woo-woos. When's the last time you saw someone test his/her abilities and, upon failing, admit that he/she was probably wrong, and move on ? It happens, but it's fairly rare, from my experience.

[tsig]

This reminds me of James Hydrick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc) staring at the telephone book after Randi had poured packing beads around it. You can see him wondering how on earth he’s going to get those pages to turn without the telltale movement of the beads. I’m not suggesting that Anita is using any tricks, it’s just I’m seeing the same deer-in-the headlights thing we often see when woo claims are put to the test.He has the ability that all woos have. He can come up with instant excuses.

Did you notice that one of the judges still believes in woo even though he has just seen it fail?

[nathan]

I don't mean to sound crude, but Anita is so stupid that I must raise my doubts about her education again. Someone should contact her University - I wouldn't consider it inappropriate, all the contact details are freely available, even a simple email would do.

I don't understand your point. There's evidence Anita is studying where she says she is. Wouldn't the university have noticed if she got there under false pretences? And isn't it up to them what they do about it?

Anyway, I don't think Anita is stupid. She's an intelligent person who happens to be deluded. If anything it's her intelligence that is leading her to false conclusions that she is also be infallible in that her perceptions are accurately reflecting stimuli.

[tsig]

I don't mean to sound crude, but Anita is so stupid that I must raise my doubts about her education again. Someone should contact her University - I wouldn't consider it inappropriate, all the contact details are freely available, even a simple email would do.

I don't believe a word she has written. Yes and that includes her name.

She presents one face here and quite another on her blog.

It's just another case of an aspiring woo hoping to gain some shine off Randi's name.

[skeen]

My point is, I'm not sure if that's even her. There's deluded, but Anita goes way outside of delusion into transparent lying and dodging and manipulating. And yes, she has expressed outright stupidity over and over again.

I just feel like a lot of peoples time is being wasted, and that people are being taken for a ride. I don't believe her claims about being an excellent student, to the extent that I doubt her very education. This is ridiculous.

[tsig]

My point is, I'm not sure if that's even her. There's deluded, but Anita goes way outside of delusion into transparent lying and dodging and manipulating. And yes, she has expressed outright stupidity over and over again.

I just feel like a lot of peoples time is being wasted, and that people are being taken for a ride. I don't believe her claims about being an excellent student, to the extent that I doubt her very education. This is ridiculous.

I only have to be lied to once to consider that person a liar. Anita has show a pattern of deceit, dodging and manipulating.

Does it matter whether a person is deluded or deceitful? The outcome is the same, they are making statements contrary to facts.

[sleepy_lioness]

Having taught undergraduates, at a very good university, I have to say that some can actually appear shockingly stupid, through various factors such as lack of life experience, naivety, arrogance ... oh, and yes, innate stupidity.

[Locknar]

I don't understand your point. There's evidence Anita is studying where she says she is. Wouldn't the university have noticed if she got there under false pretences? And isn't it up to them what they do about it?

Anyway, I don't think Anita is stupid. She's an intelligent person who happens to be deluded. If anything it's her intelligence that is leading her to false conclusions that she is also be infallible in that her perceptions are accurately reflecting stimuli.I believe skeen's point is/was...the Anita we've associated with the university may NOT be physically the same person that posts here as VFF.

There is ample evidence to suggest that is in fact the case, as aspects of "Science 101" seem to elude her to no avail.

[Moochie]

He has the ability that all woos have. He can come up with instant excuses.

Did you notice that one of the judges still believes in woo even though he has just seen it fail?

Yes, but that judge proclaimed himself a "parapsychologist," so he already has three strikes against him. :D


M.

[Uncayimmy]

I believe skeen's point is/was...the Anita we've associated with the university may NOT be physically the same person that posts here as VFF.

There is ample evidence to suggest that is in fact the case, as aspects of "Science 101" seem to elude her to no avail.

Everything fits being deluded. It's nice and neat.

Deception over her identity is a bit wacky.

* There is an Anita Ikonen who attends the UNC seeking the same degree Anita claims.

* I have seen pictures on Facebook of Anita as she looks today and at a much younger (teen) age. They match what's on her web page.

* I have also seen pictures of her in a chemistry lab at school looking as she looks today.

* Pup mailed the stuff to her in NC (unless, for some reason, he failed to tell us it was going to Nigeria).

* She showed up at the local skeptics meeting in person.

* She used that name with IIG West over a year ago.

* She has a Facebook friend with whom she has exchanged public comments about going back to school.

* In our Facebook chat she launched into some Swedish which I immediately translated on-line and found to be at least reasonably authentic.

If this is a deception, it is an extremely elaborate and risky one. And why do people suspect deception? Because she doesn't seem smart. Hmm...

As I pointed out about 200 posts ago, being a great student doesn't mean you're smart (and vice-versa). I have seen plenty of high GPA students who could not apply what they learned outside of the classroom.

But most importantly, it all fits her being delusional. We have seen Desertgal's posts. She's obviously intelligent, yet she told us that she once was utterly convinced she had been to Paris when she had not. Delusions can be very powerful when untreated.

[Locknar]

Everything fits being deluded. It's nice and neat.

Deception over her identity is a bit wacky.

<snip>

If this is a deception, it is an extremely elaborate and risky one. And why do people suspect deception? Because she doesn't seem smart. Hmm...

As I pointed out about 200 posts ago, being a great student doesn't mean you're smart (and vice-versa). I have seen plenty of high GPA students who could not apply what they learned outside of the classroom.

But most importantly, it all fits her being delusional. We have seen Desertgal's posts. She's obviously intelligent, yet she told us that she once was utterly convinced she had been to Paris when she had not. Delusions can be very powerful when untreated.Agreed.

I didn't mean to imply I agreed with that line of reasoning...just that there was evidence to suggest it as a possibility.

[desertgal]

I don't suspect deception about her identity or her nationality. I do see the contradictions in her claims, but I believe that can be attributed more to her delusional state than deliberate deception.

IOW, I don't think Anita is trying to "fool the skeptics" in the way that, say, Creekfreak or Historian did. I think she's trying to make the skeptics believe in her claims to reinforce the "reality" of her delusions to herself. Course, since her delusions aren't reality, she's got to dodge and backtrack and manipulate her fantasy to fit, and that's when the contradictions appear.

Does it matter whether a person is deluded or deceitful? The outcome is the same, they are making statements contrary to facts.

I agree. I warned Anita some posts ago that many people, now and in her future, aren't going to have a lot of patience with the fact that she is delusional-playing people for fools is going to cost her, whatever the motivation. She chooses not to listen to that advice. C'est la vie.

ETA: There is no reason to think that she is being deceptive about her identity and/or her nationality. Keep in mind, it's one thing to get on the Internet in a delusional state and spin a fantasy in the hopes that people will believe you - but identity theft is a whole other matter. I think it would probably be wiser for everyone to cease with that line of thought since it is, in fact, accusing Anita of a crime without solid evidence to back the accusation up.

[Uncayimmy]

Agreed.

I didn't mean to imply I agreed with that line of reasoning...just that there was evidence to suggest it as a possibility.

Sorry, I misunderstood. It's certainly possible, but I'm leaning away from it. As I have said before, I'm certain that she has been deceptive. Hell, everybody lies. I just think in her case that she's more likely to be lying to herself. Of course, that means we're not hearing the truth. I hesitate to label self-deception as "lying to others" because of how I personally factor in intent. But I wouldn't engage anyone in serious debate over that point.

Sometimes English can be so limiting.

[Uncayimmy]

Does it matter whether a person is deluded or deceitful? The outcome is the same, they are making statements contrary to facts.

It depends on what you mean by matter.

If I find myself engaging a someone knowingly being deceitful, I will typically disengage once I or others have clearly established the contradictions. Unless, of course, I feel like I can trick the person into doing something that leaves no wiggle room. I exposed a few sock puppets that way before. I replied to Puppet A as if I were talking to Original Person and got them to respond in kind, forgetting that they were using the Puppet A account. Worked like a charm!

In Anita's case I feel she is delusional and in need of help. I feel there is still hope that she can find a way out. So in that sense the type of deceit "matters" to me.

But as for the reliability of what she says, it doesn't really "matter" why she is being deceitful. On that I think we agree.

[skeen]

I contend that she probably is who she says she is. But in my mind that only makes things worse for her psychological state.

@UncaYimmy: I concurred with you before when you said that being a good student doesn't necessarily mean you're learning how to think; it's just that it gets more and more difficult to comprehend seeing her, well, idiotic statements escalate into pure nonsense.

Even very basic, logical, critical thinking eludes Anita entirely.

[Sideroxylon]

He has the ability that all woos have. He can come up with instant excuses.

Did you notice that one of the judges still believes in woo even though he has just seen it fail?

If that judge was right about the existence of scientific support for paranormal claims then we should be very disappointed with the lack of progress made by parapsychology since that time. Of course we could blame that on conspiracies and tenacious paradigms but then where are the technological applications? What are the odds any will emerge from Anita’s claims?

And yes, you do have to be able to come up with good ad hoc explanations for apparent failure so as to protect your delusion or deception. Also note how Hydrick “failed” at his first attempt to turn the pages. I heard Derren Brown talking about how mediums like to lower expectations about their own abilities as an easy escape when things don’t go as expected. I think with Hydrick there is a bit of that as well as a showmanship element. What’s the bet Anita’s “abilities” will prove unreliable under scrutiny despite the accuracy she has claimed?

[Sideroxylon]

My point is, I'm not sure if that's even her. There's deluded, but Anita goes way outside of delusion into transparent lying and dodging and manipulating. And yes, she has expressed outright stupidity over and over again.

I just feel like a lot of peoples time is being wasted, and that people are being taken for a ride. I don't believe her claims about being an excellent student, to the extent that I doubt her very education. This is ridiculous.

I wondered earlier why so many intelligent people were entertaining such a patently absurd claim but I don't think we can say anyone has been taken for a ride. I have really enjoyed to see how people go about analysing Anita's claims as well as trying to understand why/if she believes what she claims. In short, it's been entertaining and educational.

[Pup]

* Pup mailed the stuff to her in NC (unless, for some reason, he failed to tell us it was going to Nigeria).

As promised, I won't reveal the address, but I'll just say that it sounded like a college student's address. It wasn't a P.O. Box, and the mail seemed to arrive in a reasonable enough time, not like a forwarding service was used. Just my opinion, but I think her identity is real; her delusions aren't. I mean, they're real delusions, they're just not real abilities. You know what I mean. :D In other words, I think she's an otherwise smart kid who really believes this stuff, but she's headed for a hard landing when she crashes into reality.

[Miss_Kitt]

And so it goes...

I hope Anita comes out of this okay. She just go a big slap in the face from Reality, and that was after being told/ask/having suggested repeatedly, from multiple sources, that she might be delusional. If this has actually pushed her to look at the notion that she might, in fact, be a little unwound upstairs...I can only imagine how terrifying that moment would be.

I mean, we've all been doing something that we realized was way more work than it was worth (or was inherently dumb, as getting ready to jump in the water on January 1st) and thought, "Am I crazy?" But it must be another thing entirely to really have to wonder that.

I am, at this moment, a little worried about her. (Not a reaction I expected.) If she has an illness and gets help, that's good; but it must be an emotionally wracking thing to face.

Just my thoughts, MK

[Uncayimmy]

I contend that she probably is who she says she is. But in my mind that only makes things worse for her psychological state.

@UncaYimmy: I concurred with you before when you said that being a good student doesn't necessarily mean you're learning how to think; it's just that it gets more and more difficult to comprehend seeing her, well, idiotic statements escalate into pure nonsense.

Even very basic, logical, critical thinking eludes Anita entirely.

I, too, am completely amazed :boggled:. Every time she pulls something like this my draw drops. :jaw-dropp, my eyes bug out :eye-poppi, and I get irritated :mad:. But then I think about it :confused: and figure it's cool :cool: because she's just hiding :boxedin: from reality. She refuses to see :covereyes what's going on. I figure with enough pressure :crowded: she'll open her eyes :eye-poppi and think about it herself :rolleyes:. This will bother :scared: her and even frighten :yikes: her. Then it will dawn on her :idea: that she'll have to eat her words :footinmou. It might make her sad :( at first and embarrassed :blush:, but ultimately she'll be relieved :relieved: and appreciate our efforts :D. It's gotta be better than getting flamed :flamed: like she has been. If this happens I'll be shocked :shocked: and probably faint :faint:. But I'll also be giddy :p.

[Ashles]

Unca, that was a weird post. Did you just find the smiley toolbar?

[Uncayimmy]

Unca, that was a weird post. Did you just find the smiley toolbar?

Well, Anita is a visual person, so I figured it might help. Or maybe I was just being goofy because I am running out of sensible things to say.

[Ashles]

Well, Anita is a visual person, so I figured it might help. Or maybe I was just being goofy because I am running out of sensible things to day.
Well I understand that.

I really don't know where to go with this claim any more.

It has become an exercise in "How can Anita avoid any testing or talking about specifics"?

In many ways I think it has been an excellent example of skeptical analyisis of a Paranormal claim.

Anita has been far above average in moving goalposts, adding new claims, introducing restrictions, avoiding tests, modifying protocols, delaying revealing results, providing unevidenced stories, remembering misses as hits, using pseudoscientific terms, evading specifics...

But it all came to naught when pinned down by skeptics.

The stories remain just words.
The abilities remain just words.
The tests and studies remain just words.

The claim

Remains

Just words.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

In many ways I think it has been an excellent example of skeptical analyisis of a Paranormal claim.

I agree wholeheartedly! I have learned much about how to skeptically analyze a paranormal / illogical claim.

[Uncayimmy]

The claim

Remains

Just words.

That would have been so much more poignant had you used a smiley.

[Hokulele]

:words:

:confused:

:words:

:boggled:

:words:

:eye-poppi

:words:

:nope:

:words:

:newlol

:words:

:con2:

:words:

:bwall

[Ashles]

That would have been so much more poignant had you used a smiley.
:wackyno:

[Uncayimmy]

I just love this place.

[Miss_Kitt]

:words:

:confused:

:words:

:boggled:

:words:

:eye-poppi

:words:

:nope:

:words:

:newlol

:words:

:con2:

:words:

:bwall



If it wouldn't get me accused of kissing up to authority, I would so nominate that! For...Best Use of Smilies in a Mini-Series!

[Miss_Kitt]

Quick post to say that JackalGirl is one of the people I learned from, I believe on this thread, about testing paranormal claims. Just wanted to include her on the list.

[Gmonster2]

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.

Coveredinbeeees post #1010:
That is a wonderful test protocol and thank you. I look forward to trying this with crystals, after all they are what have the strongest "vibrational signature" and are what I trained myself up with in the very beginning years ago. I will definitely look into this, meanwhile the main claim of medical perceptions and its upcoming study remain my first priority, but the crystal identification test will definitely also receive attention. If I am very effective (although this is getting ahead of ourselves) I may also be able to distinguish the different types of crystals by their vibrational signature. There are many options here to look into, thank you for bringing it up!

Anita can u explain the contradiction here pls?

[tsig]

If that judge was right about the existence of scientific support for paranormal claims then we should be very disappointed with the lack of progress made by parapsychology since that time. Of course we could blame that on conspiracies and tenacious paradigms but then where are the technological applications? What are the odds any will emerge from Anita’s claims?

And yes, you do have to be able to come up with good ad hoc explanations for apparent failure so as to protect your delusion or deception. Also note how Hydrick “failed” at his first attempt to turn the pages. I heard Derren Brown talking about how mediums like to lower expectations about their own abilities as an easy escape when things don’t go as expected. I think with Hydrick there is a bit of that as well as a showmanship element. What’s the bet Anita’s “abilities” will prove unreliable under scrutiny despite the accuracy she has claimed?

Anita has followed the usual story arc of woos here:

They come riding in on a great white horse claiming to slay dragons and after a few bolts from skeptics leave on foot and tattered mumbling something about how they may have once stepped on a lizard.

[desertgal]

Quick post to say that JackalGirl is one of the people I learned from, I believe on this thread, about testing paranormal claims. Just wanted to include her on the list.

And, bless her heart, if JackalGirl didn't call it right at the very beginning:

Post #70 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4187727&postcount=70):

"And let me see if I understand this: no matter what the outcome of the test, you will believe that you have this ability. Right?

Why bother testing?

You are unethical and unscientific. I predict that eventually you will be dispensing medical advice because you will never really test yourself, afraid to discover that you are actually not all that special.

I will no longer participate in this thread. Good luck to your patients."

[Moochie]

I don't suspect deception about her identity or her nationality. I do see the contradictions in her claims, but I believe that can be attributed more to her delusional state than deliberate deception.

IOW, I don't think Anita is trying to "fool the skeptics" in the way that, say, Creekfreak or Historian did. I think she's trying to make the skeptics believe in her claims to reinforce the "reality" of her delusions to herself. Course, since her delusions aren't reality, she's got to dodge and backtrack and manipulate her fantasy to fit, and that's when the contradictions appear.



I agree. I warned Anita some posts ago that many people, now and in her future, aren't going to have a lot of patience with the fact that she is delusional-playing people for fools is going to cost her, whatever the motivation. She chooses not to listen to that advice. C'est la vie.

ETA: There is no reason to think that she is being deceptive about her identity and/or her nationality. Keep in mind, it's one thing to get on the Internet in a delusional state and spin a fantasy in the hopes that people will believe you - but identity theft is a whole other matter. I think it would probably be wiser for everyone to cease with that line of thought since it is, in fact, accusing Anita of a crime without solid evidence to back the accusation up.

I had a quick look at her Facebook account, under the name "Anita Ikonen," and it looks as though she has no "friends" at her school. The friends that are listed seem to be people from this forum.


M.

[Moochie]

I wondered earlier why so many intelligent people were entertaining such a patently absurd claim but I don't think we can say anyone has been taken for a ride. I have really enjoyed to see how people go about analysing Anita's claims as well as trying to understand why/if she believes what she claims. In short, it's been entertaining and educational.

Yes, I think people here proceeded on an "as if" basis, in an attempt to have the person state as clearly as possible just what it is they are claiming, and as we have seen, "Anita" fails dismally to make "his/her" case. As of right now, I don't know if I believe anything this person has said.


M.

[calebprime]

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.

Coveredinbeeees post #1010:
That is a wonderful test protocol and thank you. I look forward to trying this with crystals, after all they are what have the strongest "vibrational signature" and are what I trained myself up with in the very beginning years ago. I will definitely look into this, meanwhile the main claim of medical perceptions and its upcoming study remain my first priority, but the crystal identification test will definitely also receive attention. If I am very effective (although this is getting ahead of ourselves) I may also be able to distinguish the different types of crystals by their vibrational signature. There are many options here to look into, thank you for bringing it up!

Anita can u explain the contradiction here pls?

The apparent contradiction, as I see it, is that the first blue passage was all about imagination--getting good at imagination.

The second is about testing objective (non-imaginary) reality.

Big difference.

Pray she becomes an artist, and not some kind of woo healer.

[desertgal]

I had a quick look at her Facebook account, under the name "Anita Ikonen," and it looks as though she has no "friends" at her school. The friends that are listed seem to be people from this forum.
M.

Given her apparent penchant for spinning her delusions in the direction of everyone she meets, I'd be surprised if Anita has any friends at all.

That said, though, there is a student by that name registered at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, in the same department, and working towards the same degree. Again, suggesting that the person posting here has stolen the identity of that student crosses the line from accusing her of fantasizing to alleging that she has committed an actual crime.

Since there is some evidence to the contrary, as Unca pointed out, and no one here has anything more solid than her apparent "stupidity" and/or her Facebook profile, the allegation should be dropped from the discussion. That's just my opinion, but I think it is valid.

[Moochie]

Given her apparent penchant for spinning her delusions in the direction of everyone she meets, I'd be surprised if Anita has any friends at all.

That said, though, there is a student by that name registered at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, in the same department, and working towards the same degree. Again, suggesting that the person posting here has stolen the identity of that student crosses the line from accusing her of fantasizing to alleging that she has committed an actual crime.

Since there is some evidence to the contrary, as Unca pointed out, and no one here has anything more solid than her apparent "stupidity" and/or her Facebook profile, the allegation should be dropped from the discussion. That's just my opinion, but I think it is valid.

I agree. Still, it's interesting to speculate, isn't it?


M.

[Akhenaten]

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.


If I am very effective (although this is getting ahead of ourselves) I may also be able to distinguish the different types of crystals by their vibrational signature.


Anita can u explain the contradiction here pls?


I can do this.



The training that I did with crystals was when I was much younger and had no science background, that I could use to explain my ability in scientific terms. I was only able to describe my ability in terms which I knew at that time.

What I mean by the second statement above is that now that I have studied physics, chemistry, optics, statistics (upcoming), diagnostic medicine, radiology, quantum mechanics, critical thinking, biology, pharmacology and calculus, I may be better able to describe crystals in terms of their Vibrational Signature™

[Uncayimmy]

I had an e-mail exchange with Anita. Here's something she said that I found very interesting:
I am of course more than expecting to find out in my investigations that there is of course nothing paranormal taking place. In fact, the accuracy of what I perceive might after all not be as good as it has appeared to have been in past experiences. All of this I have already said on the JREF Forum...

I would say that she has never said any such thing before. Did I miss something?

[Locknar]

I would say that she has never said any such thing before. Did I miss something?
Surly she jests :) Nope...you didn't miss anything. I'd say this is her looking for a "out", nothing more.

[desertgal]

I had an e-mail exchange with Anita. Here's something she said that I found very interesting:

I am of course more than expecting to find out in my investigations that there is of course nothing paranormal taking place. In fact, the accuracy of what I perceive might after all not be as good as it has appeared to have been in past experiences. All of this I have already said on the JREF Forum...

I would say that she has never said any such thing before. Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything. She said, from the beginning of this thread, that she expected that her "ability" would be either ESP or synesthesia, and she vehemently maintained that she has always had "confirmed apparent accuracy",and whatever the outcome of the test, her "perceptions" would continue (with, of course, "confirmed apparent accuracy", which made me wonder why bother testing at all?). She said that, if one of her perceptions proved to be inaccurate, she would accept that - but then denied every inaccuracy that was pointed out to her.

"Appeared to have been in past experiences" - boy, that's changing her tune. It's comforting, though - I had a pain just below my sternum this morning, and I thought it might be my lower intestine, but, now that Anita is waffling, I can safely assume it might have just been heartburn. Probably from all the uncommon bacteria in my stomach. :D

I'm just surprised that she didn't post results of her "survey" with several diagnoses of schizotypal disorder, psychosis, and depression. She really dug those terms.

ETA: Her above statement seems rather odd for someone who is proposing to draw babies in the womb.

[Old man]

Surly she jests :)
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
I would say that she has never said any such thing before. Did I miss something?
Nope...you didn't miss anything. I'd say this is her looking for a "out", nothing more. She's given lip service to it, but she's always maintained an attitude that led us to believe that she was unwilling to accept that conclusion.

However, I think she's starting realize that we're right, and it's hard for her ("brilliant student", 4.0 GPA, 'skeptical scientist', ya know) to just come out and say " Yep, guys, I was wrong. I never thought this could happen to me."

[TheSkepticCanuck]

She's given lip service to it, but she's always maintained an attitude that led us to believe that she was unwilling to accept that conclusion.

However, I think she's starting realize that we're right, and it's hard for her ("brilliant student", 4.0 GPA, 'skeptical scientist', ya know) to just come out and say " Yep, guys, I was wrong. I never thought this could happen to me."

I agree. I'd have a great deal more respect for her if she did actually come out and say she was wrong and sound sincere about it. Mistakes happen, but it takes someone of real character to admit it publicly.

[Old man]

I agree. I'd have a great deal more respect for her if she did actually come out and say she was wrong and sound sincere about it. Mistakes happen, but it takes someone of real character to admit it publicly. I think we all would, but I know that I'd have a hard time doing it, and I know that I can be wrong.

Nobody judges us harder than we do ourselves.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Skeptics,
It's been Snow Day today and no classes. It's the coziest day of the year, I've been in my pyjamas all day and after studying 8 hours straight I thought I could take some time to type up the study procedure, so I did. Here it is, enjoy StudyProcedure - Preliminary Version 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx)
Actually I would like everyone to do what they are good at: criticize it to little pieces, so that we can improve on it.

This Thursday I attend my second meeting with the local Winston Salem skeptics group.

Wednesday last week I received another e-mail from the IIG West where they encourage me to conduct the study in order to answer some of our questions regarding the experiences behind my paranormal claim, and to continue working with the local skeptics group as well. The IIG and me are still working towards arriving at a final test protocol between us, and we all agree that the study is the best next step at this point. If all goes well (which means, if I am able to keep up with studying this week to allow it), the study might even be held this weekend!

[Uncayimmy]

I don't get it, Anita, I really don't. You say you're going to the next skeptics meeting. Why don't you just do it there like I described a month ago?

As it stands, your proposal is very unlikely to ever happen. First, good luck in trying to get permission from the owners of the mall to conduct your study. What you are proposing is to use mall space for *free* so that you can distract shoppers from shopping. Unless the owner of the mall is a skeptic or psychic, they are not going to agree to it.

Besides, trying to solicit people in the mall is a crap shoot. You have no idea if you'll even have any takers. I doubt you'll get more than a couple at best. This is why you should use the skeptics group. They are there already, and they have an interest in seeing you tested. They might even bring a friend or family member to give you sufficient numbers. If for whatever illogical reason that won't work, then at least advertise on campus and on Craigslist for volunteers so you KNOW you'll have somebody show up (or not).

You leave yourself a great big out with your "recorded" disturbances. Big surprise. First off, everyone who takes notes must hand them over to the Keeper of the Paperwork immediately upon completion. Second, add some more data to the form. If you have concerns about the environment, write them down on that particular form along with your confidence level about your accuracy.

Better still, do it at the skeptics meeting where you can control the environment to a large degree rather than leaving such a subjective method of making excuses.

Also, I don't see why you need four volunteers. What benefits are you gaining besides making it more difficult to get enough people to help you test?

Basically, you took a decent protocol and trashed it in such a way that you make the study even more difficult to arrange and less likely to ever happen.

[Akhenaten]

Today:

Dear Skeptics,
It's been Snow Day today and no classes. It's the coziest day of the year, I've been in my pyjamas all day and after studying 8 hours straight I thought I could take some time to type up the study procedure, so I did. Here it is, enjoy.



14 Dec 08:

VFF,
Why don't you try Old Man's suggestion of going to the mall, and just asking people to confirm their appendectomy?

I would suggest:
- You go to the mall with a clipboard, and a lined sheet of paper with three columns on the right with Yes, No, Would not say.
- When you see someone with an appendectomy, you write down: Elderly gentleman with red jacket, appendectomy.
- You approach the gentleman, and say something like: For a science project at school/college I would like to ask you if you have had an appendectomy, sir.
- You tick the appropriate column.

Appendectomies are relatively common, I think rather innocent (I would not dare walk up to a man and bluntly ask about their vasectomy), and they are very easily confirmed.
Things like pain in neck vertebrae or cramped up intestines are too vague, I would say.

Would this be doable?



Femke:
Nice to meet you. I absolutely love your suggestion, because in the test nothing psychic is mentioned in any way. However I would not dare do this by myself. Maybe someone from my local skeptics group would join me both for moral support and also by being there could verify the results. This is the single most productive suggestion that has been posted on this Forum thread! I hope to hear from you again!


The last two quotes from over five weeks ago represent the beginnings of The Study™. Typing up a Study Procedure™ in some spare time during your day off hasn't advanced things one iota.



Actually I would like everyone to do what they are good at: criticize it to little pieces, so that we can improve on it.


In other words, you want us to write a procedure for you. I won't be taking part in that particular exercise, but you can rely on good ol' Pharaoh to offer a critique. It's going to be a biggie, so please try to be patient. Perhaps you could read the thread again while you wait.



This Thursday I attend my second meeting with the local Winston Salem skeptics group.


Why?



Wednesday last week I received another e-mail from the IIG West where they encourage me to conduct the study in order to answer some of our questions regarding the experiences behind my paranormal claim, and to continue working with the local skeptics group as well.


As pointed out above, The Study™ was proposed in mid December, and has been discussed here continuously since then, yet you only seem to have finally reacted to the suggestion when it was made last Wednesday. I know you will have an explanation for this delay, and I look forward to being entertained by it.

BTW, I have another question regarding the bolded bit in the quote above. It seems at odds with this statement from your OP:


Unlike many who are under the impression that they have a psychic ability, I am very willing to discuss this openly and to subject my ability to scrutiny.


What happened that we gave up on the non-paranormal explanation?



The IIG and me are still working towards arriving at a final test protocol between us, and we all agree that the study is the best next step at this point.


This is still an exaggeration, no matter how many times you repeat it. What the IIG told you in December, and what everyone else has been telling you for months, is that you need to come up with a specific claim before any kind of investigation, study, test, trial or procedure can be undertaken by anyone but yourself.

You appear unable to realise that whomever you approach to assist you with a <insert synonym for "study">, the first thing they're likely to ask is "What can you do?", and until you can answer this question in specific and unequivocal terms, you aren't making any progress at all.

Again stop insisting that the IIG are working with you. All they're doing is telling you to produce a testable claim, not "working [with you] to towards arriving at a final test protocol".



If all goes well (which means, if I am able to keep up with studying this week to allow it), the study might even be held this weekend!


Skeptics 1 - 4 are vapourware, a venue with appropriate permissions has yet to be arranged, the equipment required for The Study™ is to appear by magic and your Study Procedure™ looks like it was written by a shabti. I think your studies are the least of your problems.


Finally, before you instruct me to go and read your Study Procedure™, allow me to point out that I already have, and my detailed comments on it are upcoming.

[Akhenaten]

<snip good stuff>

Basically, you took a decent protocol and trashed it in such a way that you make the study even more difficult to arrange and less likely to ever happen.


As the author of said trashed procedure, I wonder how long VfF will keep quoting you (bless your heart) on her website as some kind of mentor.

It seems that this latest non-development is what desertgal would describe as VfF doing whatever is necessary to sustain her delusions.

[Locknar]

This thread has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion...seems about over now.

[skeen]

I'm bored of her now.

[Miss_Kitt]

I notice the moderated thread has not had another entry by VfF. What a surprise!

[Ashles]

Dear Skeptics,
It's been Snow Day today and no classes. It's the coziest day of the year, I've been in my pyjamas all day and after studying 8 hours straight I thought I could take some time to type up the study procedure, so I did. Here it is, enjoy StudyProcedure - Preliminary Version 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx)
Actually I would like everyone to do what they are good at: criticize it to little pieces, so that we can improve on it.
Do you know what might help with that?

The results from the 'survey'.

I know it was only (almost) three weeks ago but some details might be helpful. What did you see, what didn't you see, what (if anything) did you learn, what new limitations might we expect to see added...

[desertgal]

It seems that this latest non-development is what desertgal would describe as VfF doing whatever is necessary to sustain her delusions.

Well, I would say that, but my mind is still spinning from reading this protocol. I expected she would tweak Unca's proposed protocol, but this is almost incomprehensible. I thought this was supposed to be a study of Anita's alleged "ability", but all I see is that she wants to ask 4 skeptics to give up their time so she can record her "impressions".

Shoot, I can go to a mall and record my impressions, too, and probably be fairly accurate-doesn't mean I have any special abilities other than my eyesight and keen observation. And why is she doing this in a mall? Just go to the skeptics meeting and "read" them.

More than 2 months of endless walls o'test, and the end result is, apparently, a proposed study of Anita's ability to cold read. Big whoop.

I'm also baffled by this sentence:

If the volunteer leaves early, more cold reading becomes available. All I can suggest at this time is that claimant and skeptic-4 in these cases “try” not to look at the volunteer anymore, because claimant and skeptic-4 should be allowed some more time to fill in their lasting impressions on the forms before handing these in. It is not a formal test and does not need to be designed as such.

Is she verifying that this study is going to consist of cold reading? Why would "more cold reading become available" if the volunteer leaves? And how does one "try not to look" at a volunteer who has already left?

This thread has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I was thinking more like a descent into the abyss of Anita's mind. :D

[Ashles]

Dear Skeptics,
It's been Snow Day today and no classes. It's the coziest day of the year, I've been in my pyjamas all day and after studying 8 hours straight I thought I could take some time to type up the study procedure, so I did. Here it is, enjoy StudyProcedure - Preliminary Version 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx)

I only get a blank window when I open that.

Anita - would be possible at any point to describe what you claim to be able to do, and with what reliability?

For example you could say:
I can look at a clothed person from a distance of XXX and identify (insert examples of 5 unseen ailments) without either myself or the subject speaking. I can correctly identify if the subject does or does not have these ailments in at least 10 out of 20 subjects.

Be specific. Set parameters.

Go on, have a go.

Stop telling us what you claim to have done, tell us what you claim you can do.

And if you think you have already done this, then that is the main problem right there.

[Ashles]

Well, I would say that, but my mind is still spinning from reading this protocol. I expected she would tweak Unca's proposed protocol, but this is almost incomprehensible. I thought this was supposed to be a study of Anita's alleged "ability", but all I see is that she wants to ask 4 skeptics to give up their time so she can record her "impressions".
I can't read the protocol yet but it sounds like it is proposed to take place in a mall.

Is this intended to be 'The Survey' Mark II, in which Anita can correct errors made last time that rendered it so hopeless that we haven't been allowed to even know what happened?
Is 'The Survey' simply going to be rerun until it gives results Anita likes?

[tsig]

I can't read the protocol yet but it sounds like it is proposed to take place in a mall.

Is this intended to be 'The Survey' Mark II, in which Anita can correct errors made last time that rendered it so hopeless that we haven't been allowed to even know what happened?
Is 'The Survey' simply going to be rerun until it gives results Anita likes?

It will run till we get tired of the will she/won't she.

[desertgal]

I can't read the protocol yet but it sounds like it is proposed to take place in a mall.

Is this intended to be 'The Survey' Mark II, in which Anita can correct errors made last time that rendered it so hopeless that we haven't been allowed to even know what happened?
Is 'The Survey' simply going to be rerun until it gives results Anita likes?

In a nutshell, Anita is proposing to set up two locations in a mall-out of sight of one another - and use 4 skeptics to carry out the study. Skeptic 1 will remain at the first location, greet volunteers, and have them fill out paperwork-information page, volunteer form, claimant's form, skeptic's form. Skeptic #2 walks the volunteer to the second location, with the claimant and skeptic forms, where Anita and Skeptics #3 and #4 are waiting. Anita and Skeptic #4 observe the volunteer, and write down their "lingering answers and impressions". Skeptic #1 is in charge of the volunteer's forms, and Skeptic #3 is the Keeper of the Paperwork-i.e. the sacred observations of claimant and Skeptic #4. There may also be a Skeptic #5, if Skeptic #3 feels overwhelmed by the burden of the Paperwork and wants to share. Skeptics and claimant will meet at a later date to analyze paperwork.

As Unca noted, Anita gave herself an "out" in the procedure, and she does not specify precisely what her claim is, just that she will observe the volunteer and note her impressions.

[Ashles]

In a nutshell, Anita is proposing to set up two locations in a mall-out of sight of one another - and use 4 skeptics to carry out the study. Skeptic 1 will remain at the first location, greet volunteers, and have them fill out paperwork-information page, volunteer form, claimant's form, skeptic's form. Skeptic #2 walks the volunteer to the second location, with the claimant and skeptic forms, where Anita and Skeptics #3 and #4 are waiting. Anita and Skeptic #4 observe the volunteer, and write down their "lingering answers and impressions". Skeptic #1 is in charge of the volunteer's forms, and Skeptic #3 is the Keeper of the Paperwork-i.e. the sacred observations of claimant and Skeptic #4. There may also be a Skeptic #5, if Skeptic #3 feels overwhelmed by the burden of the Paperwork and wants to share. Skeptics and claimant will meet at a later date to analyze paperwork.

As Unca noted, Anita gave herself an "out" in the procedure, and she does not specify precisely what her claim is, just that she will observe the volunteer and note her impressions.
Thanks for that.
So no actual specific claim then? Just 'impressions' and no agreed judging of what is deemed a hit or a miss?

Incidentally, I thought previously Anita had only had one tentative maybe from a skeptic.
Have her local skeptic group agreed to help out in greater numbers? Is anyone here in contact with them? Do any of them post here?
Is there any way we will get assurance they are skeptics and not, say, friends, family members or imaginary people?
I believe Anita originally said at least one of the skeptics would have to agree to be identified to confirm the study. Is that still the case?

(Sorry for asking but I just don't know why I can't see the protocol link - probably sodding Websense again)

[Moochie]

In a nutshell, Anita is proposing to set up two locations in a mall-out of sight of one another - and use 4 skeptics to carry out the study. Skeptic 1 will remain at the first location, greet volunteers, and have them fill out paperwork-information page, volunteer form, claimant's form, skeptic's form. Skeptic #2 walks the volunteer to the second location, with the claimant and skeptic forms, where Anita and Skeptics #3 and #4 are waiting. Anita and Skeptic #4 observe the volunteer, and write down their "lingering answers and impressions". Skeptic #1 is in charge of the volunteer's forms, and Skeptic #3 is the Keeper of the Paperwork-i.e. the sacred observations of claimant and Skeptic #4. There may also be a Skeptic #5, if Skeptic #3 feels overwhelmed by the burden of the Paperwork and wants to share. Skeptics and claimant will meet at a later date to analyze paperwork.

As Unca noted, Anita gave herself an "out" in the procedure, and she does not specify precisely what her claim is, just that she will observe the volunteer and note her impressions.


Hmm... This looks like a job for


ClericalMan!


Song

I am ClericalMan

Whose sacred trust is to keep the pencils sharpened

To record the mystical musings of VisionFromFeeling

To keep those senses reeling

In a mall somewhere near you!


I am ClericalMan

Forever scribbling "Anita's" dribblings

Like a devoted stall master at the track

Collecting horse manure

In a sacred sack.


M.

[Uncayimmy]

A study is a step in the right direction, but the informal survey was (is) much simpler. All she has to do is sit in the eatery, look at people, and write down what she sees, if anything. Right now she cannot answer the question about how many people she can even read regardless of apparent accuracy. The next best thing is to just do the study at the skeptics group meeting.

This thing she came up with is simply unworkable from a practical standpoint.

[Ashles]

Clerical Man is merely a sidekick to...


Skeptic Man!

Skeptic Man, Skeptic Man,
Does whatever a sceptic can
Hears a claim, any size,
Catches frauds just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Skeptic Man.

Is he calm?
Listen bud,
He's got logical heathan blood.
Can he post on a thread
Take a look overhead
Hey, there
There goes the Skeptic Man.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a claim
Like a streak of light
He arrives for the game.

Skeptic Man, Skeptic Man
Friendly neighborhood Skeptic Man
Wealth and fame
He's ignored
Busting crap is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Skeptic Man.

[Moochie]

Guess I'll go back to doing crosswords. :(


M.

[Uncayimmy]

Thanks for that.
So no actual specific claim then? Just 'impressions' and no agreed judging of what is deemed a hit or a miss?

In all fairness, she needs to do this in order to make a specific claim. All she has at this point is a disjointed collection of one-off readings. We don't want her to make a claim if she has no idea what she can do.

As for hit or miss, my listing of ailments was reasonably specific given the practical constraints (see attachment). It's a hit if she and the subject check the same box. I already posted elsewhere how the results should be reported. If there's a pattern in what she can detect, we'll see it. At that point she might be able to make a claim that can be tested.

What's more likely to happen is that it will be a hodgepodge of check marks where we will have to convince her that what she got right was no better than chance. Sigh...


(Sorry for asking but I just don't know why I can't see the protocol link - probably sodding Websense again)

It's Flash based. I couldn't even print it to PDF because it comes out as an image and is thus too big to post.

[Ashles]

It's Flash based. I couldn't even print it to PDF because it comes out as an image and is thus too big to post.
It's Flash based? Weird.

Thanks for the PDF.

[Ashles]

Guess I'll go back to doing crosswords.
No way - we've got a franchise brewing here. Marvel and DC can start fighting for the rights now.

(And Fox will probably retain them and take 8% anyway - Little Watchmen gag there)

[desertgal]

In all fairness, she needs to do this in order to make a specific claim. All she has at this point is a disjointed collection of one-off readings. We don't want her to make a claim if she has no idea what she can do.



I agree, I'm just not clear on what it is Anita is trying to define with this study. Is she going to be attempting to perceive ailments with her allegedly paranormal ability, or the synesthesia she claims to have, or simply establish that she can do cold reading? The root purpose of the study seems to have disappeared.

[Uncayimmy]

I agree, I'm just not clear on what it is Anita is trying to define with this study. Is she going to be attempting to perceive ailments with her allegedly paranormal ability, or the synesthesia she claims to have, or simply establish that she can do cold reading? The root purpose of the study seems to have disappeared.

To be honest I'll be happy if she doesn't try to form any theories about the methodology until she actually has some observations worthy of consideration.

[tsig]

To be honest I'll be happy if she doesn't try to form any theories about the methodology until she actually has some observations worthy of consideration.

The Devil will have frostbite before you get any observations worthy of consideration. IMHO

[Uncayimmy]

The Devil will have frostbite before you get any observations worthy of consideration. IMHO

And if that has the effect of also not hearing any more about Vibrational InformationTM I'm okay with that.

[Sasha]

And if that has the effect of also not hearing any more about Vibrational InformationTM I'm okay with that.

I'm with you. All that vibration stuff makes me feel kind of queasy. :sour:

[Locknar]

I wonder if Vibrational WavesTM could be used to produce power, cook food, transmit information....we could be at the dawn of Aquarius. If only she could define them...think of the children.

Personally I find her latest call for "help" disingenuous; there has been plenty offered here alone...none of which she has followed or otherwise accepted.

My advice, conduct the test study survey what ever its called as written and post what ever results aftermath you (VFF) wish as you will anyway.

[Moochie]

No way - we've got a franchise brewing here. Marvel and DC can start fighting for the rights now.

(And Fox will probably retain them and take 8% anyway - Little Watchmen gag there)

OK, ClericalMan will keep his pencils sharpened. :D


M.

[Ashles]

OK, ClericalMan will keep his pencils sharpened. :D
Using the brilliant HeroMachine (http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp) I have created Skeptic ManTM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10784978a28695d76.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14970)

Now available with Hammer of LogicTM, FraudoVisionTM, Suit of No Grey AreaTM, Glove of Firm but Fair ProbingTM, and handy pockets for pens.

(Button on back causes figure to say "Evidence?" in LarsenVoiceTM)

[Belz...]

Probing ?

[IXP]

As for hit or miss, my listing of ailments was reasonably specific given the practical constraints (see attachment). It's a hit if she and the subject check the same box.
With that definition of a hit, I can get 100% accuracy.

bob

[Uncayimmy]

With that definition of a hit, I can get 100% accuracy.

bob

There is no "accuracy" being tested because it's not a test. The idea is simply for Anita to determine what, if any, ailments she can reliably detect. She has no idea what she can detect or whether she can even detect the same thing in multiple people.

By using check boxes we eliminate interpretation. She can't just say "pain in the right arm" and claim someone saying "wrist pain" is a hit. They both need to check "Right Wrist" for it to be a hit.

When it comes to analyzing the data, we will look at it many ways. This will include false positives (she checked something the subject did not) and clear misses (subject checked something she did not). We'll also know how often she checked each box, which will expose fishing.

Thing is, she has no incentive to try to scam the study. She could skip it altogether and simply make whatever specific claim she wants. It's been 18 months since she started with IIG, and there's still no specific claim. We're trying to help her make a specific claim or realize that, in fact, she has no specific claim whatsoever.

Even if Anita believes she sees a pattern and we (skeptics) do not, that's fine. We'll simply devise a test based on her (misguided) claim and settle it once and for all.

[Moochie]

Using the brilliant HeroMachine (http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp) I have created Skeptic ManTM

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10784978a28695d76.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14970)

Now available with Hammer of LogicTM, FraudoVisionTM, Suit of No Grey AreaTM, Glove of Firm but Fair ProbingTM, and handy pockets for pens.

(Button on back causes figure to say "Evidence?" in LarsenVoiceTM)


:dl:


Hey, I want one of those!


M.

[Akhenaten]

Using the brilliant HeroMachine (http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heromachine2/heroMachine2.asp) I have created Skeptic ManTM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10784978a28695d76.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14970)

Now available with Hammer of LogicTM, FraudoVisionTM, Suit of No Grey AreaTM, Glove of Firm but Fair ProbingTM, and handy pockets for pens.

(Button on back causes figure to say "Evidence?" in LarsenVoiceTM)

That's brilliant. Thank you.

I can't wait for the movie of this thread to come out.



Boots of No Grey Area perhaps? I've spotted a grey area on the suit itself

[EHocking]

The Boots of Checking, shirley?

[Old man]

I've sorta been trying to remember to find this thread -

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120597

- and lo and behold! rudeboy bumps it for me!! :jaw-dropp

Anita should read this. Six pages (results in post #213), six days, start to finish.

[Ashles]

Boots of No Grey Area perhaps? I've spotted a grey area on the suit itself
Ah no, you see the suit itself is the one under the clothing. The grey shirt is simply his Clark Kent type disguise.

But EHocking is right, it really should be the Suit of CheckingTM - that works on two levels.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Here are replies from UncaYimmy's post #1567 and forward. I have ignored a couple of pages of posts and not even read them, and that ignorance is bliss. I know it's bad over there so I don't even want to know.

UncaYimmy:
I don't get it, Anita, I really don't. You say you're going to the next skeptics meeting. Why don't you just do it there like I described a month ago? With the skeptics as volunteers you mean? Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me! :( One of the new members did however volunteer and I did have the opportunity to attempt medical perceptions with him, the details of which can be found on the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html
As it stands, your proposal is very unlikely to ever happen. First, good luck in trying to get permission from the owners of the mall to conduct your study. What you are proposing is to use mall space for *free* so that you can distract shoppers from shopping. Unless the owner of the mall is a skeptic or psychic, they are not going to agree to it. I called the representative of a mall today. He requested some additional information and I sent him the material of the study in an e-mail and we will see when or if he is able to respond with an answer. There are other public and populated places that could be considered if a mall is not an option, so this would not discourage me and I could arrange the study to take place somewhere else.
Besides, trying to solicit people in the mall is a crap shoot. You have no idea if you'll even have any takers. I doubt you'll get more than a couple at best. This is why you should use the skeptics group. They are there already, and they have an interest in seeing you tested. They might even bring a friend or family member to give you sufficient numbers. If for whatever illogical reason that won't work, then at least advertise on campus and on Craigslist for volunteers so you KNOW you'll have somebody show up (or not). Well we don't know whether people at a mall would volunteer or not, but you are right, Craigslist sounds like an interesting idea for gathering up volunteers, perhaps we can do a combination. I expect to try my perceptions on the skeptics and some of their acquaintances, but to also have the study, both.
You leave yourself a great big out with your "recorded" disturbances. Big surprise. First off, everyone who takes notes must hand them over to the Keeper of the Paperwork immediately upon completion. Second, add some more data to the form. If you have concerns about the environment, write them down on that particular form along with your confidence level about your accuracy. The "recorded disturbances" are not a big out. I am simply investigating what factors are affecting the perceptions and what are not. This is to eliminate disturbances from a test. The test will have no outs, I assure you. I've already found out that I can perform in a noisy, busy, cold place as I did yesterday. I see no harm in investigating the parameters of my experience. I am not looking for an out. I am looking to establish the frames of the test procedure. Yes, experienced disturbances will be written down as they take place, and the extent and confidence levels of both my descriptions of health and the descriptions made by volunteers will be included on the questionnaires, I've already accounted for that and it's one of the things I've already added to the form you suggested. I'm working on it.
Also, I don't see why you need four volunteers. What benefits are you gaining besides making it more difficult to get enough people to help you test? Well, I envision the study taking place at two separate locations in the same area, locations that can not be seen or heard from one another. This is so that the volunteer can fill out their forms without me seeing them. There will be one skeptic stationed at the first location at all times, a second skeptic stationed at the second location at all times, a third skeptic who brings the volunteers from one location to the other, and a fourth skeptic who fills in questionnaires beside me to act as a kind of control guesser to see perhaps somewhat what kind of cold reading might be available. None of this is test-standard, but it is approaching toward a test. And you'd be pleasantly surprised as I was to find that I already have more than four volunteering skeptics, and I expect even more than these! They can all share the workload among themselves, and some might just want to attend to see the study take place and maybe take some notes and be able to come up with suggestions on improvements later on.
Basically, you took a decent protocol and trashed it in such a way that you make the study even more difficult to arrange and less likely to ever happen. Nope. I made adjustments on the protocol and adapted it to the actual claimed ability and local conditions. It will all take place, I intend to make sure that it does.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:
In other words, you want us to write a procedure for you. I won't be taking part in that particular exercise, but you can rely on good ol' Pharaoh to offer a critique. It's going to be a biggie, so please try to be patient. Perhaps you could read the thread again while you wait.Well, you may contribute in any way you see fit. I do welcome criticism against the study procedure because I am interested in making improvements to it. Thanks to UncaYimmy we already found a way to work around the main problem, which was that volunteers would have to reveal their personal health information. Thanks you guys! :)
This Thursday I attend my second meeting with the local Winston Salem skeptics group.
Why?Because the food is great, it is fun to get away from school for a while, I love to take a roadtrip, it is a wonderful group of people and I enjoy the discussions whether I have the chance to engage in them or just listen, and because these members have shown interest in helping me with this investigation and I am unable to investigate this all on my own and skeptics are the best resource for this.
As pointed out above, The Study™ was proposed in mid December, and has been discussed here continuously since then, yet you only seem to have finally reacted to the suggestion when it was made last Wednesday. I know you will have an explanation for this delay, and I look forward to being entertained by it. Three-dimensional calculus, vector integrals, electromagnetic fields, wave functions, SN2 reactions, special relativity and time dilation, scalar fields...
Yes... it is very entertaining.
(...) you need to come up with a specific claim before any kind of investigation, study, test, trial or procedure can be undertaken by anyone but yourself. You appear unable to realise that whomever you approach to assist you with a <insert synonym for "study">, the first thing they're likely to ask is "What can you do?", and until you can answer this question in specific and unequivocal terms, you aren't making any progress at all.What I can do is to perceive health information when I look at people. But it needs to become more specific than that. What ailments? Well, what ailments that can be used on a test? Under what conditions? And these are things that a study will look into, so that I can form a more specific claim. I am not stalling, I am very eager to make progress.
As the author of said trashed procedure, I wonder how long VfF will keep quoting you [UncaYimmy] (bless your heart) on her website as some kind of mentor.UncaYimmy made great progress to my study design! He found a way around what was my main concern with the procedure, so that volunteers could remain perfectly anonymous regarding their health information! Of course I give UncaYimmy the credit for this design! If I didn't, then that would be more wrong than what ever wrong you see in me giving praise to his wonderful contributions. Everything I do is wrong, if I do it, or if I don't. All wrong. Someone here is always unhappy with what I do.

desertgal:
Is she verifying that this study is going to consist of cold reading? Why would "more cold reading become available" if the volunteer leaves? And how does one "try not to look" at a volunteer who has already left?Some forms of cold reading is definitely available at the study. Because I can see the person, see their movements and body language as they sit. I will however not see them when they walk to the location. Cold reading is also available from external symptoms such as skin color, posture, etc. I have already made progress since yesterday's meeting with the skeptics where I attempted the perceptions with one of the members, to state that definitely the volunteers can be viewed from behind to avoid eyecontact. Not only is eyecontact a possible source of cold reading, but it is also distracting and not contributive to how I work. When a volunteer leaves, they begin to move and walk and that makes more clues available regarding their health, such as for instance bad knees or bad hips that become obvious. Well if they are leaving I will not look at them, that's how - "very scientific." Good questions.

Ashles:
Be specific. Set parameters. Go on, have a go. Stop telling us what you claim to have done, tell us what you claim you can do.That's exactly what the study is for. I need more experience. I found out that my claim as it was in the beginning was too general. I did not know that then.
Is 'The Survey' simply going to be rerun until it gives results Anita likes?I really need to post the results of the survey, and I will, eventually, I promise. The survey has no results that I could possibly "like" or "not like". On a survey, all I do is write down my perceptions, and no attempts are made at establishing apparent accuracy. A survey simply builds up a list of possible ailments as well as looks into conditions such as temperature, distance, noise level etc. and how those might affect the performance of the perceptions. A study however is everything a survey is, except it also has volunteers and questionnaires, and skeptics present, and it is attempted to establish apparent accuracy. Note that the accuracy, no matter how seemingly positive or accurate is proof of any ability since cold reading might have been available! What is interesting in a study is to reveal inaccuracy if any. There are several objectives of a study, and after a study comes a test.

desertgal:
As Unca noted, Anita gave herself an "out" in the procedure, and she does not specify precisely what her claim is, just that she will observe the volunteer and note her impressions.The questionnaires will have a list of specific health information. The study is intended to find out more about this paranormal claim.

Ashles:
So no actual specific claim then? Just 'impressions' and no agreed judging of what is deemed a hit or a miss?A miss is for instance if I say that a person has had an appendectomy and they haven't. Now that's a miss. Or if I say that they've had a vasectomy, and they're a woman (Locknar!!). The information from questionnaires can be matched and at least we can get a somewhat general idea of what's going on. I really do think it's a good step toward a test. A non-ability should become very clear on the study, if you guys all operate from the starting point that there is no ESP ability going on plus that the perceptions do not really have accuracy then you should all be happy to know that in such a case this investigation will come to an end pretty soon, at the Upcoming StudyTM.
Incidentally, I thought previously Anita had only had one tentative maybe from a skeptic.
Have her local skeptic group agreed to help out in greater numbers? Is anyone here in contact with them? Do any of them post here?
Is there any way we will get assurance they are skeptics and not, say, friends, family members or imaginary people?
I believe Anita originally said at least one of the skeptics would have to agree to be identified to confirm the study. Is that still the case?The extent to which my local skeptics group feel comfortable with being public about their involvement in my investigation is entirely up to them. I expect that the results of the study will be announced by them, especially so if the results of the study indicate no ability. I will have to speak with them and still, it is up to them how much involvement they wish to have here with you guys.

I'm sorry you can't see the study procedure (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx) that I linked to, if you have an e-mail address I can e-mail it to you instead.

O-M-G you guys are funny!

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:
I agree, I'm just not clear on what it is Anita is trying to define with this study. Is she going to be attempting to perceive ailments with her allegedly paranormal ability, or the synesthesia she claims to have, or simply establish that she can do cold reading? The root purpose of the study seems to have disappeared. The study has several objectives. If there is no ability and no accuracy, the study serves to reveal that in an easy manner. Of course a non-ability might slip through and move forward to the 2nd StudyTM which will implement more rigorous controls than the first based on what we learn from the first, but at least we give a non-ability a chance of being exposed! Another objective is to prepare a list of what I claim to detect, and the hopes are that this list will contain frequent perceptions of things like vasectomy, appendectomy, and other information that just shouldn't be accessible to ordinary senses and that are a clear yes/no condition without vagueness or interpretation and can be easily proven and the person is fully aware of whether they have it or not. The study will also try out various test conditions, such as the one I tried yesterday of "can I still perceive if I am not facing the front of the person?" and the answer was yes, so that can now be implemented on future studies and tests. The study is intended to learn more about the claimed ability and to falsify a possible non-ability.

UncaYimmy:
And if that has the effect of also not hearing any more about Vibrational InformationTM I'm okay with that. Vibrational InformationTM = Matter WavesTM and/or Wave FunctionsTM.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Met with the local Skeptics Group
I met with the local skeptics group yesterday and we had the chance to briefly discuss my upcoming study.

Had a "study" with one skeptic as the volunteer
One of the new members volunteered for me to attempt medical perceptions with him, the results of which can be read on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html under the date of January 22 2009. What I learned from this brief study with only one person, a skeptic, as the volunteer, were:
1) Even when I expect and strongly believe on the logical, thinking level, that a person should have a large list of serious ailments, this does not invent the perceptions of ailments in my mind. The perceptions are not based on my thoughts or expectations, they are information processed not by logic but by what I feel and see on a different level than what I feel, see and come to expect based on ordinary senses.
2) I am fully capable of recording my perceptions in writing and do not need to speak it to the person as I perceiving it.
3) It is easier for me to perceive if the person is not looking at me. No eyecontact is involved in my perceptions.
4) I noticed again that I prefer to look to the side of a person even when I am forming images of organs and tissue that is located elsewhere, I find it easier to look slightly off the person, or to look away entirely, or close my eyes, but only after I have seen the person initially. (The study will attempt perceptions of people whom I have not seen with eyesight at all.)
5) I have yet again failed to dismiss the possiblity of an ESP ability, by not providing inaccurate perceptions when there was an opportunity to form and to reveal such; the paranormal claim has again not been falsified. Of course that does not mean it has been proven or that it is any more likely to become proven, it just wasn't falsified, again, that's all.

Arranging the StudyTM
I called the representative of a mall today and explained the study I was hoping to have at their location. He requested additional information which I sent to him in an e-mail. I am asking to conduct the study on January 31 or November 1. I would have made it happen this weekend, but some of the skeptics who wish to participate in the study and who would be very valuable are not available this weekend but are the next. The paperwork for the study, that is, the procedure, questionnaires, sign, and information page for the volunteers, will be improved upon during the week up until the study.

[Uncayimmy]

With the skeptics as volunteers you mean? Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me! :( One of the new members did however volunteer and I did have the opportunity to attempt medical perceptions with him, the details of which can be found on the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html

A) Tell me the exact steps you took to arrange the testing *before* the meeting. Did you expect them toss aside their agenda without any notice?

2) What steps are you going to take to arrange a study with them in the future?

c) Based on your "reading" of the volunteer it was pretty clear you didn't even have a copy of the health questionnaire I created for you. How could you have even done the test without it? If you had it, why didn't you use it with that one person?

See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.

I called the representative of a mall today. He requested some additional information and I sent him the material of the study in an e-mail and we will see when or if he is able to respond with an answer. There are other public and populated places that could be considered if a mall is not an option, so this would not discourage me and I could arrange the study to take place somewhere else.
Then go arrange the study somewhere else and quite stalling. Why would you even bother with worrying about permission if you know of other places that would work.

See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.

Well we don't know whether people at a mall would volunteer or not, but you are right, Craigslist sounds like an interesting idea for gathering up volunteers, perhaps we can do a combination. I expect to try my perceptions on the skeptics and some of their acquaintances, but to also have the study, both.
It was interesting a month ago when I suggested it and you asked for a volunteer to take the e-mails on your behalf. What happened?

See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.

Nope. I made adjustments on the protocol and adapted it to the actual claimed ability and local conditions. It will all take place, I intend to make sure that it does.

Define "actual claimed ability" since not a single person in this thread knows what that means.

As for your intentions, do or don't do, there is no intention.

[Akhenaten]

Some comments on the recent mini-study decribed at http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html


Jan 22 09: At the 2nd meeting with the local skeptics group, one of the new members for this month volunteered to let me attempt medical perception with him. I had never met him before and only for a few hours of the meeting that day.

You've used the word "and" here which is incorrect. Mutually exclusive statements need to be separated by "or".


This person was very eager to volunteer and he wrote down his health description on a piece of paper, folded it and handed it to another skeptic for keeping.


While you were watching? So much for eliminating cold reading.


I had us sit down at our own table and we were seated about two feet apart perhaps. I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

Well, just a little bit perhaps.


Here are the notes that I took: I wrote that "cold air distracts", which I also observed at the survey which I had several weeks ago, however even though this was distractive I was fully able to make perceptions as before.

This is an actual observation that would probably be undisputed by most people. Congratulations.


I wrote that his "heart" is "nice and orange pink", which is my way of saying that I perceive the heart to be in perfect health. I wrote that the heart is "not red and inflamed".

Why would you not write "heart in perfect health"? Your perception might be "nice and orange pink", but it's far too vague to convey meaning to anyone else. These are meant to be accurate medical perceptions, not a colour guide to The Fantastic Voyage.

In any case, how do you know your perceptions were correct? Quick angiogram?


"Liver fine, slightly smaller" than average, "good chemistry" with which I mean no large traces of medical derivatives which would have indicated that a person is taking a large amount of medication whose derivatives are stored in the liver, no cirrhosis etc that could otherwise be wrong with the liver.

Again, why not write down what you mean instead of vague nonsense like "good chemistry".

How do you know your perceptions were correct? On-the-spot biopsy?


I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment". Besides I was fully convinced that what I was feeling was his adam's apple. I drew a picture of the exact size and location of this sensation, which correlates with the adam's apple so that's probably what it was. It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat.

We're getting close to a claim here. You can detect a laryngeal prominence in an adult male.

However this was not significant in any way.

That's a hit.


I write that his "elbows" are "fine", "intestines fine (tissue and color etc.)".

What an odd combination. I wonder what the average patient would say if her doctor concluded an examination by stating that her elbows and intestines are fine. Actually, I don't wonder at all.

How do you know your perceptions were correct? Elbowgastroscopy?


I then ask him to turn around so that I am facing his left side, since I feel that him looking at me is distracting. This is progress and I will definitely ask that volunteers from now on are seen from behind and that is also beneficial for test purposes since it eliminates yet another form of cold reading, ie. eyecontact.

It was progress when it was brought up weeks ago. Your pretending to have just discovered this is disingenuous.


I continue to look at him and I still find nothing wrong. I write, "brain fine"

Which careful analysis you immediately confirmed with an EEG.


"left shoulder tired", but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention, since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor.

Then why did you mention it.


(I was really trying to find something wrong with him!)

This lapse of objectivity was brought about by seeing the volunteer write down what you believed to be a list of ailments, leading you to further believe that there was something there to find.

That's why you're clutching at straws like Adam's Apples and tired shoulders.


I write that the location is a bit noisy and that that was bad, too many people in the background, but I was able to block that out as well and it did not disturb my perceptions once I was concentrating on the perceptions again.

It was bad, but it wasn't, because you blocked it. OK.


"Lungs fine, slightly smaller than average, not due to lack of exercise".

Possibly due to the volunteer being a smaller-than-average person? How did you establish "average size lungs" anyway?

How do you know that your perceptions were correct? Portable Chest X-Ray machine and Lung Capacity Test?


I wrote that I was nervous, which I was at first. Of course I am nervous of being wrong, why wouldn't I be,

Because, as a scientist, you're supposed to be objective. And besides, you've never been wrong before, so what's to be nervous about?


even though I would embrace it equally well as results of this investigation, but you can't help feel that way sometimes.

It's been stated, demonstrated and reiterated that you don't embrace negative results at all.

If this ability was at all as real and as useful as you've claimed it to be, you'd have no reason to be nervous. If a normally-sighted person is asked to identify an apple, a banana and a watermelon, do you think they become nervous beforehand?

A positive sign of your nervousness is that maybe you're starting to have doubts of your own about this "ability"


I write that he is wearing a thick jacket the thickness of which at first was obstructing for me, although I was able to work through that and it ended up having no reduction on my ability that I know of.

/0 <---I'm no mathemetician, but even I know you can't do this.


I wrote that a volunteer wearing a jacket is probably alright in all cases, this still needs to be verified with more experiences during the study.

How did you tell the difference between a jacket blocking your vision and a lack of having any vision at all during your survey?


At one point during my viewing I told him, since he was obviously curious about how I do this, to note that I do not look at the body part that I am reading but often look to the side or look away or close my eyes to form the images.

I though there was to be no talking. Were the "obvious curiosity" and your explanation transmitted telepathically?


After checking again and again, logically expecting there to be a list of interesting and significant ailments, since, after all, he was so eager to volunteer then surely he would "have something" for me to find, and after all he had made a list!

You still don't know what cold reading is, do you? Or confirmation bias.


Yet I found nothing wrong, so yet again the results of my perceptions contradicted with what my expectations and beliefs were.

Yet you cling to the delusion that you can see inside people.


Based on his age and external appearance you would expect there to be something, but according to my perceptions the man was in excellent health, beyond what I consider to be average of all ages based on my experience.

Everything verifiable that you've said so far about this person is based on his appearance. About all you've demonstrated is that you're not even very good at cold reading.

Further, your perceptions in no way indicate that the volunteer is in excellent health. Your lack of seeing anything indicates only that you can't see anything, which is already known.


So, I had to conclude that I found nothing wrong with him.

That's because you can't see inside people. Why don't you reach this reasonable conclusion, like everyone else has?


Turns out, there was nothing wrong with him. He reports being in excellent health.

Turns out, your peformance was a shambles because you were so sure, based on the dude's appearance, that he'd written a list of ailments for you to guess at.

My take is that you were unable to cold read the ailments that you were sure were on the list, so you made a few vague statements about a few totally unrelated organs and joints, hoping that the ailments on the list related to the myriad organs and joints that you DIDN'T mention. I can hear you, with my Hearing from Feeling, saying "I KNEW there was something wrong with the neck, but it was obscured by the Adam's Apple." or "I didn't notice the missing kidney because I was distracted by the unusually small liver."


This experience again shows that my perceptions do not come about from logical thinking but are based on information that is processed in an entirely different way.

You don't say!

Desertgal is better qualified than I am to answer this.


He did write one information on his paper, which was a severed diaphragm from an accident.

A severed diaphragm ?!eleven?!

I don't have a medical background, but a bit of Google-fu seems to support my initial thought that this would be moderately fatal. Even if it weren't, the iron lung would be a giveaway for cold reading.


Knowing what was there to find, I still couldn't find it and I said so. I then asked if there is any lasting sensation of discomfort, and he said no, he has healed perfectly. So there was nothing for me to feel, and probably not much for me to see either.

This is sounding like something less than a "severed diaphragm".


From this particular experience, I made no perceptions of health problems. So there is nothing to count points for or against from.

That's the point a lot of people have been trying to make you see. These mini-studies, or whatever, are totally meaningless. You are alone in ascribing meaning to them.


The fact that I missed a piece of information that was considered to be there, does not count against me since I have never claimed to detect everything that is supposed to be there.

This is total fish piss. The only place failures don't count against you is in your own mind. You've claimed everything under the Sun, and beyond that to Arcturus, yet you can't detect a severed diaphragm, which most definitely wasn't supposed to be there. (hence the requirement for a nasty accident)


Only when I do make a perception is that open for analysis of accuracy and only then can inaccuracy be revealed and counted for.

Count the hits, dismiss the misses. We know that you think this is how it works. It isn't.


Of course, if I am accurate it does not provide evidence toward any kind of ability since cold reading might have been available and also might have been responsible with many types of perceptions.

There may be other explanations besides cold reading, which you have become fixated on. Apart from this, your statement above seems quite valid. Another hit.


What we are mostly interested in at this point, is revealing inaccuracy. Since we have, yet again, failed to dismiss the possibility of an ESP ability, I proceed toward a study and a test.

You are still so missing the point. There is no inaccuracy to be revealed at this point since there is no claim specific enough to be tested. YOU are the only one who has failed to dismiss ESP because you don't want to, while everyone else involved in this discussion dismissed it months ago. You proceed toward lunacy.


I might be able to provide documentation and verification regarding this particular "anecdote" from this volunteer, who at least considers himself a skeptic and also came across as an objective critical thinker, and part of this was also witnessed by the other members of the skeptics group.

What you've described here seems a workable point from which to start writing this page, however, the degree of difficulty is increased somewhat by having your starting point in the last paragraph of the already-written page. In any case, I look forward to documentation of the severed diaphragm.


ETA: tl;dr = another anecdote.

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten:
Well, you may contribute in any way you see fit. I do welcome criticism against the study procedure because I am interested in making improvements to it. Thanks to UncaYimmy we already found a way to work around the main problem, which was that volunteers would have to reveal their personal health information. Thanks you guys! :)


This is not, and never has been, the main problem with your study. just like the main problem with RMS Titanic was NOT the arrangement of the deck chairs. Your main problem is a lack of evidence that there's anything to study and a lot of evidence that you need to be addressing other problems.



Because the food is great, it is fun to get away from school for a while, I love to take a roadtrip, it is a wonderful group of people and I enjoy the discussions whether I have the chance to engage in them or just listen, and because these members have shown interest in helping me with this investigation and I am unable to investigate this all on my own and skeptics are the best resource for this.


I asked why you were going to attend a local sceptical group meeting, intending to find out specifically how it would assist in the study. While you haven't exactly answered that question, your response is quite revealing and I'm sure the posters in the "Attention Seeking" school of thought will pick up on it.



As pointed out above, The Study™ was proposed in mid December, and has been discussed here continuously since then, yet you only seem to have finally reacted to the suggestion when it was made last Wednesday. I know you will have an explanation for this delay, and I look forward to being entertained by it.

Three-dimensional calculus, vector integrals, electromagnetic fields, wave functions, SN2 reactions, special relativity and time dilation, scalar fields...
Yes... it is very entertaining.


All these things have delayed the study for six weeks? Are you inside a black hole or something? Just walk towards the light.



What I can do is to perceive health information when I look at people.


No you can't. We'd have some evidence if you could.



But it needs to become more specific than that. What ailments? Well, what ailments that can be used on a test? Under what conditions? And these are things that a study will look into, so that I can form a more specific claim.


According to your initial claims, you can see inside people's bodies, the images you see are better than MRI or X-Rays, the images are three dimensional, full colour and viewable from any direction and at any zoom level (down to the sub-atomic), and that you've never been wrong.

Despite this incredible abilty, the list of things that you're unsure of detecting has grown with every post. It appears that the study must continue until every possiblle "ailment" has been added to the list before you will admit to having no ability at all.



I am not stalling, I am very eager to make progress.


Have you made any progress with eliminating the fairly commonly held view that you're delusional? It would be an easy step, and would reduce your workload here considerably.



UncaYimmy made great progress to my study design! He found a way around what was my main concern with the procedure, so that volunteers could remain perfectly anonymous regarding their health information!


Again and again you refer to this nonsense as being critical to your various studies and tests. It isn't. What's critical is your total lack of any evidence whatsoever that you have any kind of ability.



Of course I give UncaYimmy the credit for this design! If I didn't, then that would be more wrong than what ever wrong you see in me giving praise to his wonderful contributions.


I didn't say it was wrong, per se, but that it was unwise. If you need to adopt a mentor (typically reversed VfF behaviour), you need to pick someone who believes in you and supports your ambitions. I just wonder if you've chosen wisely.



Everything I do is wrong, if I do it, or if I don't. All wrong. Someone here is always unhappy with what I do.


This is an emotional appeal made to people who don't judge arguments with their emotions. The conclusions reached so far in this thread, apart from your own, have been arrived at logically and will affect no-one's happiness.



I'm sorry you can't see the study procedure (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx) that I linked to, if you have an e-mail address I can e-mail it to you instead.


I can, but many people don't, won't or can't read flash documents. Post it somewhere in HTML, ASCII or even Microsoft Word format.



O-M-G you guys are funny!


Don't let that blind you to the serious thought behind the humour. Many a true word is said in jest.

[skeen]

Hilarity! So, finally, finally Anita attempted to test her claim, and failed miserably (of course). And what she concludes is that she has failed to dismiss no ESP ability. Well, heck, I'm failing to do that right now! Does that mean I might have this mythical ability which has never been established to exist?

She seems intent on studying the accuracy of her ability, and yet, completely dismisses the first step: is there any ability? We haven't established that there is one yet!

Anita, you cannot do anything! You can't even think properly. No amount of failure is going to change your mind, because you are in fact crazy. It's time for you to see a psychiatrist.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
A) Tell me the exact steps you took to arrange the testing *before* the meeting. Did you expect them toss aside their agenda without any notice? I admit that I did not request that they put all their other assignments aside and focus on me. I just don't want to barge in and make it all about me. It's ok, we send out group e-mails and I can also call them to work on the Upcoming StudyTM. ;)
2) What steps are you going to take to arrange a study with them in the future?Yesterday I called three of them, and e-mailed two more, all of whom are interested in participating in the study, and I have asked all of them to consider January 31 or November 1 for the study and have asked that they read the preliminary study procedure version 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx) and consider the four assignments that I have in mind for them and let me know which of the assignments they would be most interested in, send me a list in decreasing order, and if they do not want to do a particular assignment to let me know, and if they very much want to do a certain assignment, to let me know, so that I can start to plan out who does what. I have also told them that the exact time of day for the study has not been set yet and will be determined based on everyone's schedule collectively. A participating skeptic may leave early from the study at which another "spare" one can take over their assignment. As long as we receive permission from the representative of the mall, there is good hopes that the StudyTM will be held next weekend. Otherwise I am sure I can think of a different location that we can use. Starting Monday I will begin to set up reserve locations.
c) Based on your "reading" of the volunteer it was pretty clear you didn't even have a copy of the health questionnaire I created for you. How could you have even done the test without it? If you had it, why didn't you use it with that one person?No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he. However the only ailment known by him is one that is not even on your questionnaire. And when I read him I went through a large list of things and everything I could think of. In this particular case the questionnaire was not necessary, I think we were just wanting to see what happens.
See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.:cry1
Then go arrange the study somewhere else and quite stalling. Why would you even bother with worrying about permission if you know of other places that would work. See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.Well that particular location was my first choice and I contacted the representative early in the afternoon on Friday and by the time I had finished typing up the e-mail to him it was already close to 5 PM. Now it is the weekend, and first thing Monday I am contacting representatives of other locations to have back-up plans for the location. So why don't you trust my sincerety again? Hm? I'm doing it right.
It was interesting a month ago when I suggested it and you asked for a volunteer to take the e-mails on your behalf. What happened? See, Anita, this is why people don't trust your sincerity.Well, at least I know that it is school getting in the way. Perhaps I should just quit college to get this over with... Become a full-time paranormal claimant. :confused:

[Agatha]

Yesterday I called three of them, and e-mailed two more, all of whom are interested in participating in the study, and I have asked all of them to consider January 31 or November 1 <snip> January or November?

[wardenclyffe]

Didn't we hear from members of the North Carolina Skeptics after last month's meeting (VfF's first)? If they are still around and were at this latest meeting, could we hear from them? I don't doubt that Anita's test subject was healthy and that she saw nothing, I'd just like to hear what went down from a different point of view, if possible. On the other hand, they might be in the middle of an active investigation of VfF's claims and feel uncomfortable talking about it publicly. Still an eyewitness other than VfF might provide some insight.

Ward

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
I admit that I did not request that they put all their other assignments aside and focus on me. I just don't want to barge in and make it all about me. It's ok, we send out group e-mails and I can also call them to work on the Upcoming StudyTM. ;)

Now you're playing games. You can't blame them for not helping with your study if you didn't ask them. Thus, as I suspected, the reason they didn't help you was because you didn't ask. Thus, you are not acting in good faith or you are simply protecting your delusion.


Yesterday I called three of them, and e-mailed two more, all of whom are interested in participating in the study, and I have asked all of them to consider January 31 or November 1 for the study and have asked that they read the preliminary study procedure version 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/10980897?access_key=key-1z254hgw0dmz20v8qrtx) and consider the four assignments that I have in mind for them and let me know which of the assignments they would be most interested in, send me a list in decreasing order, <snip>

Your revised protocol sucks. I've already explained why.

No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he.

Why should he? It's your responsibility. If everyone had agreed to stay an extra hour, you were totally unprepared. Once again, you are either not acting in good faith or protecting your delusion.

:cry1
Spare me.

Well that particular location was my first choice and I contacted the representative early in the afternoon on Friday
And once again guaranteeing that nothing could have possibly happened this weekend.

So why don't you trust my sincerety again? Hm? I'm doing it right.
You haven't done anything right. You're either insincere or delusional.

Well, at least I know that it is school getting in the way. Perhaps I should just quit college to get this over with... Become a full-time paranormal claimant. :confused:
I gave it to you on a silver platter on January 2nd:
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).

Two weeks prior to that I gave you the protocol.

And what have you accomplished?

nothing

[skeen]

She always acts as if she's doing everything right, and there's nothing more that she can do. It's ridiculous. This is the easiest thing in the world to prove, if it exists, if you can do it. I believe that at this point she is knowingly protecting her delusions.

[Christian Klippel]

She always acts as if she's doing everything right, and there's nothing more that she can do. It's ridiculous. This is the easiest thing in the world to prove, if it exists, if you can do it. I believe that at this point she is knowingly protecting her delusions.

I'm following this thread since the beginning. Just recently i re-read most of it to make sure i haven't overlooked something.

But i have to agree 100% with your statement. It becomes more and more obvious that she isn't really interested in having their claims tested. I mean, really, how hard can it be to conduct that test? She has been given a suitable protocol, people gave her tips on how to arrange the test (getting people, co-operating with the local skeptics group, etc).

I mean, how much more help can someone get? Does she think that people should spoon-feed every tiny bit? All that came out in the end were just more lame excuses.

This is getting ridiculous.

Greetings,

Chris

[skeen]

Also, if it's so damn hard to prove you even have this ability, it would be the most impractical ability ever.

[volatile]

Have we forgotten about the crushed-pill test?

What happened with that?!

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Arranging the StudyTM
I called the representative of a mall today and explained the study I was hoping to have at their location. He requested additional information which I sent to him in an e-mail. I am asking to conduct the study on January 31 or November 1. I would have made it happen this weekend, but some of the skeptics who wish to participate in the study and who would be very valuable are not available this weekend but are the next. The paperwork for the study, that is, the procedure, questionnaires, sign, and information page for the volunteers, will be improved upon during the week up until the study.

This is the first of two separate times the dates of January 31 and November 1 are indicated, in two separate contexts. I figured this time was a typo, until it was mentioned again in a second message, relating to when volunteers were requested. So I am guessing that something will cause the January 31 attempt to not happen, and we'll be told we have to wait until November for her to try it again? I hope not, but this seems to be the case, given the replicated evidence.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:
In any case, how do you know your perceptions were correct? Quick angiogram?He reported that according to how he knows his health his heart is in perfect condition. Had this person said that he experiences heart pain or any other heart problems then my perception of healthy heart would have been incorrect. I realize that health of heart can at times become a vague topic but at least there was opportunity for a non-ability to present false perceptions. Logically I was fully expecting there to be a heart problem, but I perceived a healthy heart. This is not proof. All it says is that we did not reveal inaccuracy. It means that we proceed toward having more experience with the perceptions.
Again, why not write down what you mean instead of vague nonsense like "good chemistry".Because those are key words that carry a lot of significance to me. Before I was told anything about the person's health I then read from my notes and explained in full detail what my notes implied. It is like my stenography. ;)
How do you know your perceptions were correct? On-the-spot biopsy?We don't know that they were accurate. We know that my perceptions correlated with the individual's own experience of his health, some of which is probably backed up by medical verification. The thing is we didn't encounter inaccuracy. The study can not provide evidence for any kind of ability, but it can provide evidence against an ability.
What an odd combination. I wonder what the average patient would say if her doctor concluded an examination by stating that her elbows and intestines are fine. Actually, I don't wonder at all.I am not a doctor. I am recording my impressions. When elbows are fine that means they are not stiff and are not in pain. See, it is my stenography again. I didn't want to sit and make tons of explicit notes when I knew that in this case I could just pick up my key words and read out what I saw. I'll do better notes from now on, I do realize that I must do so. Intestines are fine is my short-hand way of writing that I see no constipation, diverticulosis, weak intestinal wall, severed intestinal wall, infections, cancers, etc, in short, that I detect no health problems with the intestines or digestive system. Instead of writing out everything I don't see, I just say that they are fine to me.
How do you know your perceptions were correct? Elbowgastroscopy?The person reports that he is not aware of having any problems that are perceived by him nor medically diagnosed relating to his elbows or digestive system.
It was progress when it was brought up weeks ago. Your pretending to have just discovered this is disingenuous.I yet again confirmed that I am able to see the person from back and that is some progress. It strengthens that knowledge.
I continue to look at him and I still find nothing wrong. I write, "brain fine"
Which careful analysis you immediately confirmed with an EEG.It means that according to my perceptions he does not suffer from headaches, migraines, brain injury, brain cancer, and that I didn't detect anything wrong with it. That I had nothing "bad" to say about the brain.
"left shoulder tired", but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention, since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor.
Then why did you mention it.To "not mention it" I mean it is not something I would put as an answer on a form. It is not significant enough to note.
This lapse of objectivity was brought about by seeing the volunteer write down what you believed to be a list of ailments, leading you to further believe that there was something there to find. That's why you're clutching at straws like Adam's Apples and tired shoulders.Exactly! Then at the end I decided that my conclusion would be that I found nothing. The tired shoulder and something in the throat were so insignificant that I did not state them as answers.
Possibly due to the volunteer being a smaller-than-average person? How did you establish "average size lungs" anyway?Average based on what I've perceived before. Of course that is only my impression and I wrote it down. The relative sizes of organs are irrelevant for tests. I was just writing stuff down anyway, I then presented a conclusion based on my notes and scribbles.
How do you know that your perceptions were correct? Portable Chest X-Ray machine and Lung Capacity Test?We don't know that all is correct, but what we do have is the person's accounts of his health. And this time the person was a skeptic, and not friend or family, so give him *some* credibility.
If this ability was at all as real and as useful as you've claimed it to be, you'd have no reason to be nervous. If a normally-sighted person is asked to identify an apple, a banana and a watermelon, do you think they become nervous beforehand?Lots of people who have a skill can feel nervous before demonstrating it. Lots of excellent speakers, or singers, feel nervous before they start. Don't worry, it's ok. I will never blame anything on having been nervous! It doesn't mean anything! I'll be ok!
A positive sign of your nervousness is that maybe you're starting to have doubts of your own about this "ability"Not based on doubts. Plenty of people feel nervous when they anticipate good things too. Like when someone is going to kiss you for the first time, or when you're waiting for Christmas. Don't worry about whether I was nervous or not, it doesn't interfere with anything. :)
How did you tell the difference between a jacket blocking your vision and a lack of having any vision at all during your survey?Because I know how well I can always see inside a person.
I though there was to be no talking. Were the "obvious curiosity" and your explanation transmitted telepathically?No speaking during the viewing. I did cheat though, when I told him during I was viewing, "note that I tend to not look at the area I am viewing images from and rather I choose to look to the side, look away, or close my eyes instead, because the images form in my mind and are not based on what I see with my eyes at that time".
Everything verifiable that you've said so far about this person is based on his appearance. About all you've demonstrated is that you're not even very good at cold reading.If I'm not good at cold reading, then that's a good thing for our purposes. Because the accuracy comes from somewhere. If not from cold reading, then what...?
Further, your perceptions in no way indicate that the volunteer is in excellent health. Your lack of seeing anything indicates only that you can't see anything, which is already known.No. One way I can report that a person is in good health is if I sense none of the health problems that I know of, such as pain, discomfort, difficulty moving, injuries, or various problems with the organs. According to my perceptions of his body he is in excellent health, and according to his own accounts of his health he is in excellent health. No. If I "do not" see "anything", that means that I am not seeing heart disease, brain disease, digestive system disease etc., which in itself is a perception. And it correlated with what he believes his health to be. Of course I do not count "points" for myself from this. All I conclude from this is that I did not collect inaccuracy points.
That's because you can't see inside people. Why don't you reach this reasonable conclusion, like everyone else has?Because when I describe the medical perceptions I have, it correlates really well with the health of persons. I am unable to conclude that the perceptions are not based on true information, nor am I able to conclude that they are based on true information. If you had witnessed my "anecdotal" past experiences you would probably find yourself in the same situation as me. And that is why we have the StudyTM and the TestTM. ;)
Turns out, your peformance was a shambles because you were so sure, based on the dude's appearance, that he'd written a list of ailments for you to guess at.Based on my logical thinking based on the dude's appearance he would have health problems. Based on my perceptions based on the images I saw in my mind the dude was in excellent health. My logical assumptions were in shambles, but my perceptions were not in shambles.
My take is that you were unable to cold read the ailments that you were sure were on the list, so you made a few vague statements about a few totally unrelated organs and joints, hoping that the ailments on the list related to the myriad organs and joints that you DIDN'T mention. I can hear you, with my Hearing from Feeling, saying "I KNEW there was something wrong with the neck, but it was obscured by the Adam's Apple." or "I didn't notice the missing kidney because I was distracted by the unusually small liver." The ONLY thing on his list was a severed diaphragm that has healed back to normal perfectly and has no lasting discomfort. I missed ONE health information, and it is not associated to current symptoms such as discomfort, pain, or disturbance to the body's functions, so it is no big deal that I didn't detect it, it has healed back to perfect, he said. Nope. I wrote that the shoulder felt slightly tired, and I wrote that I can feel his adam's apple, and I wrote that neither of these are my answers to be checked for accuracy since I perceive that he experiences them to a very insignificant extent and that he would not state them as significant. The conclusion I gave to this volunteer, as well as to Dr. Carlson who wanted to know how it went, was that I found nothing wrong. I did not sense anything wrong with the neck. Just the adam's apple, and that is not wrong. Nope. An unusually small liver would never distract me. Trust me, none of these other perceptions that are descriptions of size for instance, would make excuses for me missing something. Besides, my "out" is that I have never claimed to be able to detect everything that is considered to be there. I already have an out when I don't detect something that has healed back to normal. ;)
A severed diaphragm ?!eleven?!

I don't have a medical background, but a bit of Google-fu seems to support my initial thought that this would be moderately fatal. Even if it weren't, the iron lung would be a giveaway for cold reading.Eleven?? What? No, he recovered very nicely! Besides his lungs were never injured in the accident, he said so.
That's the point a lot of people have been trying to make you see. These mini-studies, or whatever, are totally meaningless. You are alone in ascribing meaning to them.Nope. If I had said "you have a heart disease, you feel pain in the heart", or "you do not exercise because your heart looks to be in terrible shape", I would have received two incorrect points right there (because he has no pain in the heart, and he exercises a lot), and in a room full of skeptics and nowhere to hide. :p There was plenty of opportunity to be wrong, but I wasn't wrong.
This is total fish piss. The only place failures don't count against you is in your own mind. You've claimed everything under the Sun, and beyond that to Arcturus, yet you can't detect a severed diaphragm, which most definitely wasn't supposed to be there. (hence the requirement for a nasty accident)If I claim to perceive something and that perception is totally inaccurate then that is a failure that counts against my paranormal claim. The diaphragm has healed perfectly, there is no sensation of discomfort or other symptom that he can feel that would be a clue for me to feel to detect it. Sometimes past accidents heal back to normal perfectly and there is no trace of them anymore. I don't understand the red part.
Count the hits, dismiss the misses. We know that you think this is how it works. It isn't.How wrong you are. I do not count the hits. If I seem to be correct then that does not provide evidence toward the claim, it only means that I proceed with the study and tests. If I were incorrect then that would be a miss and I would count it against. If I do not detect something that was considered to be there then that is not a miss. I don't claim to detect everything. But once I claim a perception then that is open to be checked for accuracy.
You are still so missing the point. There is no inaccuracy to be revealed at this point since there is no claim specific enough to be tested. YOU are the only one who has failed to dismiss ESP because you don't want to, while everyone else involved in this discussion dismissed it months ago. You proceed toward lunacy.If I make a perception and it turns out to not correlate to actual information then that is an inaccuracy that becomes revealed on a study or a test. There doesn't need to be a specific claim to do that. EVERYONE has failed to dismiss the ESP hypothesis because I have not had incorrect perceptions revealed yet. If I do not have ESP then I want to find out that. I'm not hiding from anything. On what basis have you dismissed my paranormal claim? What evidence speaks against my claim of detecting accurate health information when I look at people, information that should not be detectable to ordinary senses of perception? Of course I do not have evidence to prove it, but there is no evidence to disprove it yet either, so that is what the study and tests are for. I proceed toward finding out the source and actual accuracy of these perceptions.
In any case, I look forward to documentation of the severed diaphragm.I can ask the person to come here and talk to you fine people. By the way why do we need documentation of the severed diaphragm, it is not something I detected?
ETA: tl;dr = another anecdote. No. This one is not just an anecdote anymore. It was witnessed by a room full of skeptics, so it is a little bit better than a simple anecdote. And the volunteer himself (the "dude"), was a skeptic.
Your main problem is a lack of evidence that there's anything to study and a lot of evidence that you need to be addressing other problems. I have had experiences that compel me to proceed toward a study and a test because I have failed to falsify the paranormal claim on my own and need the involvement of others, ie. skeptics. Evidence that something's going on will be provided by the study. Maybe there is already going to be "some" evidence from Thursday's meeting where I did this with a skeptic where the claim was not falsified. I am receiving accurate health information when I look at people. That is not a problem. I find it interesting. What is the source of the information? Is it cold reading? Is it paranormal? I want to know. I have every right to conduct an investigation into my experience, and your involvement is entirely your choice.
I asked why you were going to attend a local sceptical group meeting, intending to find out specifically how it would assist in the study. While you haven't exactly answered that question, your response is quite revealing and I'm sure the posters in the "Attention Seeking" school of thought will pick up on it.These are the skeptics who are available to me locally and can participate in the study and also tests. I have every reason to want to meet with them and get things arranged.
No you can't. We'd have some evidence if you could.We have some Upcoming EvidenceTM coming up. I gave it an honest try on Thursday's meeting, and failed to falsify the paranormal claim.
According to your initial claims, you can see inside people's bodies, the images you see are better than MRI or X-Rays, the images are three dimensional, full colour and viewable from any direction and at any zoom level (down to the sub-atomic), and that you've never been wrong.This still holds.
Despite this incredible abilty, the list of things that you're unsure of detecting has grown with every post. It appears that the study must continue until every possiblle "ailment" has been added to the list before you will admit to having no ability at all.Not at all. The study will reveal what I can detect. Just be patient.
Have you made any progress with eliminating the fairly commonly held view that you're delusional? It would be an easy step, and would reduce your workload here considerably.The perceptions represent accurate health information. But what is the source of the information?
Again and again you refer to this nonsense as being critical to your various studies and tests. It isn't. What's critical is your total lack of any evidence whatsoever that you have any kind of ability.How dare you! My main concern with the study design was that volunteers would have to reveal their personal health information, and that this would have possible moral and legal concerns. UncaYimmy designed a study protocol that works around this problem, and it is absolutely not NONSENSE! And it is absolutely critical to everything I am doing here! How ridiculous of you! Lack of evidence is taken care of in the Upcoming StudyTM with the Upcoming EvidenceTM.
I didn't say it was wrong, per se, but that it was unwise. If you need to adopt a mentor (typically reversed VfF behaviour), you need to pick someone who believes in you and supports your ambitions. I just wonder if you've chosen wisely.I'm not here to pick favorites! If UncaYimmy shares material that is useful in this investigation then I can take advantage of that regardless of what I think of him as a person! His ideas were excellent! Everything I do is wrong, even when I do the right things by taking someone's useful suggestions and using it to progress...
This is an emotional appeal made to people who don't judge arguments with their emotions. The conclusions reached so far in this thread, apart from your own, have been arrived at logically and will affect no-one's happiness. I don't mind being happy.
I can, but many people don't, won't or can't read flash documents. Post it somewhere in HTML, ASCII or even Microsoft Word format.I was not aware of that problem.

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:
Hilarity! So, finally, finally Anita attempted to test her claim, and failed miserably (of course). And what she concludes is that she has failed to dismiss no ESP ability. Well, heck, I'm failing to do that right now! Does that mean I might have this mythical ability which has never been established to exist?Hm, very interesting how you can be so incorrect and seem to absolutely believe that you are right. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? Anyone? What's going on here with skeen? I did not fail the test with the skeptic as the volunteer. I will not explain to you because obviously you don't understand any of it.
She seems intent on studying the accuracy of her ability, and yet, completely dismisses the first step: is there any ability? We haven't established that there is one yet!I have established that there is an ability of detecting accurate health information when I look at people, information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception. Therefore I proceed with study and tests. The skeptics at Thursday's meeting had a small glimpse into this and in the Upcoming StudyTM they might have some more experience with it to see why I am doing this so that we can know where to go next.
Anita, you cannot do anything! You can't even think properly. No amount of failure is going to change your mind, because you are in fact crazy. It's time for you to see a psychiatrist. When I look at people I perceive health images and information. That in itself is not crazy. The perceptions are not overwhelming or distracting (except for when I see liver worm or other very serious things that I can't stop looking at), nor do I assume them to be reality. What is interesting is that there is correlation with actual health information, in many cases such that is not supposed to be detectable by ordinary senses of perception and where I do not know what cold reading could have been available. I am investigating to find out what the actual accuracy is and what's going on. There's nothing wrong with me, I really do have an interesting experience and my reasons for being compelled to investigate it are valid based on my experience and the experience of those who've witnessed it too. There are no documented examples for evidence yet, but that is some of what the Upcoming StudyTM is for. For Upcoming EvidenceTM.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Agatha:
January or November? Oops! January 31 or February 1! Oh no, I think I've written January/November in all my correspondence to everyone regarding the study! I don't have much time for the investigation at the moment and I think that's why I made that mistake. Also earlier I meant to post a link to the observations.html page but posted it to the study.html. I apologize!

wardenclyffe:
Didn't we hear from members of the North Carolina Skeptics after last month's meeting (VfF's first)? If they are still around and were at this latest meeting, could we hear from them? I don't doubt that Anita's test subject was healthy and that she saw nothing, I'd just like to hear what went down from a different point of view, if possible. On the other hand, they might be in the middle of an active investigation of VfF's claims and feel uncomfortable talking about it publicly. Still an eyewitness other than VfF might provide some insight.I will forward to the members of the local skeptics group that some of the JREF Forum skeptics are interested in correspondence with them.

UncaYimmy:
Now you're playing games. You can't blame them for not helping with your study if you didn't ask them. Thus, as I suspected, the reason they didn't help you was because you didn't ask. Thus, you are not acting in good faith or you are simply protecting your delusion.I am not blaming them. I have let them know that I am interested in their participation with my study and tests, but they have other things to talk about at the meeting and I don't want to interrupt or barge in with my own ideas. :( I would prefer the opportunity to discuss the study at our monthly meetings, but I have to resort to e-mail and phone communication instead, which works almost as well by the way. So the study is on its way.
Your revised protocol sucks. I've already explained why. Because I want to involve four skeptics and you believe that four skeptics can't be found? I already have five who are definitely interested. I love my protocol. :)
Why should he? It's your responsibility. If everyone had agreed to stay an extra hour, you were totally unprepared. Once again, you are either not acting in good faith or protecting your delusion.I was hoping that I could attempt the medical perceptions with all the skeptics at the meeting, but they discussed their other topics first and I didn't want to interrupt and then when it was time to talk about my study at the very end they didn't have much time left for that. There is no evidence of delusions. There is indication of accurate perceptions of health.
And once again guaranteeing that nothing could have possibly happened this weekend. If some of the most valuable skeptics can not attend a study this weekend, but can the next, then I will of course plan the study for next weekend. At least that's not my fault, so don't throw it at me. Don't throw it at them either, they can't be expected to put their life aside for the investigation. Family, work, studies, life come first, for me too. I'm very eager to do this asap.
You haven't done anything right. You're either insincere or delusional.I'm doing everything right in this investigation. I'm not insincere, and there is no evidence of delusion.

skeen:
She always acts as if she's doing everything right, and there's nothing more that she can do. It's ridiculous. This is the easiest thing in the world to prove, if it exists, if you can do it. I believe that at this point she is knowingly protecting her delusions.:rolleyes: This requires the participation of volunteers, of skeptics, it requires paperwork, and careful planning, and it requires permission from those who represent the location at where it will be held. You don't know how eager I am to demonstrate my perceptions. I was so happy when one of the skeptics volunteered! :blush: I wish I could enter a room full of volunteers for medical perceptions!

volatile:
The crushed pill samples are still waiting for me to have time to pay them some more attention. I've already spent two hours on them and I am not ready to post any answers even though I've perceived clues as to what they might be. I need more time with them, but you have no idea how busy I am with school, and now the study is approaching.

TheSkepticCanuck:
No! It was a repeated typo! I must have written it that way in all my correspondence about the study! I apologise! The correct dates are of course January 31 or February 1.

[volatile]

volatile:
The crushed pill samples are still waiting for me to have time to pay them some more attention. I've already spent two hours on them and I am not ready to post any answers even though I've perceived clues as to what they might be. I need more time with them, but you have no idea how busy I am with school, and now the study is approaching.


Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly.

You have "vision" from "feeling", remember? Remember what you say you can do? You can look at chemicals and perceive their molecular structure and their pysiological effects. Why the sudden need to "perceive clues" and "spend more time with them".

When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?

You do not have vision from feeling. You cannot perceive the molecular structure of chemicals, or their effects on the body. You are not special.

[godofpie]

Didn't we hear from members of the North Carolina Skeptics after last month's meeting (VfF's first)? If they are still around and were at this latest meeting, could we hear from them? I don't doubt that Anita's test subject was healthy and that she saw nothing, I'd just like to hear what went down from a different point of view, if possible. On the other hand, they might be in the middle of an active investigation of VfF's claims and feel uncomfortable talking about it publicly. Still an eyewitness other than VfF might provide some insight.

Ward

I am Jim, and a member and founder of FACT (Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers-thanks to madurob for the name ;) ) To give you a brief rundown of what happened at the meeting concerning Anita- She and her friend (Chris?) really wanted to test someone at the meeting. Wayne, a new member, his first meeting, volunteered to be read by Anita at the end of the meeting. Wayne wrote down his health information on a sheet of paper and left it at the table with one of our members. Anita decided where she wanted to "view" Wayne and she chose a table about 10 feet from the area where the rest of us were sitting. She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success. She said that she had expected to find some sort of health problems with Wayne, but she found none. She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza. I then asked the person that had held the paper what had been written on it ( I personally never saw the paper) and they told me that Wayne had written down that he had a scar on his chest from surgery on his diaphragm but other than that, he was healthy. The meeting broke up after this and everyone said their goodbyes. What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery. Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias. It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about. She will come up with a list of ailments that she says she can detect and we can go from there. A couple of other things I feel I should mention. Anita was given a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss her claim and to take questions from our members. She mentioned that when she was young and experimenting with crystals, she could tell which crystal she was holding by its Vibrational tm information and that she got so good that she didn't even need to be holding the crystal to tell which one was nearby. I pointed out that this would be much easier to test for than medical ailments on live subjects and she started back pedaling. Anita, if you are to maintain any level of credibility with skeptics you must refrain from making claims like that and then backing away from them. Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson what his explanation would be if he saw scratches appear on someone with no apparent explanation. I think he was hinting at some kind of paranormal explanation but it was an odd way to ask a question. Kind of like "If you saw a pink dragon flying over your head, how would you explain that?" The first thing I would do is go to my doctor. At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem
http://www.oldsalem.org/ here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College http://www.salem.edu/ is an all girls school. Her friend was very excited by this and says that there is no other way she could have known this information because she has never been to Winston and knows nothing about this area. For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job. They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show. For the record, I am not opposed to FACT being involved with Anita and her activities but it must be known that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We presuppose nothing. I personally do not believe in ghosts, paranormal entities (evil, scratching, or otherwise) the lochness monster, or bigfoot, but I am willing to look at evidence and be proven wrong.

As far as Anita's study at the mall is concerned-
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements. Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand. I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. I guess that's all for now. As you were.

[Christian Klippel]

Anita,

i really don't get it. That is, your behavior. You obviously have time to write really, really long posts. People have given you protocols, they have given you "instructions" about how to get people involved in your test. You have contact to a local skeptics group. You said repeatedly that you can see/feel conditions right away. You said that you can see "vibrations" of chemical substances and classify them based on these "vibrations".

Yet you fail to take simple, controlled tests. You fail to work together with the skeptics group. You suggest "studies" in malls where it should be clear from the start that it would fail. You claim to see stuff in colour, 3D, down to a sub-atomic level, but then say that some simple jacket may interfere with your "vision"

Reading the post from godofpie, where you said, and i cite him:

"They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success. She said that she had expected to find some sort of health problems with Wayne, but she found none. She jokingly asked for her million dollars."

So you ignored a very basic rule for such test, you claimed success but found nothing, while in your recent posts you stated that this contradicts your feeling vs. your impressions, or whatever.

You repeatedly stated that you can see/feel/detect stuff really easy and quickly. You said you did tests that confirm that. But when it comes to tests that are controlled, and observed by independent people, you somehow suddenly fail, wiggle out and say you need more time, more planning, more skeptics, whatever. The more you post about all this, the more it looks like you are simply lying to us, and yourself.

What does this mean, again a citation from godofpie:

"At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem
http://www.oldsalem.org/ here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College http://www.salem.edu/ is an all girls school."

And don't even get me started on your previous claims of what you can do and see. Really, one has to think that you are either pulling our collective leg, that you are deluded to no end, or that you try to get a bargain out of our participation in that you can claim on your site that you involved skeptics, just to make you sound plausible.

Sorry that i have to say it so bluntly, but you more and more like a person who wants to scam other people to get their monies. What about that drawing-babies-while-still-in-the-womb stuff? so you _are_ making money with your alleged abilities, don't you? That is, with abilities that can't stand even a slightly scientific test.

Really, take a step back. Do what i did, re-read (almost) the whole thread, just to get it a second time. Think about what you claimed, and what you came up with. Analyze your reactions and behavior, if you can do that. Maybe ask a second person to do that for you.

If then you still see that you are just misleading us, then i have to agree with other have stated so far: you should seek professional help. That is, not from skeptics, but from a good doctor in psychology.

Sorry to say that, but your behavior and posts here leave no room for any other conclusion, imho.

Greetings,

Chris

P.S.: If you like do answer to this, to it in short, meaningful sentences. Do not try to apply your wiggle-out an goalpost-moving tactics on me. Really, try to be sincere.

[GeeMack]

Because I know how well I can always see inside a person.


And so far you've demonstrated to us that you simply can't.

Because the accuracy comes from somewhere. If not from cold reading, then what...?


Then what? Uh, first you'd have to demonstrate accuracy. But you have not. And for some reason you don't seem able to understand that you have not. Since all you've demonstrated is that you believe you've been accurate, and since the veracity of that which you believe is totally unsupported by evidence, and since believing without evidence falls squarely within the definition of delusional, your being delusional is your very best explanation given all we know about the situation so far.

And to accept that as being your answer, provisionally, is how science works, Anita.

[Uncayimmy]

No. This one is not just an anecdote anymore. It was witnessed by a room full of skeptics, so it is a little bit better than a simple anecdote. And the volunteer himself (the "dude"), was a skeptic.

And their story differs from yours.


I'm not here to pick favorites! If UncaYimmy shares material that is useful in this investigation then I can take advantage of that regardless of what I think of him as a person! His ideas were excellent! Everything I do is wrong, even when I do the right things by taking someone's useful suggestions and using it to progress...
I don't mind being happy.
I was not aware of that problem.

Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).

Furthermore, this is a public request (copy sent via e-mail) that you do not associate my name with the protocol you are proposing. Specifically, this line on your website is incorrect and needs to be removed:

UncaYimmy is the author of the study protocol which will be used shortly in an upcoming study

I am not the author. You took something I wrote and ruined it. Do not associate my name with it.

[Locknar]

Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias. It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about. Actually, in this very thread she has said just that...that she can "see" scar tissue. She has mentioned this in relation to the vasectomy discussion, and the heart by-pass one as well.


I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. I guess that's all for now.Because with his suggested test, she has no "out".

[Chimera]

From http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html

I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

Posted by GodofPie:
What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery. Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias.

Dammit, Anita, you're a deluded liar. When are you going to see that?

[VisionFromFeeling]

volatile:
Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly. Hm, perhaps yes, but I count none of these as formal evidence, that is what I mean. All they were are interesting experiences that I've had of perceptions of apparent accuracy, and I understand that only results that have taken place in a proper test setting that controls for cold reading and other ordinary sources, and in the presence of skeptics as realiable witnesses who can account for what happens, only then can valid conclusions be made out of the results that are observed.
You have "vision" from "feeling", remember? Remember what you say you can do? You can look at chemicals and perceive their molecular structure and their pysiological effects. Why the sudden need to "perceive clues" and "spend more time with them".Chemical perceptions occur very infrequently and are among the less compelling expressions of the perceptions. Perceptions about medical substances come on their own sometimes. To then have to force perceptions on demand is something that is not parallel to what my chemical identification perceptions are in their everyday experience and I am forcing the chemical perceptions to do more than they normally do. I think I've been quite clear about the fact that these other aspects occur much less often than the medical perceptions that I am investigating. I've already spent over two hours with Pup's crushed medicine samples, yet in contrast in Thursday's experience with medical perceptions I didn't note the time but I think I must have spent not more than half an hour to be complete with viewing the person.
When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?The other aspects of the perceptions, as I call them, occur very infrequently in everyday use and also on tests. That is why I have to force them. Even though it is perhaps the same "ability" that is responsible for any expression of the perceptions, it is with medical perceptions I have the most experience.
You do not have vision from feeling. You cannot perceive the molecular structure of chemicals, or their effects on the body. We don't know that yet. It is fair to begin with the starting point that there is no special ability since one has never been scientifically confirmed in anyone in the past, but I do have reasons to have this investigation and if this is what the tests conclude then I would be happy with that either way.
You are not special. I am not doing this investigation to be special. I already have everything else in my life that makes me feel fulfilled and content. I'm doing this because I have apparently accurate medical perceptions when I look at people.

[tsig]

And their story differs from yours.



Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).

Furthermore, this is a public request (copy sent via e-mail) that you do not associate my name with the protocol you are proposing. Specifically, this line on your website is incorrect and needs to be removed:

UncaYimmy is the author of the study protocol which will be used shortly in an upcoming study

I am not the author. You took something I wrote and ruined it. Do not associate my name with it.

No good deed goes unpunished.lol

You have stumbled into a black hole of confirmation bias and are beyond the known universe.

[volatile]

We don't know that yet.

Yes, we do.

In uncontrolled circumstances, your perceptions come powerfully, easily and vividly. You can see molecules, feel stoned from looking at weed, sense bacteria in people's stomachs. In controlled circumstances, these "perceptions" are conspicuously weak and absent.

You do not have any powers. You do not have vision from feeling. It is mindblowingly amusing and not a little tragic to see you maintaining that the easily tested claims are "not interesting", when you yourself have made so much of the hits in setting out your numerous, absurd claims.

Give it up. This is unravelling.

[Gmonster2]

The guy u viewed at the skeptics group had a scar on his chest from surgery, you previously said you had detected scars on the chest from heart surgery.

You failed this viewing why can't you admit that?

The skeptics group is quite happy to conduct the study but you still want to arrange it at a mall.

You are avoiding testing why can't you admit that?

[Gmonster2]

Anita and unca jimmy from post #491

(Anita)When I said, "I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible.", you said "No, you haven't. You might think that, but you're mistaken." to which I respond yes I have. All I have concluded from my own experiences is to proceed toward further and proper testing, and I don't see why you skeptics argue with that conclusion. I hope to bring documented examples of perceptions soon with the collaboration of my local skeptics group, but it is really up to them not me.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
That's wrong. The instant you see a person, you gain a wealth of knowledge about their health.

(Anita)
True, but not about reproductive cysts, vasectomies, bypass heart surgery scar tissue, and a wealth of other ailments that I have detected successfully.


Here you claim that its not cold reading you detect heart surgery scar tissue , you failed at the viewing! He had one possible thing to detect and you missed it right !?

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten:

<snipped lies, delusions, evasions, back-pedalling, exaggerations, distortions, flights of fancy, hallucinations, faulty memories and bad English>




OK. Asking you multiple questions was always a losing move on my part, given your highly-developed Selective Reply™ ability

See if you can snip this to avoid answering:

Why does your account of your meeting with FACT differ from the one given by Jim (godofpie)?

[Akhenaten]

Start with this:


UncaYimmy:
No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he.


I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.

[Uncayimmy]

Anita: Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me!

GodOfPie: Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.

Anita: I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

GodOfPie: She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.

Anita, you should address the questions in the moderated thread where I ask you to demonstrate why anyone should take the time to test you.

[Pup]

Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly.

(snip)

When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?

What he said. The pill test was a fail. You couldn't do what you said you could do. The test with Wayne was a fail. You couldn't "see" the scar--something that a person with normal vision would notice if it was visible to them.

It's now obvious, if it wasn't already, that you're stretching hard to try to keep alive the idea that you're getting real information from your "vision from feeling," when in fact it's a subjective experience created by your own mind from non-paranormal clues.

[desertgal]

The guy u viewed at the skeptics group had a scar on his chest from surgery, you previously said you had detected scars on the chest from heart surgery.


Correction: Anita previously said that she had detected a scar on the chest from heart surgery when she knew, in advance, that the gentleman had had open heart surgery. In other words, it was just another totally bogus claim.

From her website:
I had already been told that he has had bypass heart surgery but I perceived that I was able to see scar tissue, resembling cartilage tissue, embedded in the chest at where the incision was...I already knew about the heart surgery but am glad that I at least was under the impression of perceiving the scar tissue at such a significant site of operation.

The gentleman at the skeptics meeting did not tell her, in advance, that he had had surgery on his diaphragm, so, of course, she didn't "envision" the scar.

You don't know how eager I am to demonstrate my perceptions. I was so happy when one of the skeptics volunteered! I wish I could enter a room full of volunteers for medical perceptions!
Except, of course, when that is actually offered:
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall.

It would be interesting if the gentleman from the skeptics meeting would give his version - and reassuring, since I have to wonder at the fact that a new member, attending his first meeting, is the one who volunteered to allow Anita the chance to demonstrate her "ability". Not to cast any aspersions on the unknown Wayne, but there is always the off chance that he was in cahoots with Anita. At this point, I don't think any of us can trust a word she says.

lies, delusions, evasions, back-pedaling, exaggerations, distortions, flights of fancy, hallucinations, faulty memories and bad English

Yep. Add "attention seeking" and "unethical", and that sums up Anita.

We don't know that yet.

No. WE do know that. YOU don't.

I am not doing this investigation to be special. I already have everything nothing else in my life that makes me feel fulfilled and content. I'm doing this because I have apparently accurate delusional medical perceptions when I look at people.

Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).
I also have to point out that Anita misrepresents a statement by Miss Kitt on her website:
As Forum member Miss Kitt brilliantly pointed out, since I've experienced good or perfect accuracy in the past, it should be enough for me to simply state what I experience and to base a test on that.
I can't speak for Miss Kitt, of course, but, if she is unaware of this, she may wish to request that Anita remove that misleading statement about her.

[skeen]

Oh, gee. Anita truly is as woo as they come, isn't she? She even has some woo friends it seems. Why she would try to offer Scientific explanations for her delusions, when she believes in everything a general woo believes in, is beyond me.

I mean, what's the point? She may as well just call it magic. And, it does sound like she's trying to make money in the woo economy. Pathetic woman.

EDIT: And to add, to say that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I could do that all day. I have my confirmation that she's a goddamn liar and manipulator.

[desertgal]

OK. Asking you multiple questions was always a losing move on my part, given your highly-developed Selective Reply™ ability

See if you can snip this to avoid answering:

Why does your account of your meeting with FACT differ from the one given by Jim (godofpie)?

Oh, do let me.

(Assuming Vision From FeelingTM mode)

Jim, obviously, is mistaken. He might have psychiatric problems/schizotypal disorder/psychosis, too. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? And, to throw a little more pseudo outrage your way, how dare you! :D

:eusa_boohoo:

[Locknar]

Correction: Anita previously said that she had detected a scar on the chest from heart surgery when she knew, in advance, that the gentleman had had open heart surgery. In other words, it was just another totally bogus claim.Ah...but then you have her claiming stuff like this:

Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way.

[Chimera]

Anita, you should address the questions in the moderated thread where I ask you to demonstrate why anyone should take the time to test you.

She's definitely been proven deceitful. With this last study and GodofPie's conflicting story, we've seen her purposely hide the truth. I think we're done.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

It would be interesting if the gentleman from the skeptics meeting would give his version - and reassuring, since I have to wonder at the fact that a new member, attending his first meeting, is the one who volunteered to allow Anita the chance to demonstrate her "ability". Not to cast any aspersions on the unknown Wayne, but there is always the off chance that he was in cahoots with Anita. At this point, I don't think any of us can trust a word she says.

To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Oh, do let me.

(Assuming Vision From Feeling [how do you guys add that trademark insignia?] mode)

Jim, obviously, is mistaken. He might have psychiatric problems/schizotypal disorder/psychosis, too. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? And, to throw a little more pseudo outrage your way, how dare you! :D

:eusa_boohoo:

The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, TrademarkTM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.

[desertgal]

To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well.

Well, "stupid" is debatable, but Anita HAS been repeatedly disingenuous-even when it paints her into a corner-and repeatedly illogical, deceptive, and irrational, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Fair enough, though. I'll agree that that claim is fairly far fetched and unfounded.

It would still be interesting to hear what the gentleman has to say about his encounter.

TheSkepticCanuck]The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, TrademarkTM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.

Thank you. TM

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Well, "stupid" is debatable, but Anita HAS been repeatedly disingenuous-even when it paints her into a corner-and repeatedly illogical, deceptive, and irrational, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Fair enough, though. I'll agree that that claim is fairly far fetched and unfounded.

It would still be interesting to hear what the gentleman has to say about his encounter.



Thank you. TM

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear Wayne's perspective on the reading too. Given how different the previous perspective was (from godofpie), I am sure Wayne's would be most interesting.

I also like how Anita always has the out of "I don't say I can detect everything wrong with a person" to negate a miss. So, if she doesn't see something she should, it doesn't count, for some reason. However, if I am looking at a picture, and told to count the number of red items, and write down the answer, I couldn't claim a perfect score if I only found 3 of the 20 red items, simply because those 3 I did find were all red. She doesn't seem to understand this. Or else, she just refuses to.

[Ashles]

Actually in some ways I'm rather glad Anita WAS allowed to talk to this Wayne guy.

For some reason Anita has in some posts seemes to narrow down the possibilities to either her 'ability' is real and paranormal, or she is an amazing cold reader.

That little test seemed to demonstrate neither is likely.

She clearly doesn't have a paranormal ability and appears to be getting nothing from cold reading.

Whuch leaves, 'simply wrong' as the most logical conclusion.

A quick recap of where I see we currently stand:

Anita makes many unverified claims.

Anita offers to formally test one of those claims, some sort of medical diagnosis. The specifics of the medical claim are never explained in a tightly defined way.
After all this time nobody (not even Anita by her own admission) can clearly describe what she claims to be able to do.
SHe contacts IIG over a year ago who are still unable to proceed with testing because of flaws and lack of clarity in Anota's proposed tests.
Anita blames IIG for the delays.

She declines to formally test any of the other claimed abilities formally even though they would all be better to test.

Anita claims casual studies will help her narrow down the specifics of her claim while not actually really being proper tests.

She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.
It fails.

She attempts a chemical identification test via video.
It fails.

She conducts a 'survey' at the mall.
She does not even speak of this again, claiming only that the details will be revealed 'eventually'.

She vists a skeptic group. She tries to get health information from a subject. She instantly breaches the test protocol she had described by talking to the subect, something she had claimed repeatedly she would not do in testing.
But ayway again she fails.

She also claims amazing ability to identify crystals (as she has elsewhere). Testing is again suggested.
She declines.

She sets up a study in an overly complicated way. The skeptic group suggests she use the group for testing in a more controlled setting.
She declines.
She also blames this new sceptic group for delays.

She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with.
Although none of this was ever a problem in any of the unverified stories.
Having had this for at least a week and definitely stared at them for over two hours, she has gathered no information from the samples.
More time is requested as Anita is apparently very busy.
It is unclear as to what point she would consider such a test failed.

If anyone would like to elaborate on a list of claims made, tests carried out etc. then please do. There are so many now it's hard to keep track.
I would imagine this is intentional.



Unlike others I don't think we are done here yet. The more Anita writes and the more tests she does, the more contradictions, inconsistencies and failures appear.
I think this is all going very well at the moment.

If Anita really is genuine about wanting to find out whether her ability is real or imagined then the good news for her is that we are already a very long way down that road.
We now have MUCH more information regarding this claim to form a conclusion from than we did at the start. And it's all pointing one way.

Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself."

It's getting a bit tricky now for Anita to claim success when other people are involved.
Never mind 100% success, we haven't seen anything correct AT ALL since we started even the most basic level of casual testing.

So... what's next?

[Asm]

So... what's next?


My predictions:


This thread will go on for another couple of pages.


Anita will eventually say something like "It's been nice talking to you my skeptics (group hug!), however I have to leave the forum now for good beacuse of school. I still believe I have an ability and I will continue to perceive accurate health information."


Anita will continue to claim psychic abilities.


She will claim skeptics and scientists were stunned. She will refer to her internet appearance and the enourmous amount of posts on the JREF forum as proof.


She will claim she is a skeptic and member of a skeptic group.


She will be debunked over and over.


Or, Anita, you could wake up right now. :) I have wasted too much time following this thread. (On the other hand, it is kind of amusing...)

[Skeptical Greg]

She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with. UNbelievable !
Particularly for some one who gets high, looking at a microscopic picture of marijuana ..

Did Anita ever mention if she experienced relief from pain, just by viewing an analgesic ? It would seem to follow ..

How does she manage to stay in a room in the presence of alcoholic beverages, without getting drunk ?

[TheSkepticCanuck]

UNbelievable !
Particularly for some one who gets high, looking at a microscopic picture of marijuana ..

Did Anita ever mention if she experienced relief from pain, just by viewing an analgesic ? It would seem to follow ..

How does she manage to stay in a room in the presence of alcoholic beverages, without getting drunk ?

I wonder if she gets an oxygen high from looking at all those oxygen molecules in the air all day? Or nitrogen narcosis from looking at the nitrogen molecules in the air? Does she talk funny after looking at helium molecules? Enquiring minds want to know. :D

[Chimera]

She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with.
Although none of this was ever a problem in any of the unverified stories.
Having had this for at least a week and definitely stared at them for over two hours, she has gathered no information from the samples.


Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?

[Ashles]

Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?
That was a possibility raised previously and it is why a faster response would have appeared more convincing.
Still, the results of the tablet test wouldn't carry any particular weight by themselves.

And announcing successful results wouldn't particuarly help Anita. If she announces positive results with the tablets... great - it would allow us a much easier opportunity to create a protocol.
And that's the last thing Anita wants.

Because of Anita's fear of anyone creating any protocol around simply identifying substances (which would be very easy to set up and very easy to set pass/fail criteria around) she is incredibly unlikely to announce positive results with the tablet test. Much easier to describe some new reason why she couldn't identify the tablets in this instance, despite claiming to have performed similar identifictions loads of times before.

I absolutely guarantee there is no way on earth she will announce that, yes, she could identify the tablets really well, and is happy for a test to be set up around this ability.

Remember, all of this is not really about having an actual test, it is about making all the motions towards having a test whilst avoiding one at all costs. It's all about the attention and excitement.
Anita enjoys talking about her 'ability' much more than properly testing it, because the whole fantasy screeches to a halt if it is ever properly tested. That's why she continually delays having real testing... apparently for ever.

The easiest way to delay the testing? Never give anyone a specific description of what you can do and under what circumstances.

[VisionFromFeeling]

godofpie:
Thank you Jim for posting here. I know that many of our JREF Forum members are curious about how our meetings went, since you are one of those few who have met with me in person. I feel that I need to explain as well as correct on some of your comments regarding our meeting,
Anita decided where she wanted to "view" Wayne and she chose a table about 10 feet from the area where the rest of us were sitting. I am concerned that this might sound as if I was willingly avoiding to be near the other skeptics for my reading since that is not true. When it was time for me to view Wayne, everybody at the meeting started talking and it was very noisy in the location and that is the main reason why we had to find another table. At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.
She sat facing Wayne at the table. True. I am working on taking what my everyday experience has been with the perceptions, and step by step conforming the experiences to a test setting. Every scientist knows that when you are changing the parameters of an experiment, you only change one parameter at a time so that a difference in results can be ascribed to the single changed condition. That is the approach I am taking as I am changing the conditions from everyday setting to test setting, so each time when I have the chance to view a new person I am changing one thing at a time. With viewing Wayne I was able to change two parameters, one at a time, by writing down my answers and giving them to him in full at the end of the viewing rather than speaking out what I see as I see it which has been how it goes in everyday experience in the past. I wanted to ask that he is facing me to not change that parameter since I had already changed a parameter by writing down my answers. But halfway into the viewing I asked him to turn around 90 degrees so that I am facing his left side and I experienced no decline in my perceptions and can now implement this as well in all future viewings. I treated my viewing with Wayne as an opportunity to proceed with the study, so I was testing out more conditions and parameters. I very consciously and most intentionally chose not to view Wayne according to a test procedure. It was intentional to begin viewing him facing him since this was part of the study that serves to let me gradually learn more about how the perceptions work or don't work.
They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. Unfortunately this statement requires some additional information. When it was finally time for me to view Wayne, several or all of the other skeptics commenced into very loud conversation. The noise level was very bad and I had to move further away from them to even hear myself think. Everyone started talking and ignored the fact that I was going to attempt my paranormal claim and for the first time in the presence of other people. I didn't want to be rude by asking everyone to be quiet, so I chose a location further away for me and Wayne.

Yes I did speak to Wayne. I did not speak with him during the meeting itself. Once he announced that he wanted to volunteer to let me view him I told him that I would love to. He told me that he had written down his health conditions on a piece of paper and that this paper was with another member of the skeptics group. I was thinking out loud about where we should sit and I chose a table and told him where I would like him to sit.

I told him that the location was very loud and noisy, that it was cold, and that these distractions would not take place during the study that I am planning or a test, but I said that I would do my best anyway.

I then spoke to him to explain what is going to happen, while Wayne did not say anything to me. I told him that all I do is look at him and that we will not be speaking at all during the viewing. I told him that this is the first time I am writing down my perceptions rather than to tell the person right away as I see the perceptions. I told him that he will not be able to see my notes.

About halfway into the viewing, I spoke to Wayne and I said, "notice how when I am viewing you I do not look directly at the part of the body I am forming images of, but I tend to look away to your side, or to look away to not see you at all, or I close my eyes, to form the images" - Wayne said nothing about that. I told him this since I thought that as a skeptic he was interested in how I do this. I then told Wayne that him looking at me was distracting my work and I asked him to turn around so that I was facing his left side, he again said nothing and turned around.

Once I decided that I was done viewing, I made sure that I would not be writing any more on my pages and I asked him if he would like me to read the results to him, so I read it to him and explained one thing after the other. So at that point we were discussing the results, but all of my answers were already written down and from how it was written down I was not able to use any of what was said to help "shape" my answers, nor would I have wanted to do such a thing. I told him that I find absolutely nothing wrong with his health, and that that was my conclusion. He said that he had written down one thing on the paper. I then asked him to write it down in my notebook along with other, similarly difficult to identify, ailments that he doesn't have, so that I could see if I could detect it once it was on a list, but I told him that if I got it right it would not be evidence of anything but I was curious. I treated this like a learning experience more so than a test, even though I was open to welcoming inaccurate perceptions as evidence giving reason to terminate this investigation. I did not detect him as having any of the ailments he wrote down. I then asked him which one it was, he told me and I said that I still couldn't detect it once I knew what was there for me to find. At one point I also told him that his jacket was thicker material than what I am used to, he said he could take it off, I said that he didn't have to.

After the viewing I told him that I was pleased that even though my logical mind was expecting a long list of health problems, my mind had not invented any medical perceptions that he does not have and that my description of him as very healthy correlated with his description of himself as very healthy, but I said that this was not evidence toward anything, only that I had once again failed to falsify the paranormal claim.

Before Wayne left I made sure to ask him whether he had any lasting discomforts or sensation after the diaphragm injury, and he said that he didn't. I asked if he could feel any lasting sensation after the injury what so ever, and he said no, that it had healed perfectly. And before he left I thanked him for volunteering.

That is all that I can remember having been said between me and Wayne before, during, and after the viewing. Of course I spoke to him, but Wayne behaved as a very good skeptic by not speaking with me more than necessary. What I meant by "not speaking", was "not speaking during the viewing". The upcoming study will ensure that no speaking at all takes place between me and volunteers, it is designed that way.
After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success. I'm glad it took only 15 minutes. Once I had begun viewing Wayne I realized that I had not recorded the time (I did not have a watch on me), but I thought that it was ok for now but I would be sure not to forget in the future. I am curious to find out how long it takes for me to view a person. Once I had finished, Dr. Carlson came to our table and asked how it had went. I said that I had detected no health problems. The only noteworthy things had been something in the throat, which I had figured out was the adam's apple and had written down that it was a "2" on a scale of 1-5, Dr. Carlson confirmed with me that 5 was the biggest and it was. I said that it was insignificantly minor and that I would not have reported it as an answer. Also that the left shoulder was slightly tired, but that again it was insignificant and was not an answer. I said that I detected not a single health problem, and that Wayne had reported that he has no health problems. I told Dr. Carlson about the past diaphragm injury, and that I had not detected this. I said that I had once again failed to dismiss the hypothesis and that I could still proceed toward the study.

I then walked over to the table and told Jim that I was successful, meaning that I had not failed. I think the way I told this was that I had not made any incorrect perceptions and that therefore I could proceed toward the study.
She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza. I jokingly said to Jim, "Can I have my million dollars now?", I then jokingly said, "I'll just take my prize in free pizza".
What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery. Speaking between me and the volunteers will not be available at the upcoming study. This was not quite on the level of the upcoming study in refinement, and you can see above what was actually said between me and Wayne. I apologize that I spoke with him, in case it "ruins" some of this particular experience from skeptics' point of view, but from my point of view I did good since I learned new things: 1) I can write down instead of speak my answers, 2) The volunteer can turn away instead of be facing me, 3) I once again noticed for myself that I do not look at the part of the body that I am forming images of, 4) My perceptions are not based on my logical expectations, 5) I did not make any incorrect perceptions and again failed to dismiss the paranormal claim and can proceed toward a study.

I have never claimed to detect everything or in every case. When I do make claimed perceptions, then those are open to be checked for accuracy. Had I for instance said that he has a heart problem, or that he doesn't exercise, I would have received two incorrect points right there. This man happened to be in excellent health, and his only ailment is a past injury that has healed perfectly. Let's just see what happens when I view persons with health problems, alright?
It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about. Vision from Feeling, Jim. There was nothing for me to feel with respect to the past diaphragm injury. In the case of the heart bypass surgery, I was allowed to see the scar after I had announced my perception and it was a very large and wide scar, and I detected it by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue where cartilagenous tissue should not be. Maybe this particular diaphragm scar was different? Let's just see what happens next time when I do claim to perceive a scar.
She mentioned that when she was young and experimenting with crystals, she could tell which crystal she was holding by its Vibrational tm information and that she got so good that she didn't even need to be holding the crystal to tell which one was nearby. One of the new members asked me when I had my first perceptions, and that is why I brought up the story about the crystals being the first.
I pointed out that this would be much easier to test forThen I said that I brought my crystals with me from Sweden and I haven't seen them in three years and that I think it's time to take them out and see if I could put together a simpler test with them.
she started back pedaling. I did no such thing. I said that I should take the crystals out and check it out. What on earth.
Anita, if you are to maintain any level of credibility with skeptics you must refrain from making claims like that and then backing away from them. :( First of all, the crystals are not my claim. I was merely answering a question about how these perceptions first started. And I was the one who suggested to try such a test on my own to see whether I could form a claim based on that. And I wasn't even backing away from anything. :( I really wasn't. :cry1
Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson (...)I do not have a drivers licence or a car and the only reason I brought someone with me was because I needed someone to take me there. I apologize if another person who does not represent me as a person nor my thoughts said some inappropriate things at the meeting. Personally I would not discuss ghosts with Dr. Carlson. He is a physicist and I can think of plenty other interesting topics to speak about when I have the chance to speak with him. Quantum physics for instance. When I had the chance to speak with Dr. Carlson at the meeting what I asked him about was what classes he teaches and I wanted to know more about them. Please judge me based on what I say. I will take the bus next time. That's not safe so late in the evenings.
At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem http://www.oldsalem.org/ here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College http://www.salem.edu/ is an all girls school. Her friend was very excited by this and says that there is no other way she could have known this information because she has never been to Winston and knows nothing about this area. I did perceive these things when we drove through Old Salem. I spoke to Mrs. Carpenter from the 1700s, I think she was a teacher at the bible college, and I spoke to a woman who studied the bible at that school in the 1770s.
For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job. There was no such thing there when we drove by. Maybe next time there will be, I would like that so that I can see if these actors got the clothes right based on what I saw that the women actually wore back then. ;)
They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show. True. We are going to visit allegedly haunted sites and video record our visits. My role will of course be the psychic and I will see what comes up when I communicate with my perceptions of these people of the past. Our investigations will be made available over the internet. It is just for fun and entertainment and does not represent any kind of scientific investigation. I do have a life besides my studies and work or even this paranormal investigation into my medical perceptions, and this happens to be one of the things I do. I also go to the gym and like the old episodes of Star Trek. I like frogs and insects and I collect CareBearsTM. What does that do to my credibility, I wonder?
For the record, I am not opposed to FACT being involved with Anita and her activities but it must be known that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We presuppose nothing. I personally do not believe in ghosts, paranormal entities (evil, scratching, or otherwise) the lochness monster, or bigfoot, but I am willing to look at evidence and be proven wrong.Jim, I am only involved with the FACT group regarding my investigation into the medical perceptions that I have. I will not involve any other unconventional discussions into our group. I did mention my experience with the women at the Old Salem bible school to one of the FACT members who is a retired Anthropologist, because I described how I perceived that the lifestyle back then in Old Salem was based on extreme discipline and prudeness and I asked him what from an anthropological point of view would be the practical reasons for such a way of life?
As far as Anita's study at the mall is concerned-
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.Yes Dr. Carlson suggested this. I said that I am preparing forms for the study that are better than UncaYimmy's since mine will include additional ailments as well as a means of reporting on the extent of ailments and not just what they are. I said that the skeptics will be very valuable as volunteers (since they are skeptics) and that I would rather wait until my forms are ready so that we can take the most advantage of them being volunteers. I was pleased with viewing Wayne though, to at least get started right away. But I wanted to save the other skeptics for later. I apologize if some don't agree with my choice of wanting to make the most out of the skeptics as volunteers, as my forms are not ready. I said that I would love to view the skeptics and some of their acquaintances. I also said that I will have the study at the mall as well. I want to do both, guys!

There are now 6 skeptics from the FACT group who have expressed definite interest in participating in the study on the weekend of January 31 and February 1. :) And yes I am making the arrangements. :)
Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand. In fact I insisted that Dr. Carlson look over the paperwork of the study before they are put to use. I trust his judgement and I value his opinions.
I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. My forms will be much better. The FACT skeptics will be the most valuable volunteers that I can ever find, and that is why I want to save them for when my own forms are available, since my forms will contain more information and that way we can learn more from it then. However I was happy to make a compromise by viewing Wayne.

I chose not to use UncaYimmy's forms with Wayne since Wayne had already written down in text what his ailments were, so I thought I might as well do it my way too by writing down all that I see. Since we would not be matching forms between claimant and volunteer, my own notes would be better than my answers on a form.

Thank you Jim and the other skeptics of FACT for your assistance in my investigation. I assure you that I am not trying to be a complicated paranormal claimant, although my claim itself is not as straightforward yet as we would like. I conducted my viewing with Wayne perfectly according to the manner in which I had carefully intended in order to advance in what I call the StudyTM. I made progress and learned from my experience with Wayne, and have again failed to falsify my paranormal hypothesis.

I apologize for commenting on your post in such a way but I had to clarify on things. After all we want to avoid misunderstandings. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

All that to say " My claim cannot be verified . " .

Almost 4,000 words ( including quotes from others )

You have way too much free time on your hands ...

[skeen]

I challenge anyone to tell me how Anita is different from any other woo.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Christian Klippel:
i really don't get it. That is, your behavior. You obviously have time to write really, really long posts. People have given you protocols, they have given you "instructions" about how to get people involved in your test. You have contact to a local skeptics group. You said repeatedly that you can see/feel conditions right away. You said that you can see "vibrations" of chemical substances and classify them based on these "vibrations".I've consistently stated that these other types of perceptions are not very frequent. The medical perceptions are the most enhanced due to most experience.
Yet you fail to take simple, controlled tests. You fail to work together with the skeptics group. You suggest "studies" in malls where it should be clear from the start that it would fail. You claim to see stuff in colour, 3D, down to a sub-atomic level, but then say that some simple jacket may interfere with your "vision"This statement is not true. I have never failed to work together with the skeptics group. They are working with me and the study. It is not clear from the start that the study at the mall would fail. And if it does fail then that is the objective since that would bring a conclusion to this investigation. So what if a jacket interferes with my perceptions? Besides I concluded that the perceptions could continue in spite of that. One of the purpose of the study, which is what my viewing with Wayne was part of, is for me to record what distractions I experience and to explore the extent of distraction. I'm working out what test procedures can be implemented. Nothing wrong with that Christian.
So you ignored a very basic rule for such test, you claimed success but found nothing, while in your recent posts you stated that this contradicts your feeling vs. your impressions, or whatever.I was successful in failing to falsify the hypothesis by not presenting inaccurate perceptions.
You repeatedly stated that you can see/feel/detect stuff really easy and quickly. You said you did tests that confirm that. But when it comes to tests that are controlled, and observed by independent people, you somehow suddenly fail, wiggle out and say you need more time, more planning, more skeptics, whatever. The more you post about all this, the more it looks like you are simply lying to us, and yourself.The medical perceptions are easy to form yes. I've done no tests to confirm that though. I absolutely did not fail the viewing with Wayne. I made no incorrect perceptions. I look forward to having skeptics present to witness what happens. I did not say that I needed more time, in fact I am ready to have the study. I needed much time to plan the study and the planning for the study is finished now. More skeptics? I've never said that, I had several from the start, I've asked for four and now have six. So it looks as if I'm lying? Why is that?
And don't even get me started on your previous claims of what you can do and see. Really, one has to think that you are either pulling our collective leg, that you are deluded to no end, or that you try to get a bargain out of our participation in that you can claim on your site that you involved skeptics, just to make you sound plausible.I am doing no such thing. But you don't know that do you. At least I know that.
Sorry that i have to say it so bluntly, but you more and more like a person who wants to scam other people to get their monies. What about that drawing-babies-while-still-in-the-womb stuff? so you _are_ making money with your alleged abilities, don't you? That is, with abilities that can't stand even a slightly scientific test.If anyone appreciates the drawings that I will make of the inside of the body (once I have time I can make better ones than the one I have up now) I can have it printed and sent to them. I'm sorry if it costs monies to have a picture printed in high quality on fine paper. I have not made a pennie with my alleged abilities. Lots of people buy and sell their drawings over the internet.

For your information... I did quite well with Lactobacillus detection tests and repeatedly did something like 9 out of 10, and I have not made a single confirmed incorrect medical perception so far. We don't know whether my paranormal claim of medical perceptions will stand even a slightly scientific test yet since one has not been made. The study gives ample opportunity for a non-ability to be revealed as such, so stay tuned.
Really, take a step back. Do what i did, re-read (almost) the whole thread, just to get it a second time. Think about what you claimed, and what you came up with. Analyze your reactions and behavior, if you can do that. Maybe ask a second person to do that for you.Think about what you claimed... I claimed medical perceptions from live persons. And what you came up with... not a single inaccurate perception yet. Analyze your reactions and behavior... working real hard to get the study together, trying to falsify my paranormal claim when ever the opportunity comes to test it, having the study SoonTM.
P.S.: If you like do answer to this, to it in short, meaningful sentences. Do not try to apply your wiggle-out an goalpost-moving tactics on me. Really, try to be sincere. Goalpost-moving? My goal has been all along to test my claim of medical perceptions, and as soon as it was realized that a study is needed I began arranging for it, and it will be held SoonTM.

[skeen]

You guys are right, she takes peoples words and phrase and makes them her own. Now she's doing the TM thing? This is very strange behaviour.

I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it. I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.

She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind.

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:
Then what? Uh, first you'd have to demonstrate accuracy. But you have not. And for some reason you don't seem able to understand that you have not. Since all you've demonstrated is that you believe you've been accurate, and since the veracity of that which you believe is totally unsupported by evidence, and since believing without evidence falls squarely within the definition of delusional, your being delusional is your very best explanation given all we know about the situation so far.I have experienced apparent accuracy but in everyday experience when skeptics and the sort were not present to witness it or make it into evidence that can be shared. But based on what I have experienced I am compelled to arrange for the study. You don't seem able to understand that I've detected vasectomy, that a person was taking large quantities of Lactobacillus supplement, very significant case of cysts of the internal reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar after bypass heart surgery, that the scull and brain had been crushed in the past, a significant and recurring feeling of strain and contraction just below the sternum, and more, in cases where I do not know what cold reading might have been available. I have reason to proceed in this investigation. I am open to falsifying the paranormal claim. I am looking forward to having the study together with skeptics, and if I fail to fail the study then I look forward to having the test that will show once and for all what's going on.

UncaYimmy:
And their story differs from yours.
#1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)
Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not). I did not mean to imply that you are supporting my claim. I have changed the text on my webpage. You were working with me, UncaYimmy. Very much. But since you have changed your mind, that has been reflected on the changes made on my website.
Furthermore, this is a public request (copy sent via e-mail) that you do not associate my name with the protocol you are proposing. Specifically, this line on your website is incorrect and needs to be removed:

UncaYimmy is the author of the study protocol which will be used shortly in an upcoming study

I am not the author. You took something I wrote and ruined it. Do not associate my name with it. I apologize. The line was clearly false and it is because back when I wrote it it was correct because back then I was planning to use your protocol. Then I made changes and wrote my own protocol based on parts of yours, and it is true that I should have changed that statement. Thank you for pointing that out. However I will continue to give you credit for certain elements that I have borrowed from your protocol. Your protocol might be ruined, but I like mine. ;)

Locknar:
Actually, in this very thread she has said just that...that she can "see" scar tissue. She has mentioned this in relation to the vasectomy discussion, and the heart by-pass one as well.I've said that I've detected scar tissue once. And I've said that I need a study and a test to find out how often I can detect it. Even so, what if I were to detect scar tissue in 50% of the cases in which it occurs, once yes but then the next time not? It would still be a testable claim. Each case in which an ailment occurs is different.
Because with his suggested test, she has no "out". #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) No. My health questionnaires will be more elaborate and will yield more information that would UncaYimmy's health questionnaires. The FACT skeptics will be among the most valuable volunteers and that is why I choose to wait until my forms are ready. My forms must be ready by the weekend of January 31 and February 1 since that is when the study will be held.

Chimera: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4375118&postcount=1629)
#1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) What I meant was that there would be no talking between Wayne and me during the viewing. In this case when viewing him, I did want to explain to him some of what is involved and how it works, since he was a skeptic and might have been curious. No speaking will be available between me and the volunteers during the study, the study is designed that way. I am not a deluded liar, I just wasn't clear enough about what I meant.

volatile:
In uncontrolled circumstances, your perceptions come powerfully, easily and vividly. You can see molecules, feel stoned from looking at weed, sense bacteria in people's stomachs. In controlled circumstances, these "perceptions" are conspicuously weak and absent.I beg your pardon? My medical perceptions are just as clear in everyday experience as they have been in the few more controlled circumstances that I have had the chance to do. Just as powerfully, easily, and vividly. I have not experienced a single case where the medical perceptions are weak or absent under any circumstances. As for the other aspects of the perceptions, they occur infrequently so I can not force tens of perceptions of chemicals or bacteria during a short period of time.
You do not have any powers. You do not have vision from feeling. It is mindblowingly amusing and not a little tragic to see you maintaining that the easily tested claims are "not interesting", when you yourself have made so much of the hits in setting out your numerous, absurd claims.We do not know that yet. I have not made any incorrect medical perceptions yet. Those "easily tested claims" are easy from a test point of view, but difficult from my point of view since such perceptions occur infrequently and not easily on demand. What part of that don't you understand?
Give it up. This is unravelling. I'm not giving up on my paranormal claim or investigation until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions or pass the tests.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Gmonster2:
The guy u viewed at the skeptics group had a scar on his chest from surgery, you previously said you had detected scars on the chest from heart surgery.

You failed this viewing why can't you admit that?I've detected heart bypass surgery scar once, and I've said that I need more experiences of detecting it before I can claim to detect it often enough to use it on a test. I've also said that when I don't detect something that should not count as a miss, since I do not claim to detect ailments in each case that they occur due to varied extent of ailments. That's like saying that "all cancer is equal", when in fact it is experienced very differently by the body depending on its extent and location. Where my perceptions draw the line on extent I do not know yet but intend to come closer to understanding on the upcoming study.

When I do make a claimed perception, then that becomes available to be checked for accuracy, and if I make an incorrect perception then I have provided evidence against an ability of detecting health information that is considered undetectable to ordinary human senses.
The skeptics group is quite happy to conduct the study but you still want to arrange it at a mall.

You are avoiding testing why can't you admit that? I will have both the study with the skeptics being the volunteers and the study held at the mall. I wanted to wait before I use the skeptics as volunteers until my health questionnaires for the study are ready since mine will reveal more information than would UncaYimmy's. I am not avoiding a test. The skeptics are very valuable as volunteers and I intend to make the most out of that opportunity. My questionnaires are more thorough.

(Anita)When I said, "I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible.", you said "No, you haven't. You might think that, but you're mistaken." to which I respond yes I have. All I have concluded from my own experiences is to proceed toward further and proper testing, and I don't see why you skeptics argue with that conclusion. I hope to bring documented examples of perceptions soon with the collaboration of my local skeptics group, but it is really up to them not me. What I meant (and should have stated when I said this since it was not obvious) was that the participating skeptics might not want to verify what takes place during the study, since the study is not done under controlled circumstances such as a test would. So the skeptics might not want to say that "Anita accurately detected that a woman had cancer" even if it appears that I did, because the circumstances of the study are not controlled for as they would on a test, how do we know that the accuracy was reliable. That is also why I say that the study can not provide evidence for an ability, but it can provide evidence against an ability. I hope that explains it.
Here you claim that its not cold reading you detect heart surgery scar tissue , you failed at the viewing! He had one possible thing to detect and you missed it right !? I have never claimed to be able to detect a particular ailment in each case in which it occurs due to the varied extent in which they occur. Lets just wait until I actually do claim to perceive something, and then that is open to be checked for accuracy. I was working real hard to perceive health problems in Wayne and it is more than likely that I will actually claim to detect health information in other volunteers. In this particular volunteer I detected nothing, so I made no claimed perceptions that accuracy could have been checked for. Bring me a person with health problems. This man was healthy, and his only ailment had healed perfectly.

[Hokulele]

When I do make a claimed perception, then that becomes available to be checked for accuracy, and if I make an incorrect perception then I have provided evidence against an ability of detecting health information that is considered undetectable to ordinary human senses.


Pretty much every time you have made an incorrect perception in this thread, you have left yourself an out. For example, look at what you wrote regarding Wayne's shoulder. If he did have shoulder problems, you would have proclaimed this a hit. Since he didn't, you refuse to count it as a miss, but try to hand-wave away the significance of your observation ("'left shoulder tired', but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention"). Why do you state it was insignificant only after it was shown to be a miss?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:
OK. Asking you multiple questions was always a losing move on my part, given your highly-developed Selective Reply™ ability

See if you can snip this to avoid answering:

Why does your account of your meeting with FACT differ from the one given by Jim (godofpie)?
#1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)

Start with this:
No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he.
I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. Jim never showed me any questionnaires, so how am I supposed to know that he had them.

UncaYimmy:
Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me!
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements. It is a combination. I did not have my forms ready and with me, and also they did not have time. After I had viewed Wayne everyone was getting ready to leave. Even if I had wanted to view another person I couldn't have. #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)
I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.
She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. What I meant was "no talking during the viewing". See what was actually said between me and Wayne at #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654).
Anita, you should address the questions in the moderated thread where I ask you to demonstrate why anyone should take the time to test you.Because I have had compelling experiences of perceiving accurate health information in people, information that should not be available to cold reading and in cases where I do not know what cold reading could have been available. I am thus arranging to have the study which will hopefully provide with some documented examples of what I claim that I am able to do.

Pup:
What he said. The pill test was a fail. You couldn't do what you said you could do. The test with Wayne was a fail. You couldn't "see" the scar--something that a person with normal vision would notice if it was visible to them.I have not failed the pill test. I have detected clues about the pill samples but I want more time with them before I post my conclusions. If you think I should put your pill test before my studies then you are just wrong. I am not going to stare at some powdered pills when I should be reading. And when I do have time to not study I am working on arranging the paranormal study regarding my medical perceptions. The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim. I have never claimed to detect ailments in each case in which they occur. How do you know that the two cases of scars were not significantly different on the level at which I would detect them? The bypass surgery scar I detected by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue that formed at the place of incision, and after that feeling an image was then constructed in my mind. It is called Vision from Feeling, Pup. Not Vision from Vision. :rolleyes:
It's now obvious, if it wasn't already, that you're stretching hard to try to keep alive the idea that you're getting real information from your "vision from feeling," when in fact it's a subjective experience created by your own mind from non-paranormal clues. Stretching hard to keep alive the idea? I have not made incorrect perceptions. Wait what happens when I claim to see a scar again. What non-paranormal clues? I've experienced cases where I do not know what non-paranormal clues would have been available.

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:
As Forum member Miss Kitt brilliantly pointed out, since I've experienced good or perfect accuracy in the past, it should be enough for me to simply state what I experience and to base a test on that.
I can't speak for Miss Kitt, of course, but, if she is unaware of this, she may wish to request that Anita remove that misleading statement about her.
From page 24 post #923 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4307695&postcount=923),
If she has been infallible to date, then if she sees it she should consider it testable.

[desertgal]

You guys are right, she takes peoples words and phrase and makes them her own. Now she's doing the TM thing? This is very strange behaviour.

I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it. I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.

She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind.

Exactly. It's all delusional nonsense, back pedaling, hallucinations, flights of fancy, evasions, attention seeking, and outright lies.

[desertgal]

desertgal:
From page 24 post #923 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4307695&postcount=923),

Read the whole post, you liar. You took Miss Kitt's one statement out of context when you quoted her on your website. Totally unethical behavior, again. She made it very clear in that post that the only question she had left about you was "is she lying to us or simply herself?"

Furthermore, you shouldn't be quoting any member here on your website without asking their permission first. It's called courtesy-something else you seem to be completely unfamiliar with.

Jaysus, can't you be honest about anything?

[Jeff Corey]

Vision From Faking, "The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim."
Yes, you failed to find a scar. That was a miss, or an inaccurate perception. You failed and falsified your claim. You have done this before, way back in Post #250 or so. If you miss, this is not evidence against your claim.

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:
EDIT: And to add, to say that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I could do that all day. I have my confirmation that she's a goddamn liar and manipulator. I've already made it very clear that what ever accuracy appears to result in the study does not provide evidence for any kind of ability since cold reading might have been available. The study is intended to gather insight into what my claim is and to try out various test conditions, such as "do I have perceptions if the person is behind a screen?" And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation. Of course saying that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I've stated that all along. But it's interesting that according to my perceptions he is in perfect health and exercises, and in fact he is in perfect health and exercises.

There are no lies or manipulation. I did not detect the scar, but that's ok. Let's just wait and see what happens when I actually claim to detect a health problem. You guys are gonna love that.

Chimera:
She's definitely been proven deceitful. With this last study and GodofPie's conflicting story, we've seen her purposely hide the truth. I think we're done.
#1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)

TheSkepticCanuck:
To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well. Thank you. If I had said this I'd been called a delusional liar again. :rolleyes:
I also like how Anita always has the out of "I don't say I can detect everything wrong with a person" to negate a miss. So, if she doesn't see something she should, it doesn't count, for some reason. However, if I am looking at a picture, and told to count the number of red items, and write down the answer, I couldn't claim a perfect score if I only found 3 of the 20 red items, simply because those 3 I did find were all red. She doesn't seem to understand this. Or else, she just refuses to. Then your claim would be to be able to count all items regardless. My claim is not the same. My claim is to accurately detect health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception. If you counted blue items as red that would be a miss. My claim is not to count. My claim is to describe.

[desertgal]

Let's just wait and see what happens when I actually claim to detect a health problem.

You already HAVE claimed that. Multiple times. All delusional lies.

TheSkepticCanuck:
Thank you. If I had said this I'd been called a delusional liar again. :rolleyes:

Because you ARE a delusional liar. Again. :rolleyes:

[Jeff Corey]

You never learn, do you? "And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation."
A statistically significant significant amount of inaccurate guesses would be interesting, but irrelevant. You must show statistical significance or your results will be deemed to be a result of chance, and that would falsify your claim.
This basic misunderstanding of how hypothesis testing works, which has been pointed out before, makes me question the level of instruction concerning the scientific method you have been able to grasp. With your 4.0 average, I would expect more.

Once again, for someone who apparently needs redundancy in communication: You need to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between your guesses and chance to support your contention. If the results are not statistically significant, your contention is falsified. Any demand that the results need to be significantly inaccurate is evidence of complete misunderstanding of how science works.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
Anita makes many unverified claims.I have made one paranormal claim: accurate medical perceptions from people I see in person, where ordinary senses of perception and cold reading should not be available.
Anita offers to formally test one of those claims, some sort of medical diagnosis. The specifics of the medical claim are never explained in a tightly defined way. The study works to make the claim more specific.
She declines to formally test any of the other claimed abilities formally even though they would all be better to test.From my perspective they are not better to test. Their perceptions occur too infrequently.
Anita claims casual studies will help her narrow down the specifics of her claim while not actually really being proper tests.True.
She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.
It fails.I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.
She attempts a chemical identification test via video.
It fails.I've never claimed chemical identification over the internet.
She conducts a 'survey' at the mall.
She does not even speak of this again, claiming only that the details will be revealed 'eventually'.Give me your mailing address and I will send you photocopies of my notes from the survey immediately. I haven't had the time to type up the notes.
She vists a skeptic group. She tries to get health information from a subject. She instantly breaches the test protocol she had described by talking to the subect, something she had claimed repeatedly she would not do in testing.
But ayway again she fails.I made no incorrect perceptions and so I did not fail this.
She also claims amazing ability to identify crystals (as she has elsewhere). Testing is again suggested.
She declines.I did not "claim" it. I was describing how my perceptions started when I was asked. I suggested testing it. I did not decline testing it. #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)
We now have MUCH more information regarding this claim to form a conclusion from than we did at the start. And it's all pointing one way.Please do share with me what MUCH more information we have regarding my claim of medical perceptions. I don't think there's been that much yet.
Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself."I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed. :confused:
The lack of experience is what's bugging you guys.
It's getting a bit tricky now for Anita to claim success when other people are involved.Nope. I am in fact happier to claim success when skeptics can witness when it happens. It makes things much easier.
So... what's next? The study.

Asm:
Your post proves that you guys don't actually care about what I really think and feel about my paranormal claim or -experiences. All you believe is only based on your preconceived ideas about what a paranormal claimant would think.
Anita will eventually say something like "It's been nice talking to you my skeptics (group hug!), however I have to leave the forum now for good beacuse of school. I still believe I have an ability and I will continue to perceive accurate health information."Group hug, perhaps, but I am not leaving my investigation until I reach a conclusion. A conclusion may become that the claim is not testable, but either way I am far from reaching a conclusion yet and vision plenty of work ahead of me, the study for instance. I do not believe that I have an ability. I believe that when I look at people I perceive medical perceptions and that their actual accuracy and source have not been determined. I will, though, continue to perceive apparently accurate health information.
Anita will continue to claim psychic abilities.I am not claiming psychic abilities.
She will claim skeptics and scientists were stunned. She will refer to her internet appearance and the enourmous amount of posts on the JREF forum as proof.No I will not.
She will claim she is a skeptic and member of a skeptic group.True.
She will be debunked over and over. We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

:grouphug5 (Locknar is still the one in the middle)

[Skeptical Greg]

We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

It has been, and you can't accept it.

You are lying or delusional.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Ashles:
I have made one paranormal claim: accurate medical perceptions from people I see in person, where ordinary senses of perception and cold reading should not be available.
The study works to make the claim more specific.
From my perspective they are not better to test. Their perceptions occur too infrequently.
True.
I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.
I've never claimed chemical identification over the internet.
Give me your mailing address and I will send you photocopies of my notes from the survey immediately. I haven't had the time to type up the notes.
I made no incorrect perceptions and so I did not fail this.
I did not "claim" it. I was describing how my perceptions started when I was asked. I suggested testing it. I did not decline testing it. #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)
Please do share with me what MUCH more information we have regarding my claim of medical perceptions. I don't think there's been that much yet.
I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed. :confused:
The lack of experience is what's bugging you guys.
Nope. I am in fact happier to claim success when skeptics can witness when it happens. It makes things much easier.
The study.

Asm:
Your post proves that you guys don't actually care about what I really think and feel about my paranormal claim or -experiences. All you believe is only based on your preconceived ideas about what a paranormal claimant would think.
Group hug, perhaps, but I am not leaving my investigation until I reach a conclusion. A conclusion may become that the claim is not testable, but either way I am far from reaching a conclusion yet and vision plenty of work ahead of me, the study for instance. I do not believe that I have an ability. I believe that when I look at people I perceive medical perceptions and that their actual accuracy and source have not been determined. I will, though, continue to perceive apparently accurate health information.
I am not claiming psychic abilities.
No I will not.
True.
We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

:grouphug5 (Locknar is still the one in the middle)

Well, in the words of the Nature Boy Ric Flair

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Thats the "bottom line"

[VisionFromFeeling]

Chimera:
Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?I could definitely do conventional chemical analysis on the medical samples in order to obtain the results. But all I can say is that I wouldn't. In fact being a B.S. Chemistry major, I can already think of a few chemical procedures that I could do at home with household chemicals to provide clues as to the chemical structure of the compounds. I am not interested in cheated accuracy, because if I did this I would end up finding myself sitting by a table with crushed pill samples and Mr. Randi would be there, and you know how he looks at paranormal claimants I would be so nervous, and when I get nervous I start giggling a lot. :scared: Let's not go down that road.

Ashles:
Anita enjoys talking about her 'ability' much more than properly testing it, because the whole fantasy screeches to a halt if it is ever properly tested. That's why she continually delays having real testing... apparently for ever.Actually, most of the time I hate coming here to post. Most of the time I do not enjoy visiting this thread at all. But I know that this thread and you guys are very useful in my investigation. I am not delaying having real testing. It was suggested to me by the local skeptics group that I conduct the study before we approach having a test, and that is what I am doing. The study is planned to be held on January 31 and February 1. The only thing that hasn't been arranged for the study for next weekend is the location since I have not yet received a reply from the representative of the mall that was my first choice for location. I e-mailed him the material late in the afternoon on Friday so we can't expect an answer until at least Monday, which is tomorrow. Monday I will also begin arranging for other locations in case this one is not possible.
The easiest way to delay the testing? Never give anyone a specific description of what you can do and under what circumstances. I thought I knew, but what is an everyday experience is not specific enough to apply to a test. That is why I have the study to make a more specific claim. I don't have as much experience with the perceptions as everyone (and that includes me) who is involved in the investigation would like.

Diogenes:
All that to say " My claim cannot be verified . " If in a controlled test setting I make correct perceptions of ailments that are not detectable to human senses of perception then the claim can be verified.

skeen:
I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it. I find it worrying that you are thinking that I was thinking this. You aren't reading my posts are you? Your head is just filled with what you would like me to be saying to conform with what you think a paranormal claimant would be like. I have consistently said that the study can not provide evidence for the claimed ability, regardless of how accurate the perceptions may seem. All I have concluded was that I have failed to falsify the claim.
I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.I've had compelling experiences that make me interested in having a paranormal investigation. So far the claim appears to be testable and falsifiable, so I have no reason to stop right here.
She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind. If you had witnessed when I've made accurate perceptions you would be curious too. Unless of course you wouldn't.

Hokulele:
Pretty much every time you have made an incorrect perception in this thread, you have left yourself an out. For example, look at what you wrote regarding Wayne's shoulder. If he did have shoulder problems, you would have proclaimed this a hit. Since he didn't, you refuse to count it as a miss, but try to hand-wave away the significance of your observation ("'left shoulder tired', but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention"). Why do you state it was insignificant only after it was shown to be a miss? Not true! I did not make an incorrect perception with Wayne. I wrote that I sensed a tired shoulder and that it was a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most) which was too insignificant to note as an answer. If he had said something about his shoulder I would have said that I was wrong because I wrote that it was insignificant. I stated that it was insignificant in my notes and I stated that it was insignificant before it was shown that he did not feel a tired shoulder. You are misinterpreting. I was simply recording my perceptions, even the ones of insignificant information, and those that were weak I recorded that they were weak and insignificant, ie. not to be counted for or against. I mean for goodness sake, I recorded that I felt the man's adam's apple!

desertgal:
Exactly. It's all delusional nonsense, back pedaling, hallucinations, flights of fancy, evasions, attention seeking, and outright lies. Not at all.

[GeeMack]

GeeMack:
I have experienced apparent accuracy but in everyday experience when skeptics and the sort were not present to witness it or make it into evidence that can be shared.


In other words, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim. You know an honest person would simply come out and say it.

But based on what I have experienced I am compelled to arrange for the study.


No, you're not compelled to arrange for a study, a test, or whatever it is you're calling what you're trying to avoid this time. You're only compelled to say you're compelled.

You don't seem able to understand that I've detected vasectomy, that a person was taking large quantities of Lactobacillus supplement, very significant case of cysts of the internal reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar after bypass heart surgery, that the scull and brain had been crushed in the past, a significant and recurring feeling of strain and contraction just below the sternum, and more, in cases where I do not know what cold reading might have been available.


And you don't seem to understand that you're only saying you've detected all those things. Although you may believe what you're saying is true, you've demonstrated time and again to the readers of this forum that it isn't true.

I have reason to proceed in this investigation.


You have a reason to say that, but you clearly don't really want to proceed with anything that might pop the bubble which is your fantasy.

I am open to falsifying the paranormal claim.


No, Anita. No, you're not.

I am looking forward to having the study together with skeptics, and if I fail to fail the study then I look forward to having the test that will show once and for all what's going on.


Let's just say for a moment that you are so deluded you don't even realize you're lying to us, don't you even wonder about your own lack of honesty with yourself when you say things like, "if I fail to fail?"

I'm not giving up on my paranormal claim or investigation until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions or pass the tests.


Stop it! Anita! You haven't experienced accurate medical perceptions. "Until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions," indeed!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jeff Corey:
Vision From Faking, "The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim."
Yes, you failed to find a scar. That was a miss, or an inaccurate perception. You failed and falsified your claim. You have done this before, way back in Post #250 or so. If you miss, this is not evidence against your claim. My claim is not to detect ailments in each case in which they occur. All scars are not made equal, and how should I know where the dividing line goes for my paranormal claim? The only misses that will be counted against the hypothesis is when I make inaccurate perceptions. Inaccurate perception means that I say that a person has a scar and they don't have the scar. I did not fail, and my claim has not been falsified. But that's right, if I miss (ie. do not detect something that was considered to be there), this is not evidence against my claim. You're right about that.
You never learn, do you? "And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation."
A statistically significant significant amount of inaccurate guesses would be interesting, but irrelevant. You must show statistical significance or your results will be deemed to be a result of chance, and that would falsify your claim.
This basic misunderstanding of how hypothesis testing works, which has been pointed out before, makes me question the level of instruction concerning the scientific method you have been able to grasp. With your 4.0 average, I would expect more.You never learn, do you? If I have a study and it proves that the perceptions that I make are inaccurate, then I will have reason to conclude that there is no point in proceeding toward a real test that would conclude the same. If I can not pass a study then there is no way I can pass a test which is even harder to pass. If inaccuracy is revealed at the study then that is valid reason to terminate the investigation and to conclude "no ability".
Once again, for someone who apparently needs redundancy in communication: You need to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between your guesses and chance to support your contention. If the results are not statistically significant, your contention is falsified. Any demand that the results need to be significantly inaccurate is evidence of complete misunderstanding of how science works. And that's what I said. I've not misunderstood anything. You have.

desertgal:
I see no reason in replying to you. You misinterpret everything I say, and your comments are not trustworthy. There is no evidence of delusions. My perceptions of all forms have consistently appeared to correlate to actual real world information.

Diogenes:
It has been, and you can't accept it.When was my paranormal claim of medical perceptions falsified? Please do tell and if it was then I will gladly accept it. *waiting with great anticipation*
You are lying or delusional. Lying or delusional about what? *waiting with great anticipation*

LONGTABBER PE:
In what way was my post #1670 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377677&postcount=1670) a representation of woo? Please do tell. *waiting with great anticipation*

[Hokulele]

Hokulele:
Not true! I did not make an incorrect perception with Wayne. I wrote that I sensed a tired shoulder and that it was a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most) which was too insignificant to note as an answer. If he had said something about his shoulder I would have said that I was wrong because I wrote that it was insignificant. I stated that it was insignificant in my notes and I stated that it was insignificant before it was shown that he did not feel a tired shoulder. You are misinterpreting. I was simply recording my perceptions, even the ones of insignificant information, and those that were weak I recorded that they were weak and insignificant, ie. not to be counted for or against. I mean for goodness sake, I recorded that I felt the man's adam's apple!


2 out of 5 is insignificant? What is 1? Why bother even listing it unless you were fishing for hits (i.e. cold reading)? Without access to your notes from the meeting, I can only judge by your words on the website, which imply that "left shoulder tired" was in your notes (hence the quotes), but none of the other verbiage.

And this is exactly what I mean about making hits out of misses. You tried to claim there was something wrong with his throat. When it was shown there was nothing wrong with his throat, you started claiming it was his adam's apple. You simply cannot admit to being wrong.

[Uncayimmy]

I have never failed to work together with the skeptics group. They are working with me and the study. It is not clear from the start that the study at the mall would fail.


1) It was clear from the start that doing the study with the skeptics group would succeed. There was no need to revise the plan. Period.
2) I told you that the study at the mall was very likely to fail and why. You continue to ignore the advice of those who know far more than you.

You are a classic example of why scientists should never test themselves. You should put your claims in the hands of someone else to be tested. In a way you have by coming here. Only you ignore what EVERYONE is telling you. And I thought *I* had a big ego.

I did not mean to imply that you are supporting my claim. I have changed the text on my webpage. You were working with me, UncaYimmy. Very much. But since you have changed your mind, that has been reflected on the changes made on my website.

In my very first two posts I completely debunked your theory about Vibrational InformationTM. I asked if it worked with photos. You said yes, sometimes. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your theories to be true. A picture does not capture any information except light from the surface of the subject.

Following that simple critical path (that's what scientists do) it is clear that whatever theory you have must work in all areas in which the observation is made: photos, videos, and living persons. There is one thing that explains it all: Imagination. And yet you persist with your silly claims about sensing information at the subatomic level.

It doesn't matter what your "main claim" is. You have had the same experiences with photos, videos, living beings. Your theory must encompass all of those things. It doesn't. And it gets no simpler than that despite the tens of thousands of words you have written.

From the very beginning, I have *not* worked "with" you but against you. I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe in your abilities in the least. I have stated that I do not believe they are worth testing for their scientific importance. The only reason I think a test is in order is to prove to YOU and ONLY YOU that you are mistaken at best and delusional at worst.

Nobody reading your website even now gets that impression about my involvement. Nobody would ever guess that I have publicly and privately asked you to seek the help of a mental health professional.

You are a manipulator, that much is clear.

[wardenclyffe]

I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.

Anyone who was there know why this happened? Perhaps they did not trust that Wayne (whom they'd never met before) was not a shill. Perhaps VfF did something to alienate everyone, maybe her friend did. Maybe they were just starving. She portrays herself as a victim of their lack of interest. This is not surprising, but GodofPie seems to agree that there was a lack of interest (the victim part is something else entirely).

If I'd been there, I think I'd have been right at that table with VfF and Wayne watching everyone's smallest move. I think. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, so something must have happened to make everyone so uninterested.

I dunno.....

Ward

P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is being deliberately deceitful here. I just think there's a missing piece to the story.

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:
In other words, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim. You know an honest person would simply come out and say it.But Honeybunches! I've said this so many times by now! I've always said that I have no formal evidence, but that my past anecdotal experiences (that were not documented in a way to transform them into formal or shared evidence) were compelling to me since I witnessed them! I also know that that is not evidence to me *either*, but I find reasons to conduct this investigation. I've said it many times! (And don't tell me not to call you Honeybunches. Anyone who misses what I've been consistently and very clearly saying here I can call Honeybunches.)
No, you're not compelled to arrange for a study, a test, or whatever it is you're calling what you're trying to avoid this time. You're only compelled to say you're compelled. Really? Then why did I arrange a study for next weekend? Why is that? *waiting with great anticipation*
And you don't seem to understand that you're only saying you've detected all those things. Although you may believe what you're saying is true, you've demonstrated time and again to the readers of this forum that it isn't true.Interesting. How did I demonstrate to the readers that my past experiences of accurate perceptions aren't true? *waiting with great anticipation*
You have a reason to say that, but you clearly don't really want to proceed with anything that might pop the bubble which is your fantasy.Now who's delusional!
No, Anita. No, you're not.Yes I am. I am open to falsifying the claim. Only inaccurate perceptions can do that.
Let's just say for a moment that you are so deluded you don't even realize you're lying to us, don't you even wonder about your own lack of honesty with yourself when you say things like, "if I fail to fail?""If I fail to fail the study" was pretty neat. It should show that I am actually trying to fail!
Stop it! Anita! You haven't experienced accurate medical perceptions. "Until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions," indeed! Apparently accurate perceptions! Plus, I did accurately perceive that Wayne had an adam's apple. ;)

Hokulele:
2 out of 5 is insignificant? What is 1? Why bother even listing it unless you were fishing for hits (i.e. cold reading)? Without access to your notes from the meeting, I can only judge by your words on the website, which imply that "left shoulder tired" was in your notes (hence the quotes), but none of the other verbiage.To me, 1 would be nothing, 2 would be insignificantly some, 3 would be there's something there but not really much, 4 is there's definitely something there, 5 is there's absolutely something there. What is 1? 1 is that there is nothing there. I was not fishing for hits. I was recording my perceptions. On the study my perceived extent of health information will be clearly noted, and if I state that something is insignificant then it can not be counted for or against what so ever.
And this is exactly what I mean about making hits out of misses. You tried to claim there was something wrong with his throat. When it was shown there was nothing wrong with his throat, you started claiming it was his adam's apple. You simply cannot admit to being wrong. No, I claim that I felt something in his throat, and that I figured out that it was the adam's apple and that this is not something wrong. I concluded that it was his adam's apple long before I announced my results and long before the actual health of this person was made available. Stop lying about me, Hokulele. It is ok to suspect me of doing this, but to word it as if you already believe that I did so is just silly. I did no such thing, you know. I wasn't wrong! You are! ;)

[Akhenaten]

The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, TrademarkTM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.


Pharaoh is lazy and just holds down the ALT key while typing "0153" on the numeric keypad. The result is slightly different to the tagged method, as follows:


TaggedTM

ALT Numpadded™

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
1) It was clear from the start that doing the study with the skeptics group would succeed. There was no need to revise the plan. Period. No it is not clear that the study would succeed nor is it clear that the study would pass the claim toward the tests. We'll just have to see what happens. If the claim is falsified at the study then that's that. If the claim passes the study then if it is not a real paranormal ability it will be falsified at the second study or at the test, which ever comes next.
2) I told you that the study at the mall was very likely to fail and why. You continue to ignore the advice of those who know far more than you.What do you imply by fail? Fail as in falsifying the paranormal claim? Well in that case I welcome that, since that would be the results of the investigation that I am moving towards and I could finally get back to other things. If you mean fail as in it won't be arranged, it has already almost fully been arranged for next weekend. What advice regarding failing the study at the mall have I been ignoring? Please state it again. *waiting with great anticipation*

[Jeff Corey]

"You never learn, do you? If I have a study and it proves that the perceptions that I make are inaccurate, then I will have reason to conclude that there is no point in proceeding toward a real test that would conclude the same."
"And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation."
No, you never learn. This is moronic. It is like someone claiming to be able to toss a fair coin heads and then insisting that disproof means getting statistically worse than chance.
Maybe you show take that statistics course after all. Of course it might spoil your 4.0 average.

[Akhenaten]

Billions and billions of words.






You are beginning to look like Vision from an Explosion in a Dictionary Factory™, or maybe . . .



"Ford!'' he said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out.''

Douglas Adams. The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, [chapter 9] London: Pan, 1979; New York: Pocket Books, 1981

[Uncayimmy]

To me, 1 would be nothing, 2 would be insignificantly some, 3 would be there's something there but not really much, 4 is there's definitely something there, 5 is there's absolutely something there. What is 1? 1 is that there is nothing there. I was not fishing for hits. I was recording my perceptions. On the study my perceived extent of health information will be clearly noted, and if I state that something is insignificant then it can not be counted for or against what so ever.

This is another example of why I believe you are delusional or perhaps a masterful con artist trying to convince us you are. It has been repeatedly explained to you why the type of reading you did was unacceptable. I created a two-page form for you to use where you either check something or not. There's no rating things on a scale. Either it's a problem or not. There's no interpretation involved in the analysis of your accuracy.

You chose not to bring the form with you. You refused to use the form when it was offered to you. And yet you are, I hate to use this word but I will, foolish enough to proceed with a reading and try to sell it to us like it has any meaning whatsoever. How could you possibly believe this was a good idea?

By the way, you have repeatedly told us that you sense medical problems because of their "vibrational dissonance." Why are you suddenly describing things that are not medical problems? Why would you sense an Adam's apple if there weren't a problem?

What's really sad is that you cannot even concede how what you're doing could be reasonably considered problematic. Further proof of your delusional nature.

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
No it is not clear that the study would succeed nor is it clear that the study would pass the claim toward the tests. We'll just have to see what happens. If the claim is falsified at the study then that's that. If the claim passes the study then if it is not a real paranormal ability it will be falsified at the second study or at the test, which ever comes next.
What do you imply by fail? Fail as in falsifying the paranormal claim? Well in that case I welcome that, since that would be the results of the investigation that I am moving towards and I could finally get back to other things. If you mean fail as in it won't be arranged, it has already almost fully been arranged for next weekend. What advice regarding failing the study at the mall have I been ignoring? Please state it again. *waiting with great anticipation*

Are you playing dumb? A successful test is not one that proves your abilities. Geez. What an ego.

A successful test is one that actually takes place and gives reliable results. The test with the skeptics would most likely be successful. The mall test will never even get off the ground. If it does, good luck getting people to share medical info with some strangers in the mall and stand around for 15 minutes being gawked at.

You are choosing to go down a path that will most likely not produce anything useful. You are doing despite EVERYONE else advising you to take a more reliable path.

As for your mall (or wherever) study, if you want us to have any faith in the results, name your volunteer skeptics. Ask them to register here and visit this thread. Do you even have four helpers yet?

[Akhenaten]

UncaYimmy:
No it is not clear that the study would succeed nor is it clear that the study would pass the claim toward the tests. We'll just have to see what happens. If the claim is falsified at the study then that's that. If the claim passes the study then if it is not a real paranormal ability it will be falsified at the second study or at the test, which ever comes next.


Take away the number you first thought of, divide by 3 and your answer is . . .


A herring!


What do you imply by fail?


Make a series of outlandish paranormal claims in several sceptic forums and attempt to have them accepted as anything other than delusions.



Fail as in falsifying the paranormal claim?


That would be a success, but was done ages ago. You're the only one who hasn't noticed.



Well in that case I welcome that, since that would be the results of the investigation that I am moving towards and I could finally get back to other things.


You aren't moving towards anything. You're being chased in a circle by the truth, and it's right behind you. Don't look!

You created this monster, you silly sausage. If it's interfering with other things then kill it. We'll manage.



If you mean fail as in it won't be arranged, it has already almost fully been arranged for next weekend.


No, fail as in that it won't demonstrate anything at all. I won't speculate on the reasons because you haven't had time to make them all up yet.

Also, many readers are aware that "arranged" has a different meaning for you than it does for them, and are anticipating more excuses rather than any kind of meaningful study. Success or failure here will be rated on the entertainment value you provide with said excuses.



What advice regarding failing the study at the mall have I been ignoring? Please state it again. *waiting with great anticipation*


The advice that your time would be better spent getting some psychiatric assistance than hanging out in shopping malls having visions.

[Akhenaten]

Oh, do let me.

(Assuming Vision From FeelingTM mode)

Jim, obviously, is mistaken. He might have psychiatric problems/schizotypal disorder/psychosis, too. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? And, to throw a little more pseudo outrage your way, how dare you! :D

:eusa_boohoo:


I have to deduct some points because you actually answered the question. However, the projection is masterful, while the outrage and use of smileys are nicely executed.

All things considered, a creditable performance and you are clearly in line to be the next Vision from Feeling™, should Anita be unable to continue.

That must cheer you up. :)

[Miss_Kitt]

Dear Anita:

In regards your use of my name in your website, please be certain that you only do so if you quote me correctly and in context.

On the off chance that this is a language-related issue, there is quite a bit of difference between "If she has always been correct" and "since she has always been correct". The first indicates that the truth of the following statement is undetermined; the second states that it is true.

I am quite sure I said "If", and there was a reason for it. I do not think you have any special ability, vibrational or not; and I do not want you to misrepresent me on your website or anywhere else. I did not think you might have a special ability at the time of the post in question.

Please amend your website and notify me when you have done so. You may PM me at this site with that information.

Thank you, Miss Kitt

[Akhenaten]

I've written a response to the famous #1654, VfF's response to godofpie (Jim, from FACT), but it's tl;dr so if you're not VfF and you're bored, go ahead. If you ARE VfF, please just respond with a few moties. We've both been tedious enough already.



godofpie:
Thank you Jim for posting here. I know that many of our JREF Forum members are curious about how our meetings went, since you are one of those few who have met with me in person. I feel that I need to explain as well as correct on some of your comments regarding our meeting,


You feel the need to paraphrase an eyewitness account so it makes your own account of the proceedings seem more credible. I predict it won't work, based on my ability to read future posts. Isn't that nifty?



Anita decided where she wanted to "view" Wayne and she chose a table about 10 feet from the area where the rest of us were sitting.


I am concerned that this might sound as if I was willingly avoiding to be near the other skeptics for my reading since that is not true. When it was time for me to view Wayne, everybody at the meeting started talking and it was very noisy in the location and that is the main reason why we had to find another table. At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.

"not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill" is a joke, isn't it? Good one. Ha Ha!




She sat facing Wayne at the table.


True. I am working on taking what my everyday experience has been with the perceptions, and step by step conforming the experiences to a test setting. Every scientist knows that when you are changing the parameters of an experiment, you only change one parameter at a time so that a difference in results can be ascribed to the single changed condition. That is the approach I am taking as I am changing the conditions from everyday setting to test setting, so each time when I have the chance to view a new person I am changing one thing at a time. With viewing Wayne I was able to change two parameters, one at a time, by writing down my answers and giving them to him in full at the end of the viewing rather than speaking out what I see as I see it which has been how it goes in everyday experience in the past. I wanted to ask that he is facing me to not change that parameter since I had already changed a parameter by writing down my answers. But halfway into the viewing I asked him to turn around 90 degrees so that I am facing his left side and I experienced no decline in my perceptions and can now implement this as well in all future viewings. I treated my viewing with Wayne as an opportunity to proceed with the study, so I was testing out more conditions and parameters. I very consciously and most intentionally chose not to view Wayne according to a test procedure. It was intentional to begin viewing him facing him since this was part of the study that serves to let me gradually learn more about how the perceptions work or don't work.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.

The bolded text is not in accord with this, from Post #1611:

No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire and neither did he.




They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.


Unfortunately this statement requires some additional information. When it was finally time for me to view Wayne, several or all of the other skeptics commenced into very loud conversation. The noise level was very bad and I had to move further away from them to even hear myself think. Everyone started talking and ignored the fact that I was going to attempt my paranormal claim and for the first time in the presence of other people. I didn't want to be rude by asking everyone to be quiet, so I chose a location further away for me and Wayne.

Yes I did speak to Wayne. I did not speak with him during the meeting itself. Once he announced that he wanted to volunteer to let me view him I told him that I would love to. He told me that he had written down his health conditions on a piece of paper and that this paper was with another member of the skeptics group. I was thinking out loud about where we should sit and I chose a table and told him where I would like him to sit.

I told him that the location was very loud and noisy, that it was cold, and that these distractions would not take place during the study that I am planning or a test, but I said that I would do my best anyway.

I then spoke to him to explain what is going to happen, while Wayne did not say anything to me. I told him that all I do is look at him and that we will not be speaking at all during the viewing. I told him that this is the first time I am writing down my perceptions rather than to tell the person right away as I see the perceptions. I told him that he will not be able to see my notes.

About halfway into the viewing, I spoke to Wayne and I said, "notice how when I am viewing you I do not look directly at the part of the body I am forming images of, but I tend to look away to your side, or to look away to not see you at all, or I close my eyes, to form the images" - Wayne said nothing about that. I told him this since I thought that as a skeptic he was interested in how I do this. I then told Wayne that him looking at me was distracting my work and I asked him to turn around so that I was facing his left side, he again said nothing and turned around.

Once I decided that I was done viewing, I made sure that I would not be writing any more on my pages and I asked him if he would like me to read the results to him, so I read it to him and explained one thing after the other. So at that point we were discussing the results, but all of my answers were already written down and from how it was written down I was not able to use any of what was said to help "shape" my answers, nor would I have wanted to do such a thing. I told him that I find absolutely nothing wrong with his health, and that that was my conclusion. He said that he had written down one thing on the paper. I then asked him to write it down in my notebook along with other, similarly difficult to identify, ailments that he doesn't have, so that I could see if I could detect it once it was on a list, but I told him that if I got it right it would not be evidence of anything but I was curious. I treated this like a learning experience more so than a test, even though I was open to welcoming inaccurate perceptions as evidence giving reason to terminate this investigation. I did not detect him as having any of the ailments he wrote down. I then asked him which one it was, he told me and I said that I still couldn't detect it once I knew what was there for me to find. At one point I also told him that his jacket was thicker material than what I am used to, he said he could take it off, I said that he didn't have to.

After the viewing I told him that I was pleased that even though my logical mind was expecting a long list of health problems, my mind had not invented any medical perceptions that he does not have and that my description of him as very healthy correlated with his description of himself as very healthy, but I said that this was not evidence toward anything, only that I had once again failed to falsify the paranormal claim.

Before Wayne left I made sure to ask him whether he had any lasting discomforts or sensation after the diaphragm injury, and he said that he didn't. I asked if he could feel any lasting sensation after the injury what so ever, and he said no, that it had healed perfectly. And before he left I thanked him for volunteering.

That is all that I can remember having been said between me and Wayne before, during, and after the viewing. Of course I spoke to him, but Wayne behaved as a very good skeptic by not speaking with me more than necessary. What I meant by "not speaking", was "not speaking during the viewing". The upcoming study will ensure that no speaking at all takes place between me and volunteers, it is designed that way.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.

You said there was no talking. There was. The witness was correct. You were not.



After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success.


I'm glad it took only 15 minutes. Once I had begun viewing Wayne I realized that I had not recorded the time (I did not have a watch on me), but I thought that it was ok for now but I would be sure not to forget in the future. I am curious to find out how long it takes for me to view a person. Once I had finished, Dr. Carlson came to our table and asked how it had went. I said that I had detected no health problems. The only noteworthy things had been something in the throat, which I had figured out was the adam's apple and had written down that it was a "2" on a scale of 1-5, Dr. Carlson confirmed with me that 5 was the biggest and it was. I said that it was insignificantly minor and that I would not have reported it as an answer. Also that the left shoulder was slightly tired, but that again it was insignificant and was not an answer. I said that I detected not a single health problem, and that Wayne had reported that he has no health problems. I told Dr. Carlson about the past diaphragm injury, and that I had not detected this. I said that I had once again failed to dismiss the hypothesis and that I could still proceed toward the study.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.

Apart from having "15 minutes" in it, your response up to this point has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you're responding to. Nothing.


I then walked over to the table and told Jim that I was successful, meaning that I had not failed. I think the way I told this was that I had not made any incorrect perceptions and that therefore I could proceed toward the study.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.



She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza.


I jokingly said to Jim, "Can I have my million dollars now?", I then jokingly said, "I'll just take my prize in free pizza".


Thank you. This vital correction puts the entire proposition of Vision from Feeling™ in a new light.




What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery.


Speaking between me and the volunteers will not be available at the upcoming study. This was not quite on the level of the upcoming study in refinement, and you can see above what was actually said between me and Wayne. I apologize that I spoke with him, in case it "ruins" some of this particular experience from skeptics' point of view, but from my point of view I did good since I learned new things: 1) I can write down instead of speak my answers, 2) The volunteer can turn away instead of be facing me, 3) I once again noticed for myself that I do not look at the part of the body that I am forming images of, 4) My perceptions are not based on my logical expectations, 5) I did not make any incorrect perceptions and again failed to dismiss the paranormal claim and can proceed toward a study.


The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.

I struck out the word you accidentally typed into your 5th point.


I have never claimed to detect everything or in every case. When I do make claimed perceptions, then those are open to be checked for accuracy. Had I for instance said that he has a heart problem, or that he doesn't exercise, I would have received two incorrect points right there. This man happened to be in excellent health, and his only ailment is a past injury that has healed perfectly. Let's just see what happens when I view persons with health problems, alright?


Count hits, dismiss misses. We know already. You've been doing it since the cereal tests, since Sweden and since Arcturus for all I know.




It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about.

@ Jim.

Welcome to the trip.


Vision from Feeling, Jim. There was nothing for me to feel with respect to the past diaphragm injury. In the case of the heart bypass surgery, I was allowed to see the scar after I had announced my perception and it was a very large and wide scar, and I detected it by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue where cartilagenous tissue should not be. Maybe this particular diaphragm scar was different? Let's just see what happens next time when I do claim to perceive a scar.


Jim's guess sounds more reasonable than your post hoc explanation. I would have left it alone if I were you.




She mentioned that when she was young and experimenting with crystals, she could tell which crystal she was holding by its Vibrational™ information and that she got so good that she didn't even need to be holding the crystal to tell which one was nearby.


@ Jim.

It gets better, trust me.


One of the new members asked me when I had my first perceptions, and that is why I brought up the story about the crystals being the first.


OK. How is that not more-or-less what Jim said?



I pointed out that this would be much easier to test for


Then I said that I brought my crystals with me from Sweden and I haven't seen them in three years and that I think it's time to take them out and see if I could put together a simpler test with them.


Do you think you're going to get away with claiming that this just occured to you? Simpler tests, including tests with your crystals, have been suggested throughout this thread. The ones you attempted early either demonstrated failure of any ability or were abandoned by you as soon as failures became apparent. Since then any suggestions of a simpler test have brought on a hissy fit, where you squawk loudly that "It's not my main claim!"

The notable exception is Pup's Test, which you have now also failed, owing to the time which has elapsed since you received the samples. You were warned that a significant delay would cast doubts on any result.




she started back pedaling.


I did no such thing. I said that I should take the crystals out and check it out. What on earth.


Where two people make subjective statements that contradict each other, the credibility of the people concerned becomes important. How do you think you'll go?




Anita, if you are to maintain any level of credibility with skeptics you must refrain from making claims like that and then backing away from them.


First of all, the crystals are not my claim. I was merely answering a question about how these perceptions first started. And I was the one who suggested to try such a test on my own to see whether I could form a claim based on that. And I wasn't even backing away from anything. I really wasn't.


Here we go again. To be fair, you don't always back out of things; sometimes you go sideways.




Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson (...)


I do not have a drivers licence or a car and the only reason I brought someone with me was because I needed someone to take me there. I apologize if another person who does not represent me as a person nor my thoughts said some inappropriate things at the meeting. Personally I would not discuss ghosts with Dr. Carlson. He is a physicist and I can think of plenty other interesting topics to speak about when I have the chance to speak with him. Quantum physics for instance. When I had the chance to speak with Dr. Carlson at the meeting what I asked him about was what classes he teaches and I wanted to know more about them. Please judge me based on what I say. I will take the bus next time. That's not safe so late in the evenings.


Apparently this waffle is the result of you not understanding that "Chris (?)" simply indicates that Jim was unsure of the name. Are these degrees you're doing taught in English, or in a language that you understand?




At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College is an all girls school. Her friend was very excited by this and says that there is no other way she could have known this information because she has never been to Winston and knows nothing about this area.


I did perceive these things when we drove through Old Salem. I spoke to Mrs. Carpenter from the 1700s, I think she was a teacher at the bible college, and I spoke to a woman who studied the bible at that school in the 1770s.


You didn't perceive anything. It appears that you met and spoke with an actor, as Jim states:



For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job.


There was no such thing there when we drove by. Maybe next time there will be, I would like that so that I can see if these actors got the clothes right based on what I saw that the women actually wore back then.


This is irrational. You are irrational.




They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show.



True. We are going to visit allegedly haunted sites and video record our visits. My role will of course be the psychic and I will see what comes up when I communicate with my perceptions of these people of the past. Our investigations will be made available over the internet. It is just for fun and entertainment and does not represent any kind of scientific investigation. I do have a life besides my studies and work or even this paranormal investigation into my medical perceptions, and this happens to be one of the things I do. I also go to the gym and like the old episodes of Star Trek. I like frogs and insects and I collect CareBearsTM. What does that do to my credibility, I wonder?

As I mentioned in an earlier post:

Former Credibility/Current Credibility

Error: Divide by Zero. Please Reboot.




For the record, I am not opposed to FACT being involved with Anita and her activities but it must be known that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We presuppose nothing. I personally do not believe in ghosts, paranormal entities (evil, scratching, or otherwise) the lochness monster, or bigfoot, but I am willing to look at evidence and be proven wrong.

Jim, I am only involved with the FACT group regarding my investigation into the medical perceptions that I have. I will not involve any other unconventional discussions into our group. I did mention my experience with the women at the Old Salem bible school to one of the FACT members who is a retired Anthropologist, because I described how I perceived that the lifestyle back then in Old Salem was based on extreme discipline and prudeness and I asked him what from an anthropological point of view would be the practical reasons for such a way of life?


Jim has actually moved on from Salem, and is passing on a POV to members of this forum, as an aid to further communication between us. You, however, continue to flog a dead unicorn.



As far as Anita's study at the mall is concerned-
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.


Yes Dr. Carlson suggested this. I said that I am preparing forms for the study that are better than UncaYimmy's since mine will include additional ailments as well as a means of reporting on the extent of ailments and not just what they are. I said that the skeptics will be very valuable as volunteers (since they are skeptics) and that I would rather wait until my forms are ready so that we can take the most advantage of them being volunteers. I was pleased with viewing Wayne though, to at least get started right away. But I wanted to save the other skeptics for later. I apologize if some don't agree with my choice of wanting to make the most out of the skeptics as volunteers, as my forms are not ready. I said that I would love to view the skeptics and some of their acquaintances. I also said that I will have the study at the mall as well. I want to do both, guys!


I think you have a Perception that the Sceptic Volunteers from FACT are willing to become your personal entourage, performing whatever hare-brained tasks you assign to them.

I also think you'll be disappointed when this doesn't happen, and that FACT will be blamed, by you alone, for delaying your ridiculous study.


There are now 6 skeptics from the FACT group who have expressed definite interest in participating in the study on the weekend of January 31 and February 1. And yes I am making the arrangements.

I suspect that "definite interest" may become something else when the details of the study are made known to the volunteers.

The paragraph quoted above was directed at us anyway, wasn't it? So why is it tucked away in an alleged response to Jim.




Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand.


In fact I insisted that Dr. Carlson look over the paperwork of the study before they are put to use. I trust his judgement and I value his opinions.


Are you so desperate to drop names that you're incapable of a straight answer. The bolded bits above would match if this were an honest response.

In any case, either scenario is likely to have the same result, which you apparently can't predict as well as I think I can. "No study just yet" is my most polite and optimistic spin on it.




I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.


My forms will be much better. The FACT skeptics will be the most valuable volunteers that I can ever find, and that is why I want to save them for when my own forms are available, since my forms will contain more information and that way we can learn more from it then. However I was happy to make a compromise by viewing Wayne.

I forget, and can't be bothered checking the chronology here, but this is either a dummy-spit because UncaYimmy was a meanie or a deliberate evasion because you knew that UncaYimmy's test would expose your fakery. Or both?

Why wouldn't UncaYimmy's test have served as a compromise when viewing Wayne?


I chose not to use UncaYimmy's forms with Wayne since Wayne had already written down in text what his ailments were, so I thought I might as well do it my way too by writing down all that I see. Since we would not be matching forms between claimant and volunteer, my own notes would be better than my answers on a form.


Well, that was a quick answer. It's complete rubbish and totally unbelievable, but it was quick.



Thank you Jim and the other skeptics of FACT for your assistance in my investigation. I assure you that I am not trying to be a complicated paranormal claimant, although my claim itself is not as straightforward yet as we would like. I conducted my viewing with Wayne perfectly according to the manner in which I had carefully intended in order to advance in what I call the StudyTM. I made progress and learned from my experience with Wayne, and have again failed to falsify my paranormal hypothesis.

I apologize for commenting on your post in such a way but I had to clarify on things. After all we want to avoid misunderstandings.


Avoid misunderstandings? I'm glad it's not my place to respond to this bit, but I hope Jim does.


The point I hoped to make was that we now have three different versions of the meeting with FACT on 22 January, including two different versions provided by VfF.

I have little doubt there'll be another for me to critique eventually.

[LONGTABBER PE]

LONGTABBER PE:
In what way was my post #1670 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377677&postcount=1670) a representation of woo? Please do tell. *waiting with great anticipation*

Pretty simple. I dont have great interest in these subjects so dont say much but do read them as I have followed this debacle of yours from the beginning.

I dont know your motivation ( or really care) for coming here with your grand pronouncements and heaping amounts of wordy "nothing" but you and your "study" is nothing more than a self indulgent, attention ho-ish attempt to draw attention to yourself for reasons yet to be known and really irelevant.

Your actions and deflections are deliberate and calculated. You know exactly what you are doing with deliberate intent to fuel whatever motivation that brought you here.

You are a fraud and you know you are. A person who truly "believes" they have "the power" will rush in and prove it to everyone. You are ducking,weaving, talking in circles,evading and basically wasting time for some experiment that could be designed and executed in 15 minutes.

[Akhenaten]

Hey! I never noticed this thread before. I wonder why VfF didn't persist with it.


Vision from Feeling thread @ UK Skeptiks (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3278)


Hi Ocelot *cheery wave* and apologies if this was posted earlier and I missed it.

[desertgal]

desertgal:

Exactly. It's all delusional nonsense, back pedaling, hallucinations, flights of fancy, evasions, attention seeking, and outright lies.
Not at all.

Completely.

desertgal:
I see no reason in replying to you.

That's okay, I haven't really been talking TO you in the first place.

You misinterpret everything I say, and your comments are not trustworthy.

Uh-huh. Coming from the Queen of Delusional Liars, that means nothing.

But, interestingly enough, that isn't what the student conduct and counseling centers at your university say. This isn't a game, Anita. If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice. Electing to dispense erroneous information to people about their medical and mental health is something else altogether-and it IS totally erroneous, since your alleged ability is nothing more than delusions. It is completely unethical-and there are ethical standards every student must adhere to. As well, universities don't take mental instability lightly. It is my sincere hope that an intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. As I said before, whether you believe your claims, or this is all just a scam-a hard dose of reality won't hurt you.

(Don't worry, mods, I made it very clear that I do not represent the JREF in any way, shape, or form.)

There is no evidence of delusions.

There is every evidence of delusions.

My perceptions of all forms have consistently appeared to correlate to actual real world information.

Utter nonsense.

[Pup]

Hokulele:
Not true! I did not make an incorrect perception with Wayne. I wrote that I sensed a tired shoulder and that it was a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most) which was too insignificant to note as an answer. If he had said something about his shoulder I would have said that I was wrong because I wrote that it was insignificant. I stated that it was insignificant in my notes and I stated that it was insignificant before it was shown that he did not feel a tired shoulder. You are misinterpreting. I was simply recording my perceptions, even the ones of insignificant information, and those that were weak I recorded that they were weak and insignificant, ie. not to be counted for or against. I mean for goodness sake, I recorded that I felt the man's adam's apple!

While one can say that the claim has always been "When I see something, it's right, but if I don't see something it doesn't count," with Wayne, we have an excellent documented example of a perception that was wrong.

You noted his shoulder as a two out of five. People do have low-level aches and pains that they barely notice--my right shoulder is probably a two out of five right now because I was planing wood yesterday. But apparently, there was nothing wrong with his shoulder. You sensed something that wasn't there, not even at a low level.

And the adam's apple is even worse. You've made a big deal about the fact that you only notice things which are out of place or cause current problems, which is why you didn't notice the healed diaphragm. Well, folks don't go around "feeling" their normal adam's apples, so the fact that you "felt" it even though it was normal is another miss.

It's more obvious to everyone else, who doesn't have anything emotional invested in this, that you're stretching to try to keep the possibility of paranormal abilities alive.

I know it may seem frustrating to have a bunch of people say, "well, no paranormal abilities here," and metaphorically shrug and walk away, while you're still left with the same puzzling sensory experiences. But that's just the way it is.

[Akhenaten]

This is another example of why I believe you are delusional or perhaps a masterful con artist trying to convince us you are.

<snipped valid stuff to mantain focus>




My apologies for being all over the place in the chronology of my replies.

The bolded bit above jumped out at me when I re-re-re-reviewed the last few days of the thread.

VfV does indeed appear sometimes to be trying to convince us she's delusional, but IRL she isn't. I'm at a loss to even guess why someone would do that.


Cheers

[Skeptical Greg]

Pup mentioned this, but I want to emphasize it.

No, I claim that I felt something in his throat, and that I figured out that it was the adam's apple and that this is not something wrong.You have always insisted you only sense things that are abnormal, out of the ordinary & etc..

Busted!! ( ....again )

Who wants to guess how she will wiggle out of this ?

[Moochie]

I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.

Anyone who was there know why this happened? Perhaps they did not trust that Wayne (whom they'd never met before) was not a shill. Perhaps VfF did something to alienate everyone, maybe her friend did. Maybe they were just starving. She portrays herself as a victim of their lack of interest. This is not surprising, but GodofPie seems to agree that there was a lack of interest (the victim part is something else entirely).

If I'd been there, I think I'd have been right at that table with VfF and Wayne watching everyone's smallest move. I think. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, so something must have happened to make everyone so uninterested.

I dunno.....

Ward

P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is being deliberately deceitful here. I just think there's a missing piece to the story.

Yeah, I have the uncanny feeling of a poorly written script. Have done so since the beginning.


M.

[skeen]

The only difference between Anita, and The Professor is that she writes better. She may very well be a good student, but that doesn't mean she's learning anything.

[desertgal]

I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.

Anyone who was there know why this happened? Perhaps they did not trust that Wayne (whom they'd never met before) was not a shill. Perhaps VfF did something to alienate everyone, maybe her friend did. Maybe they were just starving. She portrays herself as a victim of their lack of interest. This is not surprising, but GodofPie seems to agree that there was a lack of interest (the victim part is something else entirely).

If I'd been there, I think I'd have been right at that table with VfF and Wayne watching everyone's smallest move. I think. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, so something must have happened to make everyone so uninterested.

I dunno.....

Ward

P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is being deliberately deceitful here. I just think there's a missing piece to the story.

Maybe the skeptics who were present have been following this thread? Jim and Dr. Carlson have both posted here...it's possible that they, and others, have been periodically keeping up with all of Anita's delusions, fantasies, backpedaling, evasions, selective responses, etc.

[Ashles]

Okay Anita, lets clear somthing up here:

The only noteworthy things had been something in the throat, which I had figured out was the adam's apple and had written down that it was a "2" on a scale of 1-5, Dr. Carlson confirmed with me that 5 was the biggest and it was. I said that it was insignificantly minor and that I would not have reported it as an answer.
Firstly this scale has got to go. It is useless.
It is solely designed as a way to write down readings so that if they are a hit you can count them, if they are a miss they were to weak to be counted.
UncaYimmy's form is the right way to go. Yes or no.
If it is too weak to be reported as an answer... don't report it as an answer.

Also it's not even just 1 on the scale that is to be ignored - it's 2 as well. That would be a confidence level of between 20-40%. That is not insignificant.
Two fifths of your scale (that's nearly half!) allows you to record things as answers but if they are wrong they are not answers?
No way.
No test will ever permit that Anita.
If you want to record a scale of your own, fine, but decide what the "not really an answer" point is and only record things higher than that. So if you write down something as 2 or 1 then don't even bother telling anyone about it. You know, since it's not really an answer.

Also this "study" is again ridiculous because you never tell anyone what the purpose or protocol of any test is before testing. You change whatever you fancy at any given moment.
You say you won't talk to the subject, then it changes to you won't talk to them during testing, then it changes to you won't talk to them during testing except to explain to them what you are doing since you reckon they might be interested!
You say you are trying to control for specific elements but you don't do this in a scientific way. Just haphazardly.
In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?
A mess from beginning to end.


Now let's get to the important part.

On your site you write:

The information I receive becomes increasingly detailed and specific as my ability enhances over time. Sometimes what I find is so specific that I first hesitate to tell the person about it. Of course I worry about ever making a mistake, but even though some of my observations are extremely specific,
I have not been incorrect a single time!

So, the information is specific, your ability enhances over time and you "have not been incorrect a single time!"

Well let's see:
Also that the left shoulder was slightly tired, but that again it was insignificant and was not an answer.
If you mentioned it as a perception, it WAS an answer. You had an actual perception.

Let's go over to your account on your website:
I write, "brain fine", "left shoulder tired", but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention, since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor.
Firstly you DID mention it. It's simply stupid to say you would never mention it when you actually did.
(And we all know full well that had Wayne declared a shoulder injury you would have counted it as a hit. A giant one.)

But that aside let's look at the statement in detail-
Here you describe it as an ailment. You are actually describing an "ailment" and the extent of that ailment.
You say you "knew that this was tremendously minor". You don't say there might have been nothing there. You don't say that you may have been mistaken. You write that it is an "ailment" and it is "tremendously minor"

Also there is this, from your website:
I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment".
You perceived something. You write quite clearly - "I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat". This was incorrect.

And when talking about the throat miss on this thread you raised the scale issue. But... You didn't even rate the perception as a 1 on your own scale, you rated it as a 2. That's not even the weakest perception on your scale.
I know you were trying to hedge your bets with this scale but by picking a 2 it has backfired. A 1 might have stood a very vague chance of being argued (although it shouldn't have been). But a 2? Nope.
You had a perception, albeit weak, it was wrong.
A real scientist would have accepted this result and used it to further their knowledge. It doesn't mean there is no ability, just that it isn't as flawless as you want to believe. That's not an issue. A mistake doesn't disprove the ability. Eyesight isn't perfect - but just because someone wears glasses doesn't mean they don't still have the power of eyesight.
Your obsession with it being faultless is now causing you real problems.

And I really cannot fathom the business about the adam's apple other than the weakest attempt to rationalise a failure away so far.
You could write that about anywhere in the body.
"I detect slight discomfort in your hip. What's that? You don't have any health problems with your hip? Ah I must have been detecting your hip joint there."
Ridiculous.

I told Dr. Carlson about the past diaphragm injury, and that I had not detected this. I said that I had once again failed to dismiss the hypothesis and that I could still proceed toward the study.
This is something you should really have described as a miss (as, you know, real scientists would), but since by your weird protocol design you could see someone with no arms, no legs and a bolt through their head, detect nothing wrong and still consider that no evidence against your 'ability' then it's entirely irrelevent.
Your whole claim now revolves entirely around when you actually make positive diagnoses (and those have sure decreased in frequency).

So to sum up.

All of these quotes are from Anita (bolding mine)
The information I receive becomes increasingly detailed and specific as my ability enhances over time. Sometimes what I find is so specific that I first hesitate to tell the person about it. Of course I worry about ever making a mistake, but even though some of my observations are extremely specific,
I have not been incorrect a single time!

I write, "brain fine", "left shoulder tired"... since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor.
I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment".
Turns out, there was nothing wrong with him. He reports being in excellent health.

Even ignoring the missed diaphragm scar it is clearly time to update the website:

In testing I have been incorrect in two instances so far!

I look forward to seeing you attempt to wriggle out of that.

Obviously I know exactly what you will post (It was a 2! I don't count 2s or 1s even though I record them! I didn't really count it as an ailment although I mentioned it as an ailment! I wouldn't have mentioned it at all, although I did mention it! It wasn't really an answer although I wrote it down as an answer!) but since you have loads of time on your hands and no interest in ever posting the details of your survey then you might as well write more content-free posts.

To be honest even cold reading is off the table as an option now.

(By the way, I have absolutely no intention of providing you my e-mail address, as you would have known - but since you clearly have your notes electronically, you could, of course, easily add them as an extra page on your website. You don't even have to link to it from the main page - just add an extra page and provide us the URL. I look forward to hearing why you won't be able to do that either).)

[Old man]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe
I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.

Anyone who was there know why this happened? Perhaps they did not trust that Wayne (whom they'd never met before) was not a shill. Perhaps VfF did something to alienate everyone, maybe her friend did. Maybe they were just starving. She portrays herself as a victim of their lack of interest. This is not surprising, but GodofPie seems to agree that there was a lack of interest (the victim part is something else entirely).

If I'd been there, I think I'd have been right at that table with VfF and Wayne watching everyone's smallest move. I think. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, so something must have happened to make everyone so uninterested.

I dunno.....

Ward

P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is being deliberately deceitful here. I just think there's a missing piece to the story. Maybe the skeptics who were present have been following this thread? Jim and Dr. Carlson have both posted here...it's possible that they, and others, have been periodically keeping up with all of Anita's delusions, fantasies, backpedaling, evasions, selective responses, etc.Well, I got the distinct impression that Anita wanted a little 'privacy' for her 'reading', so it's not implausible that the other members tried to not disturb her during that time.

[Old man]

To be honest even cold reading is off the table as an option now... I thought that throwing large numbers of vague, open to interpretation comments was a classic cold reading technique?

[desertgal]

Well, I got the distinct impression that Anita wanted a little 'privacy' for her 'reading', so it's not implausible that the other members tried to not disturb her during that time.

In her oft referred to #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) post, she says, quite clearly:
At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.

I'm not sure how that indicates that she wanted privacy?

[Belz...]

If I had said this I'd been called a delusional liar again.

You might want to look into the WHY.

If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

Actually you've demonstrated time and again that you DO mind.

[Belz...]

My perceptions of all forms have consistently appeared to correlate to actual real world information.

Of course. All perceptions correlate to reality when one fails to test them properly. You can retro-fit anything into reality when you really want to.

[skeen]

Anita is immune to logic. Arguing her points is an exercise in futility. She needs psychiatric help.

[Ashles]

By the way, just stumbled across this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304551&postcount=904) from a previous post:
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.
So the back-view thing actually wasn't as decided as this post may have lead us to believe?
Why all the turning to the side business in the 'study'? This is the problem. Anita claims to be trying to iron out details in the 'study' but she never tells us what details until afterwards.
And it seems this time she was trying to iron out a detail she thought wasn't an issue nearly a month before!

And the videoing? Is that no longer an option?

Onto my main post:
(I still can't figure out the nested quote thing. Thought I had it that time.)


Me: "Anita makes many unverified claims."
I have made one paranormal claim: accurate medical perceptions from people I see in person, where ordinary senses of perception and cold reading should not be available.
No you have made many paranormal claims:
I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms...
I also feel things. I feel texture, density, temperature, and more, and I can feel the pain and discomforts that others have...
My ability does not only give vision. The same vibration that is translated into visual information also reveals details of temperature variations in the body, pressure for instance from blood pushing against blood vessel walls, weight of structures which can be translated into an understanding of "amount", and sometimes even taste and scent...
I can understand the purpose of shapes and structure on larger scale such as bones and also on smaller scale as chemicals. I can read where things are headed in a transportation chain and how changes in the body will unfold. I detect many of what I call "precursors" for diseases that can be present before the problem has become severe enough to be considered an illness, such as breast cancer precursors, and the very common diabetes precursor...
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. It wasn't long after that when I suddenly was surprised to sense a similar category of vision and feeling around one of our houseplants. And later, in oranges at the store...
A fun game of mine is telepathy: I have a friend to whom I will send a telepathic image. I will give him the category, my favorite category is animals. I will construct a clear image in my mind and send it to him. Animals have shape and size, but so much more. The texture of their skin, the feathers, or the fur, or the scales of fish or reptiles. I strengthen the image by adding a lot of feeling into it. The friend will then describe the animal and (unless either of us becomes tired) we are almost always correct...
I sense the bodies and health of animals, plants, and other organisms as well. Including bacteria...
I can clearly see Helicobacter pylori, which is the bacteria that can cause stomach ulcers...I sense information about foods...
I can taste a food just by looking at it...

Those are just from your website. Also on this thread there have been various chemical claims... the sensing marijuana from seeing a photo of it claim... and sensing health conditions of clebrities from... TV and pictures?
You probably can't keep track of all your claims yourself. I understand that. How lucky you have us to help you.

Of all these claims (and yes making different claims mean there is more than one claim... I know you haven't studied statistics yet but still...) you are choosing to test one (well sorta), but you have made many different claims. Oh they may be claimed to be all part of one uber ability, but the claims themselves are very distinct and different.
You have yourself stated that the medical identification is simply the claim you think is strongest.


Me: "Anita offers to formally test one of those claims, some sort of medical diagnosis. The specifics of the medical claim are never explained in a tightly defined way. "
The study works to make the claim more specific.
You applied for testing with the IIG over a year ago. You claim to have had this ability in varying degrees for over 12 years! Why can you still not describe what you claim to be able to do, to what level of ability and in what circumstances?


ME: "She declines to formally test any of the other claimed abilities formally even though they would all be better to test."
From my perspective they are not better to test. Their perceptions occur too infrequently.
(I thought you said there was only one claim? :))
The other claims are better to test because the testing can be FAR more easily controlled and FAR more easily set up.
The ability does not have to be perfect, it only has to performe above chance.
If you can detect these things above chance then a test can be designed that would be far better than the mess of the 'study'.
If you cannot detect these things above chance... what on earth makes you think you have the ability to do so?

ME: "She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.
It fails."
I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.
You actually made an attempt to do so with UncaYimmy. :confused:
Why try if it's not something you think you can do?
You have also said you can detect health information of celebrities. Presumably from pictures and TV.
You have also claimed to be able to detect information from a scanning electron microscope picture.

ME: "She attempts a chemical identification test via video.
It fails."
I've never claimed chemical identification over the internet.
Well you said in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4261425&postcount=326):
We can try chemical identification again over webcam
You obviously thought it was a possibility.
And again what about the celebrity claim?

ME: "She conducts a 'survey' at the mall.
She does not even speak of this again, claiming only that the details will be revealed 'eventually'."
Give me your mailing address and I will send you photocopies of my notes from the survey immediately. I haven't had the time to type up the notes.
I won't give my email address out to a complete stranger on the internet.
If you have them electronically (as you must do or be able to easily get if you are happy to email them to me) then simply add a page to your website with the scans on. You don't need to link from the main page, just post the URL of that page.
I'm curious as to why you are going to be unable to do that. But almost psychically I feel you won't.

ME: "She vists a skeptic group. She tries to get health information from a subject. She instantly breaches the test protocol she had described by talking to the subect, something she had claimed repeatedly she would not do in testing.
But ayway again she fails."
I made no incorrect perceptions and so I did not fail this.
You clearly made two incorrect perceptions that are indisputable (see above).
And I notice you don't address the issue of breaching the test protocol by talking.

ME: "She also claims amazing ability to identify crystals (as she has elsewhere). Testing is again suggested.
She declines."
I did not "claim" it. I was describing how my perceptions started when I was asked. I suggested testing it. I did not decline testing it. #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654)
Well it appears we shall have to shoose to believe your account or Jim's. Hmmm... tricky...
Anyway it still doesn't really address why you couldn't simply perform the crystal test.

ME: "We now have MUCH more information regarding this claim to form a conclusion from than we did at the start. And it's all pointing one way."
Please do share with me what MUCH more information we have regarding my claim of medical perceptions. I don't think there's been that much yet.
The failed internet picture test. The failed internet video chemical identification test. The 'survey' that never had details revealed. The 'study' that missed the single large identifiable medical symptom, and incorrectly identified two positives. The pill test that you could not carry out. The continuing refusal to adopt proper scientific testing....
That kind of thing?

ME: "Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself.""
I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed. :confused:
No you can say you were fooling yourself if you do not perform above chance.
You won't because you don't understand scientific testing, the null hypothesis, confirmation bias... etc
Your criteria for not having the ability is different to what real scientists would define ut as.
Also I have no doubt your criteria would change further if ever actually met.

The lack of experience is what's bugging you guys.
Don't really understand that.
The failure to examine your own claim critically or scientifically in any way whatsoever is what is a little tedious.

ME: "It's getting a bit tricky now for Anita to claim success when other people are involved."
Nope. I am in fact happier to claim success when skeptics can witness when it happens. It makes things much easier.
Let us know if that ever happens.

ME: "So... what's next?"
The study.
So some form of outing in which random protocols will be made up and discarded on the spur of the moment?
I assume the videoing will not happen.

And if you do nothing else, ditch The ScaleTM unless you are prepared for any perceptions recorded to be judged as relevant and offered for analysis.
If they are too weak to count as a 'real answer' do not bother recording them. That is the choice. You cannot have it both ways.

[paperskater]

Okay, just a quick question for the more experienced skeptics here from an inexperienced budding skeptic! I want to throw this out there just to see if I can make a good comparison/analogy.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or if I have misunderstood. I've been following this from the beginning, but my eyes have tended to glaze over at times.

Anita says that things that she does not detect should not count against her, right? Even if there is something there, if she doesn't detect it, it shouldn't count as a miss. All of the skeptics here are saying that if she fails to detect something, it counts as a miss. Anita seems to be railing against this and doesn't seem to understand why this is a problem and why we must count the "failures to detect" as a miss.

What if we put it this way, in a context that Anita could relate to since she's in school? Say you're taking an exam for a class. It's a 20-question true or false exam.

Let's pretend the following are the correct answers for the exam:

1. True
2. True
3. False
4. True
5. False
6. False
7. False
8. True
9. False
10. True
11. True
12. False
13. True
14. False
15. False
16. True
17. True
18. True
19. False
20. False

My exam sheet looks like this (RED indicates that I got an answer wrong):

1. True
2. False
3. True
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. False
9. True
10. False
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. True
16. True
17. False
18. False
19. False
20. False

So, I got 10 out of 20 questions wrong. This would be graded as a 50% or a failing grade in most classrooms. But, what if I just didn't answer the questions that I didn't know and just left them blank?

1. True
2. -- blank --
3. -- blank --
4. True
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. -- blank --
9. -- blank --
10. -- blank --
11. True
12. False
13. False
14. False
15. -- blank --
16. True
17. False
18. -- blank --
19. False
20. False

By conventional grading terms, I'd still get points docked off for the questions I left blank and still get a 50% grade for this exam.

But by Anita's terms, the teacher should exclude the questions I left blank since I technically didn't get it right or wrong. In my second example, I left 7 questions blank and those should not count against me. So, subtract 7 from 20 original questions, leaving me with 13 questions that I did answer and I got 3 wrong out of those. By Anita's terms, I should get a 77% grade on the exam, WAY different from the previous grade.

Am I interpreting this correctly and is this an acceptable analogy? Hopefully if it is, it will help Anita understand why "failure to detect" is a miss.

[Ashles]

I thought that throwing large numbers of vague, open to interpretation comments was a classic cold reading technique?
I meant with regard to all the amazing stories we had heard about previously.
I'm only counting cold reading as an applicable technique if the reader actually gets some information out of it. It doesn't seem like Anita actually does get any useful information at all.
I think Anita was getting to quite like the alternate possibility of potentially being a brilliant cold reader. But it appears that this option is definitely not the case.

It's like 'reading' is only 'reading' if you discern meaning from the words on the page. Otherwise it's just moving your eyes back and forth. :)

[skeen]

Yes, that's right, paperskater. Also, Anita's "hits" are just obvious things. Like, "there's nothing wrong with your brain". Erm, okay. I could do that all day. It's not impressive. And sure, there's a possibility she could have been wrong, but it wouldn't be very high.

If you play it safe, you can get 100% right every time.

As I said, Anita is immune to logic. She doesn't even see why this is a problem. She doesn't even see why this would lessen her credibility. She doesn't even see how ridiculous this is. She is in her own little world.

She interprets not explicitly failing (and at the same time, not explicitly succeeding) as furthering the need for more study. She would say, "We have not dismissed no ESP ability". But this lends nothing to the possibility that she has it. The possibility is still zero.

At that point, you have failed. Your test has yielded no useful results. The test is a failure. But not in her mind. In her mind, it's actually a form of success! Truly fascinating from a psychological point of view.

[Ashles]

Am I interpreting this correctly and is this an acceptable analogy? Hopefully if it is, it will help Anita understand why "failure to detect" is a miss.
A good analogy but with some tweaking I think it sums up the study very well.

Judging by the recent study this would be Anita's actual results:

1. --blank--
2. --blank--
3. --blank--
4. --blank--
5. --blank--
6. --blank--
7. --blank--
8. False
9. --blank--
10. --blank--
11. --blank--
12. --blank--
13. --blank--
14. True (but I only feel that 2 on a scale of 2 to 5)
15. True (but I only feel that 2 on a scale of 2 to 5)
16. --blank--
17. --blank--
18. --blank--
19. --blank--
20. --blank--


8. Is clearly wrong, but Anita would declare that it was only an error in which she put False instead of True and she isn't counting that type of error - only True for False errors count as her being incorrect.
14. and 15, are both incorrect and in the way she counts as incorrect, but because she only rated these answers as 'weak' answers they don't count.

Anita would judge this test as 100% successful for her.

[desertgal]

Anita says that things that she does not detect should not count against her, right? Even if there is something there, if she doesn't detect it, it shouldn't count as a miss. All of the skeptics here are saying that if she fails to detect something, it counts as a miss. Anita seems to be railing against this and doesn't seem to understand why this is a problem and why we must count the "failures to detect" as a miss.

Am I interpreting this correctly and is this an acceptable analogy? Hopefully if it is, it will help Anita understand why "failure to detect" is a miss.

Welcome, and it's a very good analogy.

Two points to clarify, though:

Anita says that if she fails to detect an existing ailment in a "non test" setting, it shouldn't be counted as a miss. It's really unclear, at this point, what the criteria for a formal test will be, and if this condition will be included, since she can't even be nailed down on the specifics of her claim.

Anita also says that if she fails to detect an ailment that she doesn't know exists, it shouldn't be counted as a miss. (Whether in an informal "survey" or "study" or a formal "test".) IOW, if the person she is gawking at suffers from spina bifida, and Anita doesn't know that spina bifida is a disease, it can't count against her. Of course, again, nailing her down on what ailments she DOES know exist and CAN detect is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

None of that, naturally, jibes with her repeated explanations of her "ability". She knows all, sees all, can detect anything wrong through vibrational dissonance-until she is put to the test/study/survey. :rolleyes:

(I think I've got that right - after 42 pages, it's hard to remember all the twists and turns.)

[Ashles]

I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.
I thought that as well. I would have thought people would want to watch, and even if they didn't have a video camera handy I would have taken at least some video of the test on my phone.
Maybe suggested they all stand in front of Anita and see if she got any particular impressions from any of them.

I don't know, maybe it just didn't come through in the descriptions. It just would be nice to see one of these tests recorded.

[Old man]

In her oft referred to #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) post, she says, quite clearly:
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.



I'm not sure how that indicates that she wanted privacy? This -
"... I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think"." It's reasonable to assume that some discussion took place concerning her environmental requirements. If I'd been there, I'd certainly have wanted to leave her to her 'reading' and spend the time waiting eating pizza and talking with my friends.

Maybe I'm just projecting what I'd have done, based on her waffling in this thread. :confused:

We certainly don't need to give her any excuses to 'reason' her way out of her failures! ;)

[Belz...]

Okay, just a quick question for the more experienced skeptics here from an inexperienced budding cute skeptic!

There. Corrected that for you. :blush:



(now if that avatar isn't you I'm going to look like a fool)

[Moochie]

I meant with regard to all the amazing stories we had heard about previously.
I'm only counting cold reading as an applicable technique if the reader actually gets some information out of it. It doesn't seem like Anita actually does get any useful information at all.
I think Anita was getting to quite like the alternate possibility of potentially being a brilliant cold reader. But it appears that this option is definitely not the case.

It's like 'reading' is only 'reading' if you discern meaning from the words on the page. Otherwise it's just moving your eyes back and forth. :)

Highlighted is the pulp fiction magazine "Anita's" stories belong in. :)


M.

[Uncayimmy]

PaperSkater -
Anita says that things that she does not detect should not count against her, right? Even if there is something there, if she doesn't detect it, it shouldn't count as a miss. All of the skeptics here are saying that if she fails to detect something, it counts as a miss. Anita seems to be railing against this and doesn't seem to understand why this is a problem and why we must count the "failures to detect" as a miss.

I've said this before, but it gets lost in all the noise:

Anita does not have a specific claim. Tens of thousands of words, but no specific, testable claim. You are talking hits and misses as if it is some sort of test. It is not a test. This is a study to help her determine what, if any, abilities she has. Repeatedly failing to detect an ailment doesn't mean she doesn't have any abilities - it just means she can't detect that ailment. Therefore, she won't be tested on that ailment should we ever arrive at an actual test.

She has no idea what she thinks she can detect. She can't be "wrong" for failing to detect something she never said she could reliably detect in the first place. You can argue what you think she "should" be able to do based on all her fantasies about subatomic vibrational information, but at best that's conjecture on your part. Her defense is easy: "I have no idea why that is. That's why I am doing the study."

Now, a reasonable person would say there isn't anything here worth even studying. Yep. But nothing is going to persuade Anita that her "apparent accuracy" from her past is meaningless. She clings to that as tightly as a mother to a baby. She claims to have read about 100 people without ever being incorrect once.

Therefore, the only thing that's going to convince Anita of anything is for her to repeatedly be wrong about the things she claims to see. No amount of reason regarding her failures to detect will affect her. You can and should bring them up, but it's really not going to do much good for her. It's fun for the rest of us, though.

[desertgal]

Asm:
Your post proves that you guys don't actually care about what I really think and feel about my paranormal claim or -experiences. All you believe is only based on your preconceived ideas about what a paranormal claimant would think.

Well, let's look at Garrette's famous "Mayday" list:

1. Delusional claim.

2. Seemingly reasonable request for explanation (in this case, assistance)

3. Dismissal of first responses

4. Change of details to allow dismissal of second to eighteenth responses

5. Occasionally reasonable posts "wall o'texts" interspersed with non-sequiturs, disingenuous statements, and characterized by a refusal to acknowledge reasonable explanations accompanied by claims she has done no such thing

6. Playing the pity card in reference to personal problems Not yet, but who knows?

7. Sporadic interjection of even more delusional claims.

8. Anger and vitriol

9. Apologies Not yet, but who knows?

10. Absence (Sort of)

11. Re-appearance

Yeah, I can't imagine why any of us would believe that Anita might be following a preconceived pattern of about paranormal claimants. :rolleyes:

Group hug

:grouphug5 (Locknar is still the one in the middle)

See #5 above.

Actually, most of the time I hate coming here to post. Most of the time I do not enjoy visiting this thread at all. But I know that this thread and you guys are very useful in my investigation.

So, don't come here. It doesn't seem like your manipulative mock flattery has gotten you very far at all-certainly not enough to make the anguish of posting here worth your time.

[desertgal]

It's reasonable to assume that some discussion took place concerning her environmental requirements. If I'd been there, I'd certainly have wanted to leave her to her 'reading' and spend the time waiting eating pizza and talking with my friends.

Maybe I'm just projecting what I'd have done, based on her waffling in this thread. :confused:

No, I think we just got our wires crossed. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the skeptics would have wanted to give her privacy-I just don't see anything to indicate that Anita wanted privacy, as well. She appears to have considered it rude that the skeptics weren't hanging over her shoulders, watching avidly.

I did get the impression, like others, that there was a disinterest on the part of the skeptics, but it could very well be incorrect. Hard to say, since none of us were there. Maybe they were just hungry and wanted to focus on their pizzas.

We certainly don't need to give her any excuses to 'reason' her way out of her failures! ;)

I dunno...she's pretty much run the gamut...might be amusing to toss her a bone and see what she does with it. ;)

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.

[Uncayimmy]

Here's the thing about the test at the meeting. They usually have agendas. It's not just a social thing where people hang out. GodOfPie said, "She and her friend (Chris?) really wanted to test someone at the meeting. Wayne, a new member, his first meeting, volunteered to be read by Anita at the end of the meeting."

She said she wants at least 10 minutes to read somebody. Figure another 5 minutes to handle the analysis. Thus if four people were willing, the last person would have been there an hour after the meeting was over. That's just not workable.

This is why I have repeatedly told Anita to organize something with the group. You can't just show up at a meeting that already has an agenda and pull off the kind of study she wants. It needs to be organized. It's also another reason why her mall study will fail. Even if she gets two volunteers, who wants to wait around for 15 minutes just so they can sit around for 15 more minutes and divulge highly personal medical information?

Another thought just occurred to me. Is Anita an evil genius? She has now been in two meetings with the skeptics group. She has had more than ample opportunity to catch a number of clues about health conditions. For example:

* The person who gets up to pee five times during the meeting.
* The person constantly shifting in his seat to get comfortable.
* The person rubbing her neck a lot.
* The person popping medicine.
* The person ordering bland food and milk.
* The person she overheard talking about a doctor's appointment.

The testing pool in contaminated at this point. What a shame. That doesn't mean the group couldn't figure out something, but reading people who attended the meetings will be pretty easy for a halfway decent cold reader.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
This is another example of why I believe you are delusional or perhaps a masterful con artist trying to convince us you are. It has been repeatedly explained to you why the type of reading you did was unacceptable. I created a two-page form for you to use where you either check something or not. There's no rating things on a scale. Either it's a problem or not. There's no interpretation involved in the analysis of your accuracy.But I already know that the reading with Wayne was not acceptable by test standards! As I explained in my post #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) I chose to have my reading with Wayne follow along the line of the study, and I consciously designed it so that it is not like a test. I am gradually taking what my everyday experiences with the perceptions were and changing one detail of the circumstances at a time toward a proper test design. It was a fully conscious choice. Because that is the careful and gradual approach that a scientist science student is fully entitled to.

Of course my reading with Wayne was unacceptable from a test point of view. And that is because my reading with Wayne was fully acceptable from the study point of view. And I learned the things I wanted to learn from the experience, I learned that I can write down my perceptions instead of speaking them, and that the volunteer can be turned around and not facing me, and these new insights will be implemented on all future viewings. So I am gradually approaching the test design.

My forms will be used in the upcoming study. And I disagree and feel that the extent of the ailment as perceived by the volunteer and as perceived by me could be on the form. At least I am curious. Then, if a member of the skeptics group tries to extract some results based on the study forms then they may choose to disregard the extents entirely if that is the most appropriate thing to do. I am however conducting this study so that I can learn more about my claim, and therefore the extent will be included on the forms. This is not a test it is a study.

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer. Let me research this.
You chose not to bring the form with you. You refused to use the form when it was offered to you. And yet you are, I hate to use this word but I will, foolish enough to proceed with a reading and try to sell it to us like it has any meaning whatsoever. How could you possibly believe this was a good idea?I won't be using your forms UncaYimmy! Mine will be better adapted for this particular study! As I said in #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654), Wayne had already written down his ailments on a piece of paper and since he had not used a form I thought I would not use one either. And also I am taking the gradual approach toward test design. Just let me do that. Before you know it I will be looking at people who are behind a screen, surrounded by skeptics, video recorded, writing my answers down on check-box forms, and all other kinds of test conditions that will leave even you speechless.

Besides the forms were not offered to me when I was at the skeptics meeting. Get your facts straight before you get upset with me. The experience with Wayne had plenty of meaning in the intent of a study. If you can't extract any meaning from it then just disregard it entirely, dear UncaYimmy. I am approaching proper test design, so just hang in there.

And I know that I will be heavily criticized for saying this, and called delusional and what else, but when a scientist science student is investigating a subject they change only one parameter at a time and then observe what effects that had on the results. If too many things are changed at once then the results might be meaningless since we don't know why the experiment failed for instance, and would have to go back again to try to figure it out. This way I ensure that I don't have to work backwards at any point.
By the way, you have repeatedly told us that you sense medical problems because of their "vibrational dissonance." Why are you suddenly describing things that are not medical problems? Why would you sense an Adam's apple if there weren't a problem? I sensed vibrational dissonance because of the adam's apple, but that does not mean that it is a disease. I sense what people feel. I've already claimed many times in the past to have detected health information that is not a health problem, such as Lactobacillus supplement or pregnancy for instance. It is all consistent with my claim.
What's really sad is that you cannot even concede how what you're doing could be reasonably considered problematic. Further proof of your delusional nature. Alright. Stop calling me delusional. I already know that my reading with Wayne was not going to be according to test procedures. I had intentionally made a very conscious choice to add the experience to the study in order to learn more about what I can and can not do and how the perceptions work. It was a learning experience. The reading with Wayne could have provided evidence against my claim had I made incorrect perceptions, but it could not have provided evidence for my claim since it did not implement necessary test conditions. Just let me take this gradual approach toward a test protocol. It is called a study, and I was told to do it and I agree that it needs to be done.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature. I have clearly stated that I decided to do it in the way of a study. #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654) And if you think that my choice of reducing the reading with Wayne to study-quality is indication of delusional behavior, then I would have to correct you on that since it is according to how I believe a scientific approach could be carried out in the case of this investigation.
Are you playing dumb? A successful test is not one that proves your abilities. Geez. What an ego.What? So if I pass a test that implements all the required test conditions and proves that I have some form of extrasensory perception then that is not considered a "successful" test? Ego? What?
A successful test is one that actually takes place and gives reliable results. The test with the skeptics would most likely be successful. The mall test will never even get off the ground. If it does, good luck getting people to share medical info with some strangers in the mall and stand around for 15 minutes being gawked at.And of course I know that. The reading with Wayne is considered part of the study, as I pointed out already in #1654 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4377359&postcount=1654). You know, some of your confusion regarding what I actually intend with what I've done could be resolved if you actually read my posts. The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.

Oh so the mall test will not even get off the ground? Did you read that in the same crystal ball that told you that I could absolutely not procure four skeptics for the study, now that I actully have six? Where can I get one of those fortune-telling things that you're using?

Well, the fact is that the volunteers share personal health information anonymously. You designed this, remember? We'll just have to find out. If no volunteers are found then I can start working on some plan B. This is a pessimistic attitude, UncaYimmy. Let's just see what happens and go from there. Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.
You are choosing to go down a path that will most likely not produce anything useful. You are doing despite EVERYONE else advising you to take a more reliable path.I am choosing the path that was suggested to me by both skeptical groups that I am involved with, and I agree with having the study. No Hon, everyone, as in people who are actually working with this investigation, is advising that I take the study.
As for your mall (or wherever) study, if you want us to have any faith in the results, name your volunteer skeptics. Ask them to register here and visit this thread. Do you even have four helpers yet? I will absolutely not name the skeptics unless I have their specific permission to do so. You've just proven that you do not read my posts, UncaYimmy, so why am I even responding to your questions when you won't read my answers? As I've already said many times before that there are six skeptics now. Please read my posts so that you don't have to hallucinate about what you think that I might have said.
(Sorry to sound harsh, I'm just using the same language that is used on this thread lately.)

[desertgal]

Before you know it I will be looking at people who are behind a screen, surrounded by skeptics, video recorded, writing my answers down on check-box forms, and all other kinds of test conditions that will leave even you speechless.

:dl:

Alright. Stop calling me delusional.

Truth hurts.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature.

The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.

Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.

Please read my posts so that you don't have to hallucinate about what you think that I might have said.

:dl:

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:
But, interestingly enough, that isn't what the student conduct and counseling centers at your university say. This isn't a game, Anita. If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice. Electing to dispense erroneous information to people about their medical and mental health is something else altogether-and it IS totally erroneous, since your alleged ability is nothing more than delusions. It is completely unethical-and there are ethical standards every student must adhere to. As well, universities don't take mental instability lightly. It is my sincere hope that an intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. As I said before, whether you believe your claims, or this is all just a scam-a hard dose of reality won't hurt you. When I look at people I perceive visual and felt perceptions of their health. I place no belief in the perceptions and they are not part of my reality, and in fact often the perceptions contradict with what my logical beliefs and assumptions would be. They are impressions, they are not overwhelming or distracting to me (unless I perceive that someone has liver worms or something else that is highly unusual or a serious health problem) and do not take away from my functioning or quality of personal or professional life.

I do not dispense medical information to people, other than in carefully controlled study or test circumstances that are intended to try to establish the correlation between my perceptions and actual health information. The accuracy of my perceptions has also been confirmed by means other than me expressing what I perceived to persons. I have no intentions of beginning to dispense medical information to people regardless of how accurate I may seem, as I perfectly understand that I am not qualified to do so as well as the possible harm to persons.

The perceptions in themselves are not interesting to me. What compels me to have this investigation is the apparent accuracy that has been experienced in the past. I hold two things in mind as I proceed in this investigation, 1) the actual accuracy may not be as high as the apparent accuracy has been in the past, for instance if a person was lying to me about their health or simply mistaken about their health making it appear that there was correlation when there was not, and 2) if there is actual accuracy it may very well be due to some unintentional cold reading of available symptoms. Either case I am interested and I feel that I am approaching this in a proper, even if careful and gradual, manner.

My statement that I have experienced correlation between my perceptions and with actual health information of people, is not based on my personal preference or choice. The statement of apparent accuracy is based on actual experience whose results were not due to my own interpretation. If the study and tests show that there is no correlation between my perceptions and actual health information then I will be able to conclude that the explanation to this phenomenon is not to be found in the outside world and I will terminate this investigation.

Since I do not hold belief in the perceptions, since the perceptions are not overwhelming or disturbing to my way of life, and since I make no attempts of taking my experienced perceptions out into what is our real, mutual world, there is no reason for concern of my mental health with regard to these perceptions. If however I still wish to learn more after concluding from the investigation that my perceptions are not based on real world information, then in that case I can speak to mental health professionals who can explain more about how the mind processes information and creates impressions.

Really, there is no reason for concern.

As for the perceptions and impressions I have when I visit historical sites, the fact that I have interest in spending time at haunted sites and discussing my impressions is not reason for concern. I will clearly state that it is done for fun and entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken as truth or evidence, and is not much different from when a person visits a museum and talks about what kind of things they see or feel when they look at a painting or a sculpture.

[skeen]

@desertgal: I concur.

EDIT: Anita is really trying to have her cake and eat it, too, isn't she? She makes these claims, but at the same time says her visions or whathaveyou don't enter into her reality. So, what she's saying is it's in her imagination, but she wants it to be more than that.

Anita, you're either having delusions or you're not. If you're not, then you're admitting you're just making all of this up in your mind. All you've been doing is playing with words. There's no difference between you and anyone else, except that you're obviously a bit crazy.

It should be noted, Anita, that you have not dismissed "no craziness". You should pursue further study there.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup:
The conclusion I gave when I presented my perceptions to Wayne was that I found nothing wrong with his health. I mentioned that all I sensed was a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent, and that I had sensed his adam's apple, both of which I said were not answers. My conclusion was that nothing was wrong. I did not present inaccurate perceptions.

Diogenes:
I perceive health problems but also things that aren't a problem, such as Lactobacillus supplement in the stomach, or pregnancy. It is hard to generalize about what I can and can't do. I detected a scar in one case, and in another case I didn't. Even I can't generalize about my claim at this point. I need more experience and that is what the study is for. Let's just see what happens when the time comes that I actually claim to perceive something. Then you guys can have a field day if that claimed perception turns out to be inaccurate, and, frankly, after all I've put you through here, I would let you have it. :)

I expect to make plenty of claims of perceiving health information of a significant extent on the upcoming study. There will then be plenty of material to analyze.

[skeen]

Yes yes Anita, the proof is just around the corner. :) One day we'll all hang our heads in shame for doubting you, while you're raking in literally billions of dollars, and are hailed as the most intelligent and incredible person in the history of the world, saving the lives of hundreds of millions.

Your groundbreaking quantum, vibrational, spiritual, alien research will change the world forever, proving once and for all that all things woo are in fact true.

You will wear the finest silk, and own the biggest diamonds, and will be adored by all. Rainbows will ascend behind you, and the sun will smile down on you as you walk on rose petals.

It's all just right around the corner. I'm sure it will come, just hang in there. We're nearly there. You'll show us. We'll see.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?No, Ashles, seeing the volunteer from the side wasn't going to help the perceptions at all. I was simply conforming to another test condition. On a test it is better if I see the volunteers from behind and not front, since eye contact definitely needs to be disallowed. That is what I was doing.

My starting point in this investigation was what I call my "everyday experience" with the perceptions. This means that I look at the person and have eye contact with them, that I tell the person what I see as soon as I see it. Well, some of my past experiences took place under circumstances that are more test-appropriate than that, but this is the worst possible starting point in which I know that the perceptions supposedly took place. I then started with that and have begun changing one condition at a time toward what is to be proper test conditions. I already know that I can write down my answers and present them in full at the end of the viewing, and that I do not require eye contact in order to have the perceptions. That is what I am doing, and that is why I asked the volunteer to turn around. :)
If you mentioned it as a perception, it WAS an answer. You had an actual perception.No, Ashles. I wrote down plenty of perceptions and impressions that I had that I was not going to consider to be health problems that would be significant enough to have checked for accuracy. I wrote that I saw that his heart was healthy and nice and orange pink, that his liver was smaller than average, that his left shoulder was slightly tired, and that I felt his adam's apple. But when I presented the conclusions, I stated that I find no health problems what so ever. Because the shoulder and the throat were insignificant.
Firstly you DID mention it. It's simply stupid to say you would never mention it when you actually did.To not mention it as an answer. I perceived it, but I perceived that it was insignificant and that it was not an answer that I would want to be checked for accuracy.
(And we all know full well that had Wayne declared a shoulder injury you would have counted it as a hit. A giant one.)Hm. Hopefully not, since I declared that I perceived that it was insignificant. I do realize the issues you are raising, and the study will be done differently to avoid these questions.
And I really cannot fathom the business about the adam's apple other than the weakest attempt to rationalise a failure away so far.I concluded that it was the adam's apple before I announced my answers. How's that.
Your whole claim now revolves entirely around when you actually make positive diagnoses (and those have sure decreased in frequency).Of course there was a low frequency of perceptions of health problems in my viewing with Wayne! He declared himself to have perfect health! Ashles!

I have not been incorrect. I declared that I sensed a slightly tired left shoulder and I declared clearly that it was insignificant and was not my answer. My answer and conclusion after the reading was that I found no health problems and that according to my perceptions all was very healthy and healthier than average people. The thing I sensed in the throat was the adam's apple. No incorrect perceptions were made in this experience. Maybe you don't like that.
(By the way, I have absolutely no intention of providing you my e-mail address, as you would have known - but since you clearly have your notes electronically, you could, of course, easily add them as an extra page on your website. You don't even have to link to it from the main page - just add an extra page and provide us the URL. I look forward to hearing why you won't be able to do that either).) Well Ashles because I asked for your mailing address so that I could send photocopies. I do not have an electronic copy. :)

Old man:
Well, I got the distinct impression that Anita wanted a little 'privacy' for her 'reading', so it's not implausible that the other members tried to not disturb her during that time. No, it was very loud. I had to move away. :( And no one seemed to be wanting to 'not disturb me'. I'm not criticizing, I'm just explaining. :)

[desertgal]

desertgal:
When I look at people I perceive visual and felt perceptions of their health. <snipped for brevity>...Really, there is no reason for concern.

I have no further interest in any of your deceptive explanations. You might not find reason for concern-I do. So have many people here. The student conduct and counseling centers at your university concur. Again, it is my sincere hope that a direct intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. Delusion or scam - it makes no difference.

As for the perceptions and impressions I have when I visit historical sites, the fact that I have interest in spending time at haunted sites and discussing my impressions is not reason for concern. I will clearly state that it is done for fun and entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken as truth or evidence, and is not much different from when a person visits a museum and talks about what kind of things they see or feel when they look at a painting or a sculpture.

What part of "If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice" did you not understand? I couldn't care less, except where those claims relate to your credibility and your apparent mental instability-and it is out of my hands to judge that at this point.

[GeeMack]

Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.


Come on, Anita. Responses like this verge on raw stupidity. Here's the deal. Evidence against ESP already exists in abundance, by nature of the fact that it has never been shown to be a genuine, real phenomenon. Science, based in reality, says that until we have some kind of tangible support for its existence, we can accept that ESP doesn't exist. Your job, if you're not just the idiot that you sometimes appear to be, is to demonstrate that you do have some heretofore unproven ability. All your silly pretending that not proving you wrong somehow supports the possibility that your fantasy is true only shows your real skill is in wallowing in world class ignorance.

All your messing around, stalling for time, twisting words, and playing childish games makes you look like you're either intentionally avoiding an honest confrontation with the situation, or that you're mentally ill and can't tell the difference between reality and delusion, or that you're just too stupid to understand. I'd venture to guess that most people who are still following this thread are simply curious to find out which of those is behind your apparent lunacy. I can assure you that nobody here believes you might have any kind of special extra-sensory ability.

Oh, and your desperation is wearing on you. You're losing that pleasantness you had when you first arrived here, and you're beginning to look more like a condescending jerk with each new post.

[Chimera]

Oh, and your desperation is wearing on you. You're losing that pleasantness you had when you first arrived here, and you're beginning to look more like a condescending jerk with each new post.

You think she's condescending, "hon"?

[Pup]

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer.

Did Wayne write on the paper beforehand that he had some minor shoulder issue? If he didn't, the 2 would be a miss. Right?

I sensed vibrational dissonance because of the adam's apple, but that does not mean that it is a disease. I sense what people feel.

So did Wayne write beforehand that he had some kind of abnormal sensation about his normal adam's apple? If not, that would be a miss also, right?

Did he even say that these things fit afterwards?

The reading with Wayne could have provided evidence against my claim had I made incorrect perceptions,...

Which you did, as noted above. That's what we're seeing, which you're not. That's why the word "delusional" keeps popping up.

[Jeff Corey]

Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.
Because you know nothing about statistics, it will be necessary to explain this in detail so that you will know it and not make the mistakes you have made now many times before. You will have to read carefully because since you have not understood what I have said before, you must be confused or possibly unable to understand what I am saying or have said before.
Statistics is comprised of two different areas, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.We are only concerned with inferential statistics at this point in time.
Inferential statistics allows us to calculate the probability of some outcome occurring by chance, or randomly. For example, me being able to toss a coin and get more heads than chance. This yields a binomial distribution. One correct, p= .5. Five correct, p = .03. Statistically significant at less than the .05 level. Worthy of further investigation.
Three correct and 2 not, not significant, not worthy of further investigation.
But you insisted on two different posts that you had to obtain results that were significantly below chance to abandon your delusion. That is so wrong, that is like saying I would have to get 0 out of five tosses of the coin right to be convinced I could not control it.
As I said before, you never learn.

[desertgal]

Let's just see what happens when the time comes that I actually claim to perceive something.

That time has come and gone. We know what happens.

Then you guys can have a field day if that claimed perception turns out to be inaccurate, and, frankly, after all I've put you through here, I would let you have it. :)

That, too, has already happened, and all you did was deny, evade, excuse, distort, and cherry pick any and all remarks that pointed to the inaccuracies.

Can't you be honest about anything?

[wardenclyffe]

A couple of things.

First, I'm having trouble accessing page 43(!) of this thread, so I think it was Moochie who said it sounded like GodofPie's and VfF's descriptions of last week's meeting were scipted. I want to make it clear, that I believe GodofPie and eCarlson are real people and real skeptics. I don't believe that there's any chicanery going on with them. These are my beliefs from looking at the Winston-Salem Skeptics meet up page. That whole page could be a fake and the wool is being pulled over my eyes, but I don't think so.

I'm assuming that most skeptics who belong to groups like this forum or the Winston-Salem Skeptics enjoy watching paranormal claimants do their thing---even under bad test conditions it's still fun to watch. That's why it seems weird that while VfF was conducting her exam of Wayne, the skeptics were laughing it up and enjoying pizza across the room. Maybe it was boring. Maybe they were hungry. I don't know. It just seems weird.

Second, desertgal, you mentioned student conduct and counseling a couple of times. Did I miss where this came up originally? Again, I'm having trouble w/page 43, so maybe it was there. Has VfF had some sort of run-in with the powers that be at school?

Ward

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
But I already know that the reading with Wayne was not acceptable by test standards!

First, you eliminated a potential person from your study. Second, you lied about how it happened. Third, you told everyone here about it KNOWING the reaction you would get, and then spent hours defending it.

And what did you stand to gain? Zero. Nada. Zilch. Not a smooth move, Ex Lax.

Of course my reading with Wayne was unacceptable from a test point of view. And that is because my reading with Wayne was fully acceptable from the study point of view.

If by acceptable you mean completely goes against the study protocol you wrote, then I agree.

My forms will be used in the upcoming study. And I disagree and feel that the extent of the ailment as perceived by the volunteer and as perceived by me could be on the form.

Everybody is telling you what a bad idea it is. Are you a control freak or something? We're not easily manipulated here.

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer.
You say you want advice, but you refuse to take it. You are once again adding complexity that will only serve to muddy the waters. It's funny, you never needed this scale before when you came up with your 100% never been wrong claim.

Besides the forms were not offered to me when I was at the skeptics meeting.
I believe GodOfPie. He told me he had the forms at the first meeting and at this meeting. Of course, you could have printed them yourself.

I am approaching proper test design, so just hang in there.
I gave you one on a silver platter. You ruined it and continue to do so.

Alright. Stop calling me delusional.
Nobody has ever called you delusional! Where are you getting that from? You must be imagining things.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature.
Nice try, but that's not what I said. I can't imagine why you thought presenting it to us and adding it to your website would result in anything but what has just happened: Thousands of words, all of which damage what little credibility you have left.

Foolish, I would say.

The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.
I'm a man, not a woman, so stop being so nasty.

Oh so the mall test will not even get off the ground? Did you read that in the same crystal ball that told you that I could absolutely not procure four skeptics for the study, now that I actully have six? Where can I get one of those fortune-telling things that you're using?
You have six volunteers who will come out with you and spend several hours shuffling forms? That's wonderful. I don't believe you, but I like the fantasy.

Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.
Such as?

I am choosing the path that was suggested to me by both skeptical groups that I am involved with, and I agree with having the study. No Hon, everyone, as in people who are actually working with this investigation, is advising that I take the study.
Yes, you are being told to take the study to prove to you that you are delusional. Not a single person believes you have any ability whatsoever. Nobody thinks you are special.

I will absolutely not name the skeptics unless I have their specific permission to do so.
Funny, you have no problems naming me on your website without my permission.

You've just proven that you do not read my posts, UncaYimmy,
I admit, sometimes I fade in and out because you ramble on and on and on. Since you repeat yourself constantly, I figure I'll catch it in a re-run.

[Jeff Corey]

Oh Unca Yimmy, you are such a chameleon, a while ago you were the excellent research person, and now you don't even read her posts.
Do you remember what I said about a thousand or so posts ago? I don't, exactly, and I am not going to try to find it. That private thing won't work. Did it?

[desertgal]

A couple of things.
First, I'm having trouble accessing page 43(!) of this thread, so I think it was Moochie who said it sounded like GodofPie's and VfF's descriptions of last week's meeting were scipted. I want to make it clear, that I believe GodofPie and eCarlson are real people and real skeptics. I don't believe that there's any chicanery going on with them. These are my beliefs from looking at the Winston-Salem Skeptics meet up page. That whole page could be a fake and the wool is being pulled over my eyes, but I don't think so.

Moochie said: "Yeah, I have the uncanny feeling of a poorly written script. Have done so since the beginning."

I think he was referring to everything VfF has said here, there, and everywhere, and didn't intend to imply that you believed GodofPie and eCarlson were up to chicanery. I certainly didn't take your statement that way-don't think anyone else did, either. :)

I'm assuming that most skeptics who belong to groups like this forum or the Winston-Salem Skeptics enjoy watching paranormal claimants do their thing---even under bad test conditions it's still fun to watch. That's why it seems weird that while VfF was conducting her exam of Wayne, the skeptics were laughing it up and enjoying pizza across the room. Maybe it was boring. Maybe they were hungry. I don't know. It just seems weird.

Weird, yes. But, it was the end of the meeting, so perhaps they were trying to give Anita privacy. Or have followed this thread, and are as exhausted as the rest of us by her delusions, etc. Or just wanted to eat their pizza while it was hot. Hard to say. :)

Second, desertgal, you mentioned student conduct and counseling a couple of times. Did I miss where this came up originally? Again, I'm having trouble w/page 43, so maybe it was there. Has VfF had some sort of run-in with the powers that be at school?

Not yet.

Anita said:
desertgal: I see no reason in replying to you.You misinterpret everything I say, and your comments are not trustworthy.

I replied:
Uh-huh. Coming from the Queen of Delusional Liars, that means nothing.

But, interestingly enough, that isn't what the student conduct and counseling centers at your university say. This isn't a game, Anita. If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice. Electing to dispense erroneous information to people about their medical and mental health is something else altogether-and it IS totally erroneous, since your alleged ability is nothing more than delusions. It is completely unethical-and there are ethical standards every student must adhere to. As well, universities don't take mental instability lightly. It is my sincere hope that an intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. As I said before, whether you believe your claims, or this is all just a scam-a hard dose of reality won't hurt you.

(Don't worry, mods, I made it very clear that I do not represent the JREF in any way, shape, or form.)

[VisionFromFeeling]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

[desertgal]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

And yet another disingenuous post. So tiresome.

Why in the world should anyone here help you at this point, after all your delusions, lies, distortions, evasions, cherry picking, arguing, and condescension for 43 pages? Give us one good reason.

Design your own page.

[Uncayimmy]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

First off, you've never done anything briefly.

Second, and more importantly, why should anyone help you? You never take our advice. You always change things around until we're dissatisfied with it.

Third, what did the person at the mall say? Is it a go? If not, where is it going to be held?

[Uncayimmy]

The bolded bit above jumped out at me when I re-re-re-reviewed the last few days of the thread.

VfV does indeed appear sometimes to be trying to convince us she's delusional, but IRL she isn't. I'm at a loss to even guess why someone would do that.

I'm not at a loss to take a guess. At this point in time what is absolutely the *best* defense she could have to being delusional? That she was yanking our chains all along, right? So, why would she suddenly feel the need to do that?

Allow me to splain.

Last week I mentioned a private e-mail exchange with Anita. In that exchange I asked her about her mental health inquiries. She gave me the standard line about how it doesn't affect her life, but if it did, she'd see someone. I said something like, "then it shouldn't be a problem if I contact your professors and the mental health services at your school."

This, of course, received quite the reaction. She e-mailed and ask me if I was trying to hurt her. She pleaded with me not to do it with a bunch of stuff about her career, blah blah. I replied back, "I have just very clearly demonstrated that they [beliefs] *do* interfere with your life in that you are desperate (it would "hurt" you) to keep them hidden from anyone who knows you personally."

She then e-mailed me on Facebook giving me her phone number so we could talk. I declined with, "You are free to choose with whom your share your claim just as I am free to choose with whom I share what I learn on the Internet. You are free to choose to end the discussion about seeking psychiatric help just as I am free to choose to end the discussion about contacting others about your claim."

She then sent me an instant message. I replied back that I was not interested in having a chat. She then continued to send messages to me for the following hour (maybe a dozen total) trying to get me to respond using various tactics. I did not.

So, if she's worried about me contacting her school, that might explain this behavior. I mean, this is even more foolish than I ever expected.

Of course, she has yet to publicly acknowledge what Desertgal has repeatedly implied...

[nathan]

6. Playing the pity card in reference to personal problems Not yet, but who knows?

So, 'I'm just a poor girl from Sweden, my English may be wrong, and how was I to know you Americans all bathed in peanut oil?' doesn't count then :)

[nathan]

She pleaded with me not to do it with a bunch of stuff about her career, blah blah.

well, Anita let that one out of the bag the moment she set up a web site. I don't know about others, but I always do an internet search on potential hires as part of a standard background check.

[Akhenaten]

I'm not at a loss to take a guess. At this point in time what is absolutely the *best* defense she could have to being delusional? That she was yanking our chains all along, right? So, why would she suddenly feel the need to do that?

Allow me to splain.

Last week I mentioned a private e-mail exchange with Anita. In that exchange I asked her about her mental health inquiries. She gave me the standard line about how it doesn't affect her life, but if it did, she'd see someone. I said something like, "then it shouldn't be a problem if I contact your professors and the mental health services at your school."

This, of course, received quite the reaction. She e-mailed and ask me if I was trying to hurt her. She pleaded with me not to do it with a bunch of stuff about her career, blah blah. I replied back, "I have just very clearly demonstrated that they [beliefs] *do* interfere with your life in that you are desperate (it would "hurt" you) to keep them hidden from anyone who knows you personally."

She then e-mailed me on Facebook giving me her phone number so we could talk. I declined with, "You are free to choose with whom your share your claim just as I am free to choose with whom I share what I learn on the Internet. You are free to choose to end the discussion about seeking psychiatric help just as I am free to choose to end the discussion about contacting others about your claim."

She then sent me an instant message. I replied back that I was not interested in having a chat. She then continued to send messages to me for the following hour (maybe a dozen total) trying to get me to respond using various tactics. I did not.

So, if she's worried about me contacting her school, that might explain this behavior. I mean, this is even more foolish than I ever expected.

Of course, she has yet to publicly acknowledge what Desertgal has repeatedly implied...


Thanks. I think I've done well in staying off Anita's list of "friends", although it's a bit disappointing that I don't get any responses from her at all anymore.

She seems to be in an unenviable position; even the "only joking" defense might create problems in terms of one's Career™ and Reputation™ given the obsessive way in which the "tricking" has been done. Just putting so much time and effort into such a meaningless hoax is questionable behaviour for a future Nobel Prize Winner. And of course, saying "Gotcha!" at this point isn't going to do much for VfF's popularity, which appears to be very important to her.

As for no response to the repeated implication that you mention, I don't think the penny has dropped yet. It should soon though.

Finally, I'm surprised you find any of this more foolish than you expected :)


More finally, I made some monster posts and I was playing with all the formatting tools and spoilers and stuff, and I think I might have broken page 43. Please don't tell on me.

[Agatha]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.
Do you have permission from the mall or wherever to conduct the study/test/waste of time (delete as applicable) on their property?

[Ashles]

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now?
Because you never pay the slightest bit of attention to what anyone suggests.

You are not 'working with skeptics' to try to develop a testing protocol.
You pretend to, then whenever a decent test is suggested or a specific restriction proposed, you simply decide you don't like it.
The 'scale' is a perfect example of that.

Look at this:
Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer. Let me research this.

This completely disagrees with your previous description of how you treat 1s and 2s on your own scale.

If you rate something a 2 and it's a miss it doesn't count and you wouldn't consider it an answer so it can't be considered wrong. As we actually saw earlier.
Yet if the subject rates it a 2 and you rate it a 5, suddenly it's no longer wrong! It's a hit now! You describe it as "a match"!
All it means to you is that your judgement of the extent of the ailment is in question, not that you actually perceive it.

So let's assume you put down '2' for something and play out all the possibilities.

Subject records no ailment - You don't count this as a miss as your '2' is too weak to count as a real answer. We have already witnessed this.

Subject records 1 - 3 - You will claim a huge hit as this pretty much exactly matches your perception.

Subject records 4 - 5 - You will say "even though the [condition] was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer." But you will still count this as a hit. As you yourself just described.

So you have designed a test and a system of judging which is staggeringly skewed towards giving you hits and no misses.
I think we are starting to see why your previous stories describe such amazing accuracy.

THIS IS WHY YOUR OWN TESTS ARE USELESS - THIS IS WHY IGNORING THE ADVICE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERE SHOWS YOU ARE NOT GENUINE ABOUT TESTING YOUR ABILITY PROPERLY.

You are clarifying your own tendency towards confirmation bias right in front of us!
At this stage even referring to yourself as a science student seems pretty misleading.

[skeen]

Of course she doesn't have permission, and why would they give her permission? We know she's not going to get permission. Maybe even she knows. She'll add it to her exhaustive list of excuses.

[skeen]

Yes, her asking people to help her with her page is fascinating. Anita cannot possibly prove anything to any of us, if no-one agrees with her protocol. At the last moment she changes it nonchalantly, as if it's fine and dandy, and proceeds as if everyone has agreed it would be satisfactory!

It's mental. This is why I think she's a liar, in the sense that Sylvia Brown is a liar, and in the sense that The Professor is a liar. It seems that when we're finally about to do a real test, she changes it up, and makes it completely and utterly useless. And fails even that.

What a horrible, horrible student of Science. Horrible. The problem with Anita is that she claims all things woo, but vehemently claims to be different. She can't have it both ways.

This is why I wonder: what's the point in even making up scientific explanations? She's claiming all the wooish things which themselves have no scientific explanations. It's all just magic.

And, she consistently claims that her "perceptions" aren't perceptions at all! They don't "enter into reality". In other words, they're in her thoughts, in her imagination. If this is the case, then she's just a stupid, stupid person, as well as being a liar. This seems the most likely scenario to me.

She cannot do Science. She cannot think logically. She has demonstrated time and time again what any reasonable person would label as stupidity. She has dodged and dived, and expressed some of the worst apologetics I've seen since Creationism debates. That's the problem, that's the key:

She isn't delusional. She doesn't have actual perceptions. She's just stupid. She's just a liar. She's just narcissistic. She's just silly. She's just pathetic. She just wants attention.

Any smart, logical person who had these abilities would not approach it in the awful way in which she has. And we would all know about them by now if they did have these abilities. Just as we know that if any of us had these abilities, a thread like this would never have gotten this far. We'd have been on Oprah by now. Anita is just a woo.

[desertgal]

Of course, she has yet to publicly acknowledge what Desertgal has repeatedly implied...

Well, she kinda did - she gave me six paragraphs about why there is "no cause for concern". I'm not sure she got what I was implying, though, so I'll stop implying and state it: Anita, I contacted your university almost three weeks ago. They've read this thread, your other claims here, and your website. What action they take from this point will, I'm sure, be in your best interest. My guess is that you'll enjoy the attention, whichever way it comes.

[desertgal]

So, 'I'm just a poor girl from Sweden, my English may be wrong, and how was I to know you Americans all bathed in peanut oil?' doesn't count then :)

Forgot that one. :D