[Moderated] Vision From Feeling - Results from 'study' [Archive]

Ashles

3rd March 2009, 11:15 AM

For reference these are the details of the 'upcoming' study as detailed by Anita:

Please see www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) with links to plenty of drafts of the study procedure. But here it is:

Claimant: me
Participant: persons who assist me in the practical assignments of the study
Volunteer: person from the public who fills in the questionnaire and is seen by the claimant and one or two participantsThe study will require two separate locations that are out of sight and sound of each other. Volunteers will begin at the first location, where one participant is stationed and hands them the health questionnaire to be filled in. The questionnaire also comes with an information page that describes the study, what is involved in volunteering, and how to fill in the questionnaire. The participant is also available to discuss the study with the volunteer and also to answer any questions that the volunteers might have. The participant holds on to the filled in volunteer's health questionnaires.

Once the volunteer has finished with the questionnaire and handed it in, a second participant takes the volunteer to the second location. Once the volunteer is seated and settled in, the claimant and one or two additional participants will spend up to ten or fifteen minutes to look at the volunteer and fill in our own health questionnaires based on our impressions of the health of the person. The volunteer may of course leave early if they wish. The reason I propose that the volunteers be taken to a second location is because many volunteers might gather at the first location and should not be seen early by the claimant or the one or two participants.

There is no speaking or other interaction between the claimant and the one or two participants and with the volunteer. The volunteer will be seen from the back and no eyecontact is possible. The health questionnaires of the claimant and one or two participants who also do the viewing are then handed in preferrably to an additional participant who is stationed at this second location.

So the study would hope to involve five participants but can do with fewer. At the end of the study, health questionnaires pertaining to one particular volunteer are matched based on the identification numbers printed on their top margins and the correlation is determined by the participants though the claimant has the right to be present. The volunteers remain entirely anonymous with regard to their identity. I am even considering having the identification numbers concealed during the study with respect to the privacy of the volunteers so that "no one can remember the ID number and what person it pertained to".

The one or two participants who also see the volunteers act as controls and are encouraged to try any trick that they can think of to acchieve a higher correlation. They can try any method of guessing or any method of cheating that they can get away with, because, we want to know if I am doing such things and whether my correlation would be higher.

The study is not a test. If it were intended as a test there would be plenty of issues with its quality. But it serves the purpose of a study very well. I will gain additional experience with the claimed medical perceptions, get to find out what ailments I am better at identifying than others and hopefully good ones could be selected for a test. How many times when a particular ailment occurs do I detect it and at what percentage do I not detect it, so that we know at least how many subjects with such a particular ailment would be required for a real test. And we can get something of an estimate as to whether my correlation seems to be higher than that acchieved by the one or two participants. Is my correlation (ie. accuracy) high enough to be interesting for further investigation? These are just some of the valuable things I'd hope to learn from taking the study.

The study is not very quantitative, there is no specific point-scale system. It will produce rough estimates, but from that I will then design an improved 2nd study which builds on what was learned from the 1st one and is closer to what an actual test would be like. Provided that the claimed ability is not falsified under this first study. There is no specific point-scale system that would determine a falsified claim and a non-ability might pass through to a second study, but would be caught eventually.

I do believe that this study is an appropriate step toward a real test and toward a real conclusion in this investigation. I know that some of you won't think so. :) But I'm working on it. :xtongue

...

The volunteers fill in a health questionnaire on their own and their answers should not be known by any of the participants or the claimant as their health questionnaire is handed in and put aside until after the study is completed. Their answers should remain anonymous.

I will be nearby a second location. The volunteer fills in the questionnaire at the first location and is then taken to the second location and I do not see the volunteer until they are seated and settled which is when I and the one or two participants who will attempt to do what I do arrive at the second location. So, we are physically separated by being in separate locations.

I need a minimum of two participants, one to assist the volunteers in filling out the questionnaires and one to fill in health questionnaires alongside me so that we have a control to compare my correlation with.

I am working on finding participants for the study. I might engage university students. (Ones who I do not know prior.) If they are university students I might not need to mention anything about a paranormal investigation, since after all at this point nothing paranormal has been established. For all we know it is a study in detection of health problems based on external symptoms. And even if it were the case of extrasensory perception, such does not need to be described as paranormal.

skeen

3rd March 2009, 11:16 AM

desertgal

3rd March 2009, 11:47 AM

Frankly, I'm worried about what will happen if she ever realizes that absolutely none of the things she has claimed are real. Now that she has brought up the "S" word, I'm going to bow out of this, knowing that nothing is ever going to come in the way of proof or evidence regardless.

I agree, and will bow out as well. Anita's grasp on reality appears to be increasingly tenuous, and I have no desire to help her perpetuate her possible belief in a non-existent ability, or her apparent need to seek attention-which, frankly, I think is the only reason she comes here.

Ashles

3rd March 2009, 12:18 PM

Fair enough. Pop back anytime, I'm sure little will have changed. :)
But who knows, maybe we will have made startling progress by this time next year - e.g. maybe Anita will have faxed something to UncaYimmy or told us something about the pill samples.

In a way I am glad the other thread is closed - we don't need to know about any of Anita's personal details and issues, only about the study and the claim. The constant outpouring of personal problems and challenges just continually derailed the central subject - the 'ability' and testing for it.

On this thread hopefully everyone (including Anita) will stick to discussing the protocols for testing and any actual activities she has undertaken to investigate the claimed 'ability'.

Including adressing the bulleted list I have reposted again for about the eighth time.

Akhenaten

3rd March 2009, 09:42 PM

Reference:

A Study to gain more experience with the Medical Perceptions (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html)

Claimant: me
Participant: persons who assist me in the practical assignments of the study
Volunteer: person from the public who fills in the questionnaire and is seen by the claimant and one or two participants

I presume this is a list of definitions as they apply to the study and it is provided to assist the reader. I further presume that the defined words will appear in the text of the study, hence the requirement for a glossary in the first place. Curiously, the first defined term, "claimant" does not appear in the text.

The reason I mention this is to make the point that you appear to be drafting your study with only the members of this forum in mind as your target audience. You need to remember that ultimately you're going to have to sell this idea to a more general audience who won't have the background that we do. Perhaps the study would benefit from a short preamble explaining it's broad objectives, and include your definitions in that.

As it stands, the first line of the study could be paraphrased as "Person making unknown claim: unknown person" with no further explanation being offered.

The study will require two separate locations that are out of sight and sound of each other. Volunteers will begin at the first location, . . .

This might be tricky. I believe that the sight of yourself and one or two participants observing a volunteer from behind for up to 15 minutes in the street is going to attract more attention than the participant with the sheaf of papers at Location 1. I fear that you will require yet another participant to redirect curious onlookers from Location 2 to Location 1, should they wish to become volunteers. A greater fear is that few people will have enough time or interest to pursue this redirection.

. . . where one participant is stationed and hands them the health questionnaire to be filled in. The questionnaire also comes with an information page that describes the study, what is involved in volunteering, and how to fill in the questionnaire.

This is a lot of reading and filling in to be done by people who happen to be passing in the street and will require enthusiastic and dedicated participants to attract volunteers. The participant cannot simply hand out questinnaires to random passers-by without some form of spruiking going on first. The "patter" to be used by the participants as an introduction to the study for prospective volunteers needs to be included here. In other words, "hands them the health questionnaire to be filled in" is glossing over an important aspect of how the study will actually be conducted.

The participant is also available to discuss the study with the volunteer and also to answer any questions that the volunteers might have. The participant holds on to the filled in volunteer's health questionnaires.

Similarly to the above comment, this is going to require that the participant be as conversant with your claim as you are yourself, and motivated to attract as many volunteers as possible. The source of such participants might also best be covered in a preamble to the study.

Once the volunteer has finished with the questionnaire and handed it in, a second participant takes the volunteer to the second location.

I sincerely believe this part of the procedure is going to deter most potential volunteers. It simply doesn't seem likely that people will allow themselves to be shepherded around like this by total strangers.

Once the volunteer is seated and settled in, . . .

I recall reading somewhere that you don't have permission to deploy tables and chairs for the conduct of the study. The imposition of standing in the street while up to three people look at your back trying to detect health problems seems a lot to ask of volunteers.

. . . the claimant and one or two additional participants will spend up to ten or fifteen minutes to look at the volunteer and fill in our own health questionnaires based on our impressions of the health of the person. The volunteer may of course leave early if they wish.

The bolded words are equivalent to "Volunteers will not be held against their will" and need not be stated. To do so, in fact, sounds a little threatening in itself.

The reason I propose that the volunteers be taken to a second location is because many volunteers might gather at the first location and should not be seen early by the claimant or the one or two participants.

Since no signage is allowed, the only way that potential volunteers will know of the study is if they are approached by the participant. Thus, the recruitment and flow of volunteers automatically limited to one-at-a-time.

My comments so far refer to the part of the study dealing mainly with the enlistment of participants and volunteers and I will refrain from commenting on other aspects of the study until the devil in these details has been ironed out, mixed metaphors notwithstanding.

arthwollipot

3rd March 2009, 09:45 PM

:popcorn1

Uncayimmy

3rd March 2009, 09:49 PM

Is my correlation (ie. accuracy) high enough to be interesting for further investigation?

The obvious answer is that to you, yes, it is worthy of further investigation because that's what you are doing. What's obvious to the rest of us is that you don't have any basis to be exploring the limits of your "ability" without first having a test that proves there's an ability to be explored.

Falsifying your claim is rather easy. Each and every false positive (detecting what is not there) is proof that your imagination is at work and calls into question the 100 or so "never been wrong" observations you have made so far.

As a practical matter, you had better get moving if you want to take advantage of Spring Break next week. You can't wait until the last minute to go looking for participants. You told us a week or two ago that you were contacting students on campus. Have you done that yet?

And where are the survey notes you promised to mail or fax to me? Not only did you promise here, but you promised in a private chat.

Uncayimmy

4th March 2009, 09:46 PM

From www.VisionFromFeeling.com

I have asked two of the three organizers of the FACT group again whether those members who have expressed interest in participating in the study could do so, and it seems that it will be allowed. Final decision will be posted here shortly. Oh, I did suggest to write and sign a waiver that clearly states that the study is not a test and that it can not provide evidence in favor of the claimed ability of medical perception, and that the study is entirely designed by me and is not endorsed by the FACT group. This waiver will be prepared shortly and be posted here for everyone to see. It should verify my honest intentions and avoid any concern of future complications. As you know, traditionally paranormal psychic claimants can be quite tricky! Luckily I'm not one of those!

Professor Yaffle

5th March 2009, 03:43 AM

never mind

kitakaze

5th March 2009, 03:53 AM

I never once participated in that thread and yesterday after seeing the last page I was glad for that. It was very sad and unsettling and I'm glad that Chill closed it. That person seems in dire need of professional help and I would keep that first and foremost in my mind if I ever tried to communicate with them.

VisionFromFeeling

5th March 2009, 09:20 AM

Dear Skeptics,
If we focus on my paranormal claim and refrain from personal attack, I've just had another brilliant idea and I'm surprised if you guys find cause to criticize it! Since I claim to see images of the inside of human bodies and am interested in investigating what its correlation is with real information, there are plenty of people who have had MRI's and other medical imaging done and these images are still available! How about a simple matching test where I match medical images with persons? This is a brilliant idea and would make a very easy to arrange test. Before I claim this and proceed to such an official test, I do need to try this on my own because I do not make specific claims until I have experienced the specifics of the claim as would be outlined in a test.

Luckily I am headed toward a career associated with medical imaging so maybe I can pull some strings? I will look into this. Tell me what you guys think. It's good, isn't it?

Edited for civility. Keep it civil, or the thread will be closed, or moderated.

VisionFromFeeling

5th March 2009, 09:29 AM

One of the benefits of having such a test of matching MRI and other medical images with persons are that we are no longer limited to health information that can be verified on site (such as a scar on the surface of the skin) and can work with information that is embedded in the body. Such information is of course out of sight and therefore suitable for a test since there is no question of whether it would be detectable from the outside with plain eyesight.

The persons who volunteer for such a test have of course already had medical images taken recently and the cost of imaging is already covered.

I really do need to try this out first since I don't know yet whether I can translate a 2-dimensional image into what I perceive in order to make a match. I do intend to look into it right away.

*Sorry. I thought it was funny.

Skeptical Greg

5th March 2009, 09:29 AM

Why should we believe you would actually carry out this test, when you have refused to submit to any number of simple protocols ?

There is no longer any question ( not here, anyway ) of whether or not you have this claimed ability ..

The question is why you think you do .. ( .. assuming you are not simply lying )

Jonquill

5th March 2009, 09:30 AM

Are MRIs easy to interpret though? Or are they like xrays and utrasounds and look like blurry nothing unless you have been trained to read them.

How would you determine that what the MRI showed and what you thought you saw were a match?

paximperium

5th March 2009, 09:36 AM

The persons who volunteer for such a test have of course already had medical images taken recently and the cost of imaging is already covered.

Are you sure you can afford about $1000-1500 bucks per chest or abdominal scan per patient from a private MRI scanning center?

paximperium

5th March 2009, 09:38 AM

Are MRIs easy to interpret though? Or are they like xrays and utrasounds and look like blurry nothing unless you have been trained to read them.
The latter unless it is absurdly obvious. You would have to pay a radiologist to read it. An Xray is billed a few hundred bucks, an MRI takes about 10times as long to read. Guess how much it'll cost.

Jonquill

5th March 2009, 09:44 AM

I've never seen an MRI but I wouldn't imagine they are like Anita claims to see medical images 'the heart is nice and pink' kind of stuff?

EHocking

5th March 2009, 09:45 AM

One of the benefits of having such a test of matching MRI and other medical images with persons are that we are no longer limited to health information that can be verified on site (such as a scar on the surface of the skin) and can work with information that is embedded in the body. Such information is of course out of sight and therefore suitable for a test since there is no question of whether it would be detectable from the outside with plain eyesight....But of course will be ignored by you, just as you ignored the fact that you missed trauma to a "subject's" diaphragm.
Proof was given that this trauma occurred and when you failed in recognising it, you pretended it never happened.
:shocked:

paximperium

5th March 2009, 09:49 AM

I've never seen an MRI but I wouldn't imagine they are like Anita claims to see medical images 'the heart is nice and pink' kind of stuff?
An MRI can be done with and without contrast and can be T1 or T2 weighted...I can pick out big things on a scan but anything subtle; I leave to those with 3+ years of residency.

The cost is prohibitively expensive for this test, this of course will undoubtedly lead to the suggestion of using people with preexisting MRIs...of course this will lead to selection bias since people with MRIs tend to have something abnormal.

Kariboo

5th March 2009, 09:52 AM

I do need to try this on my own

How?????

Jonquill

5th March 2009, 09:59 AM

The cost is prohibitively expensive for this test, this of course will undoubtedly lead to the suggestion of using people with preexisting MRIs..

I thought that was what she meant anyway

"there are plenty of people who have had MRI's and other medical imaging done and these images are still available!"

Moochie

5th March 2009, 10:49 AM

Uncayimmy

5th March 2009, 11:59 AM

It's not a brilliant idea. It's really rather silly. I can't believe anyone is even entertaining it. Anita sure has a way of suckering people. My guess is that she wants to distract people from asking her about the things she keeps ignoring. Or maybe she wants to distract from the fact that it's Thursday before spring break and she doesn't hasn't set a date and time for her study.

There is no point to having MRIs. You could accomplish exactly the same thing just by having everyone write down their ailments ("brain tumor") on a piece of paper and matching those to the people.

Adding MRIs to the mix causes several problems. First, Anita is not trained in reading an MRI. This gives her a HUGE out. "I saw the tumor is his brain, but I couldn't see it on the MRI. That's not an incorrect reading." Or maybe, "What I saw is not visible on the MRI because <who knows what>."

Second, it greatly reduces the pool of potential candidates to be read. How many people have MRIs laying around?

Anita, you need to focus. Where are the survey results you promised to send?

LONGTABBER PE

5th March 2009, 12:48 PM

Heres a good working title for "the study"

Scientific Claims Analysis Measurement study

Mashuna

5th March 2009, 01:16 PM

Heres a good working title for "the study"

Scientific Claims Analysis Measurement study

It's a good acronym, but it's already in use.

Supplemental Complementary Alternative Medicine.

Old man

5th March 2009, 02:02 PM

Dear Skeptics,
If we focus on my paranormal claim and refrain from personal attack, I've just had another brilliant idea and I'm surprised if you guys find cause to criticize it! Since I claim to see images of the inside of human bodies and am interested in investigating what its correlation is with real information, there are plenty of people who have had MRI's and other medical imaging done and these images are still available! How about a simple matching test where I match medical images with persons? This is a brilliant idea and would make a very easy to arrange test. Before I claim this and proceed to such an official test, I do need to try this on my own because I do not make specific claims until I have experienced the specifics of the claim as would be outlined in a test. Two words -
Bony Adam's Apple. :D

You've proved your skill at this - You're 100% incorrect.

paximperium

5th March 2009, 02:21 PM

Unless I misread VfF's post, I understood it to mean matching MRIs to the person whose image it is. Simply a guessing game, made easier if the person's present and subconsciously provides a "tell" of identity.

M.
Good point. I misread her post.
Yes, it is nothing more than a loaded guessing game, loaded in favor towards her direction since:
1)People who got MRI's usually have medical problems.
2)There is a measurement of subjective judgment in reading MRIs.
3)Being able to see a patient does nothing more than give her information to make her guesses.

VisionFromFeeling

5th March 2009, 03:10 PM

Unless I misread VfF's post, I understood it to mean matching MRIs to the person whose image it is. Simply a guessing game, made easier if the person's present and subconsciously provides a "tell" of identity.Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.

Yes, it is nothing more than a loaded guessing game, loaded in favor towards her direction since:
1)People who got MRI's usually have medical problems.
2)There is a measurement of subjective judgment in reading MRIs.
3)Being able to see a patient does nothing more than give her information to make her guesses. There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.

Skeptical Greg

5th March 2009, 03:20 PM

There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.Of course there are.. Just as there are in the protocals you have already been provided ..

That is why you will never actually submit to such a test ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/style_emoticons/default/new_guitar.gif

Ashles

5th March 2009, 03:23 PM

No Anita it is not a brilliant idea. As detailed by others above it is another distraction/guessing game to avoid doing the following activities.

Please try to stop posting pointless theorising and 'planned' new activities until you have actually completed some of the very, very basic things you should have done by now:

Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts)
Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)

Despuite all your many, many words, you have so far actually not done a single useful activity towards this claim. Not one.
Until you carry out at least some of those (very simple to complete) bulleted activities you are going to have zero credibility as someone who is genuinely attempting to cary out analysis of a claimed 'ability'.

Igoring this list wil not make it go away.

What was the point of agreeing to Pup sending you crushed pill samples if you refuse to ever refer to them again?
What was the point of your 'survey' at the mall if you never describe anything about it?
What was the point of saying you would send notes to UncaYimmy if you then refuse to do so?
What was the point of claiming you would test yourself with crystals (which you have claimed amazing previous ability with) if you then do not do so?

Leave the MRI to one side for now - it is simply unworkable. You cannot read an MRI so it is a pointless test - juat an elaborate guessing game with, yet again, no clear success/fail criteria.
Not 'amazing'. Silly.

Science is about steps. Try at least taking the very first steps towards testing.

Why do you continue to post here if you have no intention of taking on board anything suggested to you?
You are not even responding to discussions and tests you yourself previously agreed to.

How many times have I posted the same list of simple actions?
Why do you continue to completely ignore it?

What messages do you think that sends regarding your credibility?

Uncayimmy

5th March 2009, 03:26 PM

Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.

There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.

Your skills at devising tests absolutely suck. Do you want me to pick this apart for you? How about instead you point out all of the potential problems in such a test? I will grade you on your answer. Let's see if you can maintain your 4.0 outside of the classroom.

And where are the results from the survey that repeatedly promised to send me?

Ashles

5th March 2009, 03:38 PM

Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.
You were also sure your study would be able to falsify a non-ability.
You turned out to be incorrect about that too.

There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.
But if any such ways were suggested past experience indicates you would simply ignore them or reject them, substituting a poor protocol of your own that does not actually allow for objective marking or falsificaion.

No, the MRI comparison is not a good idea. In fact quite the opposite. You have already described how you use your ability and have rejected protocols that detail protocols that move away from how you describe your ability as having worked in the past.
You wanted the study and testing to be as similar to how it 'naturally works' as possible. So the MRI comparison must be rejected .

Also you say your ability is not actually MRI so comparing your visions to a graphical representation of something completely different is an illogical next step anyway.
Aside from the fact that you cannot interpret an MRI anyway.

As UncaYimmy says - focus. Pick a direction and follow it until you have learned something (be it positive or negative), not keep changing direction as a substitute for actually doing anything.
You say you can describe what medical ailments people have - keep that as your claim (as you have told us repeatedly you wish that to be considered your main and 'strongest claim).

It comes across at the moment that you love writing theoretically about imagined scenarios (without proper detail), but get very nervous whenever any sort of actual activity is close to being carried out.

And as another reminder please adress the bulleted list of actions.

TheSkepticCanuck

5th March 2009, 04:15 PM

VfF reminds me of NASCAR drivers. 500 miles later, after going around and around in circles, the drivers are back where they started from. :D

I find the whole protocol nonsense quite humourous. No matter what the proposed protocol is, the end result always seems to be, from the VfF perspective, that if she says something is there and it isn't, it is a miss, but if she doesn't say something is there, and it is, then it doesn't count as a miss. By this method of analysis, she could be guaranteed to never falsify the claim merely by saying nothing except when there is an obvious issue present, like a wart in an obvious place or a scar on the face, or any sort of easily noticeable issue. Heck, she doesn't even seem to grasp the concept that in science, one posits a theory, and then tries to disprove the theory, and when the theory survives many attempts to disprove it, then, and only then, does the researcher start to think that maybe, just maybe, there is something to the theory after all. Until she starts doing her studies or tests or whatever with this methodology in place, the entire exercise will be moot.

Cuddles

6th March 2009, 03:47 AM

In this thread let's focus on the study and if we feel it is going to be a pointless study, focus on criticising the shortcomings in the study itself.

Please can we all try to focus on the actual topic of the thread and not get distracted by yet more personalised discussions or red herrings.

Anita, do you have anything to say on the subject of your proposed study? If you want to talk about a completely different test, I would suggest you start a new thread in which to do so.

Uncayimmy

18th March 2009, 10:29 PM

Audible Click

19th March 2009, 12:08 AM

Why am I not surprised?

Ashles

19th March 2009, 04:44 AM

Thanks Unca,

So to recap:

Anita still hasn't done the test she was planning to do
The reason she hasn't done the test is the fault of the wicked skeptics again :rolleyes:
She still perservered with the skeptics even though they have made it clear they don't want anything to do with her awful protocol
Instead of just setting up a test with psych students she went to the Psych professor
So yet another Professor has heard her claim and, essentially, ruffled her hair, said "Ah bless" and sent her away without interest
She still intends to fax UncaYimmy the study results but is too busy and, as we all know, faxing paper takes a least 3-4 days of solid work

and she still hasn't done any of these:

Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts - I'm leaving this point in this list although I have already mentioned it)
Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Unca, if you speak to her again can you ask her why she is still not mentioning Pup's pill test?
It would take her no more time to answer about that that to type any response whatsoever.

Let us remind ourselves that Anita came onto these forums on (remember, remember) the 5th November 2008 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149).
So that is now almost 6 months in which Anita has managed to carry out precisely zero tests or moved forward in any way with an amazing and 'never been wrong' ability.
6 months in which we are still waiting for her to carry out the simple and quick list of actions detailed in my bullet points abve.

6 months in which she written thousands of words, but is always too busy to actually do anything practical towards her claim. 6 months in which breaks and testing are always just round the corner, but have never happened.

It's a very good cautionary tale and a detailed illustration of how claimants run into problems when their claims are analysed skeptically and in detail.

It is ironic that for all Anita's protestations that she is very unlike other claimants (in itself standard claimant behaviour), she has become almost a cliche standard claimant in following the usual pattern.

Professor Yaffle

19th March 2009, 04:49 AM

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...

Ashles

19th March 2009, 04:59 AM

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...
Oh yeah I miscounted a month somehow. :confused:

Can everyone pretend not to read that post for a month (I assume it will be identically applicable then).

Akhenaten

19th March 2009, 05:00 AM

On my calendar, that's about 4 1/2 months...

Arcturian Months™ are slightly shorter than ours.

ETA: Oh Darn! Sorry Ashles, I was too slow to save your credz.

Professor Yaffle

19th March 2009, 05:04 AM

Arcturian Months™ are slightly shorter than ours.

ETA: Oh Darn! Sorry Ashles, I was too slow to save your credz.

:D

Locknar

19th March 2009, 06:50 AM

VisionFromFeeling

19th March 2009, 05:22 PM

A little update for those who are interested:

I had a chat with Anita today. She was unable to conduct her Sidewalk Study over spring break. Turns out only one person from FACT was willing to assist her, and her protocol requires at least three people.

I asked her about using psych students like she said she was going to do. She said the psych professor she contacted told her to read up on synesthesia before attempting any such study. This could have been a polite way for the professor to say, "What you're describing ain't synesthesia." After all, there is no documented case of synesthesia that even remotely resembles the things she has described.

I also asked her again about the survey results. She once again promised to get them to me, but, of course, she is busying maintaining her pseudo 4.0 average, so she can't say when she will have the time. I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

Audible Click

19th March 2009, 06:04 PM

No matter what you say or how you say it , you have still not done one thing that you said you would do. You choose to cherry pick from posts on this thread asking you to give details or , even , fax details from a study supposedly done by you on Jan. 3.
I know this has all been said before and by much better posters then me. I'll go back to lurking and reading the ongoing saga of VfF if only to see how long and how far Anita will go to get her negative attention fix.

Jeff Corey

19th March 2009, 06:11 PM

Uncayimmy

19th March 2009, 07:15 PM

You are certainly entitled to post it, just as I am legally permitted to do so with any e-mail or snail mail sent to me, without the sender's permission. Of course, I would think that UncaY probably wouldn't mind posting the conversations , just to demonstrate who is selecting what.

Actually, Jeff, in the USA you do not have the right to publish e-mail or snail mail sent to you. The creator owns the copyright. In the case of snail mail, you can, of course, sell the paper itself, but you cannot publish them without permission.

As for publishing an entire IM, who really wants to read all that crap? I'm long winded as it is. :p

Jeff Corey

19th March 2009, 07:44 PM

From Pierce Law, take it with a homeopathic dose of salt:Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Uncayimmy

19th March 2009, 08:12 PM

I said to you that my study requires at least two participants. Not three. And the professor said that it really seems like synesthesia and if it didn't seem like it to her I'm sure she wouldn't have said so. But what ever. The next FACT Skeptics meeting is Thursday March 26 and I was told by one of the FACT organizers to try to gather participants then and in person. It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest. UncaYimmy, I might bring up the condition that if you and I speak over the internet again then I will do so only if you permit me to post our entire conversation here so that we can bring an end to selective representation of what was said.

Check this out, Anita. I'm gonna do something that you have yet to do since you've been here: Admit a mistake. You did indeed say that you needed at least two, not three people. I mistakenly recalled that as you saying you needed at least two more, which would make three. Your "protocol", as I recall, seemed to need at least four.

As for the second bit you crossed out, that was purely my opinion of why the teacher would tell you to read up on synesthesia. I don't think anyone reading what I wrote would have come to any other conclusion since I wrote, "This could have been..."

I don't know about you, but I don't go around sharing the entire contents of a conversation. I select what I consider relevant. If I make a mistake, then by all means correct me. If I omit something, then you are welcome to fill in the blanks.

Since you are implying that I did not relay the gist of our conversation, I will reproduce it here in its entirety. I will take your comments above as giving me permission to do so.

Note that my first message to her was sent on the 13th. A second was sent on the 17th. Her first response was on the 18th.
[3/13/2009 11:08:59 PM] Jim Carr: How did your sidewalk test go?
[3/17/2009 10:13:23 PM] Jim Carr: Wake up!
[3/18/2009 2:30:51 PM] Anita Ikonen: It didn't. Only one Skeptic volunteered to participate this time. So, one of the organizers of the FACT Group suggested that we meet up in the next FACT meeting where I can gather up some volunteers. *sigh* It does take forever, doesn't it?
[3/18/2009 2:31:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: I won't do the study without at least two skeptics. One who acts as a control and tries to do what I do, and one who handles the paperwork with the volunteers. I can't do it without.
[3/18/2009 2:31:58 PM] Anita Ikonen: And, now you're gonna post something on the JREF Forum saying that I write a lot when you're not here. So I'd better stop writing now or I'll be hearing about it.
[3/18/2009 2:32:41 PM] Jim Carr: What about the psych students you were going to contact?
[3/18/2009 2:34:12 PM] Anita Ikonen: Well, the Psychology professor I contacted said that I should read up on synesthesia plenty before commencing on a psychology-related research project which involves some of her students. I started reading on synesthesia, but with all the college work to do... It does sound like excuses, doesn't it. But it really isn't. I do wish I could do this very soon. Maybe I can combine it and just find some students on my own without the involvement of a faculty, and have both skeptics and students participate in the study.
[3/18/2009 2:35:59 PM] Jim Carr: Yes, it sounds like more excuses.
[3/18/2009 2:36:03 PM] Anita Ikonen: But it isn't.
[3/18/2009 2:36:19 PM] Jim Carr: Do or don't do. There is no try.
[3/18/2009 2:36:22 PM] Anita Ikonen: I'm very eager to have the study, but college does come first.
[3/18/2009 2:36:41 PM] Jim Carr: You promised to send me the survey results. I have yet to receive them.
[3/18/2009 2:37:14 PM] Anita Ikonen: Oh, and you wrote somewhere that since I was on Spring break I should have plenty of time to post on the JREF Forum? No, Spring break I studied more than ever before. It's the most relaxing thing I can think of, to return to school keeping up with classes.
[3/18/2009 2:37:25 PM] Anita Ikonen: Survey results... I have them right here.
[3/18/2009 2:37:34 PM] Anita Ikonen: Come and get them! Just joking.
[3/18/2009 2:37:47 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes, I need to get them to you. Soon.
[3/18/2009 2:38:19 PM] Anita Ikonen: Let me take a look and read some of them to you, just to ease some of your curiosity.
[3/18/2009 2:39:51 PM] Jim Carr: Simply following through on your promises would suffice.
[3/18/2009 2:41:10 PM] Anita Ikonen: Excerpts... excerpts...
[3/18/2009 2:41:14 PM] Anita Ikonen: Sorry, my food just got here.
[3/18/2009 2:41:42 PM] Anita Ikonen: I wrote that it's "far too loud and busy to do this compared to the calm and quiet that usually takes place"
[3/18/2009 2:41:45 PM] Jim Carr: As for Spring Break, YOU are the one who wrote, "Next week is Spring break so I will definitely have the time."
[3/18/2009 2:41:55 PM] Anita Ikonen: "mostly young people"
[3/18/2009 2:42:21 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes, time for THE STUDY! But not to type stuff on the JREF! There's a difference! If I could have the study right now, I'd put all other things aside!
[3/18/2009 2:43:27 PM] Anita Ikonen: I wrote that there were mostly healthy and young people at the mall and a hospital would be a better place. The survey notes are mostly observations like these.
[3/18/2009 2:44:01 PM] Anita Ikonen: I write that I have a hard time taking the 5 seconds to stare at strangers because I would feel impolite.
[3/18/2009 2:44:36 PM] Jim Carr: Please do not continue typing your notes to me via IM. Just send them as promised.
[3/18/2009 2:45:00 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright.
[3/18/2009 2:45:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Just giving an idea of what's there.
[3/18/2009 2:45:35 PM] Anita Ikonen: When are you going to call me on the phone?
[3/18/2009 2:45:39 PM] Anita Ikonen: That would be fun.
[3/18/2009 2:47:23 PM] Anita Ikonen: You and two others are the only skeptics who've spoken with me outside of JREF.
[3/18/2009 2:47:50 PM] Jim Carr: I dunno. We'll see. You go eat. I have to get back to work.
[3/18/2009 2:48:12 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright. Nice talking to you. Take care.
Note: What you see below is that she phoned me via Skype, but I did not answer.
[3/18/2009 2:49:10 PM] *** Missed call from Anita Ikonen. ***
[3/18/2009 2:49:14 PM] *** Call ended ***
Anita Ikonen
[3/18/2009 3:09:09 PM] Anita Ikonen: Can I call you? :)
[3/18/2009 3:16:47 PM] Anita Ikonen: By the way, I saw some of your work on your company website. You take beautiful pictures.

Miss_Kitt

19th March 2009, 11:06 PM

AC -- Probably because you've been following her threads.

May I suggest checking out reason1's thread on "staring" (but not simulated staring--it depends on the starer's intent, which BTW he has never asked)...

;)

Locknar

20th March 2009, 04:37 AM

Akhenaten

20th March 2009, 06:13 AM

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

It's funny how UncaYimmy always picks his favorite selections out of our internet conversations and totally omits the rest.

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

Since you are implying that I did not relay the gist of our conversation, I will reproduce it here in its entirety. I will take your comments above as giving me permission to do so.

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

Underneath UncaYimmy's avatar, in sekrit invisible writing, it says "Do not poke with stick". You don't seem able to see it.

VisionFromFeeling

20th March 2009, 08:02 AM

Ashles

20th March 2009, 08:34 AM

It is totally ironic, but I never intended to call UncaYimmy on Skype. I wanted to open the Chat window again and accidentally hit the Call button. I would not call through Skype, I don't even have a webcam to speak over Skype and it wouldn't work and I've never done it. I would only call over the phone, and even though I have UncaYimmy's phone number I have never ever tried to call him over the phone since I have not received his specific permission to do so.

The irony was that just as I had been asking to talk with him over the phone I had then accidentally hit the call button.
Just a clarification. :)

ETA: The study procedure calls for four participating skeptics which would be most convenient. However I would do with two if necessary to have the study. I would not do the study with one or none participants since the results would be officially unreliable if handled by me or my close acquaintances.
Still waiting for you to address any of these bullet points:

It's getting a bit hard to pretend you haven't read them now.

Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts )
Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Once again let me remind you it would have taken less time to update us on what happened with Pup's pill samples than it would to write yet more irrelevant posts.

If you wont respond to any of them would you at least have the decency and honesty to at least acknowledge you are deliberately avoiding them. Maybe even try to explain why.

VisionFromFeeling

20th March 2009, 10:36 AM

Detail what happened in the Study Survey on January 3rd
"Survey" - Experience the medical perceptions and record the experience to learn more about it. Involves no means of checking for accuracy since persons whose medical information is allegedly perceived are not approached.
"Study" - Experience of medical perceptions in staged settings that try out various test conditions, but a study does not implement all necessary test conditions to be considered of test quality, thus a study can never provide evidence toward the existence of the claimed ability. The study is also for educational purposes to learn more about the claimed experience of medical perception.
"Test" - Implement test conditions and is designed to be able to provide evidence for or against the claim and to reach a final conclusion. A test is based on the material learned from surveys and studies.

I will *do my very best* to scan the survey notes of January 3rd this weekend and e-mail them to UncaYimmy.

Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts ) Same as above.

Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Will be attempted this weekend.

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples. Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others. I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Unfortunately I presented most of my conclusion regarding my impressions of Wayne's health verbally and in full at the end of the viewing and had not written down everything that I said. I realize that this is unscientific and many complications have arisen because of it. I am taking much better notes since then and it is one further thing I learned from this particular reading experience with this person. At the moment I can't find the paper where I wrote this down. It's in my room but there are so many Physics papers around and everywhere!

Ashles

20th March 2009, 11:22 AM

Oh My God!
[faints in shock]
[recovers consciousness]
Okay, firstly thank you for addressing these points Anita, and it only took me posting them approximately seventeen times to get some form of response.

Detail what happened in the Study Survey on January 3rd
"Survey" - Experience the medical perceptions and record the experience to learn more about it. Involves no means of checking for accuracy since persons whose medical information is allegedly perceived are not approached.
"Study" - Experience of medical perceptions in staged settings that try out various test conditions, but a study does not implement all necessary test conditions to be considered of test quality, thus a study can never provide evidence toward the existence of the claimed ability. The study is also for educational purposes to learn more about the claimed experience of medical perception.
"Test" - Implement test conditions and is designed to be able to provide evidence for or against the claim and to reach a final conclusion. A test is based on the material learned from surveys and studies.

I will *do my very best* to scan the survey notes of January 3rd this weekend and e-mail them to UncaYimmy.

Unfortunately that in no way answered my question, it merely repeated definitions stated elsewhere (and definitions of other things at that).
You knew exactly to what I was referring so it's a rather silly and pointless answer.
Why are you now scanning the images and emailing them when you were gpoing to simply fax them before?
Oh well, we'll believe it when we see it.

Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts ) Same as above.
So to recap... "I am going to..."
Sure.
Right.
Believe it when we see it.

Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
Will be attempted this weekend.
I predict with 100% confidence that you wont.

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples.
And it has been repeatedly explained why that would defeat the whole point of the test.
You were simply asked to use your 'ability' in ways you have yourself claimed it working before.

Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others.
Eh? If you are saying the others you have encountered then just say what they are. Or at least provide some description.
If you can't how can you say you have encountered them before? And how could you say the control samples would then help.

I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.
So, to confirm, you were unable to identify any of the substances then?

Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Unfortunately I presented most of my conclusion regarding my impressions of Wayne's health verbally and in full at the end of the viewing and had not written down everything that I said. I realize that this is unscientific and many complications have arisen because of it.
It's strange that you deviated from your own protocol in the first instance you had with a real subject.
Hopefully you have learned from this.

I am taking much better notes since then
What notes? Have you been taking notes on subjects in a similar situation?
Can we see these new notes? Maybe we can help confirm whether they are thorough or detailed enough

and it is one further thing I learned from this particular reading experience with this person. At the moment I can't find the paper where I wrote this down. It's in my room but there are so many Physics papers around and everywhere!
You should consider investing in some sort of filing system.
I realise it won't afford you quite the same opportunities to project the image of a delightfully serious yet slightly scatty genius science student, but it might allow you to actually find things.

Miss_Kitt

20th March 2009, 01:12 PM

Ashles! Stop being a big ol' meanie!!

We are going to see Anita try her "very best" to scan and e-mail some documents to UncaYimmy. And since she's a career 4.0 Science Student, her Very Best is going to be good!

I admit to confusion on the pill thing, though, since she said she could use her Vibrational AlgebraTM to compare them to a human body and see what they were good for...

Waiting with bated breath, MK

Skeptical Greg

20th March 2009, 01:50 PM

I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples.I bet you would ! But, you are kidding, right ?

" I can see through walls, but would you mind telling me what's on the other side first, so I can check the accuracy of what I'm seeing ?"

It's unbelievable that you expect anyone to take you seriously..

Akhenaten

20th March 2009, 01:52 PM

Well darn it! I was going to type "What Ashles said", but MK will call me names if I do.

I'll have to be content with :bunpan

TSR

20th March 2009, 02:42 PM

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples. Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others. I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

Simplicity itself: go to any drug or grocery store, and check the shelves. Since you can see into objects, the packaging should pose no barrier at all to your checking the various remedy's vibrational energy, and comparing them to the samples you recieved.

HTH. HAND.

Pup

20th March 2009, 03:55 PM

Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others.

Well, you could just identify them the way you claim to be able to do with any other medical substance, as you explained here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4182602&postcount=34)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338248&postcount=1280). In those posts, you used calcium carbonate as an example. Calcium carbonate is one of the pills.

If all you can identify is the effect of the pill on the human body, then do that, look up what effect the medicines have, and match each effect with each pill. Which substance reduces fever? That's the aspirin. Which relieves decongestion of the nose. That's the phenylephrine. And so forth.

Do you still believe you can do what you claimed in those posts?

TheSkepticCanuck

20th March 2009, 04:33 PM

Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
I would love to acquire pure uncrushed samples of the pills that were used in order to have a reference by which to compare what I feel from Pup's prepared samples. Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others. I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

Since you have claimed to see at the molecular / quantum level, all you need to do is to describe the molecular structure of each sample, and Pup, or anyone else here with a good knowledge of chemistry, can verify your answers by looking up the chemical structures of the compounds and comparing them to what you 'see'.

Seems simple enough to me if you can actually do what you claim to be able to do.

VisionFromFeeling

20th March 2009, 07:12 PM

Akhenaten

21st March 2009, 03:27 AM

The survey notes of the survey I did in January 3 are now posted on my website at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html Enjoy. :)

*Note: The notes say that the survey took place on January 2nd, whereas I have written down elsewhere that it would take place on January 3rd. I regret this discrepancy even if it only involves an uncertainty of one day, however I suspect that it was more likely the case of the 3rd since that was a Saturday, but I could be wrong. I apologize for this.

Great Ramesses Ghost! Is it eventually already?

Just to clear up the date, it was 3 January, as stated by you in post #990 of the closed thread. I don't think I'm supposed to quote from there, but I will note that my clarification here is shorter that your *note above, and yet manages to convey the relevant facts.

I am unable to comment on the content of The Survey notes as I'm unable to read the scanned handwritten notes (not your fault), and the linked page containing the typed transcription is truncated after the third paragraph.

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 03:05 PM

Akhenaten,
I am unable to comment on the content of The Survey notes as I'm unable to read the scanned handwritten notes (not your fault), and the linked page containing the typed transcription is truncated after the third paragraph. Yes. Yesterday was finally 'eventually'. I did expect there to be a lot of people who can't read my handwriting. So I typed the page that is linked to on my website, www.visionfromfeeling.com/surveynotes.html
All survey notes are now available on that page. :)

Remember that the little pages on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html that show the seven survey notes are links, you can click on them to open them in their own page, and then click on those again to magnify them. :)

Locknar

21st March 2009, 03:10 PM

I am unable to comment on the content of The Survey notes as I'm unable to read the scanned handwritten notes (not your fault), and the linked page containing the typed transcription is truncated after the third paragraph.You are not missing anything...lots of "I feel nervous about doing this" type comments, and obvious conclusions (elderly people with typical elderly type problems, etc).

Ultimately, totally pointless notes to a totally pointless survey.

Akhenaten

21st March 2009, 03:47 PM

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

Remember that the little pages on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html that show the seven survey notes are links, you can click on them to open them in their own page, and then click on those again to magnify them. :)

Thank you Anita, but as it turns out I have some familiarity with web pages. I dare say I was writing hyperlinks before you had your first pepparkaka.

ETA:

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

So I typed the page that is linked to on my website, www.visionfromfeeling.com/surveynotes.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/surveynotes.html)

Yes, I know. Otherwise I would not have been able to make the comment about the linked page that I did. I see now that you have added to it since I posted.

I noes how to wurk teh internetz, kthxbai.

Akhenaten

21st March 2009, 04:06 PM

You are not missing anything...lots of "I feel nervous about doing this" type comments, and obvious conclusions (elderly people with typical elderly type problems, etc).

Ultimately, totally pointless notes to a totally pointless survey.

OK, well, when I say Unable to Read™ what I mean is that after Googling how to operate hyperlinks and opening the pages and then consulting the Microsoft and Adobe Help Centres to establish the best method of zooming in on a page using my Photoshop® application, I had some difficulty in making out all the words, particularly on the later pages.

:)

One thing I DID make out was a definition on the last page which may be useful in another thread.

VfF Survey Notes, 3 January 2009, Page 5, Lines 19-21 (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/img/SurveyNotes7.JPG)

2 sec. is looking.
3 sec. is staring.
4 sec. is rude and I won't do it!

Hmm

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 04:16 PM

Locknar,
You are not missing anything...lots of "I feel nervous about doing this" type comments, and obvious conclusions (elderly people with typical elderly type problems, etc).

Ultimately, totally pointless notes to a totally pointless survey. And that is part of why it took me so long to post them, I knew they weren't "breakthrough material". But they are what they are. I will be adding my comments and conclusions about them soon. The survey was however not pointless, I learned a lot about my claimed unusual experience and it brings me further in this investigation. :p

Akhenaten,
Thank you Anita, but as it turns out I have some familiarity with web pages.Oh I wasn't intending that comment to you specificly, I was thinking of some others who might not know how to access or magnify the documents.
I dare say I was writing hyperlinks before you had your first pepparkaka. What's this? First this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4533858&postcount=123), now pepparkakor (=gingerbread cookies).

Akhenaten

21st March 2009, 04:36 PM

What's this? First this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4533858&postcount=123), now pepparkakor (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4538746#post4538746) (=gingerbread cookies).

We are, I think for the most part, seekers of knowledge on this forum.

Some are looking for love in all the wrong places, so to speak, but that does little to affect the awesome collective knowledge available.

Occasionally you will find that some posters are partial to serving up little reminders of the depth and breadth of that knowledge.

'tis a cautionary tale for those who might stray into the temptation of hyperbole and other such vexations.

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 04:57 PM

:confused: :confused: :confused: I have no idea what Akhenaten said and how that relates to pepparkakor.

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 05:15 PM

First this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4480258&postcount=2620), on this page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149&page=66), where he calls me the "ultimate drama queen" for having been suicidal after a difficult personal experience which I had to explain here to avoid being called a liar. :rolleyes:

Then he brings the topic up again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4536735&postcount=160) as a personal attack, to which I choose to respond in a PM:

Jeff,
Why are you turning to personal attacks? What is wrong with you? Do you think that just because you are behind a computer and not in front of people who are in the same room with you that you can say anything you like and be as rude as you like to others? Would you say these things if I was in the same room with you? Are you really that rude in person, or is it only on the internet where perhaps things don't seem as "real" to you as in real life?

I would like to kindly ask you to stop trying to harass me. There is no reason to go to personal insults. I am a paranormal claimant, yes, but that doesn't allow you to engage in some sort of "modern witch hunt" just because I have an unusual experience of medical perception and choose to come here to discuss it with others and to engage in scientific inquiry into my experience.

Please refrain from further personal attack. Perhaps you have a social disorder in which you are unable to feel empathy or compassion toward others and find that it is ok to try to harass others.

One more and I report you.

To which Dear Jeff replies,
You stupid cow, how dare you to threaten me. **** off.

To which I reply,
Jeff... what on earth is wrong with you? You insult me on the Forum, and when I kindly ask you to stop, you start with this? I'm quite disappointed. I'm a reasonable girl, even after all the harshness you've shown toward me, I'm still talking with you on the Forums, listening to your advice, and treating you with kindness. Why can't you please stop being upset with me? I don't want any enemies. Why are you doing all of this?

:( VFF

Is this what some Skeptics think Skepticism toward Paranormal Claimants is all about? :confused:

LONGTABBER PE

21st March 2009, 05:41 PM

VFF, the bottom line is that you obfuscate, cherrypick your "facts", avoid legitimate tests, run from direct questions and produce NOTHING.

S cientific
C laims
A mid
M eaningless
E ndless
D rivel

Akhenaten

21st March 2009, 05:41 PM

Anita, I thought you were doing well, and I was hoping that your interaction with a few other paranormal claimants would be of great value to you.

The above exchange, and it's publication are steps backwards and won't end well. Please reconsider.

fromdownunder

21st March 2009, 05:52 PM

I don't know if publicly revealing the content of PMs without the consent of both parties is allowable on this Forum, but if it is, then this Forum would be unique among all the ones I have visited.

Norm

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 06:53 PM

Blah, you guys. I'm working on my investigation. Impatience is all I see from you. Besides, even if I were guilty of all the things you Skeptics don't like it wouldn't allow a person to cross the line to rudeness and personal attack. Stop defending the guy's behavior. :mad:

fromdownunder,
I don't know if publicly revealing the content of PMs without the consent of both parties is allowable on this Forum, but if it is, then this Forum would be unique among all the ones I have visited.
Yes Hon, it is perfectly ok to post private PM material here on the Forum. Here's an example:

Ashles posted long excerpts from my PM to him, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4336990&postcount=1245), after I had repeatedly stated on the Forum that I did not wish to answer his question and had even started this particular PM which he was now revealing to everyone, with,
Dear Ashles,
I understand your interest in my claims of having something of potential real-world application in my unusual perceptions, but I can not discuss this openly or on the thread. And he also said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4336990&postcount=1245),
N.B. - Nothing in the PM was of a personal nature and I have explained to Anita that I will reproduce any sections of PMs I feel are relevant to claims.
I totally understand if she chooses not to PM me in future - in fact I would prefer it if communication remained in the thread, especially if, like this, it involves matters directly relevant to issues discussed on the thread.

To which I said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338263&postcount=1284),
As a courtesy I would have hoped that you would have understood that for me to choose to send something to you in PM means that I have a personal reason not to want to share the information publicly on the thread. I would have preferred you not sharing this information on the thread. (...) I only sent you this information to further explain why I choose not to share details about my ideas of vibrational information publicly on the thread, since you have expressed continuous urgency to understand the reasons behind that choice, but you have (unwillingly I'm sure) misused my intentions.
And (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338300&postcount=1287),
I am disappointed that you would post content from a private message publicly here on the thread. I am very disappointed with you and unhappy with your decision to do so. :(:mad:
And I also say (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338300&postcount=1287),
That is for me to decide what content I consider to be personal nature to me. I have already asked that we not involve my university in our discussions and you are continuing to disregard my feelings.

After which I learned (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338330&postcount=1290),
As I said there - do not assume PMs are in any way protected or sacrosanct. I will exercise my own discretion as to what I reproduce on the thread. (...) What, did you expect me to just accept your new stories in a PM, then not refer to them on the main thread and also to then stop questioning your strange requirements for secrecy?
And (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4338935&postcount=1336),
If I wish to post the entire content of any PM I have been sent which directly relates to the background of the paranormal claim you have made, I will do so.

Wordcount: Ashles posted 72 words direct quote from PM.
I posted 10 words direct quote from PM. (Or 9, if **** is not a word.)

Phew. So it's obviously ok. :rolleyes:

Jeff Corey

21st March 2009, 07:24 PM

Yeah, it's OK by me, too.
By the way, Anita, stop harassing me or I will report you to the Bovine Bureau of Intelligence.

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 07:32 PM

Jeff Corey, I am not harassing you.

Jeff Corey

21st March 2009, 08:20 PM

I am not harassing you either. It was just a friendly query about your attempt to achieve an acceptable grade in the class you were so persecuted in last year that resulted in you getting a GPA lower than you had claimed so proudly that prompted your threat. So don't send me any more PMs that threaten to report me.
Get it?

GeeMack

21st March 2009, 08:28 PM

Two of the medical substances I have never encountered before, and I am not sure about how to identify the others. I feel that I can not conclude anything on Pup's test other than that I would love to be able to follow it through but need the reference material.

So once again you demonstrate that you are an utter failure at accomplishing the things you've claimed to be able to do. I would offer a couple of the most likely explanations as to why you continue to claim these abilities even in the face of substantial evidence that you have none. Oddly though, you've somehow been given the protection of the mods here and such legitimate speculation is off limits. But if it were anyone else but you, Anita, I'd say the evidence suggests they are mentally ill or suffering from some sort of hallucinations.

Jeff Corey

21st March 2009, 09:39 PM

Oh, no don't even hint at that. It is much more parsimonious to posit that she does not tell the truth.

Uncayimmy

21st March 2009, 10:08 PM

Yes Hon, it is perfectly ok to post private PM material here on the Forum. Here's an example:

Check the FAQ. E-mail, like all writing, has an automatic copyright by the creator. The FAQ here advises that it only be reprinted in the interests of fair use, which is a very tricky area of law. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to post the contents. You can, of course, paraphrase and quote as needed.

Now, if somebody says not to send them PMs and advises you that they will reprint them, then arguably you make a tacit agreement for publication if you PM that person.

More importantly, your personal dramas with other members of the board should stay private. If you think you are being harassed, report the post to the moderators. If you have a PM you consider harassing, send it a moderator via PM.

It's off-topic to have this kind of bickering because it has nothing to do with your study protocol. Neither does this post for that matter, but I'm speaking up now so it doesn't become a train wreck by the time the moderators get a chance to review this thread. I don't want it to be closed like the original VFF thread.

Jeff Corey

21st March 2009, 10:15 PM

OK by me, read this tomorrow,

VisionFromFeeling

21st March 2009, 10:27 PM

So once again you demonstrate that you are an utter failure at accomplishing the things you've claimed to be able to do. I would offer a couple of the most likely explanations as to why you continue to claim these abilities even in the face of substantial evidence that you have none. Oddly though, you've somehow been given the protection of the mods here and such legitimate speculation is off limits. But if it were anyone else but you, Anita, I'd say the evidence suggests they are mentally ill or suffering from some sort of hallucinations. Well, GeeMack, there are five medicine samples given to me by Pup and they fall into two general categories based on their medicinal effects: allergy medicines, and general pain or antiinflammatory medicines. So that presents one problem. Another problem is that I am asked to identify the samples by name, whereas when I perceive vibrational information (that I then translate into physical significance) it won't spell out to me commercial names such as "Aspirin!" but rather a feeling of what the medicine is all about. I would require a reference sample to compare with, just like if you go to a foreign country where you don't speak the language and you are presented with five different colors on a vision test and you have to match these with that language's names for those colors - you couldn't do it! You'd ask for a reference. Or a translation. So there.

The claim that I am here to discuss and am having tested is detection and description of health information, and I have valid reasons to proceed with it. And we all have the protection of the mods. I couldn't harass you either not that I would want to. And GeeMack, my experience of medical perceptions has no symptoms of being mental illness. It is most likely some form of synesthesia, and it is very interesting since I have so far had very compelling correlation with actual health information and not had a single case of verified inaccuracy. Which is why I am investigating this. Even if slowly which brings about unbearable impatience in some of you.

And GeeMack, if of course this investigation and tests reveal that there is no significant correlation between what I experience and with actual real world information, then of course I would consider that it could be the case of hallucination. But even at that, I'd not be worried, since these medical perceptions are no more alarming than when you look at a painting and feel an emotion or impression based on it, or when you hear a song and you see a memory of what you did in the past. Information linkage. One thing associates to another. Nothing to worry about. So there, GeeMack.

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

fromdownunder

21st March 2009, 10:28 PM

fromdownunder,

Yes Hon, [snip]

I am beginning to understand why some people respond to you the way they do.

Norm

Uncayimmy

21st March 2009, 10:40 PM

From your notes:

Now people are just these visual images of people, with a current of flowing air, thick block, where I see the individual air molecules swirling around as they are displaced in a net flow to the left.
Is this the first time you have ever seen individual air molecules? Specifically, which molecules did you see? Can we use this to create a test?

Note: I confirm that black people are harder. They have fewer health problems and their tissues & internal chemicals chemistry etc. is different. I'm less experienced
In what way do blacks have different tissues and internal chemicals? Blacks do not have fewer health problems. In the USA they have more health problems than whites. See http://www.blackhealthcare.com/BHC/HealthStatistics/HealthStatistics1.asp.

young man ~20, spiky hairstyle, slender. Internal ear problem due to past exposure to loud sound/music. Not ringing, but the internal ear parts've been pushed inwards due to pressurewave/soundblast.
Please elaborate. What internal ear parts are pushed inwards?

I confirm that I feel like the vision comes from the vibration/motion of molecules of tissue. I felt like my vision eye transmitted a beam that begun to move vibrate/rotate the molecules of a man's lung tissue when I looked deep into his chest for 3 sec.

On what basis did you conclude that you transmit some beam from your vision eye, whatever that is?

Overall, I would say that you wasted your time.

Uncayimmy

21st March 2009, 10:46 PM

And GeeMack, if of course this investigation and tests reveal that there is no significant correlation between what I experience and with actual real world information, then of course I would consider that it could be the case of hallucination. But even at that, I'd not be worried, since these medical perceptions are no more alarming than when you look at a painting and feel an emotion or impression based on it, or when you hear a song and you see a memory of what you did in the past. Information linkage. One thing associates to another. Nothing to worry about. So there, GeeMack.

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Once again, it is nothing at all like any case of synesthesia ever documented. Your descriptions do not match the diagnostic criteria for synesthesia. It's not that. Period.

As for your "feelings" you can say they are just feelings, but you have repeatedly stated that you have vivid imagery. Most recently in your survey notes you said you could see individual air molecules just like you have repeatedly stated you can view internal organs and zoom in on them to the molecular level. That is nothing like an emotional reaction to a painting.

It is neither synesthesia or some extrasensory ability. It's your vivid imagination combined with an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Jonquill

21st March 2009, 10:50 PM

I don't know why Anita always seems to make things so difficult, a lot of her survey notes are about how she doesn't feel comfortable looking at people. Sure I wouldn't enjoy staring rudely at people either but I think it would be pretty easy to go to a public place and get a good long look at people from the back or the side with out them being aware that you were watching them. It's not as though people can feel you looking at them.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 12:09 AM

UncaYimmy,
I will type up some comments and conclusions about my survey which should answer these questions that I knew were UpcomingTM.
Is this the first time you have ever seen individual air molecules? Specifically, which molecules did you see? Can we use this to create a test? I have seen individual air molecules before. Years ago, before I had the knowledge that nitrogen comes as a molecule of two joint nitrogen atoms in air, I had the experience of seeing a nitrogen molecule, with the typical neon green I always see nitrogen and as a pair of two atoms! It contradicted with what my prior belief or assumption would have been at that time. Of course I could have had subconscious knowledge, but here's how I've explained this to you before (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4253497&postcount=284) with whether I could have known that a vasectomy involved the removal of tissue,
Let me bring this up again: If I were on Who Wants To Be A Millionare? and it is the last, million dollar question, I have done 50/50, and all that remains is: "Vasectomy involves... an incision, or the removal of tissue?" I use all my knowledge and all my might, and I answer "incision", and lose the million dollars. I assure you I was under the assumption that a vasectomy involves an incision. The same would have happened back then had I been asked whether nitrogen in air is one atom or two atoms each. Of course now as a Chemistry major I definitely know better. But yes, I've perceived air molecules before. But I don't often.

If the air quality in a room becomes bad, ie. if people are breathing in it and there is no exchange with fresh air, I perceive a build-up of carbon dioxide which looks black and red. Yes I can definitely conceive tests to check whether my perception of air molecules correlates with actual information or whether these are impressions subjective to me. I'd love to find out which is the case, even if that doesn't touch my main claim.
In what way do blacks have different tissues and internal chemicals? Blacks do not have fewer health problems. In the USA they have more health problems than whites. Well, according to my perceptions I perceive that in general and among what I have been exposed to, black people would have better health than white people. I don't make conclusions based on that, this is simply what I perceive. Alright, here it is:

I perceive that the bodies of black people would react very differently to having an open flesh-wound than would white people. That they have a much stronger system that produces the sticky yellow liquid that washes, seals, dries, and protects a wound.

I perceive that black people have much fewer different types of chemicals in the body than do white people. Enzymes, perhaps. The variety of chemicals in white people's blood and tissues is much more diverse. According to my perception.

I hate to say it but I perceive that black people in general would have a shorter lifespan.

I hate to say it but I perceive a much larger variety of health problems and also of genetic problems and structural abnormalities in white people than I do in black people. Thus black people being healthier with this regard.

I perceive that black people would be more prone to ankle arthritis or ankle problems, whereas white people would be more prone to wrist arthritis or wrist problems.

But in my perception, most other things are quite the same! :)
Please elaborate. What internal ear parts are pushed inwards? Slightly affected the ear drum but mainly affected one of the pointy structures behind the eardrum, either the malleus, the incus or the stapes but not affected the vestibular system, cochlea, or other deeper embedded structures.
On what basis did you conclude that you transmit some beam from your vision eye, whatever that is? Because in my perception, the small-scale material of the lung tissue begun to vibrate differently due to the interaction with an incoming and interfering beam of some sort from outside the body, and it happened in the regions that I was targeting. I could perceive that surrounding tissue was not reacting this way. This is a mystery. I won't even try to offer an explanation to what this means, or doesn't mean. And I don't think it matters. I'm more interested now in what I can do. Not how it would come about. :)
Overall, I would say that you wasted your time. I would say that I gained more experience with my medical perceptions. I learned that I need a room that is not drafty, where the air is normal room temperature or slightly warmer and not cool like at a mall entrance. I got the beginnings of a rough estimate of how often I perceive something in a random sample of people and relation to the demographics of people. Confirmation that I being from Northern Europe do not have much experience with perceiving black people's tissue and that I would prefer all Caucasian on my paranormal test. An idea of how many seconds I need to form images. Distance between me and the persons that is required. What would be distractions, so that I don't have to go all the way to Hollywood and encounter previously unimaginable distractions and tell the IIG that I can't do it. And much more. :) It was a good little survey. I might have another one. :)

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 12:47 AM

UncaYimmy,
Once again, it is nothing at all like any case of synesthesia ever documented. Your descriptions do not match the diagnostic criteria for synesthesia. It's not that. Period. Well, it is some form of association. I perceive something when I look at people, and I experience it as being vibrational information that is felt, which then translates into images, texture, and other forms of information.
As for your "feelings" you can say they are just feelings, but you have repeatedly stated that you have vivid imagery. Most recently in your survey notes you said you could see individual air molecules just like you have repeatedly stated you can view internal organs and zoom in on them to the molecular level. That is nothing like an emotional reaction to a painting. To encounter one form of information and to associate it automatically to information of another form that is experienced.
It is neither synesthesia or some extrasensory ability. It's your vivid imagination combined with an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I do not automatically assume my perceptions to be reality. It's just that I've experienced correlation between the medical information I have and with actual health information. Not because I would be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, but because of it being confirmed by other means.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 01:10 AM

;) Look what I found (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4267167&postcount=440) while I was looking for a certain earlier post (that I ended up not finding) in the ol' thread,
If the picture on your website is of you, I'm going to say that, well, I wouldn't kick you out of bed for eating crackers. Or, how about eating pepparkakor (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4538840&postcount=72)?

Jonquill,
I don't know why Anita always seems to make things so difficult, a lot of her survey notes are about how she doesn't feel comfortable looking at people. Sure I wouldn't enjoy staring rudely at people either but I think it would be pretty easy to go to a public place and get a good long look at people from the back or the side with out them being aware that you were watching them. It's not as though people can feel you looking at them. Well... it depends. It depends if you are doing cacakoka (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4538224&postcount=407).

chillzero

22nd March 2009, 02:30 AM

Please keep this thread on topic or it will be set to moderated status or closed.

To the question of PMs, it is usually frowned on as poor 'nettiquette' to reveal the contents of a PM (unless proving someone has been lying), but it is not a breach of the MA - unless there is personal information (name, email address...) contained in that PM.

In this specific case though, I fail to see the relevance to the topic of this thread, so I do not expect to see any further similar PMs printed here. Further posting of similar PMs will be considered flamebaiting and will most likely incur mod action. Keep the thread on topic from now on.

ETA: PMs can be reported like any post, so PMs you consider to be harrssment, or attacks should be reported to the mods for action.

Ashles

22nd March 2009, 04:48 AM

And GeeMack, if of course this investigation and tests reveal that there is no significant correlation between what I experience and with actual real world information, then of course I would consider that it could be the case of hallucination. But even at that, I'd not be worried, since these medical perceptions are no more alarming than when you look at a painting and feel an emotion or impression based on it, or when you hear a song and you see a memory of what you did in the past. Information linkage. One thing associates to another.
No that would not be a comparable concept.
In the two examples you provide there would be a meaningful linkage of information based on real information (memory or deliberate artistic intent).
But if "this investigation and tests reveal that there is no significant correlation between what I experience and with actual real world information" the there is no meaningful linkage.
It would just be imagination/hallucination or simply incorrect guessing.
I reiterate this because you still seem unclear as to this.

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?
Or hallucination/imagination/guesswork. You are providing an incoreect binary list of possibilities, while ignore the more mundane ones.

Sometimes you appear to understand this and other times not, it's a little confusing.

Akhenaten

22nd March 2009, 05:51 AM

<some content has been removed from this quotation of the original post in order to preserve focus and maintain relevance to the point that I wish to address>

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Anita, you're much smarter than this. The above question of yours is presenting a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html), and I'm sure you're aware of it. How have you eliminated ALL other explanations for your perceived ability?

LONGTABBER PE

22nd March 2009, 06:21 AM

Anita, you're much smarter than this. The above question of yours is presenting a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html), and I'm sure you're aware of it. How have you eliminated ALL other explanations for your perceived ability?

She hasnt, she knows it and she knows she has no intention of ever doing so.

What she has done is convince a good number of people that somewhere there is some legitimacy to what she is doing and taking the heat for various failings on her part. Thats how "they" work and why people who engage in scams more often than not engage "intelligent" people because they are easier to fool due to the fact that they wont see beyond their own reliance on their intelligence.

She is stalling and milking the cow. She has had ample time to do her "study" (IF she ever intended to) but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to act on the advice given but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to explain in detail but she hasnt. She refuses to accept any test that will produce a valid result and disprove her claim.

She talks in circles and "explains away" and never actually does or accomplishes anything of any merit.

She has achieved one of her goals tho- she has people "beliveing" she is a victim of whatever failing they believe she has. ( false belief, not educated enough, hiding from the "truth" et al)

In reality, everything but the obvious truth. This was and is a deliberate and calculated fraud.

There never will be a study or a result. If that happened, the game is over.

GeeMack

22nd March 2009, 06:50 AM

Well, GeeMack, there are five medicine samples given to me by Pup and they fall into two general categories based on their medicinal effects: allergy medicines, and general pain or antiinflammatory medicines. So that presents one problem. Another problem is that I am asked to identify the samples by name, whereas when I perceive vibrational information (that I then translate into physical significance) it won't spell out to me commercial names such as "Aspirin!" but rather a feeling of what the medicine is all about. I would require a reference sample to compare with, just like if you go to a foreign country where you don't speak the language and you are presented with five different colors on a vision test and you have to match these with that language's names for those colors - you couldn't do it! You'd ask for a reference. Or a translation. So there.

So there? You are unable to do what you claimed you could. You have failed.

The claim that I am here to discuss and am having tested is detection and description of health information, and I have valid reasons to proceed with it. And we all have the protection of the mods. I couldn't harass you either not that I would want to. And GeeMack, my experience of medical perceptions has no symptoms of being mental illness.

Interestingly enough, several members of this forum who seem to better understand the issue than you have noted otherwise.

It is most likely some form of synesthesia, and it is very interesting since I have so far had very compelling correlation with actual health information and not had a single case of verified inaccuracy.

There's that repeated lie that everyone else here sees but you don't. The fact that you can lie with such impunity and express such complete lack of awareness that you are indeed lying is that symptom of mental illness that many of us recognize. Pretty much the only rational alternative is that you do know you're lying. And of course that leads to the other most accepted hypothesis, that you're trying to pull some kind of a scam.

Which is why I am investigating this. Even if slowly which brings about unbearable impatience in some of you.

And the lack of any advances whatsoever in your claimed effort to determine the cause of your problem actually serves to support the alternative explanations. It's not impatience, Anita, because nobody here actually expects you to ever carry through with any legitimate study or test. No, it's not impatience. It's pity.

And GeeMack, if of course this investigation and tests reveal that there is no significant correlation between what I experience and with actual real world information, then of course I would consider that it could be the case of hallucination.

So far every effort you've made, albeit feeble efforts with crappy designs and intentional reluctance to actually determine the cause of your problem, has shown that "there is no significant correlation between what you experience and with actual real world information." So now, because you said you would, will you consider that it could be hallucinations?

But even at that, I'd not be worried, since these medical perceptions are no more alarming than when you look at a painting and feel an emotion or impression based on it, or when you hear a song and you see a memory of what you did in the past. Information linkage. One thing associates to another. Nothing to worry about. So there, GeeMack.

Another untrue comment followed by, "So there?" Did you go to the Michael Mozina School of Scientific Studies?

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Since you ask, I think it's some sort of mental illness that makes you a compulsive liar, or perhaps you're subject to hallucinations from some environmental or physiological cause. Possibly you're setting up some sort of a scam, but that seems fairly unlikely to me, even though others have described a reasonable body of evidence to support that hypothesis. The fact that you contradict yourself, state outright falsehoods, seem to be oblivious to the fact that you are lying, and clearly have no intention of finding out what the real problem is, are all factors that support my notion. Absolutely nothing supports your notion that you have some kind of extra-sensory ability to perceive anything.

Moochie

22nd March 2009, 08:14 AM

<snip>

What she has done is convince a good number of people that somewhere there is some legitimacy to what she is doing and taking the heat for various failings on her part. Thats how "they" work and why people who engage in scams more often than not engage "intelligent" people because they are easier to fool due to the fact that they wont see beyond their own reliance on their intelligence.

She is stalling and milking the cow. She has had ample time to do her "study" (IF she ever intended to) but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to act on the advice given but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to explain in detail but she hasnt. She refuses to accept any test that will produce a valid result and disprove her claim.

<snip>

Yeah, I have had the impression she was sort of "stroking the forum" for some time now.

M.

LONGTABBER PE

22nd March 2009, 09:00 AM

Yeah, I have had the impression she was sort of "stroking the forum" for some time now.

M.

Thats basically it.

Lawyers and Politicians use the same technique. They tell their story their way with the information they want you to have. When questioned, they neer answer directly but use a variety of methods such as obfuscation, answering something not asked or making the strawman answer or when all else fails, the Chewbacca defense.

This isnt a "study" of paranormal claims- its an exercise in Pavlov's dog.

She wants attention and possibly some future goal and this forum and its ancillary orgs is where she is getting it.

Her methods of deception are deliberate and her comments skillfully crafted to keep the fires burning while saying and producing absolutely nothing.

She has people feeling sorry for her for some perceived possible mental condition. ( the sympathy card) She has control of those who continually post to challenge her and get frustrated when she doesnt do the obvious. ( she is manipulating them and has "the power")

She has no ability. She knows it. She refuses all legitimate attempts to verify it. She "goes along with the process" by coming up with a "non test" and calling it a "test". ( we used to call that coattailing on legitimacy)

She then spends tens of thousands of words that say and answer nothing and ignores challenges when cornered.

Yeah, theres a "study" going on right now but its not about her paranormal ability- its about her ability to goad the masses.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 09:06 AM

Synesthesia. Or extrasensory ability. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?
Or hallucination/imagination/guesswork. You are providing an incoreect binary list of possibilities, while ignore the more mundane ones.
Anita, you're much smarter than this. The above question of yours is presenting a false dichotomy, and I'm sure you're aware of it. How have you eliminated ALL other explanations for your perceived ability? I did it like a joke. GeeMack loves to say (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4397631&postcount=2074),

And as far as I can tell, everyone has come to the conclusion that you're either seriously mentally ill, or that you're simply a liar.
Which do you think it is, Anita?

So I did my version of binary possibilities. :) Why can't I have fun? :( Of course I consider other possible explanations. :)

tsig

22nd March 2009, 09:09 AM

I did it like a joke. GeeMack loves to say (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4397631&postcount=2074),

And as far as I can tell, everyone has come to the conclusion that you're either seriously mentally ill, or that you're simply a liar.
Which do you think it is, Anita?

So I did my version of binary possibilities. :) Why can't I have fun? :( Of course I consider other possible explanations. :)

What are those "other" possibilities?

Pup

22nd March 2009, 09:11 AM

Well, GeeMack, there are five medicine samples given to me by Pup and they fall into two general categories based on their medicinal effects: allergy medicines, and general pain or antiinflammatory medicines.

Actually, three categories: two pain/antiinflammatory, two allergy and one antacid.

So please tell us which are in which categories, even if you can't tell the two allergy medicines apart, for example.

If you can do what you claim to be able to do, why can't you do that?

Another problem is that I am asked to identify the samples by name, whereas when I perceive vibrational information (that I then translate into physical significance) it won't spell out to me commercial names such as "Aspirin!" but rather a feeling of what the medicine is all about.

See my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4536287&postcount=64). You've already mentioned that you're familiar with calcium carbonate, one of the medicines. Several people have also already suggested easy ways to "see" samples of the other medicines, though they might not be the same brand, color or size as the pills I used.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 09:23 AM

LONGTABBER PE,
How have you eliminated ALL other explanations for your perceived ability?
She hasnt, she knows it and she knows she has no intention of ever doing so.Of course there are other possible explanations to my so far compellingly accurate medical perceptions (*anecdotal evidence only, no verified evidence available yet). But part of my investigation is to find out how they come about and what is the source of information, so I do intend to eliminate several possibilities. :)

What she has done is convince a good number of people that somewhere there is some legitimacy to what she is doing and taking the heat for various failings on her part. Thats how "they" work and why people who engage in scams more often than not engage "intelligent" people because they are easier to fool due to the fact that they wont see beyond their own reliance on their intelligence.I don't try to convince anyone that there is legitimacy, since I can not offer any formal evidence of this yet. What I do try to convince you all is that I believe I have evidence that I have witnessed and experienced, and that I have reason to do all of this. There have been no failings on my part. There is no scam.

She is stalling and milking the cow. She has had ample time to do her "study" (IF she ever intended to) but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to act on the advice given but she hasnt. She has had ample opportunity to explain in detail but she hasnt. She refuses to accept any test that will produce a valid result and disprove her claim.I am not stalling on purpose. I had to obtain permission from the government before I proceed with having a study in a public area. I wanted to explain what I will be doing and where and check that it is permissible. I was not going to go out and bring with me people who participate in it with me and then have someone approach us and say that we can't do it and are in trouble and as the organizer of this event I take responsibility in ensuring that all necessary permits are in order. And now I am waiting for Thursday so that I can try to recruit some Skeptics from FACT. So let's wait until Thursday. :)

I do not refuse a test. I am working toward a test. In fact I would have a test today if I could.

She talks in circles and "explains away" and never actually does or accomplishes anything of any merit.True.

In reality, everything but the obvious truth. This was and is a deliberate and calculated fraud.Heh. Oh if they knew that I have been entirely sincere throughout! I'm just describing my actual experiences!

There never will be a study or a result. If that happened, the game is over. There WILL be a study. There WILL be a result. The game is over when this investigation reaches a final conclusion.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 09:40 AM

LOL. There is no scam. There is no lie. There is no mental illness. You sillies. I'm describing an authentic experience I have of perceiving health information when I look at people, and I am investigating it, even if slowly and to the great impatience of you all.

You already involved your university when you talked to your professors. Do I detect a threat in that mass of whine? If you want your personal life to be private why do you publish so much of it here? I've confided in four professors who I felt I could trust and whose areas of specialty are somewhat related to what I claim to experience. It is a far leap from that to actually involving everyone into that. Oh who am I kidding, if I ever lose a career opportunity because of this, then I wouldn't want to work with such people or with such things anyway. :rolleyes:

What are those "other" possibilities? Here are some that are not possibilities:
Deliberate lie
Scam
Fraud
Hoax

Here are some possibilities:
Synesthesia: I see external symptoms and it translates into images and other health information
Extrasensory perception, who knows
Subjective impressions that are triggered from seeing people that translate into sensory experience of things that are not related to real-world information

Pup, alright I'll look into the medical samples again. I'm not at that house at the moment so I'll get back with you on that.

Czarcasm

22nd March 2009, 09:49 AM

Here are some that are not possibilities:
Deliberate lie
Scam
Fraud
Hoax

Here are some possibilities:
Synesthesia: I see external symptoms and it translates into images and other health information
Extrasensory perception, who knows
Subjective impressions that are triggered from seeing people that translate into sensory experience of things that are not related to real-world information
If we consider the first four possibilities, and you consider the last three possibilities, then all the bases are covered, right?

Akhenaten

22nd March 2009, 09:50 AM

Why continue? Y'all probably wouldn't give the time of day to someone like Anita if she strolled into your office and started yammering about vibrational algebra.

I was thinking that there is a great disturbance in the Force at the moment, with a number of Serious Distractions™ operating in various threads, and I was hoping that this might lead Anita to an Epiphany™ in which she realised the sparsity of her claims and decided to join the Rebel Alliance skeptics.

Alas!

Also, your avatar rocks.

tsig

22nd March 2009, 09:57 AM

LOL. There is no scam. There is no lie. There is no mental illness. You sillies. I'm describing an authentic experience I have of perceiving health information when I look at people, and I am investigating it, even if slowly and to the great impatience of you all.

I've confided in four professors who I felt I could trust and whose areas of specialty are somewhat related to what I claim to experience. It is a far leap from that to actually involving everyone into that. Oh who am I kidding, if I ever lose a career opportunity because of this, then I wouldn't want to work with such people or with such things anyway. :rolleyes:

Here are some that are not possibilities:
Deliberate lie
Scam
Fraud
Hoax

Here are some possibilities:
Synesthesia: I see external symptoms and it translates into images and other health information
Extrasensory perception, who knows
Subjective impressions that are triggered from seeing people that translate into sensory experience of things that are not related to real-world information

Pup, alright I'll look into the medical samples again. I'm not at that house at the moment so I'll get back with you on that.

I'll take door #1 Anita.

tsig

22nd March 2009, 10:01 AM

If we consider the first four possibilities, and you consider the last three possibilities, then all the bases are covered, right?

Well a Hoax, scam or a fraud are deliberate lies so her four become one.

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 10:02 AM

tsig... it really isn't a lie. So don't take that door, it's the wrong one.

Czarcasm

22nd March 2009, 10:06 AM

tsig... it really isn't a lie. So don't take that door, it's the wrong one.Because if you were lying, you'd tell us, right?

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 10:10 AM

What is so unbelievably unacceptable about the claim of perceiving automatic and involuntary images of tissue when looking at a body? Heck, some most guys'll look at a woman and get automatic and involuntary images of what her surface looks like. ;) I just go deeper than that. :) (Note: It is not the same thing. I'm just joking. Besides, just in case someone is wondering - and I'm sure some of you are - I mostly look at the liver, heart, prostate and lungs in men. And *nothing else*. :D)

But I can, if I sense a health problem. You know how some people have aluminum hats to keep others from reading their thoughts telepathically. I bet I'll have people wearing aluminum underwear now. ;)

I hold great respect for people's integrity. I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information. It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

:tinfoil

tsig

22nd March 2009, 10:25 AM

LONGTABBER PE

22nd March 2009, 10:36 AM

LONGTABBER PE,

Of course there are other possible explanations to my so far compellingly accurate medical perceptions (*anecdotal evidence only, no verified evidence available yet). But part of my investigation is to find out how they come about and what is the source of information, so I do intend to eliminate several possibilities. :)

I don't try to convince anyone that there is legitimacy, since I can not offer any formal evidence of this yet. What I do try to convince you all is that I believe I have evidence that I have witnessed and experienced, and that I have reason to do all of this. There have been no failings on my part. There is no scam.

I am not stalling on purpose. I had to obtain permission from the government before I proceed with having a study in a public area. I wanted to explain what I will be doing and where and check that it is permissible. I was not going to go out and bring with me people who participate in it with me and then have someone approach us and say that we can't do it and are in trouble and as the organizer of this event I take responsibility in ensuring that all necessary permits are in order. And now I am waiting for Thursday so that I can try to recruit some Skeptics from FACT. So let's wait until Thursday. :)

I do not refuse a test. I am working toward a test. In fact I would have a test today if I could.

True.

Heh. Oh if they knew that I have been entirely sincere throughout! I'm just describing my actual experiences!

There WILL be a study. There WILL be a result. The game is over when this investigation reaches a final conclusion.

>>>Of course there are other possible explanations to my so far compellingly accurate UNSUBSTANTIATED medical perceptions (*anecdotal evidence only, no verified evidence available yet). But part of my investigation is to find out how they come about and what is the source of information, so I do intend to eliminate several possibilities. :)

Try that crap with someone who doesnt see right thru you. ( thats "my" vibrational analysis- the funny thing is that I'm actually certified in "vibration analysis")

Your investigation is a ruse

>>>I don't try to convince anyone that there is legitimacy, since I can not offer any formal evidence of this yet. What I do try to convince you all is that I believe I have evidence that I have witnessed and experienced, and that I have reason to do all of this. There have been no failings on my part. There is no scam.

There is no "convincing" without PRODUCTION and what you do is WAFFLE. ( a "scientific term" meaning to speak endlessly and say nothing) There also have been no "successes" on your part either.

>>>I am not stalling on purpose.

Ahh, one of those "statement analysis" Freudian slips. You admit to "stalling". I know you are. I know why.

>>>I had to obtain permission from the government before I proceed with having a study in a public area. I wanted to explain what I will be doing and where and check that it is permissible.

You do realize you are talking to a former investigator who knows better right? There are a thousand ways you could do this. You just employed another stall tactic to build suspense for your NON production.

>>>I was not going to go out and bring with me people who participate in it with me and then have someone approach us and say that we can't do it and are in trouble and as the organizer of this event I take responsibility in ensuring that all necessary permits are in order. And now I am waiting for Thursday so that I can try to recruit some Skeptics from FACT. So let's wait until Thursday. :)

More endless drivel saying nothing. You can wait until hell freezes over and you still will be lying and obfuscating trying to keep the attention on you while promulgating your scam.

>>>I do not refuse a test. I am working toward a test. In fact I would have a test today if I could.

"if you wish upon a star..." You are working on nothing. Your non answer reminds me of the old butcher's joke.

The lady walks in and asks the price of steak and the butcher says 1.19 a lb. She says the butcher down the street has it for .79 a lb but hes out. The butcher replies: "Well maam, when I'm out I advertise it for .60 a lb."

You wont have a LEGITIMATE test. You know it and so do I. Your own performance,stalling and obfuscating is more than enough proof of that.

>>>Heh. Oh if they knew that I have been entirely sincere throughout! I'm just describing my actual experiences!

Yeah, like Stephen King and his dreams- good fiction.

>>>There WILL be a study. There WILL be a result. The game is over when this investigation reaches a final conclusion

Its over now actually. In a few more months of your non production, it will become obvious as to what you are doing even to those who still hold out hope.

Moochie

22nd March 2009, 10:57 AM

LOL. There is no scam. There is no lie. There is no mental illness. You sillies. I'm describing an authentic experience I have of perceiving health information when I look at people, and I am investigating it, even if slowly and to the great impatience of you all.

I've confided in four professors who I felt I could trust and whose areas of specialty are somewhat related to what I claim to experience. It is a far leap from that to actually involving everyone into that. Oh who am I kidding, if I ever lose a career opportunity because of this, then I wouldn't want to work with such people or with such things anyway. :rolleyes:

Here are some that are not possibilities:
Deliberate lie
Scam
Fraud
Hoax

Here are some possibilities:
Synesthesia: I see external symptoms and it translates into images and other health information
Extrasensory perception, who knows
Subjective impressions that are triggered from seeing people that translate into sensory experience of things that are not related to real-world information

Pup, alright I'll look into the medical samples again. I'm not at that house at the moment so I'll get back with you on that.

I must hand it you, ma'am, for perseverance in the face of overwhelming indifference.

M.

Ashles

22nd March 2009, 11:04 AM

GeeMack

22nd March 2009, 11:06 AM

[...] my so far compellingly accurate medical perceptions (*anecdotal evidence only, no verified evidence available yet).

It's been quite clear for some time that you're repeating this lie deliberately, apparently for the purpose of getting a reaction. You can't possibly be stupid enough to think that anyone here believes you're being honest. Even you, Anita, if you were sane and rational, couldn't possibly believe it. So aside from the extremely well evidenced possibility that you are suffering from hallucinations or a mental health problem which manifests itself in delusions and compulsive lying, you are also, by definition, a troll.

And as desertgal said, since you do it by intent, you've don't deserve sympathy. You're worthy only of contempt and pity.

But part of my investigation is to find out how they come about and what is the source of information, so I do intend to eliminate several possibilities.

When can we expect you to see a mental health professional for an evaluation, you know, to eliminate what seems to be the most likely possibility? Because after all, this thread is supposed to be about your "study". And any good science student studying an unexplained phenomena would put checking for the most obvious explanations at the top of their priority list.

But I can, if I sense a health problem.

You can't sense a health problem, not even your own most obvious one.

I hold great respect for people's integrity.

Except you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about integrity.

I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information.

No, you don't.

It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

Except you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about a professional manner. You regard yourself as a straight A student, too. And it's been proven that your assessment is wrong.

Its over now actually. In a few more months of your non production, it will become obvious as to what you are doing even to those who still hold out hope.

Does anyone still hold out hope? Anita was busted a long, long time ago. Even if she believed it herself at one time, by now she knows it's all bogus. The thread is about the results from the study, but the only study that's ever going to be done is the one she presented right here in this forum. We've been given 400+ posts to study the style of a self-deceived troll. The results of that study are in. VisionFromFeeling: Fail.

Moochie

22nd March 2009, 11:12 AM

<snip>

Also, your avatar rocks.

Seconded. :)

M.

dlorde

22nd March 2009, 11:39 AM

Having browsed this thread a while, it seems clear to me that VisionFromFeeling seems convinced of her abilities. It also seems clear that she has little knowledge of the principles of scientific research, or human biology - both fields that are pretty much essential if she is serious about making productive use of the abilities she feels she has. If she knew anything about human biology, physiology and anatomy, she would frame her responses in terms of such an understanding, but that is not the case so far.

However, regarding the pill identification (I'm not sure about the details of this, but IIUIC she is supposed to identify what medicines are represented by a number of different crushed pill samples ?). The last response on this was "Another problem is that I am asked to identify the samples by name, whereas when I perceive vibrational information (that I then translate into physical significance) it won't spell out to me commercial names such as "Aspirin!" but rather a feeling of what the medicine is all about". It occurs to me that it would be possible to do a statistical test of this 'feeling', by having VisionFromFeeling give us as much information as she can about her feeling of 'what the medicine is all about' for each sample, then have us match this data with the actual descriptions of the medicines involved (exact matching protocol TBD). This would only be a very rough guide, but it would provide some indication if there was anything further to consider. If the descriptions of 'what the medicine is all about', are too vague or esoteric to allow a reasonable of match to the actual medical descriptions, we can be reasonably confident that what they describe is unlikely to be useful; if they can be compared, but don't match the medical descriptions, we can assume they're not useful, and if there is a significant matching of 'what the medicine is all about' with the medical description, we know there is something interesting. I know the stats can be done for such matches, but I don't have the expertise.

I can't see that the claims allow for anything more robust in the circumstances.

chillzero

22nd March 2009, 11:58 AM

Thread placed on moderated status. Stay on topic, and stop personalising the discussion. Keep it civil.

Soapy Sam

22nd March 2009, 01:43 PM

I did wonder how long it would take for a moderator to restrict this thread.

To spare my old brain the trauma of reading the whole thing, could some kind soul give us a precis of the story to date?

VisionFromFeeling

22nd March 2009, 03:05 PM

Dearest GeeMack,
You and I have been posting the same stuff back and forth between one another for several thread pages now. Since we are still doing it, I'll just do it here this time to spare everyone else. It will of course be the exact same content, just like your posts on the thread are also always the very same content.

I sincerely experience medical perceptions, and I really have experienced compelling correlation in the past. I already know I have no formal evidence so far, except for a successful reading with Wayne in which I failed to produce any inaccurate medical perceptions in spite of me having full belief and assumption that the man would have a long list of ailments I found none.

I am working toward the study and the test. I now have to wait until Thursday again before I can recruit some participants from the FACT Skeptics group. If I am there unable to find participants I will approach college students who are also a somewhat credible group of people, and then the study will take place.

And after the study the test can be designed based on what was learned in the study. So there.

Skeptics' impatience, or their refusal to acknowledge that I am sincere and doing my best.
Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Love,
VFF

*You may of course post any or all excerpts of this PM on the thread. In fact I might.

Uncayimmy

22nd March 2009, 09:32 PM

Anita, please stop trying to convince us with words. We've heard it all before - several times, in fact. The repetition is only creating frustration. Quite frankly, I am tired of pointing out the same old contradictions. What do you have that's new?

You have been told repeatedly that your "study" is useless. The FACT group will not work with it. We here have repeatedly said we don't believe it is useful in the least. For whatever reason, you think it is useful to you personally. Fine. What are you going to do for us? What steps are you planning to take to convince us - you know, the people you contacted - that you have some sort of ability worthy of investigation? Please just give us concrete steps. Nothing you have done so far is worthy of consideration, so don't bring it up.

Miss_Kitt

22nd March 2009, 10:33 PM

(snip) I hold great respect for people's integrity. I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information. It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

:tinfoil bolding added

You got enough medical training to be a practical nurse, and you have three years of experience in the field; but you don't think you have enough medical background to have fairly accurate guesses based upon subtle behavioral and appearance symptoms? Oh, and you said you didn't know how vasectomies were done, and didn't know that antibiotics were used to treat stomach ulcers, and...I'm sorry, Anita, but I just don't buy it.

You need to seriously consider the non-mystical, non-supernatural explanations for your "hits". Given your (now mentioned, but not discussed previously) extensive medical background, I think that you can no longer use anyone who has attended multiple skeptic meetings with you as subjects. You've had too much time to observe them--to see sore places being stretched or rubbed, skin color changes, eating or drinking habits, etc. --even if you are not consciously noting these things.

I would expect someone with enough medical background to be able to spot a lot of medical issues that a layman couldn't; in fact, I'd think someone who didn't was a pretty bad nurse.

One vote for self-deception and/or deliberate deception.

MK

VisionFromFeeling

23rd March 2009, 10:46 AM

You got enough medical training to be a practical nurse, and you have three years of experience in the field; but you don't think you have enough medical background to have fairly accurate guesses based upon subtle behavioral and appearance symptoms? Of course I acknowledge cold reading as well as skill in understanding medical symptoms! I have stated even from the very start when I sent off my very first protocol suggestion to the IIG some 20 months ago that we should have two doctors present with me at the test so that they can make note of what ailments they think are obvious at the time of the test to someone with a medical background so that those particular ailments can be disregarded on a test, just in case a paranormal claimant on a test such as this would draw from a knowledge of medical symptoms. I definitely consider this and I include it in all test design.
Oh, and you said you didn't know how vasectomies were done, and didn't know that antibiotics were used to treat stomach ulcers, and...I'm sorry, Anita, but I just don't buy it. My knowledge of health is not complete. I did not know that vasectomies involved the removal of tissue, I had been under the assumption that they are an incision. To become a practical nurse in Sweden you are not required to have any educational background in health care, but you do learn a lot as you work and are also given continuous training in various related topics. The test I will take will definitely be such that not even a doctor of medicine who specializes in reading external symptoms could get a passing score, one where only the paranormal ability specified would. I understand that you might not trust me, the claimant, but do have faith in those who will design and watch over the test.
You need to seriously consider the non-mystical, non-supernatural explanations for your "hits". I have, and I do. But I don't know why I detected cysts of the reproductive system, Lactobacillus supplement in the stomach, what people feel from inside their body, and much other supposedly non-detectable health information. You don't have to believe in my anecdotal past experiences. At least accept that I believe that it all took place as described, and so the fact that I am doing this investigation should seem a little easier to tolerate.
Given your (now mentioned, but not discussed previously) extensive medical background,
VisionFromFeeling to Miss_Kitt on 16th December (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4273870&postcount=554) 2008:
I worked at nursing homes for three years, as a practical nurse. *And check my answers to how I didn't know what specific procedure a vasectomy involved also answered in that post.
I think that you can no longer use anyone who has attended multiple skeptic meetings with you as subjects. I accept that. I am however working on having them as participants in the test, which involves handling the questionnaires and arranging the volunteers (who I look at and form medical perceptions from) so that I not see them prior to the viewing. I am recruiting skeptics for administrative assignments in the study.
You've had too much time to observe them--to see sore places being stretched or rubbed, skin color changes, eating or drinking habits, etc. --even if you are not consciously noting these things.And I am aware of that. :D (... Dr. Carlson always remembers to eat a salad. So he couldn't possibly have Alzheimer's disease...)
I would expect someone with enough medical background to be able to spot a lot of medical issues that a layman couldn't; in fact, I'd think someone who didn't was a pretty bad nurse.Of course, and I know that. That is why I am implementing this in test design. However I am interested in whether I am detecting health information that is not considered to be detectable by external means. Such as... that a person recently took a very large dose of Lactobacillus and hadn't previously. Or that a person feels a tingle in the top of their bladder before they have to go to the bathroom. I see and feel all kinds of things that I shouldn't. And so far, always with correlation with a person's own description of their health and their body. :confused:
One vote for self-deception and/or deliberate deception.And you receive one vote each for jumping into conclusions, forgetting that this was in fact discussed earlier, and for concluding that your proposed issues have foundation when in fact they don't and before awaiting the response from the accused. (4 points)

Gmonster2

23rd March 2009, 07:46 PM

The weekend is over whats the results of your crystal test?

Have you once a gain failed to deliver?

Uncayimmy

23rd March 2009, 09:23 PM

Of course I acknowledge cold reading as well as skill in understanding medical symptoms! I have stated even from the very start when I sent off my very first protocol suggestion to the IIG some 20 months ago that we should have two doctors present with me at the test so that they can make note of what ailments they think are obvious at the time of the test to someone with a medical background so that those particular ailments can be disregarded on a test, just in case a paranormal claimant on a test such as this would draw from a knowledge of medical symptoms. I definitely consider this and I include it in all test design.

You don't get it. The time to consider visual cues was long before you ever even considered applying for the IIG $50,000 challenge. Including a medical expert in your test protocol, which was never workable anyway, is not proof that you considered this a potential explanation for your imagery. It really says you were confident enough that you could do better than medical professionals.

Even your recent survey notes indicate visual cues. A 50+ year old man might have heart disease? Shocking! A 20-something dressed like a punk rocker might have some ear damage from loud music sounds? An elderly woman with a urination issue? A five year old kid with a runny nose? A 65 year old woman with thinning bones?

If you gave serious consideration to visual cues, you wouldn't be avoiding real tests and embarking on this "study" to "learn more" about how your ability works.

Specifically, what steps are you willing to take to eliminate the obvious?

Of course, and I know that. That is why I am implementing this in test design.
Actually, you have repeatedly stated that it is not a test but a study. Are you now willing to embark on an actual test? Please clarify.

VisionFromFeeling

24th March 2009, 08:00 AM

Blah. I've perceived plenty of accurate health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception or by cold reading clues. And that's why I'm doing the investigation. Not because I saw that an older woman had severe osteoporosis. But because I saw in a person's stomach an amount of Lactobacillus corresponding to taking supplements of it. A test will not allow external symptoms to be the cause of acchieved accuracy. You'll just have to see what happens and what the final test design will be like. Descriptions don't suffice around here. :)

Patience please! I'm_working_on_itTM.

JPK

24th March 2009, 08:33 AM

Good morning VisionFromFeeling.

I have been following these threads for a while and wonder why you don't try a test that is a bit more simple. I've read that you claim to be able to
see the differance between CO2 and other gases. Wouldn't this be a pretty easy test to try with some clear vessels containing differant gases?

Perhaps this has been suggested but I missed it somewhere. Maybe there is a reason why this would not work for you.

JPK

Uncayimmy

24th March 2009, 09:52 AM

Sasha

25th March 2009, 10:38 AM

VisionFromFeeling

25th March 2009, 02:49 PM

I wonder if you could explain this post a little better - are you saying that if you wanted to you could look at only the surface of someone or that your supposed vision goes automatically to the tissues, organs, etc.? Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind. Some Skeptics are saying that this sounds like mental illness or delusion, or that I am lying about it or conducting a scam. So I gave an everyday example that many non-paranormal-claimants could relate to, that often when when see a woman it automatically forms images in their mind of what a woman might look like undressed. :) So I was saying that it shouldn't seem so strange when a person is claiming to form automatic images of a person's body just by looking at the person. Many people experience this all the time.

So that was the point.

However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around". :D

Alright, so if a person thinks that they can experience forming visual and felt images of other persons' bodies according to my claim, do I use this a lot? When do I choose to do this? And what on earth do I choose to look at? At times when I'm bored I can spend time looking into people's bodies, just like some of us like to just look at the clouds drifting by. It is a good pass-time. Normally on a day-to-day basis my attention is occupied by other things so it is not something that I get to experience at all times. I used it today when a boy came to Calculus class and said to the teacher that he was sick and couldn't take the exam that we were about to have. So I took a quick look and a quick feel to check his honesty. ;)

When I do look at people, I most always go for the liver, heart and lungs and then the digestive system. These are common problem areas for adult males and females. If I have time I check the female internal reproductive parts for inflammation, cysts or other complications, and the male prostate to check its size as well as the extent of dilation of the blood vessels around it and also the temperature. If I have more time I often go for the head. There is a lot to look at. :)

Uncayimmy

25th March 2009, 03:40 PM

I wonder if you could explain this post a little better - are you saying that if you wanted to you could look at only the surface of someone or that your supposed vision goes automatically to the tissues, organs, etc.?

VFF has actually answered this in great detail what we used to refer to as the Moderated Thread. It has quite a bit of detailed information regarding her alleged abilities. This post I link to below answers your question specifically.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4309118#post4309118

The strong perceptions that come on their own last as long as I look at the person, and once I no longer look at the person they are gone immediately. So their duration depends on for how long I see the person.

The perceptions that form due to my choice to look closer, last for as long as I choose to keep my attention on them. I can continue to have access to the "downloaded" vibrational information even after the person leaves or I'm looking away or my eyes are closed.

Jeff Corey

25th March 2009, 05:48 PM

...However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around". :D

Alright, so if a person thinks that they can experience forming visual and felt images of other persons' bodies according to my claim, do I use this a lot? When do I choose to do this? And what on earth do I choose to look at? At times when I'm bored I can spend time looking into people's bodies, just like some of us like to just look at the clouds drifting by. It is a good pass-time. Normally on a day-to-day basis my attention is occupied by other things so it is not something that I get to experience at all times. I used it today when a boy came to Calculus class and said to the teacher that he was sick and couldn't take the exam that we were about to have. So I took a quick look and a quick feel to check his honesty. ;)

When I do look at people, I most always go for the liver, heart and lungs and then the digestive system. These are common problem areas for adult males and females. If I have time I check the female internal reproductive parts for inflammation, cysts or other complications, and the male prostate to check its size as well as the extent of dilation of the blood vessels around it and also the temperature. If I have more time I often go for the head. There is a lot to look at. :)
That would be so easy to test. Why not try it?

Kariboo

25th March 2009, 06:12 PM

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind.

I don't have a hard time believing that you form an image. I have a problem believing that that image would reflect what that person actually looks like, inside or out.

I can imagine all kinds of stuff about someones body, but you claim that you can see things that are really in or on that person (via paranormal means) and you are not just imagining what someone looks like,

So, can you see moles under clothing. Easy enough to put into test.

Uncayimmy

25th March 2009, 06:34 PM

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind. Some Skeptics are saying that this sounds like mental illness or delusion, or that I am lying about it or conducting a scam. So I gave an everyday example that many non-paranormal-claimants could relate to, that often when when see a woman it automatically forms images in their mind of what a woman might look like undressed. :) So I was saying that it shouldn't seem so strange when a person is claiming to form automatic images of a person's body just by looking at the person. Many people experience this all the time.
Evidence? I, for one, have pictured many a woman naked. However, I have never done so involuntarily. No one has ever told me that they see images like that involuntarily.

Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around". :D
This, of course, assumes that there is a health problem, something which has never been demonstrated by you in a controlled setting or verified independently. I point this out because you speak in certainties when things are far from certain.

Once again, are you prepared to take the steps necessary to falsify your claim?

Jozen-Bo

26th March 2009, 02:32 AM

This is an interesting read. It would be exciting to find evidence of the claim and I imagine it should be possible to derive a test for for. I think encouragement and insights will be far more fruitful then personal attacks and discouraging statements. We are trying to put together protocols here, isn't that what this place is about? I wish you the best of luck with your Thursday venture.

After following up on this thread I would say that we are not having the same senses active, though they may be functioning by use of some of the same sensing organs. For example, the eyes see, though they do no always see the same way (there is a big difference between low light vision and daytime vision). The tongue tastes, but it has regions devoted to tasting sweets, bitters, etc.

If your relying on senses to do this, which surely is the case given that you have to sense the information some way, then I may be able to provide a means to amplify those senses even more. I gather that it is used by sense of feel, is this correct? So or so, the means I speak of will amplify every sense you have, you will not see the same, smell the same, hear the same, taste the same (though taste is least affected...your appetite might change), and feel the same. All of these senses will be stronger then before, and when they are you find life to be a new and different experience from what it was.

Best Regards,
Jozen-Bo
:)

Sasha

26th March 2009, 05:30 AM

snip....

However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around". :D

So does this mean that when you examined Wayne for the FACT "study," you didn't choose to look at the surface of his body? Otherwise you would have seen his scar right? And if that is so, when you were involved in a study that could be very important to you, why wouldn't you examine every single facet of his surface and interior?

Sasha

26th March 2009, 05:50 AM

VFF has actually answered this in great detail what we used to refer to as the Moderated Thread. It has quite a bit of detailed information regarding her alleged abilities. This post I link to below answers your question specifically.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4309118#post4309118

Thanks UY. What I was asking about specifically was her claim to have x-ray vision for the outer layer (skin suface) which I hadn't noticed before. I've been following this thread (and the others) from the beginning and still can't understand how, with all these wonderful powers, Wayne's scar was missed. I know, it's been discussed ad nauseum and VFF doesn't consider it a miss but my point is why, if she was serious about her study, did she choose not to look at his surface?

.....and why am I doing this?

Skeptical Greg

26th March 2009, 05:53 AM

.....

So, can you see moles under clothing. Easy enough to put into test.

Extremely easy ..

Just like sensing bacteria in opaque containers, or various gasses in transparent ones.
How about the chemical make-up of crushed pills?

All things that VFF claims she can do, but will not submit to controlled tests.

VFF could walk away with a mil, in a heartbeat, if she could really do what she claims...

The violin player, refuses to play.

VisionFromFeeling

26th March 2009, 08:45 AM

That would be so easy to test. Why not try it? What in particular do you think would be easy to test? I gave several examples in that post. And yes, that would be so easy to test, I am quite good at detecting all of the above that I mentioned in that post. They are, you could say, my specialty. :D
I don't have a hard time believing that you form an image. I have a problem believing that that image would reflect what that person actually looks like, inside or out. And that is why we need to test for correlation. You see, I am not immediately assuming that my images are based on reality as opposed to being subjective impressions. Especially now when I notice my synesthesia with regard to chemical elements and physics equations is growing stronger it makes me stronger suspect that perhaps the medical images are also some form of synesthesia. Chemical synesthesia (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/page2.html), and physics synesthesia (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/page3.html). However I have yet not encountered a single verified incorrect medical perception! Am I subconsciously reading external clues that translate into corresponding visual and felt understanding of health information? Or am I really sensing the vibrational patterns just like I experience it as? How do I know that a woman has significant cysts of the internal reproductive system? Lactobacillus supplement in the stomach? That a skull was once crushed severely from the top? Very specific descriptions of how a person is feeling from the inside of their body, in cases where there are definitely no external symptoms? Or that Wayne has an adam's apple (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4410578&postcount=2270)? :D

It is still a mystery. And I want to find out.
I can imagine all kinds of stuff about someones body, but you claim that you can see things that are really in or on that person (via paranormal means) and you are not just imagining what someone looks like,If it is imagination it is involuntary and automatic such. The images form on their own without my effort. What I find interesting is that the perceived medical information often contradicts with my logical assumptions about a person's health. Often I detect something that you could never guess just by looking at the person or observing them! Things that when you look at the person with ordinary eyesight and apply logic you say to yourself that it couldn't possibly be true. But so far, I haven't been incorrect. I really need to gain more experience with these medical perceptions and also in properly documented cases and witnessed by other persons rather than to keep posting the same old anecdotes over and over again. We need new material in order to proceed.

When I look at a person with plain eyesight and without the medical perceptions I could imagine their health but I find that a difficult thing to do. As a scientist science student I don't like guesswork or the uncertainty involved. I need to base my predictions on something that is not vague. I clearly experience a strong distinction between my ordinary and normal means of describing the world, and with that which forms the medical perceptions. They are not one and the same.
So, can you see moles under clothing. Easy enough to put into test. Oh that would be a wonderfully easy test to put together! Unfortunately I do not see everything. *Of course*, the Skeptics say. Here's how it is:

Medical perceptions either come to me on their own, or I choose to have them form. When medical perceptions come to me on their own it is easy, the health problem is already centered and consists of the clearest information that is the easiest to detect. Everything in the body and about the body has a different vibrational aspect according to my perception, and more severe health problems have a stronger signature than does healthy tissue. Also, structures that are to me unusual or uncommon will also stand out. Other than the information that comes on its own, I can also choose to search the body. If I learn the generalized vibrational signature of a mole I can superimpose this with the vibrational information of the entire body and look for matches by resonance. The resonance creates a very specific "magnetic" feel that tells me there is a match. And I can then go to that area to look closer. But, something like a mole is probably difficult. I will definitely look into this possibility and not assume that I couldn't do it. It would make a very easy test, even though I doubt that moles would produce a strong enough vibrational signature. It is a good idea though! It will be considered! :)

ETA: I have also considered something much simpler. Since I claim to detect also what a person is feeling, why not induce the information that needs to be detected! Such as that one person has an icecube in their hand, or one is pinched on the fingertip with a needle. I am still interested in a test that involves "who has to go to the bathroom" - not to be confused with this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89877), or this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3149122&postcount=12). Mm, the science of the JREF. :)

PS. "Who has to go to the bathroom" is included in my upcoming study.

ETA: It is actually another of my specialties. When people have a need to urinate it forms a very strong signature in terms of feeling, while, I would think, providing no external symptoms. I clearly sense the expanded state of the bladder, and all the other sensations that the person has that are involved. I never miss it. It is a valid topic of consideration for this investigation.
Evidence? I, for one, have pictured many a woman naked. However, I have never done so involuntarily. No one has ever told me that they see images like that involuntarily. Aha! It is not involuntary! And you guys have us women think that it is. :rolleyes:
Once again, are you prepared to take the steps necessary to falsify your claim? Ooh yes. :) And that is what I am working toward.

VisionFromFeeling

26th March 2009, 09:08 AM

Jozen-Bo, I also agree that your claim and mine do not come about in the same way, ie. they are not the same thing. You use vision as the source of information, whereas I experience myself as using vibrational information that is felt and that then translates into visual and other forms of felt information, which is why I call it Vision from Feeling. I would not want to alter my senses during the time of the investigation, so at the time being I am not interested in your techniques of sensory enhancement.

So does this mean that when you examined Wayne for the FACT "study," you didn't choose to look at the surface of his body? Otherwise you would have seen his scar right? And if that is so, when you were involved in a study that could be very important to you, why wouldn't you examine every single facet of his surface and interior? Very good point. Once I had been told that he has a significant scar at the diaphragm after the viewing with Wayne was over I made sure to ask whether he himself feels any lasting discomfort or sensation from that area and whether there is any lasting damage to the body, and he said no, that he had fully recovered. Scar tissue as such has a very low vibrational signature, it is not in pain, inflamed or warm, generally does not constrict blood flow or cause re-mapping of the blood vessels in an abnormal pattern, or produce nerve damage. So there is often very little to detect scars by. As for when I detected cardiac bypass scar on the chest there was a thick cartilagenous scar tissue vertically across the chest so that is what I sensed it by. I did not search for scars in Wayne, in fact I did not even look at the surface of his body. This reading was just a preliminary part of the study in which there was no format to be followed. In the upcoming study there will be a list of ailments on a questionnaire and I will know to look for each of those specific things, so if I miss something that is on the list then, then that will be more suspicious toward a non-ability.

To examine every single thing inside and out would take me a very long time. I can do it, but I was expecting the common ailments in this particular reading, so I was looking at the internal organs, bones, and other common sites. A scar at the diaphragm is very unusual, so I did not know to look there! And it wasn't strong enough to catch my attention all on its own!
VFF could walk away with a mil, in a heartbeat, if she could really do what she claims...Wow, I haven't even thought of that... If I would win the million I would invite all of you Skeptics who have been so devoted to my investigation in spite of the slow progress and get everyone together and celebrate. Everyone would get a free psychic-MRI of course. :)

Kariboo

26th March 2009, 09:25 AM

yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. <snip>. But I can choose, and "look around". :D

<snip> At times when I'm bored I can spend time looking into people's bodies, just like some of us like to just look at the clouds drifting by. It is a good pass-time.
I am quite good at detecting all of the above that I mentioned in that post. They are, you could say, my specialty. :D

So in the above quotes you say that you have this ability at will

And then:

I can also choose to search the body. If I learn the generalized vibrational signature of a mole I can superimpose this with the vibrational information of the entire body and look for matches by resonance. The resonance creates a very specific "magnetic" feel that tells me there is a match. And I can then go to that area to look closer. But, something like a mole is probably difficult.

You claim that it is difficult and you are not sure you can do so.

A lot of your post consists of you describing what you think is the mechanism for your ability. However you have yet to prove there IS an ability. Deciding how it works comes later.

I am sure you have some friends hanging around. Take a look at their arms or legs and decide if you sense a mole or scar. make a little drawing of where you see the mole/scare and ask them to roll up their pant or shirtsleeve and check. It will only take a couple of minutes. That will give you an idea if you are indeed able to "zoom in" on their outer skin layer. If you are not able to do so your ability does not work on that level and you will have to drop the part of your claim that states you can see what someones surface looks like. If you are able to do so you are ready to do a test with people that are unknown to you.

desertgal

26th March 2009, 09:52 AM

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind.

Well, that's not exactly true, is it? You now agree that your perceptions could be subjective impressions and/or imagination-yet condemn skeptics for their failure to accept your unproven claims as fact. Go figure.

Don't condemn the skeptics. They WILL accept your claimed abilities as fact - when they are indisputably proven to be fact.

Some Skeptics are saying that this sounds like mental illness or delusion, or that I am lying about it or conducting a scam.

You have consistently refused to objectively analyze any single one of your past perceptions.
You have consistently refused to accept any other objective analysis offered about any of the claims you have made on this forum, or the anecdotal examples you have offered.
You have consistently refused to offer any objective data about your past perceptions, or, in the case of Wayne and your 'survey', gather any objective data that might reveal your claimed abilities to be anything other than paranormal.
You have consistently refused to accept any suggested protocol that doesn't allow you wiggle room-both here and through IIG West.
You have consistently refused to clarify your claimed abilities-again, both here and with IIG West, to the point that they stated, in their latest update, that that is the sole reason they have been unable to establish a testing protocol with you.
You have consistently failed all experiments of your claimed abilities via this forum, and, when confronted with those failures, you consistently refuse to acknowledge them, and simply shift the goalposts to turn every miss into a hit.
You have consistently stated that you are basing your investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes.
You have made every attempt to dodge and delay your proposed 'study', and avoid controlled testing. When confronted with your delaying tactics, you simply shift the goalposts and condemn the skeptics as being "impatient". We couldn't be impatient for something that is never going to happen.
You have not conclusively ruled out mental illness via examination by a qualified therapist.
You have offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have seriously damaged your credibility (i.e. your description of an 'encounter' with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin which turned the erudite founding father into the colonial version of Jeff Spiccoli, and which was, when examined against the established facts of Franklin's life, largely discredited by more than one skeptic here.)

Please explain how the above eliminates the possibility that you are delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?

I can believe that there are pink fluffy elephants dancing on my roof. I can come here and make that claim. I can 'investigate' my subjective reality that there are pink fluffy elephants dancing on my roof. But, without indisputable proof that a) there are pink fluffy elephants in the world; and b) that a portion of them are doing the Charleston on my shingles, it would not be unreasonable for skeptics here to conclude that my claim was the result of my imagination, a mental instability, or simply a lie.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Uncayimmy

26th March 2009, 01:20 PM

Once again, let's clear up a few things:

What you describe is not synesthesia. Nothing in the literature remotely resembles what you describe. You are making up terms like "chemical synesthesia" and "physics synesthesia" that have no meaning to anyone but yourself.

You claim that you're not sure if your abilities are based on reality, but as many of us have pointed out repeatedly, your actions betray your words. Your website is full of all sorts of outlandish claims that refer to your ability as fact. You are not objective about this in the least. You treat your abilities is real and only pay lip service to being objective.

You did not answer my question about people seeing involuntary images absent objective stimuli. Please stop with the jokes and smilies and discuss this like an adult. What evidence do you to support your claim that others involuntarily and routinely see imagery that does not exists in physical world?

You have yet to respond to the very serious questions in the moderated Interview thread. You have had ample time to do so (several weeks). Why are you avoiding it? Please do claim a lack of time because it is evident to everyone here that you have spent enormous amounts of time making other posts.

Furthermore, this thread is rapidly duplicating the original VFF thread in which you wrote tens of thousands of words describing all sorts of unproven abilities. You are not offering anything new. Your "study" protocol is a joke and has been rejected by FACT and everyone else here. Specifically, what tests are you willing to undertake to disprove any of your numerous claims?