[Moderated] Vision From Feeling 2 [Archive]

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 08:07 AM

Jonquill

28th March 2009, 08:59 AM

Regarding your survey with Dr Carlson

"In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong. "

http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html

These aren't really positive results, do you find them discouraging?

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 09:08 AM

In the most recent, March, meeting with the local Skeptics Group, I had the chance to attempt my paranormal claim of health information detection with two of the members. After each reading I handed both mine and the volunteer's questionnaires to a group member who would provide me with photocopies later, to ensure that there is no reason to suspect me of tampering with the questionnaires, so the specifics of those readings will become available later on once I receive back that material. I will of course be reporting both the hits and the misses, both of which I made.

These readings were part of the Study I am having whose purpose is for me to gain more experience with my paranormal claim and to learn more about it so that I can form a more specific claim and in order to proceed with the test protocol formations. The Study is for educational purposes only and is not a test. The Study is not done to a quality of adequate controlled test conditions so it is not designed to be able to provide evidence in favor of the claim. The procedure of the Study is gradually improved upon and moved closer toward an actual test procedure. If the experience of correlating medical perceptions ceases, this gradual approach allows me to identify which specific detail in the procedure was the cause of that. In science you only change one experimental variable at a time so that you can attribute the changes in the observed results to that one change.

I am taking what was my everyday experience with the perceptions and moving them toward taking place under proper test conditions. I have already adjusted well to seeing the volunteers from behind rather than front view to avoid eyecontact and facial expressions both of which could offer subconscious and non-paranormal clues about their health, and I see no reduction in my performance. I have also adjusted well to the questionnaire format and absolutely love the benefits of using questionnaires over spoken description, because the volunteer has reported their health before they even meet me and that removes the suspicion that the volunteer is simply wanting to agree with me, and my answers are also in writing with no way for me to add things or to change things after the reading so that removes suspicion of that. I feel that I am going to love the final test procedure.

In one of the readings at the meeting I correctly detected menstruation/period. This was not one of the ailments listed on the questionnaires for me to look for, but I did what I call the "head-to-toe" where I look through the entire person to make note of what catches my attention the most. And it was quite obvious. If anyone wants to know what I perceived, by all means, ask. Would menstruation/period be a good candidate for a real test?

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 09:20 AM

Would menstruation/period be a good candidate for a real test?

Sure, if you can detect that significantly above chance (which in any childbearing woman is 25% by my calculation), go ahead and use that as your claim. B.t.w. can you actually detect this in any woman? since you have never mentioned so before.

Also, have you done anything about the detecting moles we talked about in the other thread. That would also be easy to test, right?

Skeptical Greg

28th March 2009, 09:34 AM

This will be my second thread here on the JREF Forum, continuing with the first one, Vision From Feeling which was closed after 4 months and 66 pages ..

More like 5 months, and zero evidence to substantiate your claim.

What difference will a 2nd thread make ?

Professor Yaffle

28th March 2009, 09:35 AM

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 09:45 AM

Also from your website:

One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place a the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them.

So why do you want to discuss anything here in a civil way? you don't seem to extend that courtesy

desertgal

28th March 2009, 09:51 AM

What is the point of further discussing your claim?

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 either a hit, or, at least, a "non-miss".
You have consistently stated that you are basing your investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes. You offer no corroborative statements about any of your "correct" perceptions, and you have immediately dismissed, out of hand, a few witness statements that didn't corroborate your point of view.
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 can'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 not conclusively ruled out that you have convinced yourself to believe in something that isn't true.
You have offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have demolished 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.)
You have openly admitted that you only come here to make fun of the skeptics.

Please explain:

How the above eliminates the possibility that you are delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?
How the above establishes you as a "reasonable" claimant?
Why the skeptics here should expect anything different than the above, and waste further time and effort going nowhere?
How this thread could possibly be of value, considering the above?
Why we should contribute to any discussion of your claim when you have openly stated you have chosen to only come here to ridicule the skeptics?'

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. Nor would it be unreasonable for them to conclude that I have convinced myself of something that isn't actually true, and logically, I have no reason to investigate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong. "

This is in keeping with the above points. If you are not willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, then how can you expect to "form a more specific claim in order to proceed with the test protocol formations"? If a perception is inaccurate, would not determining that help you in establishing the "correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person."?

As well, if you aren't willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, why should anyone here get involved in a discussion about your claim?

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 10:11 AM

So from your study:

I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. =miss x several times and hedging your bets

There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong.
= miss and hedging your bets

I sensed no pain anywhere and However she had checked four types of pain= miss x 4

I sensed a tense jaw ... I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' because I thought it was a nicer way to say it, suffers from anxiety,= miss and hedging your bets

and a heart issue = miss

does she have her menstruation now? She said that she did! = hit (20-25% chance of being right)

I did not detect her swallowing problem. = miss

so all misses except 1 which can't be proven to be statistically significant.
Some misses because you don't sense something that is there, some misses because you sense something that isn't there. Which by your account disproves your ability.

Vortigern99

28th March 2009, 10:35 AM

"One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place a the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them."

There is absolutely no way I'm going to be able to take this person or her claims seriously after this statement.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:36 AM

I don't think menstruation would be a good candidate. Surely there are subtle odour and possibly other cues (swollen, uncomfortable breasts might make you move subtly differently, subtle behavioural changes throughout the cycle etc)?

http://www.livescience.com/health/060118_armpit_odor.html

As well, Anita reported that she 'perceived' that the subject's reproductive system was red and inflamed, which led her to conclude menstruation. But, there are other conditions that could have the same result - endometriosis, cervical cancer, ovarian cysts, pelvic inflammatory disease, among others. It would be difficult to determine the source of the inflammation.

subvicepresident

28th March 2009, 10:44 AM

I have been following VFF thread(s) form months now and have a question for Anita.

Anita, would you say that the likelihood of you actually having a paranormal ability has decreased in you eyes since you came to this forum?

tnx

Jonquill

28th March 2009, 10:55 AM

"I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them."

Pffft. Bravado. Gimpiest kid in the playground...

TheSkepticCanuck

28th March 2009, 01:06 PM

"I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them."

Pffft. Bravado. Gimpiest kid in the playground...

How much do you want to bet that she comes back and tries to convince us that she was just joking with the FACT member, and that it wasn't even worth mentioning, even though she did?

Moochie

28th March 2009, 01:41 PM

More like 5 months, and zero evidence to substantiate your claim.

What difference will a 2nd thread make ?

Allow me to answer that, if I may.

This second thread will make absolutely no difference.

If this person had anything like the "ability" claimed they would not be wasting their time here -- we would be reading about it in reputable journals and the media generally. It would be a worldwide sensation.

Their presence here tells me one thing only: fraud, whether intentional or not.

To me, a layman with scant tertiary education, this smells strongly fishy. Has done so since day one. I've published my reasons for thinking so elsewhere in our esteemed forum and need not repeat it here, suffice to say it parallels the thoughts of many others who've followed this nonsense all along.

For my part, I've avoided looking at the claimant's site since it occurs to me that they are angling to have as many visitors there as possible, and since whatever is posted there is usually echoed here, anyway.

It seems to me the more preposterous a claim, the less chance there is of any actual evidence for such claim, and this case is following that path precisely.

Like a few others here, I will continue to look in on the thread as I can, fully cognizant of the very real possibility that it will end "eventually," just like the previous one did. Oh, what fun!

M.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 02:06 PM

How much do you want to bet that she comes back and tries to convince us that she was just joking with the FACT member, and that it wasn't even worth mentioning, even though she did?

She changed her website to read:
One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place at the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of have fun with the Skeptics there. To have fun with them. Note: With this I refer to the funny and silly posts I've been making on the JREF lately, where I make fun of Skeptics, other claimants, and myself, all in innocent harmless fun. After being formal for four months on the JREF Forums, I've sort of extracted all the valuable things I can through the bickering and harassment, so I decided to relax and have fun for a while knowing that there are no more results to post at the moment and no more progress to discuss. So I was referring to fun posts I've already made. I don't make "fun of", I meant "fun with". It is a Swedish type-o. What I said was misunderstood, and if anyone can find a post where I actually make fun of a Skeptic, please do send it to me. There are none. I don't make fun of Skeptics. I couldn't do my investigation without Skeptics.

Of course, what she actually said to the FACT member is anyone's guess, since we have only Anita's description, which we can't depend on. I'm willing to bet that the original quote was accurate.

I fail to see how she 'couldn't do her investigation without skeptics'. With the exception of the skeptics who have submitted to being 'examined' by her (which, basically, had more to do with being human than being a skeptic), she IS doing her investigation without skeptics. She has rejected protocols; rejected objective analysis; rejected advice offered by skeptics about the logistics of her study; refused to carry out simple suggested experiments that the skeptics have offered in keeping with what SHE claims she can do; and rejected, repeatedly, solid evidence that the skeptics have provided her that show her own descriptions of her ability are not consistent with synesthesia. Instead, as UncaYimmy has pointed out, she has made up terms like "chemical synesthesia" and "physics synesthesia" in order to cling to synesthesia as an alternate source of her perceptions if she cannot prove a paranormal ability.

She was, also, provided a moderated thread here, which she agreed to, which would have allowed her to precisely answer equally precise questions posed by ONE person, and which would have helped clarify her claim - and she refused to continue with it when it began to require some honest answers.

Skeptics have not contributed to her investigation. She has rebuffed their efforts at every turn. For those unfamiliar with Anita, please keep that in mind. To maintain attention on her, she will pay lip service to skeptics being valuable, in the same way that she pays lip service to being objective, but, in the end, she will not do anything that would drag her paranormal claim into the cold hard light of reality and reveal her to be anything but extraordinary.

I hope this thread is allowed to die a prompt death, since it can only follow the same downward spiral of the last one.

LONGTABBER PE

28th March 2009, 02:15 PM

Dear Skeptics,
This will be my second thread here on the JREF Forum, continuing with the first one, Vision From Feeling (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128149) which was closed after 4 months and 66 pages of posts because of hostile discussions on behalf of some JREF Forum members. The investigation into my paranormal claim continues, and it has not been falsified at this point. I wish to continue with discussions toward a final test protocol and toward reaching the final conclusion in my claim to answer the questions what is the actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with actual health, am I performing better than the average person or the skilled cold reader, and what is the source of the health information?

Please everyone keep this thread civil. I do not wish to see this thread become placed on moderated status and I definitely do not want to see this thread closed too soon. If you can not remain friendly and tolerant towards me as a person as well as in your response toward my claim and paranormal investigation then please have the courtesy to not disgrace this valuable thread with your hostility. There are several other threads where you can express your negativity, but please, not here!

I am a reasonable claimant, I have not made myself responsible to deserve hostilities which are ruining my chances of having the opportunity to discuss my claim here with Skeptics. Do not ruin this thread for everyone, let's keep it open since this investigation is ongoing.

And to remind everyone, my paranormal claim is to perceive visual and felt health information when I look at a person, to have experienced compelling correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person, and even in cases when the health information should not be detectable by ordinary means of perception. It is a wonderfully interesting claim, if I do say so myself. So let's not be responsible for closing this thread again there is more work to be done and I wish to remain available here on the JREF Forums to discuss my ongoing investigation. Thank you!

This is called perpetuating the scam.( thats what it is, thats what it was and thats all it ever will be) This is a self infomercial repeating the same crap, the same way fpr the zillioneth time always ending in nothing. She is a willing liar and deliberate FRAUD and thats all she has ever been. Anyone who doesnt see this by now has their own afflictions to deal with. This is troll bait.

She wasnt getting the attention she craved in the moderated thread ( and the others) so she initiated another with a lame "cry" to keep it civil ( playing the innocent victim and trying to take the moral high ground against the "evil" skeptics) while putting the ring in your nose and leading you down the hoaxers path.

Listen to an old LE, this is, was and always has been a SCAM. You are being played like a cheap kazoo.

>>>which was closed after 4 months and 66 pages of posts because of hostile discussions on behalf of some JREF Forum members.

The first lie. It was closed after many pleadings,legitimate suggestions and OBFUSCATION on her part. "Hostile" is the scammers cry when they are about to be exposed. ( asking a fraud a direct question and expecting a direct answer is "hostility" because it exposes the fraud)

>>>The investigation into my paranormal claim continues, and it has not been falsified at this point.

More lies and obfuscations. She knows her claim is a self aggrandizing LIE and she deliberately puts herself in a position to NOT be proven so. It hasnt been "falsified" because she will NOT allow it to be established in the first place. ( scammers and frauds NEVER allow themselves to be pinned down)

>>> I wish to continue with discussions toward a final test protocol and toward reaching the final conclusion in my claim to answer the questions what is the actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with actual health, am I performing better than the average person or the skilled cold reader, and what is the source of the health information?

I'm an "attention ho" and I want it to be about me,me,me ( as long as I can duck proving I have an actual ability in the first place)

>>>Please everyone keep this thread civil. I

I need attention and if you keep accusing me of what you are now seeing I'm guilty of it wil be moderated and closed and I will cry and lose the attention I so crave.

>>> I do not wish to see this thread become placed on moderated status and I definitely do not want to see this thread closed too soon.

Then you cannot talk about ME ME ME

>>> If you can not remain friendly and tolerant towards me as a person as well as in your response toward my claim and paranormal investigation then please have the courtesy to not disgrace this valuable thread with your hostility.

Yes, just believe me, listen to me, cajole me- do ANYTHING but call me to the carpet to actually produce because thats mean and hostile and I will whine some more and start another thread.

>>>There are several other threads where you can express your negativity, but please, not here!

Yes please, bury them and never reference them so I have a sounding board to promote ME ME ME

>>>I am a reasonable claimant, I have not made myself responsible to deserve hostilities which are ruining my chances of having the opportunity to discuss my claim here with Skeptics.

I'm a liar,fraud and hoaxer and i dont want any of you reminding me of that. I want thos to go on so the focus is forever on ME ME ME. "Skeptics" are big "meanies" and the enemy and i want people to listen to me, believe me, have sympathy for me. As long as its ME ME ME.

>>>Do not ruin this thread for everyone, let's keep it open since this investigation is ongoing.

I want my attention so I dont have to keep bumping threads

>>>And to remind everyone, my paranormal claim is to perceive visual and felt health information when I look at a person, to have experienced compelling correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person, and even in cases when the health information should not be detectable by ordinary means of perception. It is a wonderfully interesting claim, if I do say so myself. So let's not be responsible for closing this thread again there is more work to be done and I wish to remain available here on the JREF Forums to discuss my ongoing investigation. Thank you![/QUOTE]

Just dont ask me to prove it

Sorry guys and gals, this is a textbook scam. You have been taken in hook line and sinker

Moochie

28th March 2009, 03:08 PM

<snipped for brevity>

Sorry guys and gals, this is a textbook scam. You have been taken in hook line and sinker

No I haven't. No hook. No line. No sinker.

Just a sense of humor.

M.

TSR

28th March 2009, 03:11 PM

VfF:

Is there a reason, other than the obvious, that you have ignored my suggestion to take the pill samples you are having problems with to the health and beauty department of your local supermarket, there to use your powers to look inside the packages and compare those samples with?

You've claimed to be able to do so in the past, you know...

desertgal

28th March 2009, 05:08 PM

I have not made myself responsible to deserve hostilities which are ruining my chances of having the opportunity to discuss my claim here with Skeptics. Do not ruin this thread for everyone, let's keep it open since this investigation is ongoing.

In addition, I have to point out that this is an outright lie, Anita. Nothing is 'ruining your chances of having the opportunity to discuss your claim with skeptics'. There are TWO moderated threads on this forum where you could discuss your claim until the end of time, with a minimum of "hostilities". You have CHOSEN not to utilize them. Don't blame the skeptics because the moderated threads prevent you from receiving the attention you seek as quickly as you might like, or that they don't allow you to sidetrack into meaningless wall o'texts to avoid giving honest answers to direct questions.

Like it or not, you ARE responsible for most of the 'hostilities'* that have come your way, as a result of your constant obfuscations, dodges, deviations, backpedaling, immaturity, and repugnant arrogance. It is a perfect example of your lack of objectivity that you refuse that responsibility, but that doesn't make it any less true. You've jerked people around from day one, and you certainly can't expect tolerance while you attempt to continue to do so. We reap what we sow.

*(For "hostilities", see "truth, logic, objectivity.")

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 08:39 PM

:faint: Here we go again...
Regarding your survey with Dr Carlson
"In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong. "
http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html
These aren't really positive results, do you find them discouraging? I am very happy with the reading I had with Dr. Carlson as the volunteer, I learned a lot. After the reading I asked him whether he would permit me to disclose the details of our reading, and he allowed. I handed both mine and his questionnaires for him so that we don't have to suspect me of tampering with them. Before I receive the photocopies of the questionnaires I can only go from memory, and we should also consider Dr. Carlson's version of the reading and not mine only.

I marked I think four different joint or bone issues all to an extent of 1 on a scale of 1 to 5. (Please see this copy of the questionnaire (http://www.scribd.com/full/13708339?access_key=key-3la6lbk0bm6gay1fmoz) format that was used, in order to better follow along in this discussion.) None of which he had marked. I marked those ailments not as pain or muscle problems. I think we might have another problem such as "Wayne's adam's apple (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4410578&postcount=2270)". In a reading with Wayne as I was looking for health problems, I wrote down that I sensed something in his throat, which I concluded as being the adam's apple, without any health problems to it. Just that I sensed it. I do sense healthy things as well, like normal heartbeat or the movement of breathing lungs as well. It could be that I was sensing Dr. Carlson's healthy bones and joints.

It's ok. I am supposed to run into problems in my study, I am supposed to be making explanations and figuring out ways to work through the problems so that I can design a test that works both for me as the claimant and that meets the quality requirements of a test. I've run into the problem that I am noting things that I sense that are not health problems. If I find a way to distinguish these I might come through with a better performance.

Of course I consider misses and not only the hits. I was very interested in the discrepancies as well. However my performance overall in the past three readings with FACT Skeptics as volunteers has not falsified the claim, so I proceed. This is the stage where I try things out and warm-up.

And then there is the second problem that I need to work through. The fact that I did not record one very significant health information in one person, and recorded a lower extent than what I actually perceived from another ailment in the other person, on purpose. I was too afraid to be wrong about Dr. Carlson missing a left kidney even though I detected this, and I didn't want to insult the other person by saying that I sensed that she has anxiety to an extent of 2 or 3, so I wrote a modest 1. Darn it. I must tell myself to no longer be modest in future attempts. This is the purpose of the study, to allow the claimant to try out their claim in more controlled settings and to identify possible complaints that arise, so that I can make changes to the procedure or make changes to the way I practice my claimed ability. And if my performance is still inadequate then I have nothing to say.

Knowing how I truly perceived, and knowing that these two above described complications on my part may have been the cause for discrepancy, and believing that my skill might still be good enough and be better than it came across in these readings, I will proceed, knowing that I can make changes to work around these complications and only if these issues still arise will I consider them more deeply.

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 09:07 PM

B.t.w. can you actually detect this [menstruation] in any woman? since you have never mentioned so before.I think I could detect it in any woman. Of course I don't assume that I can until I have experienced it. No aspect of my claim is based on what I "think" I can do, they are all based on what I think I have already done. Do keep in mind I do not continuously read people, so I don't see this particular information very often. I was making the effort to search this person "head-to-toe", as I call it. Menstruation is now included in the study health questionnaires.
Also, have you done anything about the detecting moles we talked about in the other thread. That would also be easy to test, right? This would be too tricky to include in the study where persons of the public are the volunteers, since to try my ability on detecting moles I would actually want the volunteer to uncover part of their clothing to show what it looks like. I might do this one with college students. Normally, I would consider college students too healthy as volunteers for the study, but for moles I would prefer skin that is otherwise healthy!

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 09:24 PM

I marked I think four different joint or bone issues all to an extent of 1 on a scale of 1 to 5. None of which he had marked. So that is 4 misses

You also missed pain x4, a swallowing problem , you missed a missing kidney, you falsely found a heart problem

I do sense healthy things as well, like normal heartbeat or the movement of breathing lungs as well.
No you don't, you always claim to find discrepancies from normal

I am supposed to be making explanations
Nope, you are supposed to do as you claim

Of course I consider misses and not only the hits.
Where?

has not falsified the claim

Yes, you just did. Also you did in the past but you will keep doing what you have been doing: every time your claim does not match up with what you can actually do, you will come up with some kind of explanation, exception, different circumstance, story, "I knew it but didn't say so", "I said it but didn't mean it", "I almost knew it", " I thought so but changed my mind " , "I can do a million easily testable things but refuse to because I want to claim something I can weasel my way out of forever", I was feeling cold, warm, dry, wet, I made a silly Swedish mistake, whatever TM forever ad infinitum

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 09:32 PM

One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place a the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them.
So why do you want to discuss anything here in a civil way? you don't seem to extend that courtesy It's funny how after all I wrote about the recent Skeptics meeting, this particular thing was brought up many times by JREF Forum Skeptics who then go sour and act childish. First of all, it was a Swedish type-o. (See my recent added comment to it at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html)) I meant to have "fun with". Anyhow, this is proven if you search the other JREF Threads you can find lots of those silly funny posts I've been making, and I don't think you can find any posts I've made where I actually make "fun of" anyone. I don't make fun of Skeptics. I need my Skeptics.

Forum Skeptics behavior example #1: From a list of multiple various forms of comments, Skeptics are bound to pick out ones that contribute to bickering rather than to real progress in a paranormal claim.

(...) = miss and hedging your bets (...)I haven't posted the full details of the two readings. I actually made many hits that I haven't posted yet because I await the photocopies of the questionnaires. So hold on there. Wait for the full story.
Some misses because you don't sense something that is there, some misses because you sense something that isn't there. Which by your account disproves your ability. Nope.
"One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place a the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them."

There is absolutely no way I'm going to be able to take this person or her claims seriously after this statement. Hah. I meant "fun with". I meant all the silly posts I've been making in the other threads.

Forum Skeptics behavior example #2: Jumping into conclusions then placing full belief into those false assumptions before awaiting the actual evidence to back it up. I have not made any such posts where I "make fun of" Skeptics.

***Do not censor my posts. They are not intended as negative toward the Skeptics. If my recent posts are censored I will not return to the JREF since I am not allowed to answer questions, clear out misconceptions, or to give my side of the story.***

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 09:39 PM

As well, Anita reported that she 'perceived' that the subject's reproductive system was red and inflamed, which led her to conclude menstruation. But, there are other conditions that could have the same result - endometriosis, cervical cancer, ovarian cysts, pelvic inflammatory disease, among others. It would be difficult to determine the source of the inflammation. First I saw that the uterus was red and possibly inflamed. I looked closer and saw large amounts of fresh blood. So I asked the person whether she had her period. I was absolutely sure of it. I would never have mistaken what I saw for anything else.

fromdownunder

28th March 2009, 09:40 PM

Hah. I meant "fun with". I meant all the silly posts I've been making in the other threads.

OK, so troll behaviour by disrupting other threads is good in your mind. Noted.

And your promised support for abr on this thread is just one of your "silly posts". You should let him know that you are joking. I think he, at least, takes his "paranormal power" seriously, really wants to do a test, so playing games with him may not be a good ifea.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136649&page=4

Norm

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 09:41 PM

Some misses because you don't sense something that is there, some misses because you sense something that isn't there. Which by your account disproves your ability.

Nope.

Nope? You falsely identified four different joint or bone issues, you missed pain x4, a swallowing problem , you missed a missing kidney, you falsely found a heart problem

How does this not disprove your claimed ability

***Do not censor my posts. They are not intended as negative toward the Skeptics. If my recent posts are censored I will not return to the JREF since I am not allowed to answer questions, clear out misconceptions, or to give my side of the story.***

What? no one is censoring your posts. Whether you choose to stay here or not is your decision.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 09:57 PM

First I saw that the uterus was red and possibly inflamed. I looked closer and saw large amounts of fresh blood. So I asked the person whether she had her period. I was absolutely sure of it. I would never have mistaken what I saw for anything else.

Your original question was whether "menstruation would be a good candidate for a real test?". You said on your website that you observed "that her internal female system was red or inflamed."

So, from that, we were supposed to know, when attempting to answer your original question, that you also saw "large amounts of fresh blood"?

See, this is one of the problems we all ran into in the last thread. You ask a question, we respond based on the information that you provided, and then you come back and argue and tell us how wrong we are, basing your argument on information that you had not previously revealed.

How can you possibly expect a fair discussion if you are just going to play these types of games?

In a reading with Wayne as I was looking for health problems, I wrote down that I sensed something in his throat, which I concluded as being the adam's apple, without any health problems to it. Just that I sensed it.

And there you go, changing your story again. You've gone from sensing "slight discomfort" to simply sensing "something".

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

The adam's apple does not cause discomfort. You were wrong.

It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat.

The adam's apple is not bony. It is made of cartilage. You were wrong.

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 09:58 PM

Anita, would you say that the likelihood of you actually having a paranormal ability has decreased in you eyes since you came to this forum?Nope.
"I just go there lately to make fun of the Skeptics there. To have fun with them."

Pffft. Bravado. Gimpiest kid in the playground...
How much do you want to bet that she comes back and tries to convince us that she was just joking with the FACT member, and that it wasn't even worth mentioning, even though she did? Read the explanation at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html). Unlike many of the JREF Forum Skeptics, I have not posted any hostile or negative posts toward anyone.

If this person had anything like the "ability" claimed they would not be wasting their time here -- we would be reading about it in reputable journals and the media generally. It would be a worldwide sensation.Should I stand on a soapbox and announce it to the world?
Their presence here tells me one thing only: fraud, whether intentional or not.Nope.
She is a willing liar and deliberate FRAUD and thats all she has ever been. I am not and never have been.
The first lie. It was closed after many pleadings,legitimate suggestions and OBFUSCATION on her part. Why don't we ask the moderators what was the real reason why the thread was closed?
"Hostile" is the scammers cry when they are about to be exposed. "Hostile" is personal attacks etc. that some of you Forum Skeptics are responsible for. I am not a scammer. And I am not avoiding having the claim falsified.
More lies and obfuscations. She knows her claim is a self aggrandizing LIE and she deliberately puts herself in a position to NOT be proven so. It hasnt been "falsified" because she will NOT allow it to be established in the first place. ( scammers and frauds NEVER allow themselves to be pinned down)My claim is absolutely fascinating and based on sincere accounts. Of course it is falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified yet.
I'm an "attention ho" and I want it to be about me,me,me ( as long as I can duck proving I have an actual ability in the first place)It is about my unusual experience of perceiving visual and felt health information that correlates with actual health information in persons. And I am working very hard to put the study together and to move forward to a real test.
I need attention and if you keep accusing me of what you are now seeing I'm guilty of it wil be moderated and closed and I will cry and lose the attention I so crave. I am here to discuss the claim and readings and the study and test. I can get the attention I need in my life from elsewhere. From people who are actually loving.
Then you cannot talk about ME ME MEI am talking about my paranormal claim and investigation.
I'm a liar,fraud and hoaxer and i dont want any of you reminding me of that. I want thos to go on so the focus is forever on ME ME ME. "Skeptics" are big "meanies" and the enemy and i want people to listen to me, believe me, have sympathy for me. As long as its ME ME ME.What the h*ll is wrong with you? I am not a liar, not a fraud, not a hoax. The focus is on the experience of medical perceptions. Skeptics are the most valuable resource I have in investigating my claim. And I won't want anyone to believe in me without the evidence to back it up. All I am asking is for tolerance toward that I believe in my anecdotal experiences, which were not documented or turned into evidence in the past.

Is there a reason, other than the obvious, that you have ignored my suggestion to take the pill samples you are having problems with to the health and beauty department of your local supermarket, there to use your powers to look inside the packages and compare those samples with?I'm sorry I never saw that suggestion before. It is a very good one, but I would have to open the packages. :confused:

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:11 PM

You also missed pain x4, a swallowing problem , you missed a missing kidney, you falsely found a heart problemI did miss four accounts of pain. I did miss a swallowing problem. I did not miss a missing kidney but I chose not to write it because I worried about being wrong. I did not falsely find a heart problem.
No you don't, you always claim to find discrepancies from normal When medical perceptions come to me on their own, it highlights health problems. When I search for information, I find all sorts of things healthy and unhealthy.
Nope, you are supposed to do as you claimI am supposed to conduct the study leading to a more specific claim.
Of course I consider misses and not only the hits.
Where?On my website, in my posts, when I presented the results of the reading at the Skeptics meeting, and in my upcoming description of the specifics of the two readings.

The claim has not been falsified.

OK, so troll behaviour by disrupting other threads is good in your mind. Noted. I am also helping the other claimants with their paranormal claims, intending to help them toward a paranormal test if they do have some ability, or to conclude and say goodbye if there is no ability.
And your promised support for abr on this thread is just one of your "silly posts". You should let him know that you are joking. I think he, at least, takes his "paranormal power" seriously, really wants to do a test, so playing games with him may not be a good ifea.Did I say all my posts were just fun? Those are quite serious. Whatever. Some Skeptics think what they choose to think.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:16 PM

Unlike many of the JREF Forum Skeptics, I have not posted any hostile or negative posts toward anyone.

Would you really like me to go back to the first thread and show all the posts where you accused people of having schizotypal disorder-people who had not offered any opinion on your mental health? Like Cuddles. Like Ashles. Like Anna Karenina. AND all the posts where you were hostile and negative? I'd be happy to.

You are not angelic. Stop pretending that you are.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:20 PM

Yes, you just did. Also you did in the past but you will keep doing what you have been doing: every time your claim does not match up with what you can actually do, you will come up with some kind of explanation, exception, different circumstance, story, "I knew it but didn't say so", "I said it but didn't mean it", "I almost knew it", " I thought so but changed my mind " , "I can do a million easily testable things but refuse to because I want to claim something I can weasel my way out of forever", I was feeling cold, warm, dry, wet, I made a silly Swedish mistake, whatever TM forever ad infinitum

Bingo.

Any objective reasoning on our parts will lead to Anita whining that we are "censoring" her posts. :rolleyes:

LE said it best - for Anita, this thread is merely to bring the attention back to "me, me, me".

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:23 PM

Nope? You falsely identified four different joint or bone issues, you missed pain x4, a swallowing problem , you missed a missing kidney, you falsely found a heart problem

How does this not disprove your claimed abilityI suspect that the four joint or bone issues were due to the same reasons that made me report "Wayne's adam's apple". I never sensed nor reported pain in the joints or bones, and I listed it to an extent of 1. What did it feel like to me, you should ask? All it was, was that I "felt" the joints and bones in some areas of his body more so than in other areas so I thought that he "feels" them too. I learn from this study how to practice my claim.

In my defence the location was very noisy and also cold and I was also stressed by a 15 minute time limit. I did not finish the "head-to-toe" to the extent I would have chosen to. This is a study, not a test. The study is intended for me to try out various things, such as the use of a questionnaire, the use of a time limit, etc. I do not conclude too soon neither for or against the ability in the study. So I missed pain and swallowing problem.

I did not miss the missing left kidney. I perceived this, but I did not write this down being afraid of being wrong. Whatever you might think of me, I would never sink so low to lie about this. I have great respect for Dr. Carlson and for him volunteering for the study and for disclosing personal information like this. I would never disrespect him by being dishonest about this. All I can do is to be sincere, even when it means saying things that some of you can't tolerate.

The heart problem was not false.

See, this is one of the problems we all ran into in the last thread. You ask a question, we respond based on the information that you provided, and then you come back and argue and tell us how wrong we are, basing your argument on information that you had not previously revealed.

How can you possibly expect a fair discussion if you are just going to play these types of games? I apologize for having done that. It's just that we are analyzing everything in great detail and that is why more details always come up. It is not easy being a paranormal claimant. :(

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:28 PM

Would you really like me to go back to the first thread and show all the posts where you accused people of having schizotypal disorder-people who had not offered any opinion on your mental health? Like Cuddles. Like Ashles. Like Anna Karenina. AND all the posts where you were hostile and negative? I'd be happy to.Certainly. Just don't take them out of context, be sure to include everything that lead up to them. :) And, ahem. Who is it who constantly accuses me of being delusional and mentally ill? Even though I have none of the symptoms. I just have symptoms of this being synesthesia.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:29 PM

I'm sorry I never saw that suggestion before. It is a very good one, but I would have to open the packages. :confused:

Why? You said you 'saw' and were able to identify Lactobacillus through a cereal box. You also said: "I once looked at an unknown pill. I felt its vibrational aspect and combined it with the vibrational aspect of a human body in general to observe the results. I felt that the medicine is in fact a dangerous liver-toxin, and that the body responds with panic by flushing it out of the body and the kidneys with absolutely heaps of water, to the point of nearly dehydrating itself just to get rid of it."

Why can't you identify Pup's samples through the "vibrational aspect"? Failing that, why do you need to take the medications out of the packages when you can identify other substances, such as bacteria, inside a package?

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:37 PM

Certainly. Just don't take them out of context, be sure to include everything that lead up to them. :) And, ahem. Who is it who constantly accuses me of being delusional and mentally ill? Even though I have none of the symptoms. I just have symptoms of this being synesthesia.

No, I don't have to include what led up to them. You accused Cuddles, Ashles, and Anna Karenina of having schizotypal disorder. Period. Out of the blue. It doesn't matter what led up to it - none of them had offered any opinion whatsoever on your mental health. But, of course, you will lie and say that you didn't mean it that way, or some such nonsense.

You have three of the symptoms of schizotypal disorder. You even AGREED that you have three of the symptoms. But, of course, now you will change your story. Again.

You have no symptoms of synesthesia. That's just your fall back position.

You've offered no proof that you aren't delusional. You've offered no proof that you aren't a scammer. You've offered no proof that you aren't a fraud. You've offered no proof that you haven't convinced yourself of something that isn't true. You've offered no proof of ANYTHING. Just words, and more words, and evasions, and obfuscations, and lies, and dodges, and irrationality, and immaturity, and repulsive arrogance.

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:41 PM

At this point I am focusing on the paranormal claim. As for all the other interesting perceptions I've had they are not part of my investigation at this point.

Athlete: I think I can run the marathon and have a good chance of winning!
Desertgal: Yes, but you also said that you could swim.
Athlete: Yes, I've done that a few times before...
Desertgal: Alright! It's also a similar ability! Why don't you swim across the English channel?
Athlete: Yes, but I wanted to prove my other skills. And I'm not quite that good of a swimmer.
Desertgal: But it would be so easy to prove. Why are you avoiding tests? We could have this test right away and over with. You are a liar.
Athlete: When did I lie? I mean... yes, I have swam before, and been quite good at it I guess, but I wanted to see if I am exceptionally good at long-distance running!
Desertgal: I think you are delusional. There is no evidence.
Athlete: Yes, and that's why I want to prove it!
Desertgal: ... Why don't you swim across the channel?

TSR

28th March 2009, 10:44 PM

I did not miss the missing left kidney. I perceived this, but I did not write this down being afraid of being wrong.

.
But, according to you, you are never wrong. So why this time, over something this major?
.

I apologize for having done that. It's just that we are analyzing everything in great detail and that is why more details always come up. It is not easy being a paranormal claimant. :(

.
Especially when one cannot do what one claims to be able to. How many times are you going go back and change what you claim rather than supply all the information up front?
.

I just have symptoms of this being synesthesia.

.
No, you don't. Which is why you have never seen a doctor who could tell you so.
.

I'm sorry I never saw that suggestion before. It is a very good one, but I would have to open the packages.

.
Why ever would you need to do that? Not only do you claim to be able "see" inside a variety of containers, including the human body, but you have specifically claimed to be able to see inside the packaging of a box of cereal.

What is it about the package of an antihistamine which prevents this miraculous ability of yours which doesn't prevent you from seeing into tanks of gas?

.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:46 PM

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:46 PM

Allright Ms. All-I-wanna-talk-about-is-mental-illness. People can read the thread on their own and find out the background of all of that. And I do not have schizotypal disorder, and I do have synesthesia. Can we focus on what this thread is all about?

TSR

28th March 2009, 10:50 PM

At this point I am focusing on the paranormal claim. As for all the other interesting perceptions I've had they are not part of my investigation at this point.

"... even though I have already agreed to do the test, agreed to all of the conditions of the test, and taken advantage of someone's time, trouble and money to enable the test to proceed, and even though everything about that test is something I've claimed to be able to do with ease before...."
.

.

Are you really not capable of seeing how transparent this is?
.

BTW, what is it about the pill test which makes your claim regarding it *not* paranormal?
.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 10:51 PM

Can we focus on what this thread is all about?

What is the point of further discussing your claim?

* 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 either a hit, or, at least, a "non-miss".
* You have consistently stated that you are basing your investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes. You offer no corroborative statements about any of your "correct" perceptions, and you have immediately dismissed, out of hand, a few witness statements that didn't corroborate your point of view.
* 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 can'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 not conclusively ruled out that you have convinced yourself to believe in something that isn't true.
* You have offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have demolished 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.)
* You have openly admitted that you only come here to make fun of the skeptics.

Please explain:

* How the above eliminates the possibility that you are delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?
* How the above establishes you as a "reasonable" claimant?
* Why the skeptics here should expect anything different than the above, and waste further time and effort going nowhere?
* How this thread could possibly be of value, considering the above?
* Why we should contribute to any discussion of your claim when you have openly stated you have chosen to only come here to ridicule the skeptics?'

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. Nor would it be unreasonable for them to conclude that I have convinced myself of something that isn't actually true, and logically, I have no reason to investigate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong. "
This is in keeping with the above points. If you are not willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, then how can you expect to "form a more specific claim in order to proceed with the test protocol formations"? If a perception is inaccurate, would not determining that help you in establishing the "correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person."?

As well, if you aren't willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, why should anyone here get involved in a discussion about your claim?

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:51 PM

But, according to you, you are never wrong. So why this time, over something this major?I did detect the missing left kidney but I did not write it. I felt joints and bones but they were not health problems. I might have not been wrong. There are two problems that need to be worked out: To not report all things that I "feel" because I feel both healthy and unhealthy things. And to not be modest or afraid of being wrong leading to me not reporting some of what I perceive.
Especially when one cannot do what one claims to be able to. How many times are you going go back and change what you claim rather than supply all the information up front?My claim is still the same. To supply all the information up front is difficult, since I don't always know before-hand what information would be required.

I have symptoms of synesthesia. But I have not seen a specialist to be diagnosed with synesthesia.
Why ever would you need to do that? Not only do you claim to be able "see" inside a variety of containers, including the human body, but you have specifically claimed to be able to see inside the packaging of a box of cereal.Medicines are not kept in cereal boxes.
What is it about the package of an antihistamine which prevents this miraculous ability of yours which doesn't prevent you from seeing into tanks of gas?I am not going to waste time on the other aspects of my experiences. I am investigating the medical perceptions.

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 10:55 PM

The heart problem was not false.

(

So she has a heart condition?

VisionFromFeeling

28th March 2009, 10:56 PM

I just had an epiphany. JREF Forum Skeptics are not real Skeptics. It is just full of rude personalities. You guys are ridiculous.

I will take the discussions of my claim elsewhere.

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 10:56 PM

IThere are two problems that need to be worked out: To not report all things that I "feel" because I feel both healthy and unhealthy things. And to not be modest or afraid of being wrong leading to me not reporting some of what I perceive.

You do understand that these are mutually exclusive, right?

fromdownunder

28th March 2009, 10:59 PM

Did I say all my posts were just fun? Those are quite serious. Whatever. Some Skeptics think what they choose to think.

What you said was

"I meant all the silly posts I've been making in the other threads."

No qualifiers, not "some of my other posts, "all", was your word, not mine. Perhaps you need a qualifier on all of your posts on other threads, because at the moment, you are doing a Humpty Dumpty, and retrospectively redifining your term, deciding now which posts were "all the silly posts on other threads", and which were not "all the silly posts on other threads". Would you make a list of which are which?

Because how are we supposed to tell which are which? Every post you make sounds equally silly to me.

Norm

Kariboo

28th March 2009, 10:59 PM

TSR

28th March 2009, 11:00 PM

Allright Ms. All-I-wanna-talk-about-is-mental-illness.

.
Actually, DG is mostly talking about your lie that you never attacked anyone in this forum.
.

People can read the thread on their own and find out the background of all of that.

.
Indeed. And they will see that your attacks were unprovoked
.

And I do not have schizotypal disorder,

.
Really? You've finally seen someone qualified to make that diagnosis?
.

and I do have synesthesia.

.
Really? You've finally seen someone qualified to make that diagnosis?
.

Can we focus on what this thread is all about?

.
This thread is all about you, according to the subject line -- just the way you like it. So anything you have said is fair game -- especially the lies you've told in a lame attempt to prop up your claims of various abilities, none of which you ever apparently intend to subject to testing which could falsify those claims and demonstrate that you're not a special starchild.
.

paperskater

28th March 2009, 11:00 PM

Medicines are not kept in cereal boxes.

This seems like a strange statement to me because boxes of OTC medications are often packaged in boxes that are similar to (or exactly the same as) cereal boxes. Just light cardboard material, most OTC medicines are packaged in "little cereal boxes." Your statement claiming that you saw nitrogen in the metal gas tanks (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4259812&postcount=294) at school makes it hard to believe that you have trouble seeing through light cardboard.

ETA: Just for the record, you did state that seeing through things needs to come naturally (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4260720&postcount=320). Still, it is hard to believe that cardboard would give you so much trouble when one takes everything you have claimed to do in context.

Gmonster2

28th March 2009, 11:00 PM

So hows that crystal test coming a long?

Can u still shoot blue flames out of them? or just out of your a## ? ;)

desertgal

28th March 2009, 11:02 PM

Allright Ms. All-I-wanna-talk-about-is-mental-illness.

Nope. I couldn't care less any more what the motivation for your scam is. Mental illness only came up this time because you claimed that you have never posted anything negative or hurtful towards a JREF member - which was, of course, another lie on your part.

...and I do have synesthesia.

Lie.

I did detect the missing left kidney but I did not write it.

Which simply means that she 'postdicted' the missing left kidney.

Especially when one cannot do what one claims to be able to. How many times are you going go back and change what you claim rather than supply all the information up front?

As many times as she can post.

I have symptoms of synesthesia. But I have not seen a specialist to be diagnosed with synesthesia.

Synesthesia is just her fall back position. You know, so she can continue to claim an 'extraordinary' ability, no matter what. She'll never have it diagnosed, though. She can't continue to scam with something that has been proven not to exist.

Why ever would you need to do that? Not only do you claim to be able "see" inside a variety of containers, including the human body, but you have specifically claimed to be able to see inside the packaging of a box of cereal.
Medicines are not kept in cereal boxes.

Translation: It was never true.

I am not going to waste time on the other aspects of my experiences. I am investigating the medical perceptions.

Translation: None of the other aspects of my experiences are true, either.

As LE said - scam. Pure scam.

desertgal

28th March 2009, 11:06 PM

Fixed it for her:
I just had an epiphany. JREF Forum Skeptics are not real Skeptics. It is just full of rude stellar personalities. You guys are ridiculous awesome.

I will take the discussions of my claim elsewhere.

Yeah. Try a woo board. You don't need to prove anything there. Probably a bunch of star people, too.

TSR

28th March 2009, 11:09 PM

I did detect the missing left kidney but I did not write it.

.
Because ... ?
.
To supply all the information up front is difficult, since I don't always know before-hand what information would be required.

.
Well, that's simple: absolutely everything you observed. They haven't taught you this in science class?
.

I have symptoms of synesthesia. But I have not seen a specialist to be diagnosed with synesthesia.

.
Of course you haven't -- because it would mean you couldn't tell that lie anymore.
.

Medicines are not kept in cereal boxes.

.
So, the question stands: in what way, *exactly*, does the packaging of cereal differ from that of antihistamines?
.

I am not going to waste time on the other aspects of my experiences. I am investigating the medical perceptions.
.
And will that investigation take the same route as the pill test: agree to everything up front, impose on someone(s) to take the time, trouble and money to help you test, and then decide "no, that's not what I want to concentrate on?"
.

Gmonster2

28th March 2009, 11:11 PM

She has changed her website a lot check out this latest rubbish..

Besides perceiving images and felt information (texture, shape, temperature, density, weight, and more) of health information from human bodies, I also have other types of perceptions but much less often and in less detail and I have much less experience with them than I do with medical perceptions. I want to primarily test the perceptions on the detection of health information that should not be accessible to ordinary perception. It is with health information I have chosen to test my ability to find out what its actual accuracy is, and whether I might be able to verify an extrasensory ability. Some of the other aspects of the perceptions, I can very clearly sense people's emotions, and know how others are feeling. I will know what people think about me. I can sense the gist of people's thoughts, and sometimes hear the words that they are thinking.

I have done telepathy exercises with friends with amazing results. A fun game of mine is telepathy: I have a friend to whom I will send a telepathic image. I will give him the category, my favorite category is animals. I will construct a clear image in my mind and send it to him. Animals have shape and size, but so much more. The texture of their skin, feathers, fur, or scales of fish or reptiles. I strengthen the image by adding a lot of feeling into it. The friend will then describe the animal and (unless either of us becomes tired) we are almost always correct. It is such a fun game.

Of course its not her main claim so she would never just do this at the fact meeting and then win the million at Jref.. :boggled:

Jeff Corey

28th March 2009, 11:25 PM

[QUOTE=VisionFromFeeling;4562798].. I do have synesthesia.[../QUOTE]
No.
Synesthesia (Greek, syn = together + aisthesis = perception) is the involuntary physical experience of a cross-modal association. That is, the stimulation of one sensory modality reliably causes a perception in one or more different senses. Its phenomenology clearly distinguishes it from metaphor, literary tropes, sound symbolism, and deliberate artistic contrivances that sometimes employ the term "synesthesia" to describe their multisensory joinings.(R. E. Cytowic, 1995, p.1)

tsig

29th March 2009, 02:02 AM

I suspect that the four joint or bone issues were due to the same reasons that made me report "Wayne's adam's apple". I never sensed nor reported pain in the joints or bones, and I listed it to an extent of 1. What did it feel like to me, you should ask? All it was, was that I "felt" the joints and bones in some areas of his body more so than in other areas so I thought that he "feels" them too. I learn from this study how to practice my claim.

In my defence the location was very noisy and also cold and I was also stressed by a 15 minute time limit. I did not finish the "head-to-toe" to the extent I would have chosen to. This is a study, not a test. The study is intended for me to try out various things, such as the use of a questionnaire, the use of a time limit, etc. I do not conclude too soon neither for or against the ability in the study. So I missed pain and swallowing problem.

I did not miss the missing left kidney. I perceived this, but I did not write this down being afraid of being wrong. Whatever you might think of me, I would never sink so low to lie about this. I have great respect for Dr. Carlson and for him volunteering for the study and for disclosing personal information like this. I would never disrespect him by being dishonest about this. All I can do is to be sincere, even when it means saying things that some of you can't tolerate.

The heart problem was not false.

I apologize for having done that. It's just that we are analyzing everything in great detail and that is why more details always come up. It is not easy being a paranormal claimant. :(

Esp. when you don't have a paranormal ability.

tsig

29th March 2009, 02:06 AM

tsig

29th March 2009, 02:16 AM

Improbable Joe

29th March 2009, 02:19 AM

Dear Skeptics,
This will be my second thread here on the JREF Forum, continuing with the first one, which was closed after 4 months and 66 pages of posts because of hostile discussions on behalf of some JREF Forum members. The investigation into my paranormal claim continues, and it has not been falsified at this point. I wish to continue with discussions toward a final test protocol and toward reaching the final conclusion in my claim to answer the questions what is the actual correlation between my medical perceptions and with actual health, am I performing better than the average person or the skilled cold reader, and what is the source of the health information?

Please everyone keep this thread civil. I do not wish to see this thread become placed on moderated status and I definitely do not want to see this thread closed too soon. If you can not remain friendly and tolerant towards me as a person as well as in your response toward my claim and paranormal investigation then please have the courtesy to not disgrace this valuable thread with your hostility. There are several other threads where you can express your negativity, but please, not here!

I am a reasonable claimant, I have not made myself responsible to deserve hostilities which are ruining my chances of having the opportunity to discuss my claim here with Skeptics. Do not ruin this thread for everyone, let's keep it open since this investigation is ongoing.

And to remind everyone, my paranormal claim is to perceive visual and felt health information when I look at a person, to have experienced compelling correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person, and even in cases when the health information should not be detectable by ordinary means of perception. It is a wonderfully interesting claim, if I do say so myself. So let's not be responsible for closing this thread again there is more work to be done and I wish to remain available here on the JREF Forums to discuss my ongoing investigation. Thank you!

My understanding of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is that the results should be somehow apart from and beyond any interpretation. In other words, you should be able to contact me today, I can set up a test tomorrow, and Monday you should be able to walk past 100 patients in a hospital and identify their illnesses with a near 100% certainty.

So. Do it. Do it, get someone to document it. Do it, or shut up.

Kuko 4000

29th March 2009, 03:08 AM

skeen

29th March 2009, 05:58 AM

LONGTABBER PE

29th March 2009, 06:49 AM

Nope.

Read the explanation at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html). Unlike many of the JREF Forum Skeptics, I have not posted any hostile or negative posts toward anyone.

Should I stand on a soapbox and announce it to the world?
Nope.
I am not and never have been.
Why don't we ask the moderators what was the real reason why the thread was closed?
"Hostile" is personal attacks etc. that some of you Forum Skeptics are responsible for. I am not a scammer. And I am not avoiding having the claim falsified.
My claim is absolutely fascinating and based on sincere accounts. Of course it is falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified yet.
It is about my unusual experience of perceiving visual and felt health information that correlates with actual health information in persons. And I am working very hard to put the study together and to move forward to a real test.
I am here to discuss the claim and readings and the study and test. I can get the attention I need in my life from elsewhere. From people who are actually loving.
I am talking about my paranormal claim and investigation.
What the h*ll is wrong with you? I am not a liar, not a fraud, not a hoax. The focus is on the experience of medical perceptions. Skeptics are the most valuable resource I have in investigating my claim. And I won't want anyone to believe in me without the evidence to back it up. All I am asking is for tolerance toward that I believe in my anecdotal experiences, which were not documented or turned into evidence in the past.

I'm sorry I never saw that suggestion before. It is a very good one, but I would have to open the packages. :confused:

Sorry but this doesnt wash and the facts do not support your meaningless ranting in an attempt to further obfuscate the facts.

The difference is that I have been doing this professionally for longer than you have been on this Earth. I can see and know the difference between a legitimate investigation, a legitimate investigation done badly and an outright scam. ( I've dealt with all 3 in my career)

>>>I am not and never have been.

read in your own threads, you have been caught red handed too many times

>>>Why don't we ask the moderators what was the real reason why the thread was closed?

I did ask 1 and it was basically closed because the legitimate critical thinkers started calling your hand and it escalated from there. They were not wrong then and they arent wrong now. Nothing has changed.

>>>"Hostile" is personal attacks etc. that some of you Forum Skeptics are responsible for. I am not a scammer. And I am not avoiding having the claim falsified.

You brought any "hostile" postings upon yourself by your own conduct. Accorfing to your own claims, you started about 20 odd MONTHS ago with the other org then here and FACT. A 6th grader could have done a legitimate test faster.

The first step in any test is to establish there is something valid to test in the first place. Thats what you avoid at all points very strategically and consistently. You want acceptance that you "have the power" then bog it down in measuring it. Its no different than any infomercial.

>>>My claim is absolutely fascinating and based on sincere accounts. Of course it is falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified yet.

It hasnt been verified to exist yet either. ( dont put the cart before the horse) The reason it hasnt been falsified is because you duck every attempt to do so. We both know why this is.

>>>It is about my unusual experience of perceiving visual and felt health information that correlates with actual health information in persons. And I am working very hard to put the study together and to move forward to a real test.

Yeah, 20+ months and counting. We built the Atom Bomb faster.

>>>I am here to discuss the claim and readings and the study and test. I can get the attention I need in my life from elsewhere. From people who are actually loving.

No, you are here for self publicity and to feed your ego and agenda. See, I dont need to know your true motives to know that you have them. ( even in court, its nice and wonderful to have a motive for the jury but not necessary in the face of the facts- they generally speak for themselves) It could be anything from you "truly believe" and want attention/recognition as someone "unique" to future plans that have yet to materialize. It matters not which end of the scale is true.

Your ACTS ( or rather deliberate lack of legitimate attempts) is what is so telling.

>>>What the h*ll is wrong with you? I am not a liar, not a fraud, not a hoax. The focus is on the experience of medical perceptions.

Nothing is wrong with me. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. It is what it is. You have no demonstrated ability of any kind so the "focus' is on you.

>>>Skeptics are the most valuable resource I have in investigating my claim.

I'm not a textbook "skeptic". I'm a degreed scientist and professional. I know how a good and proper research project is structured and conducted. I also make a part of my living critiquing them and cutting them to pieces.

>>>And I won't want anyone to believe in me without the evidence to back it up.

Thats why your "study" and belief level is at a solid zero. You have no EVIDENCE- just meaningless claims.

>>>All I am asking is for tolerance toward that I believe in my anecdotal experiences, which were not documented or turned into evidence in the past.

Not a chance. FACTS and EVIDENCE are not vested in "belief"- they are vested in testing and conclusions drawing to an end. They dont "turn" into something they are not and never have been.

Moochie

29th March 2009, 06:53 AM

<snipped because the entire post can be seen above -- post #20>

desertgal, if I haven't done so already, I'd like to nominate your avatar as being the best on the entire forum. It makes me laugh whenever I see it. :)

M.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 07:14 AM

It's like she has only gotten worse. Her reasoning skills are getting poorer and poorer. And in addition to her remarkably illogical conclusions, she still claims to have synesthesia.

It is clear: she wants to have synesthesia. She wants to "perceive" the things she says she does - but wanting doesn't make it so. Except perhaps in her mind, it does.

I don't think these threads have helped her mental state - they may have made it worse. Anita will be content having never proven any of what she claims, just as all the other woo's. And now, more than ever, I believe she she needs psychological treatment.

I believe this is more of a case of pathological lying than actually having hallucinations. I know we shouldn't diagnose the claimants, but at this point it seems the only productive thing to do.

In fairness, I would say, IF there is a mental disorder, that Anita is subject to delusions rather than hallucinations, and her need to cling to the delusions leads to the lying and attempts to scam people into believing that she is extraordinary. No, these threads probably haven't helped her - but she certainly had the choice to not come here. And, surely, with this thread, we all did the right thing in not indulging her fantasy.

Ultimately, though, her motivations make no difference to the end result. She's either doing this to perpetuate delusions, or as a stepping stone to gain a foothold in the woo economy, or for attention - or, most likely, all three.

Either way, I don't disagree that she needs help. If she's willing to go to these lengths to perpetuate delusions or perpetuate an intentional scam, talking to a therapist would be a good thing to do. I doubt she will, though. Her arrogance seems to get in her way a lot.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 07:16 AM

desertgal, if I haven't done so already, I'd like to nominate your avatar as being the best on the entire forum. It makes me laugh whenever I see it. :)

M.

Be my guest. :)

We have a running family joke that when one of us does something stupid, we need a slap with a steak. (We're kinda weird.) My husband found that avatar for me, and it makes me laugh, too.

ETA: (Well, he's weird. I'm simply unique.) :p

Moochie

29th March 2009, 07:37 AM

Moochie

29th March 2009, 07:48 AM

skeen

29th March 2009, 08:13 AM

Anita can do it all, can't she? Except when she can't. Which is always. Funny little catch. But she should definitely study her non-ability more, to find out how it doesn't work.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 08:17 AM

I can very clearly sense people's emotions, and know how others are feeling. I will know what people think about me. I can sense the gist of people's thoughts, and sometimes hear the words that they are thinking.

OMG! Now she's Sookie Stackhouse!

M.

I wonder if she can tell what I'm thinking now. :D

Locknar

29th March 2009, 08:37 AM

I just had an epiphany. JREF Forum Skeptics are not real Skeptics. It is just full of rude personalities. You guys are ridiculous.

I will take the discussions of my claim elsewhere.Just as any other "woo woo" that comes here you are are now playing the "people are being rude/unfair/etc to me card" (ie. the pity card) to cover your shortcomings and as a smoke screen for your inaction.

Equally predictable is the "I'm going to take my toys and play elsewhere" (my paraphrase) comment.

Goodbye.

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 08:39 AM

I wonder if she can tell what I'm thinking now. :D

I think I can...

That we are now warmed up and ready for a MDC claimant with a slightly more interesting claim? 'Cause this one was getting stale and boring? Also I am 'sensing' a grouphug!? :D

Alternatively I can 'feel' TM what number you are thinking of, please pick a number between 1 and 3 <insert lengthy and pointless steps> and I will tell you what you were thinking eventually :rolleyes:

I will take cash, check or paypal for my million.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 08:48 AM

I think I can...

That we are now warmed up and ready for a MDC claimant with a slightly more interesting claim? 'Cause this one was getting stale and boring?

Are you downloading my Vibrational InformationTM? I felt something strange, but I thought it was just the bacterial supplement I took this morning.

Also I am 'sensing' a grouphug!? :D

Does Locknar still get to be in the middle? T'ain't no fun if we can't squash Lock.

Alternatively I can 'feel' TM what number you are thinking of, please pick a number between 1 and 3 <insert lengthy and pointless steps> and I will tell you what you were thinking eventually :rolleyes:

I will take cash, check or paypal for my million.

Would you settle for a slap with a steak? :p

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 08:56 AM

Are you downloading my Vibrational InformationTM? I felt something strange, but I thought it was just the bacterial supplement I took this morning.

Yes, and then i superimposed it on your non skeptical self and when I subtracted those I was left with just your skepticism. The lactobacillae SP? that you took this morning also seem to be somewhat skeptical so that is why I already knew you took them, but I didn't mention it before because it was not very important. But I knew TM

Does Locknar still get to be in the middle? T'ain't no fun if we can't squash Lock.
Of course, it wouldn't feel the same otherwise :crowded:

Would you settle for a slap with a steak? :p

Does that include pepper or mushrooms? I'm a medium /well done girl. Do you hate me now?

VisionFromFeeling

29th March 2009, 09:57 AM

My understanding of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge is that the results should be somehow apart from and beyond any interpretation. In other words, you should be able to contact me today, I can set up a test tomorrow, and Monday you should be able to walk past 100 patients in a hospital and identify their illnesses with a near 100% certainty.

So. Do it. Do it, get someone to document it. Do it, or shut up. Alright, I am contacting you today. Can you set up a test for me, well, not tomorrow but soon, to have me walk past 100 patients in a hospital and identify their illnesses? How near are you North Carolina? I will make the expense of traveling to you if you can arrange for this test in a hospital. I would be quite excited to do this. I hope this wasn't an empty offer, I've been given those before.

VFF

desertgal

29th March 2009, 10:13 AM

Alright, I am contacting you today. Can you set up a test for me, well, not tomorrow but soon, to have me walk past 100 patients in a hospital and identify their illnesses? How near are you North Carolina? I will make the expense of traveling to you if you can arrange for this test in a hospital. I would be quite excited to do this. I hope this wasn't an empty offer, I've been given those before.

VFF

:id:

catbasket

29th March 2009, 10:13 AM

...
I will take the discussions of my claim elsewhere.

[snip]

VFF
Eleven hours, one minute.

What a surprise!

skeen

29th March 2009, 10:15 AM

As I'm sure you know, it would be extremely difficult, if not relatively impossible to arrange for 100 patients. How about 2 or 3? If you can do it you can do it you can do it. That should be fine, no? Or are you going to say you won't do it unless 100 patients can be gathered, as of course you know this is not realistic?

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 10:23 AM

Let me quote you:

I still suggest that you find a friend who lives close to you and you try telepathy whatever TM you claim with him. And if you are successful with that, contact someone local to you such as a university or the media and offer a demonstration. And if they are impressed <snip> can contact JREF for you.

Excellent, how about you do that?

desertgal

29th March 2009, 10:29 AM

Does that include pepper or mushrooms?

Neither. They fall off in mid smack. I'm not really sure why, but, then, I'm not a scientist science student. Might be gravity, might be paranormal interference from an extraterrestrial incarnation. :p

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 10:42 AM

Neither. They fall off in mid smack. I'm not really sure why, but, then, I'm not a scientist science student. Might be gravity, might be paranormal interference from an extraterrestrial incarnation. :p

Uh huh, Uh huh <nods>

Alright, I am contacting you today. Can you set up a test for me, well, not tomorrow but soon, to have me walk past smack me in the face with 100 patients steaks in a hospital restaurant and identify their illnesses toppings? I will make the expense of traveling to you if you can arrange for this test in a hospital. reataurant. I would be quite excited to do this. I hope this wasn't an empty offer, I've been given those before.

Moochie

29th March 2009, 10:57 AM

Neither. They fall off in mid smack. I'm not really sure why, but, then, I'm not a scientist science student. Might be gravity, might be paranormal interference from an extraterrestrial incarnation. :p

I wish you guys would stop talking about food -- specifically steak and mushrooms/pepper. It's just making me salivate onto my keyboard.

M.

tsig

29th March 2009, 11:03 AM

Moochie

29th March 2009, 11:13 AM

I'll be happy to taste test those steaks afterward for tenderness, juiciness ect.

I will do this by placing a sample in my mouth and without chewing make my assessment. I have never been wrong on this. Well I thought I was once but I didn't write it down.

Hmm... I sense/feel a bad case of satireosis. I will write it down and post it eventually.

M.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 11:20 AM

Uh huh, Uh huh <nods>

Alright, I am contacting you today. Can you set up a test for me, well, not tomorrow but soon, to have me walk past smack me in the face with 100 patients steaks in a hospital restaurant and identify their illnesses toppings? I will make the expense of traveling to you if you can arrange for this test in a hospital. reataurant. I would be quite excited to do this. I hope this wasn't an empty offer, I've been given those before.

Well, it's not that simple.

We need a protocol. You submit seven, and I'll reject them.
We have to establish that this is, in fact, not a taste test, but a taste study. Please post that 312 times.
We have to get a permit from Food and Beverage. I know the right to be voluntarily smacked in the face with a steak is protected by the US Constitution, but caution is a plus for scientists science students us.
Since steak toppings are not cereal boxes, I'll need to send you samples of each topping.
Since you will be participating, I have to send you pictures of each venue.
You need to establish a media presence. Please contact CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, National Geographic, the Smithsonian, Reader's Digest Condensed Books Department, Vanity Fair, People Magazine, Paris Match, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Watchtower.
I know you'll probably want to keep this secret from your family and your colleagues, so please alert four of them.

I'll be happy to taste test those steaks afterward for tenderness, juiciness ect.

I will do this by placing a sample in my mouth and without chewing make my assessment. I have never been wrong on this. Well I thought I was once but I didn't write it down.

Please focus on the main claim. We are taste studying toppings. Don't make me tell you 9,000 more times.

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 11:20 AM

I'll be happy to taste test those steaks afterward for tenderness, juiciness ect.

I will do this by placing a sample in my mouth and without chewing make my assessment. I have never been wrong on this. Well I thought I was once but I didn't write it down.

We can split the million :D I will write you a check for your half eventually

desertgal

29th March 2009, 11:28 AM

I wish you guys would stop talking about food -- specifically steak and mushrooms/pepper. It's just making me salivate onto my keyboard.

M.

I heard that Ben Franklin had the exact same problem. Well, okay, he didn't have a keyboard-he had a quill pen and some vellum. But, still, pretty much the same problem. Sorta.

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 11:33 AM

Well, it's not that simple.

We need a protocol. You submit one, and I'll reject it.

I have already posted my protocol before, why do you disagree with it? I will write a long post later to explain everything. I will need at least 4 skeptics to fill out the paperwork. I you slap me and I don't predict the right topping it does not constitute a failure. I have been slapped before and I have never been proven wrong.

We have to establish that this is, in fact, not a taste test, but a taste study. Please post that 312 times.

It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste study It's a taste studyIt's a taste study It's a taste study

I think that is 384 (and I had to use a calculator) so I have a few pre-emptive ones

We have to get a permit from Food and Beverage. I know the right to be voluntarily smacked in the face with a steak is protected by the US Constitution, but caution is a plus for scientists science students us.

I have contacted them and asked if it is ok to slap people with steaks in restaurants. I *hope* they will get back to me soon. I can't do it without permission because I will be deported

Since steak toppings are not cereal boxes, I'll need to send you samples of each topping.

Yes please, also write on the topping what it is, so I can be sure to guess vibrate the contents correctly

Since you will be participating, I have to send you pictures of each venue.

We have to get permission from each different venue though.... I can also predict smoothy tastes. Wouldn't that be easier?. It is also very interesting

Chimera

29th March 2009, 11:54 AM

Well, it's not that simple.

We need a protocol. You submit seven, and I'll reject them.
We have to establish that this is, in fact, not a taste test, but a taste study. Please post that 312 times.
We have to get a permit from Food and Beverage. I know the right to be voluntarily smacked in the face with a steak is protected by the US Constitution, but caution is a plus for scientists science students us.
Since steak toppings are not cereal boxes, I'll need to send you samples of each topping.
Since you will be participating, I have to send you pictures of each venue.
You need to establish a media presence. Please contact CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, National Geographic, the Smithsonian, Reader's Digest Condensed Books Department, Vanity Fair, People Magazine, Paris Match, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Watchtower.
I know you'll probably want to keep this secret from your family and your colleagues, so please alert four of them.

Please focus on the main claim. We are taste studying toppings. Don't make me tell you 9,000 more times.

OMG!! I steeled myself to never participate in a VFF thread again, but this was too good. HYSTERICAL, desert gal!! :):)

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 11:58 AM

I for one am happy to see this thread hasn't been derailed by satirical sidebarring and childish ridiculing of the claimant. :rolleyes:

catbasket

29th March 2009, 12:05 PM

... I know the right to be voluntarily smacked in the face with a steak is protected by the US Constitution ...
A right which is sadly lacking here in the UK. We do however have the right to be smacked in the face with a wet fish.

@Kariboo - apologies for derailing your attempt to negotiate a protocol for your taste test. Sorry, I mean taste study.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 12:12 PM

I have already posted my protocol before, why do you disagree with it? I will write a long post later to explain everything. I will need at least 4 skeptics to fill out the paperwork. I you slap me and I don't predict the right topping it does not constitute a failure. I have been slapped before and I have never been proven wrong.

Don't be hostile. Do you have anecdotal evidence? Did you remember to contact Martha Stewart? Just telepathically send her a picture of a flower. She'll understand. It's a good thing.

I think that is 384 (and I had to use a calculator) so I have a few pre-emptive ones

Those are strikes against you.

I have contacted them and asked if it is ok to slap people with steaks in restaurants. I *hope* they will get back to me soon. I can't do it without permission because I will be deported

You are playing fast and loose with the protocol. You have to ask if it is okay to be slapped with a steak in restaurants. Obviously, anyone can slap someone with a steak. And you have to compose an oral waiver that specifies this is for entertainment purposes only. Martha hasn't "sent" me any stock tips lately, and I can't afford a lawsuit.

They won't deport you. They'll just send your email address to Nigerian spammers.

We have to get permission from each different venue though.... I can also predict smoothy tastes. Wouldn't that be easier?. It is also very interesting

Objectively, I can't smack you with a smoothie, but that doesn't matter-they have less calories than steak, and it will save Moochie's keyboard. I invented the smoothie, you know. And the electric leaf blower. And the parachute rip cord. When I was 13. "They" stole my inventions, though...

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 12:26 PM

Don't be hostile. Do you have anecdotal evidence? Did you remember to contact Martha Stewart? Just telepathically send her a picture of a flower. She'll understand. It's a good thing.

Why are you being such a meanie skeptic??? I am just trying to set up a protocol test study scam
I am talking to the people from Watchtower they just came to my door. Coincidence ? I think not.

You are playing fast and loose with the protocol. You have to ask if it is okay to be slapped with a steak in restaurants. Obviously, anyone can slap someone with a steak. And you have to compose an oral waiver that specifies this is for entertainment purposes only. Martha hasn't "sent" me any stock tips lately, and I can't afford a lawsuit.

What's your fetish with Martha. Show me quotes from my posts where I mention her? I don't know about US slapping laws but I know in my country they are different. i don't want to accidentally influence an innocent bystander paranormally because then they would like different toppings which is against the psychic claimants code. you can't be too careful

They won't deport you. They'll just send your email address to Nigerian spammers. ha, way ahead of you there. i am already corresponding with a prince and I am just an email away from getting $578999399939393939 so there. I don't need the stupid million

Objectively, I can't smack you with a smoothie, but that doesn't matter-they have less calories than steak, and it will save Moochie's keyboard. I invented the smoothie, you know. And the electric leaf blower. And the parachute rip cord. When I was 13. "They" stole my inventions, though...

So you are trying to get out of your offer. See, I knew it. you are afraid that I will win. Cause I will. But you are scared. that always happens with skeptics. They promise and then they change the goalposts

I know what you invented, cause I read your mind. I can do that. Wouldn't that be interesting and fun to test? We don't need smoothies for that

desertgal

29th March 2009, 12:36 PM

A right which is sadly lacking here in the UK. We do however have the right to be smacked in the face with a wet fish.

You've met Prince Charles? Cool. :D

desertgal

29th March 2009, 12:52 PM

What's your fetish with Martha. Show me quotes from my posts where I mention her?

Please. I am a sooper paranormal psychic skeptic claimant. I know you were thinking about James Randi. Which means you were really thinking about James Stewart. Which means you were really thinking about Martha Stewart. And everyone here knows my real fetish is group hugs with Locknar in the middle. He's squishy. I like squishy. I also like sushi.

ha, way ahead of you there. i am already corresponding with a prince and I am just an email away from getting $578999399939393939 so there. I don't need the stupid million

He told me he was a king! But, anyway, you have to donate $57899939939393939.01 of that to the JREF. Fair is fair.

That always happens with skeptics. They promise and then they change the goalposts

We do not. We throw up roadblocks. Big bad mean roadblocks.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 01:15 PM

OMG!! I steeled myself to never participate in a VFF thread again, but this was too good. HYSTERICAL, desert gal!! :):)

:D

Akhenaten

29th March 2009, 01:28 PM

Why are you being such a meanie skeptic??? I am just trying to set up a protocol test study scam
I am talking to the people from Watchtower they just came to my door. Coincidence ? I think not.

I sent them.

I know what you invented, cause I read your mind. I can do that. Wouldn't that be interesting and fun to test? We don't need smoothies for that

Mind-reading, eh? I'll bet you didn't know dg was going to say this:

Please. I am a sooper paranormal psychic skeptic claimant. I know you were thinking about James Randi. Which means you were really thinking about James Stewart. Which means you were really thinking about Martha Stewart. And everyone here knows my real fetish is group hugs with Locknar in the middle. He's squishy. I like squishy. I also like sushi.

Except for the sushi bit. That was fairly obvious, of course.

Nice variation on the TMTM™ theme, BTW. ;)

@ desertgal: ok, I tried.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 01:40 PM

I for one am happy to see this thread hasn't been derailed by satirical sidebarring and childish ridiculing of the claimant. :rolleyes:

Okay, point taken. Sorry.

In fairness, though, to keep the thread on the original topic leads nowhere. It goes like this:

VfF is a paranormal claimant, specifically with the ability of psychic medical diagnosis - although she will throw in other outrageous claims here and there. She is the most extraordinary human being in the history of mankind. Her abilities, once proven, will turn scientific study upside down, change the world as we know it, and ensure her a Nobel Prize. (Although she isn't really human, but an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus.)

She also has symptoms of synesthesia.

She's not delusional, running a scam, seeking attention, or dishonest-except when she is, but that isn't her, it's the big bad mean skeptics. She is, however, ethical, professional, and a superior person in all ways-except when she isn't, but that isn't her, it is the big bad mean skeptics. She has no formal medical training, but that is a piddling detail - she is able to diagnose illnesses on the basis of working three years as an LPN in a nursing home, so it is perfectly ethical for her to do so.

She can see into the human body at an atomic level, except when she can't. ALL of her abilities function perfectly-except when they don't. And she will never, admit that she is incorrect in any of her perceptions. It's not her. It's everyone else.

She excels at objectivity, except when objectivity is required. She is a skeptic, except when critical thinking is required. She values skeptics, but rejects their input. She plans to 'study' her ability, but never actually will. She plans to "test" her ability, but never actually will.

She's every other paranormal claimant.

That's where discussing VfF's claim has led and will always lead. She will never establish or falsify a genuine ability. She will never let it get that far. It is beyond tiresome. Is it any wonder we've all now balked at helping her nurture her fantasies?

You'll have to pardon the levity.

LONGTABBER PE

29th March 2009, 01:46 PM

tsig

29th March 2009, 01:55 PM

Okay, point taken. Sorry.

In fairness, though, to keep the thread on the original topic leads nowhere. It goes like this:

VfF is a paranormal claimant, specifically with the ability of psychic medical diagnosis - although she will throw in other outrageous claims here and there. She is the most extraordinary human being in the history of mankind. Her abilities, once proven, will turn scientific study upside down, change the world as we know it, and ensure her a Nobel Prize. (Although she isn't really human, but an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus.)

She also has symptoms of synesthesia.

She's not delusional, running a scam, seeking attention, or dishonest-except when she is, but that isn't her, it's the big bad mean skeptics. She is, however, ethical, professional, and a superior person in all ways-except when she isn't, but that isn't her, it is the big bad mean skeptics. She has no formal medical training, but that is a piddling detail - she is able to diagnose illnesses on the basis of working three years as an LPN in a nursing home, so it is perfectly ethical for her to do so.

She can see into the human body at an atomic level, except when she can't. ALL of her abilities function perfectly-except when they don't. And she will never, admit that she is incorrect in any of her perceptions. It's not her. It's everyone else.

She excels at objectivity, except when objectivity is required. She is a skeptic, except when critical thinking is required. She values skeptics, but rejects their input. She plans to 'study' her ability, but never actually will. She plans to "test" her ability, but never actually will.

That's where discussing VfF's claim has led and will always lead. She will never establish or falsify a genuine ability. She will never let it get that far. It is beyond tiresome. Is it any wonder we've all now balked at helping her nurture her fantasies?

You'll have to pardon the levity.

If she hadn't made that about making fun of the skeptics it might not have happened but that remark was like chumming the sharks. While swimming.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 02:01 PM

Any reasonable thinking person can see this is a ridiculous fraud and VFF is either delusional or lying, or both. But what good does making fun of the claimant accomplish? It's just descending to her level of admitted ridicule of others, which may be "fun", or an outlet for frustration, but it certainly isn't productive or scientific or dispassionate. /shrug/ Just an outsider's observation.

LONGTABBER PE

29th March 2009, 02:04 PM

desertgal

29th March 2009, 02:21 PM

...an outlet for frustration

That's all it was. Wrong or right, we are all human, after all.

wardenclyffe

29th March 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99:
"Any reasonable thinking person can see this is a ridiculous fraud and VFF is either delusional or lying, or both. But what good does making fun of the claimant accomplish? It's just descending to her level of admitted ridicule of others, which may be "fun", or an outlet for frustration, but it certainly isn't productive or scientific or dispassionate. /shrug/ Just an outsider's observation."

LONGTABBER PE replied:
"you just had to be here for the whole ride"

For what it's worth, I have been here for the whole ride and I agree with Vortigern99. I don't mean to be a party-pooper or tell anyone how they should be posting. I'm just saying that I agree with Vortigen99 on this subject.

Ward

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 02:42 PM

skeen

29th March 2009, 03:06 PM

I think people are just beyond tired of VFF - it's hardly possible anymore to treat her as if she is acting in good faith, because she is not. Regardless of everything that has transpired, she acts as though we're at square one, trying to either prove or disprove her claims, when they have been falsified numerous times.

LONGTABBER PE

29th March 2009, 03:33 PM

tsig

29th March 2009, 05:11 PM

tsig

29th March 2009, 05:19 PM

Just speaking for myself and I certainly see the points raised here but my position is that this was ( and is) a deliberate,orchestrated scam from the word go for whatever reason and as such deseres no consideration whatsoever.

Same here.

I do not understand this "give 'em a break" philosophy. Let them do what they say they can do or forget about it.

When someone tells me they can do things that no one else has ever done, my first reaction is not "Wow ain't that amazing".

desertgal

29th March 2009, 05:22 PM

It's perfectly understandable and normal and human. I don't mean to chastise or imply wrongdoing on anyone's part, because that isn't my place or my duty.

I am however voicing my opinion that ridicule and debasement of others, regardless of their lack of critical thinking skills, is not the province of this forum or its members.

I think you misunderstood my intent. This was not meant to ridicule the claimant as a person - merely to poke fun at her ludicrous claims, arguments, and antics on this forum. A personal attack, believe me, would have been very different.

This young woman is intelligent and well educated. She is capable of critical thinking, objectivity, and logic. She elects not to develop those skills. She chooses, instead, for whatever reason, to come here and play skeptics for fools.

It may not be the province of this forum, but I daresay there is not a paranormal claimant thread here that does not contain humor at the expense of the claimant's antics, to varying degrees. Even James Randi has been known to poke a little fun at the antics of woos.

If you choose to behave like a fool, you cannot expect to be treated like a rocket scientist. If you choose to disrespect people, you cannot expect respect in return.

If I offended anyone, I apologize.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 05:27 PM

Every one is here for their own reasons.

You say you don't want to chastise then you chastise.
In addition you manage to ridicule and debase others with your phrase "regardless of their lack of critical thinking skills".

You are derailing this thread and purposefully trying to get a rise out of me. I stated an opinion and clearly and expressly labeled it as such. I expressed understanding that this program of ridicule is wholly human and normal, but opined that this forum is not the place for it, as outlined in the Terms of Service which we all agreed to when we signed up.

Lastly, observing that some persons lack critical thinking skills does not constitute ridicule nor debasement. It is an observation of another wholly human phenomenon, namely intellectual error, to which all of us are prone to one degree or another, not an intentional insult or form of derision.

Please keep your transparent attempts at slander and character assassination to yourself. If you cannot distinguish between the observation of a universal human characteristic and a thoughtless insult, you might perhaps reconsider your purported devotion to the tenets of critical thinking. I have no time nor inclination to defend my harmless voicing of opinion against a mean-spirited bully.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 05:32 PM

I think you misunderstood my intent. This was not meant to ridicule the claimant as a person - merely to poke fun at her ludicrous claims, arguments, and antics on this forum. A personal attack, believe me, would have been very different.

This young woman is intelligent and well educated. She is capable of critical thinking, objectivity, and logic. She elects not to develop those skills. She chooses, instead, for whatever reason, to come here and play skeptics for fools.

It may not be the province of this forum, but I daresay there is not a paranormal claimant thread here that does not contain humor at the expense of the claimant's antics, to varying degrees. Even James Randi has been known to poke a little fun at the antics of woos.

If you choose to behave like a fool, you cannot expect to be treated like a rocket scientist.

If I offended anyone, I apologize.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to create such a controversy. I agree, and have agreed, that based on this and the previous VFF thread, VFF's claims are either, at worst, intentional fraud or, at best, unconscious self-delusion. I merely objected to the sidebarring silliness about steaks toppings which, while amusing, did not seem to me (for whatever my opinion might be worth) to adhere to the Terms of Service or the stated goals of this Forum.

I'm willing to drop the matter and move on, if everyone else agrees.

Miss_Kitt

29th March 2009, 05:47 PM

....In one of the readings at the meeting I correctly detected menstruation/period. This was not one of the ailments listed on the questionnaires for me to look for, but I did what I call the "head-to-toe" where I look through the entire person to make note of what catches my attention the most. And it was quite obvious. If anyone wants to know what I perceived, by all means, ask. Would menstruation/period be a good candidate for a real test?

This may have already been dealt with, as I have not read the whole thread, but: There are definitely aroma or "pheromone" attributes in human women that have been found in scientific tests. For example, women in close quarters (roommates, sometimes co-workers) often synchronize cycles; it is documented that strippers/dancers who are not on the Pill make more money in solo dances and tips when they are in estrus, etc. Depending on the distance involved, this may not be an acceptable attribute to identify. There are also issues of water retention, skin outbreaks, possible minute clothing movement differences if external pads are used, etc. I don't think this is a very fruitful avenue; a great deal of work would be needed to make it "blinded" from detection.

Just my observations, MK

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 05:48 PM

Please keep your transparent attempts at slander and character assassination to yourself. If you cannot distinguish between the observation of a universal human characteristic and a thoughtless insult, you might perhaps reconsider your purported devotion to the tenets of critical thinking. I have no time nor inclination to defend my harmless voicing of opinion against a mean-spirited bully.

It's interesting to me that in just a few posts you can get pretty riled up and take an adversarial stance, yet you don't seem to have empathy for the frustration felt by people who have read a few thousand posts about/by VFF over several months.

If you think the conduct in this thread is against the MA, then use the Report feature (red triangle on the left) to report the post(s). If you want to discuss whether it's appropriate, take it to the Forum Management area.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 06:01 PM

For the record, I got "riled up" because tsig has a history of misunderstanding my motives and intentions, and casting aspersions on me which I feel to be unfounded. Perhaps I should have posted my above-quoted message in a PM to tsig, rather than publicly posting it here, as it was directed at tsig and tsig only.

Where I have failed to express "empathy for the frustration felt by people who have read a few thousand posts about/by VFF over several months", allow me to do so now. I've repeated my opinion, which most members here seem to share, that VFF's claims are spurious and possibly intentionally fraudulent. I understand that her methods of ducking questions and other behaviors typical of hoaxers are frustrating to the people here who have attempted to participate in her proposed study.

The only area in which I disagree with any of you is the degree of public ridicule and juvenile satire which VFF merits through her lack of critical thinking and apparent hoaxer-ish behavior. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me on this point, but tsig specifically suggested I was ridiculing and debasing people, which is incorrect and so required my clarification.

Kariboo

29th March 2009, 06:06 PM

I agree with desertgal that it was meant to be a fun replica of claims in general (although it resembled part of VFf's style). After going through circle after circle with her on the same issues I guess it just started to get silly.

I don't think people are ridiculing or debasing claimants on these forums (especially if they seem sincere in their claim) and a lot of posters usually show a lot of patience and constraint in assisting them in defining their claims. nor do I see this derail as debasing.

I do think some fun is not a problem in these threads, if a person is starting to behave in a silly way (claimant or not) a silly response doesn't seem to be so bad.

YMMV

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 06:12 PM

You all make excellent points. Where I have offended anyone or ruffled any proverbial feathers, I heartily apologize.

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 06:14 PM

This may have already been dealt with, as I have not read the whole thread, but: There are definitely aroma or "pheromone" attributes in human women that have been found in scientific tests. For example, women in close quarters (roommates, sometimes co-workers) often synchronize cycles; it is documented that strippers/dancers who are not on the Pill make more money in solo dances and tips when they are in estrus, etc. Depending on the distance involved, this may not be an acceptable attribute to identify. There are also issues of water retention, skin outbreaks, possible minute clothing movement differences if external pads are used, etc. I don't think this is a very fruitful avenue; a great deal of work would be needed to make it "blinded" from detection.

Just my observations, MK

I'm amazed that the people at FACT couldn't think of any external symptoms of menstruation. Besides what you mentioned you got yer headaches, breast soreness, cramps, pelvic/back stiffness, and so forth. These are all things that can be noticed visually. I've also noticed over the years that if a woman brings her purse to the bathroom when she could safely leave it where it was, there's a good chance she's on her period.

Besides, what are the odds that a woman of child bearing age is menstruating at any given time? I'd say 1:5 or 1:6. Then factor in all the external clues and I'd say it's an even money bet.

David Wong

29th March 2009, 06:15 PM

This forum is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more patient with clearly insane and/or fraudulent claimants than any other group I've ever seen. Typically it takes HUNDREDS of posts before you start to see people exhibit the human weakness of frustration (and even then, often exhibited through gentle humor rather than vitriol).

But the posters are human, their patience is not inexhaustible, and yes, after seeing their early patience rewarded with outright spite, arrogance and constant insulting of their intelligence, it starts to run thin.

But new posters making claims of the paranormal get MASSIVE leeway here. She was treated with dignity and respect through many many pages and many weeks, during which it often was not returned.

If it falls short of the forum's ideals then we can all strive to do better, but the level of discourse here is, in general, pretty amazing.

desertgal

29th March 2009, 06:25 PM

The only area in which I disagree with any of you is the degree of public ridicule and juvenile satire which VFF merits through her lack of critical thinking and apparent hoaxer-ish behavior.

Anita's hoaxer-ish behavior, if it continues, has the potential of misleading innocent people about their medical conditions. She has already stated, several times, that she will continue to believe in her ability, regardless of whether she ever completes a controlled test. She has already approached people on this forum about composing a waiver for performing public "psychic medical diagnosis"-and we all know those waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on when it comes to what gullible people will believe. As well, recently, we saw her proclaiming that, as a former LPN with no formal medical training, she considers herself to be "medical staff", and that she always behaves with the utmost professionalism. She seems to be hovering on the edge of joining the woo economy.

Juvenile satire aside, you don't believe that proposing to perform, with a non-existent ability, something that may cause other people emotional distress (or worse), and possibly misleading them about her level of training in the medical field is worthy of some public ridicule?

Her other claims are of negligible concern. If she wishes to chase ghosts, or promote herself as a "star person", however ridiculous, there is no potential for harm to other people. Although, I imagine, for those who believe in woos, her other claims would be an added incentive to believe her main claim.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 06:42 PM

Anita's hoaxer-ish behavior, if it continues, has the potential of misleading innocent people about their medical conditions. She has already stated, several times, that she will continue to believe in her ability, regardless of whether she ever completes a controlled test. She has already approached people on this forum about composing a waiver for performing public "psychic medical diagnosis"-and we all know those waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on when it comes to what gullible people will believe. As well, recently, we saw her proclaiming that, as a former LPN with no formal medical training, she considers herself to be "medical staff", and that she always behaves with the utmost professionalism. She seems to be hovering on the edge of joining the woo economy.

Juvenile satire aside, you don't believe that proposing to perform something that may cause other people emotional distress (or worse), and possibly misleading them about her level of training in the medical field is worthy of some public ridicule?

Her other claims are of negligible concern. If she wishes to chase ghosts, or promote herself as a "star person", however ridiculous, there is no potential for harm to other people. Although, I imagine, for those who believe in woos, her other claims would be an added incentive to believe her main claim.

I understand and agree. Please allow me to rescind any implications of wrongdoing I might have made against you, either perceived or actual.

Jeff Corey

29th March 2009, 08:27 PM

OK, that's it then. She's gone and any of this other stuff is just a case of sadistic necrophilic beastiality.

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 08:30 PM

Excellent, how about you do that?

Regarding telepathy:

I had a chat with VFF a while back about this very subject. She refuses to use Zener cards (http://skepdic.com/zener.html). She's tried them in the past, but she needs animals in order to do telepathy because [insert Wall o' Text here]. She refused to work with anything unambiguous (surprise). The conversation was exceedingly frustrating. It was like arguing with a prepubescent girl in that she insisted she needed "wet noses" and "furry faces" instead of the lifeless Zener cards.

Jeff Corey

29th March 2009, 08:37 PM

Wet noses and furry faces? She only reads mammals?

<----- Read this.

Vortigern99

29th March 2009, 09:43 PM

Regarding telepathy:

I had a chat with VFF a while back about this very subject. She refuses to use Zener cards (http://skepdic.com/zener.html). She's tried them in the past, but she needs animals in order to do telepathy because [insert Wall o' Text here]. She refused to work with anything unambiguous (surprise). The conversation was exceedingly frustrating. It was like arguing with a prepubescent girl in that she insisted she needed "wet noses" and "furry faces" instead of the lifeless Zener cards.

I knew this thread would intersect with bigfoot if I just hung around long enough. ;)

Uncayimmy

29th March 2009, 10:08 PM

I knew this thread would intersect with bigfoot if I just hung around long enough. ;)

This is not the first bigfoot intersection. Anita has already encountered bigfoot in Europe. And she's sure she could find one in America.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4259686#post4259686
I am confident that if I were in American Bigfoot territory I could connect with it and if I win its trust I might be able to meet them. I have a good way of communicating with beings when we connect mind to mind. I always know what to say, how they respond and how to win their trust. I am quite confident that if I ever undertook such a mission, I could venture out into the woods of America with a camera and be able to encounter the Bigfoot

And you wonder why frustration levels are high...

Farencue

29th March 2009, 10:23 PM

wow, another VfF thread, how exciting. What happened to the dinosaurs Anita saw in the woods, anybody know?

Jeff Corey

29th March 2009, 10:27 PM

Bigfoot ate them.

Miss_Kitt

29th March 2009, 11:35 PM

Farencue -- To be fair, Anita never claimed she saw actual dinosaurs. What she saw were the ghosts of dinosaurs.

FWIW, I think that the whole "steak topping protocol" subsection should be put into its own thread in "Community", perhaps titled, "Satires of paranormal claimant -style posts"? I know that if this thread happened to be my first exposure to the JREF, I'd have decided that no actual skepticism or analysis was being displayed, and I'd likely have not come back.

I understand the frustration, but there are times in life when it's the job of the reasonable to "outgrownup" the unreasonable.

YMMV, etc. MK

PS The "wet noses" --> Bigfoot connection almost made me spit up on my computer! That was unexpected, and funny.

Vortigern99

30th March 2009, 12:12 AM

PS The "wet noses" --> Bigfoot connection almost made me spit up on my computer! That was unexpected, and funny.

Well then, I'm glad I could contribute to some light-heartedness around here, instead of the crankiness I generally inspire. :mad: :D

plumjam

30th March 2009, 01:21 AM

Tapio

30th March 2009, 04:15 AM

...I know that if this thread happened to be my first exposure to the JREF, I'd have decided that no actual skepticism or analysis was being displayed, and I'd likely have not come back...

It's like you read my mind...

I've only registered fairly recently and haven't been a lurker before that long either. So I haven't really had the chance to witness paranormal claim after claim after claim of skeptics trying to patiently and constructively help people in the better understanding of their experiences. But I've read about these tons of claims enough to understand that many forum members have been hardened to the point of not simply having an open mind anymore.

It's only human to give up at some point. Still, it's been quite disappointing to read through some of the recent threads of claimants coming openly to reflect on their supposed paranormal abilities. Some reactions from forum members I find contemptible, and I think that this forum would be of greater use without those kind of remarks (but I am a newb, so maybe I've just understood the function of this forum incorrectly...).

So what to do in order for this thread not to be completely spoiled by a few individuals not capable of letting their fingers rest when there's nothing constructive to type? Here's what I suggest:

- We could choose max 5 forum members (besides Anita) who participate in this thread. These members should be people who we mutually find reliable and civil in a manner that helps Anita to proceed in the designing of her protocol. These would be members who've proved to be of this sort of worth in the VfF #1 thread

- Anita refrains to comment on any other writings than the ones posted by the chosen members

Anita, I (as well as many others) said this in the very beginning of VfF #1, but I'll say it again. Nothing matters more on this forum than evidence. Even if you wrote a book on your supposed ability and published it, but presented zero evidence of your claim, you'd only get ridiculed at here. Your opinions, feelings, thoughts and pondering is worth nothing (in relation to why you say you've signed up in the first place) without evidence.

...and what's counted as evidence to most skeptics here should, by now, be fairly clear. I think you'd do your claim (and your peace of mind) a great big favour if also you would refrain from posting nothing else than stuff related to gathering, evaluating and presenting evidence relative to your claim.

Sorry, don't mean to sound patronizing. Just some thoughts.

Professor Yaffle

30th March 2009, 04:23 AM

We already have a thread for just uncayimmy and anita (moderated). I think Anita poted there once or twice, then just ignored it.

Tapio

30th March 2009, 04:43 AM

We already have a thread for just uncayimmy and anita (moderated). I think Anita poted there once or twice, then just ignored it.

Thanks for the reminder.

Anita, why is this? Do you not agree that all the mindless rambling about everything else except your central claim is just wasting everyone's time and certainly doing you no good?

I still have some faith in your integrity and would be fascinated and delighted to see you reaching your (originally proposed) goal. But ignoring a most effective way in reaching that goal does hinder my faith, so I'd be happy to hear just why you stopped posting to the thread mentioned by Yaffle.

Also, only one on one is not such a good idea, I think. It might get too intimidating.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 06:01 AM

Vortigern, I wouldn't worry; what you said was correct.
The Vision From Feeling threads are where the forum's most cowardly bullies like to hang out. They know that here they can engage in ridicule and derision to their hearts content, with very little comeback or threat from other members.

Setting aside derision and ridicule, what is the point of further discussing her claim?

She has consistently refused to objectively analyze any single one of her past perceptions.
She has consistently refused to accept any other objective analysis offered about any of the claims she has made on this forum, or the anecdotal examples she has offered.
She has consistently refused to offer any objective data about her past perceptions, or, in the case of Wayne and her 'survey', gather any objective data that might reveal her claimed abilities to be anything other than paranormal or her version of synesthesia.
She has consistently refused to accept any suggested protocol that doesn't allow her wiggle room-both here and through IIG West.
She has consistently refused to clarify her 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 her.
She has consistently failed all experiments of her claimed abilities via this forum, and, when confronted with those failures, she consistently refuses to acknowledge them, and simply shift the goalposts to turn every miss into either a hit, or, at least, a "non-miss".
She consistently refuses to perform any experiments on any other aspects of her alleged abilities-even after she has agreed to. Pup expended personal time, effort, and expense to mail her samples after she agreed to perform an experiment based on claims she made. Now, she refuses to do it. It was suggested that she perform an experiment with crystals, since that was also one of the claims she made, and she agreed - and then refused.
She has consistently stated that she is basing her investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes. She offers no corroborative statements about any of her "correct" perceptions, and she has immediately dismissed, out of hand, a few witness statements that didn't corroborate her point of view.
She has made every attempt to dodge and delay her proposed 'study', despite willing efforts by skeptics here and with FACT, and avoid controlled testing. When confronted with her delaying tactics, she simply shifts the goalposts and condemns the skeptics as being "impatient". We can't be impatient for something that is never going to happen.
She has not conclusively ruled out mental illness via examination by a qualified therapist. She has not conclusively ruled out that she has convinced herself to believe in something that isn't true.
She has offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have demolished her credibility (i.e. her 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 she is delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?
How the above establishes her as a "reasonable" claimant?
Why the skeptics here should expect anything different than the above, and waste further time and effort going nowhere?
How this thread could possibly be of value, considering the above?

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. Nor would it be unreasonable for them to conclude that I have convinced myself of something that isn't actually true, and logically, I have no reason to investigate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire, because I was worried about being wrong. "

"I sensed a tense jaw and a heart issue that was related to a significant anxiety. I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' because I thought it was a nicer way to say it, although I meant it as anxiety and just that."

This is in keeping with the above points. If she is not willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, then how can she expect to "form a more specific claim in order to proceed with the test protocol formations"? If a perception is inaccurate, would not determining that help her in establishing the "correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person."?

As well, if she isn't willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, what is the point of discussing it further?

She says the problem is that several skeptics "refuse to accept the fact" that she can see into the human body at an atomic level, etc. That isn't true. Where has it been established as fact?

She says that her chances to discuss her claim here are being ruined. That isn't true. She had TWO moderated threads on this forum where she could have discussed her claim until the end of time, with a minimum of "hostilities". She CHOSE not to utilize them.

Not a single forum character I respect (and there are many) is still posting frequently in them; that says it all really.

Perhaps because they know it isn't going to get them anywhere.

I already apologized for my silliness yesterday. I was tired, and it was stupid and thoughtless. I admit that.

I also realize, of course, PJ, that you have been a driving force in helping Anita authenticate her claims, so perhaps you could tell us exactly what else anyone here can do to further her investigation?

Ocelot

30th March 2009, 06:45 AM

2 days four pages. Somewhere in here there apparently Anita claiming under her chosen conditions that somebody has a heart condition. however I can only find references after the fact. Is it in another thread?

Of the four statements.

a) Anita's medical diagnoses are never wrong and this test subject has a heart condition.
b) Anita's medical diagnoses are sometimes wrong and this test subject has a heart condition.
c) Anita's medical diagnoses are never wrong and this test subject does not have a heart condition.
d) Anita's medical diagnoses are sometimes wrong and this test subject does not have a heart condition.

Obvioulsty c is a logical contradiction. This means that if this test subject does not have a heart condition we've proven that Anita's medical diagnoses are not 100% accurate.

That would be a significant finding, though Anita could still continue with a modified claim that when she perceives a medical diagnosis she is correct better than chance should allow.

As such I'd be greatful if someone should direct me to the record where Anita said something about the heart. I'd like to see what was said. Also if scans of the actual sheets could be provided that would be great.

I see we've also got claims of joint pain that on being proven wrong have been retro fitted into noticing that these people had joints. Yes yes yes. Classic cold reading. However in this case Anita seem adament that there is a heart condition. Am I reading this correctly?

Perhaps she's trying the different tack of of claiming that the condition might be undiagnosed. In whihc case it would be useful to see whether the prediction is specific enough to be falsified by a simple low cost ECG.

desertgal

30th March 2009, 06:53 AM

2 days four pages. Somewhere in here there apparently Anita claiming under her chosen conditions that somebody has a heart condition. however I can only find references after the fact. Is it in another thread?

From her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) (Scroll down to "Skeptics Meeting March 2009":
Next I did a reading with another member of the group. I had her sit so that I had view of her back. At first I could not find anything that was listed on the questionnaire. I sensed no pain anywhere. I sensed a tense jaw and a heart issue that was related to a significant anxiety. I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' because I thought it was a nicer way to say it, although I meant it as anxiety and just that. I decided to do an "open-reading" where I just freely check the body and write down in words what I find rather than to look for the listed ailments specificly. This way, I found and I wrote down that her internal female system was red or inflamed. I said to her, that if I may ask, does she have her menstruation now? She said that she did! Turns out she also suffers from anxiety, but everyone at the meeting agreed that she shows no external symptoms of this.

I'm not clear what she means by "heart issue", unless she is referring to an accelerated heartbeat as a result of anxiety. She doesn't clarify her meaning. If she means a more serious heart issue, then it doesn't appear to have been verified by the subject.

Tapio

30th March 2009, 07:14 AM

I also realize, of course, PJ, that you have been a driving force in helping Anita authenticate her claims, so perhaps you could tell us exactly what else anyone here can do to further her investigation?

Sorry, PJ, if I rush in before you get a chance to answer. But at this point I believe what I'm about to suggest does no harm.

What could we do?

One word: Wait.

She has had enough advice, that's for sure. Now all that matters is what evidence she can bring forth to support her claim (which at the moment, at least for me, is none). Every minute she spends here bickering is a minute from her actually trying to accomplish something substantial. Let's leave her be. Stop posting to this thread, and warmly welcome her back after she brings her next piece of evidence. THEN pick just a few members to evaluate it. And continue so on...

At least for me this is goodbye's to Anita, for now.

Skeptical Greg

30th March 2009, 07:18 AM

...... I know that if this thread happened to be my first exposure to the JREF, I'd have decided that no actual skepticism or analysis was being displayed, and I'd likely have not come back.

Anyone who stumbled upon this thread, decided it summed up the JREF forums, and left without looking at the context and other threads about VFF , would be showing an accute lack of skeptical analysis themself; and I agree they wouldn't feel at home here.

After five months of patience and courtesy - what else do you feel deserves additional skeptical analysis ?

The VFF threads keep disappearing off the front page, but Anita seems compelled to revive them and even start new ones. No one has invited her to do that ...

tsig

30th March 2009, 07:25 AM

tsig

30th March 2009, 07:32 AM

It's like you read my mind...

I've only registered fairly recently and haven't been a lurker before that long either. So I haven't really had the chance to witness paranormal claim after claim after claim of skeptics trying to patiently and constructively help people in the better understanding of their experiences. But I've read about these tons of claims enough to understand that many forum members have been hardened to the point of not simply having an open mind anymore.

It's only human to give up at some point. Still, it's been quite disappointing to read through some of the recent threads of claimants coming openly to reflect on their supposed paranormal abilities. Some reactions from forum members I find contemptible, and I think that this forum would be of greater use without those kind of remarks (but I am a newb, so maybe I've just understood the function of this forum incorrectly...).

So what to do in order for this thread not to be completely spoiled by a few individuals not capable of letting their fingers rest when there's nothing constructive to type? Here's what I suggest:

- We could choose max 5 forum members (besides Anita) who participate in this thread. These members should be people who we mutually find reliable and civil in a manner that helps Anita to proceed in the designing of her protocol. These would be members who've proved to be of this sort of worth in the VfF #1 thread

- Anita refrains to comment on any other writings than the ones posted by the chosen members

Anita, I (as well as many others) said this in the very beginning of VfF #1, but I'll say it again. Nothing matters more on this forum than evidence. Even if you wrote a book on your supposed ability and published it, but presented zero evidence of your claim, you'd only get ridiculed at here. Your opinions, feelings, thoughts and pondering is worth nothing (in relation to why you say you've signed up in the first place) without evidence.

...and what's counted as evidence to most skeptics here should, by now, be fairly clear. I think you'd do your claim (and your peace of mind) a great big favour if also you would refrain from posting nothing else than stuff related to gathering, evaluating and presenting evidence relative to your claim.

Sorry, don't mean to sound patronizing. Just some thoughts.

Well you do sound patronizing.

You might want to go back and read the threads before you jump in with unasked advice.

tsig

30th March 2009, 07:37 AM

Well then, I'm glad I could contribute to some light-heartedness around here, instead of the crankiness I generally inspire. :mad: :D

Unwanted moral advice has that effect on some people.

Ocelot

30th March 2009, 08:27 AM

From her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) (Scroll down to "Skeptics Meeting March 2009":

I'm not clear what she means by "heart issue", unless she is referring to an accelerated heartbeat as a result of anxiety. She doesn't clarify her meaning. If she means a more serious heart issue, then it doesn't appear to have been verified by the subject.

I see. Not as conclusive as we might have hoped.

plumjam

30th March 2009, 08:32 AM

Setting aside derision and ridicule, what is the point of further discussing her claim?

She has consistently refused to objectively analyze any single one of her past perceptions.
She has consistently refused to accept any other objective analysis offered about any of the claims she has made on this forum, or the anecdotal examples she has offered.
She has consistently refused to offer any objective data about her past perceptions, or, in the case of Wayne and her 'survey', gather any objective data that might reveal her claimed abilities to be anything other than paranormal or her version of synesthesia.
She has consistently refused to accept any suggested protocol that doesn't allow her wiggle room-both here and through IIG West.
She has consistently refused to clarify her 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 her.
She has consistently failed all experiments of her claimed abilities via this forum, and, when confronted with those failures, she consistently refuses to acknowledge them, and simply shift the goalposts to turn every miss into either a hit, or, at least, a "non-miss".
She consistently refuses to perform any experiments on any other aspects of her alleged abilities-even after she has agreed to. Pup expended personal time, effort, and expense to mail her samples after she agreed to perform an experiment based on claims she made. Now, she refuses to do it. It was suggested that she perform an experiment with crystals, since that was also one of the claims she made, and she agreed - and then refused.
She has consistently stated that she is basing her investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes. She offers no corroborative statements about any of her "correct" perceptions, and she has immediately dismissed, out of hand, a few witness statements that didn't corroborate her point of view.
She has made every attempt to dodge and delay her proposed 'study', despite willing efforts by skeptics here and with FACT, and avoid controlled testing. When confronted with her delaying tactics, she simply shifts the goalposts and condemns the skeptics as being "impatient". We can't be impatient for something that is never going to happen.
She has not conclusively ruled out mental illness via examination by a qualified therapist. She has not conclusively ruled out that she has convinced herself to believe in something that isn't true.
She has offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have demolished her credibility (i.e. her 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 she is delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?
How the above establishes her as a "reasonable" claimant?
Why the skeptics here should expect anything different than the above, and waste further time and effort going nowhere?
How this thread could possibly be of value, considering the above?

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. Nor would it be unreasonable for them to conclude that I have convinced myself of something that isn't actually true, and logically, I have no reason to investigate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is in keeping with the above points. If she is not willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, then how can she expect to "form a more specific claim in order to proceed with the test protocol formations"? If a perception is inaccurate, would not determining that help her in establishing the "correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person."?

As well, if she isn't willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, what is the point of discussing it further?

She says the problem is that several skeptics "refuse to accept the fact" that she can see into the human body at an atomic level, etc. That isn't true. Where has it been established as fact?

She says that her chances to discuss her claim here are being ruined. That isn't true. She had TWO moderated threads on this forum where she could have discussed her claim until the end of time, with a minimum of "hostilities". She CHOSE not to utilize them.

Perhaps because they know it isn't going to get them anywhere.

I already apologized for my silliness yesterday. I was tired, and it was stupid and thoughtless. I admit that.
If you believe the above to be the case why on Earth do you persist in pursuing her? What a waste of your life.
Quit obsessing about her. If someone hundreds of miles away on the other end of a computer, who you've never met, claims to have some ability which does no actual harm to anyone, then... so what? Surely you have better things to do with your time.

I also realize, of course, PJ, that you have been a driving force in helping Anita authenticate her claims, so perhaps you could tell us exactly what else anyone here can do to further her investigation?
This part is just flat-out wrong.
I have had nothing whatsoever to do with Anita's claims, either pro or con.
In fact, whether or not she has her claimed abilities, is not a matter of great interest to me. I have no dog in that fight.
My motivation in involvement in these threads has stemmed from disgust at the way both (some) forum members have treated her, and the forum management position in failing to defend her from your kind of real world private-life interference.

Vortigern99

30th March 2009, 08:35 AM

Unwanted moral advice has that effect on some people.

1. It was ethical advice, not moral.

2. I apologized to anyone who might have been hurt by my implications of wrongdoing.

2. You may wish to follow your own advice.

Cuddles

30th March 2009, 08:47 AM

Since this thread appears to exist for no reason other than to allow people to avoid the moderation on existing threads, I have set it to moderated status. Please avoid all the personal attacks and bickering and stick to discussing actual claims and arguments.

Jonquill

31st March 2009, 04:29 AM

Has Dr Carlsen or any of the Salem skeptics made any comments about the Study Anita did with them at the March meeting?

Although it was a study and not a test they must have formed some idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions?

VisionFromFeeling

31st March 2009, 01:31 PM

Dear Skeptics,
As you all know, I am conducting a Study (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) whose purpose is to gain more experience and insight into my paranormal claim in order to form the test protocol based on what is learned. I have already learned that I will most likely include "missing kidney" on the list of ailments for the test protocol, and that I actually prefer to see the persons from behind, rather than front-view, both of which are good!

I need more experience with the medical perceptions and more opportunity to try out various test conditions one at a time in order to observe their effects on my performance. I am arranging a study with local Skeptics but meanwhile, and also afterwards, I wish to conduct more studies that add to the process.

So I am asking you: Who can I contact about asking them to arrange an additional study with me? I am willing to travel a reasonable distance to get there. All that is required is a location, volunteers who will fill in an anonymous health questionnaire and then be seen by me for about 15 minutes each, and participants who take care of the administrative assignments of the study since me nor anyone acquainted to me are able to do so. The assignments are, to handle the volunteers' questionnaires, two to act as controls who also fill in questionnaires alongside me and look at the volunteer and try any method they wish, besides prior knowledge, to try to acchieve correlation with what the volunteer answered about their health, and someone who handles mine and the controls' questionnaires.

That is all that is required. I would like suggestions about who I could contact and ask whether they would be interested in participating with me in my study and paranormal investigation. Any ideas would be appreciated!

Ocelot

1st April 2009, 04:43 AM

Here's a suggestion. After filling in your sheet, but before comparing it with the subject's sheet have a quick run down of what you've written. Clearly mark any prediction that you've made that if not found on the subject's sheet, would falsify your theory.

If you're not able to mark any like that then you might want to question the procedure.

Kariboo

1st April 2009, 09:04 AM

Dear Skeptics,
A I have already learned that I will most likely include "missing kidney" on the list of ailments for the test protocol, and that I actually prefer to see the persons from behind, rather than front-view, both of which are good!

I need more experience with the medical perceptions and more opportunity to try out various test conditions one at a time in order to observe their effects on my performance.

VFf: I believe I have read all your posts concerning your claim. At this point I would like to ask you if you can calculate how many subjects you think you need to see in order to pinpoint your claim.

So far you say you have observed 100s of people and have come up with (from memory) a vasectomy (1x), heart issue/oil (1x), menstruation (1x) full bladder (1x), lactobacillus (1x). In the general population these issues should have been more prevalent so you are saying you only see these things 1 out of ????times.

Extrapolating from that you would have to observe 1000s of people to even define your claim. Do you think that is reasonable? Can you calculate after how many people you will decide what you can do? If you can only see something 1 out of so many times, why is this not indistinguishable from guessing?

desertgal

1st April 2009, 10:06 PM

Has Dr Carlsen or any of the Salem skeptics made any comments about the Study Anita did with them at the March meeting?

Not so far.

Although it was a study and not a test they must have formed some idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions?

Given the following from her website, which smacks of typical paranormal claimant 'postdicting', I'm sure they have a very clear idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions.

I did detect something very interesting in Dr. Carlson, that I did not put down on the questionnaire because I could not believe it. Why would Dr. Carlson have this, I wondered? It did not match with what my logical assumptions would allow me to believe. Yet I perceived it. Turns out it would have been right. I can not receive any credit or any points for this whatsoever, and it is perfectly allright to suspect me of lying, but I know that I did detect it. So I know to continue and to not cross that particular thing out of my list yet, since I might detect it again next time, or on an actual paranormal test. I did not tell Dr. Carlson that I did in fact detect it, because he won't believe me. So I'll just leave it at that.

When I arrived at the question of removed kidneys, my medical perception saw and felt his right kidney, but not the left one. However logic and thinking took over and I worried about being wrong. I spent a long while considering whether to mark it or not, and decided against it.

Why it would be unbelievable or illogical that Dr. Carlson would have only one kidney is unclear. There are many people with only one kidney. It's unusual, but not unbelievable or illogical. I imagine that good gentleman will not waste any more of his time or energies on Anita's investigation.

Uncayimmy

2nd April 2009, 04:36 PM

Given the following from her website, which smacks of typical paranormal claimant 'postdicting', I'm sure they have a very clear idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions.

Hmm...."I sensed it but didn't say anything. Turns out I was right, and there's no way I could have known. I don't get credit for it, but I did it nonetheless."

Isn't that kind of like when a magician takes an object from your hand, holds up it in front of you and says, "Whatever you do, don't let me touch this, okay?"

We have repeatedly warned Anita about making declarations after the fact. What is the point of having a form with a checkbox for "missing organs" and an option for "kidney" if you're not going to use it? Not only do her protocols stink, she refuses to follow them anyway.

Old man

2nd April 2009, 04:37 PM

...So far you say you have observed 100s of people and have come up with (from memory) a vasectomy (1x), heart issue/oil (1x), menstruation (1x) full bladder (1x), lactobacillus (1x)... You left out 'larynx composed of bone, rather than cartilage (1x)'.

desertgal

3rd April 2009, 06:09 AM

Hmm...."I sensed it but didn't say anything. Turns out I was right, and there's no way I could have known. I don't get credit for it, but I did it nonetheless."

Isn't that kind of like when a magician takes an object from your hand, holds up it in front of you and says, "Whatever you do, don't let me touch this, okay?"

We have repeatedly warned Anita about making declarations after the fact. What is the point of having a form with a checkbox for "missing organs" and an option for "kidney" if you're not going to use it? Not only do her protocols stink, she refuses to follow them anyway.

For that matter, what is the point of having a study at all if she is going to manipulate the data in her favor?

Another example from the last FACT meeting (http://visionfromfeeling.com/study.html):
Next I did a reading with another member of the group. I had her sit so that I had view of her back. At first I could not find anything that was listed on the questionnaire. I sensed no pain anywhere. I sensed a tense jaw and a heart issue that was related to a significant anxiety. I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' because I thought it was a nicer way to say it, although I meant it as anxiety and just that.

First, "excitement" is not another way to say "anxiety". There's a considerable difference in the definitions, especially from a medical point of view. Second, if one is doing preliminary readings to establish a protocol for a proper study, who cares about the "nicer way" to say stuff? If you mean "anxiety", then you write down "anxiety".

She goes on to say:
Turns out she also suffers from anxiety, but everyone at the meeting agreed that she shows no external symptoms of this.

Again, this smacks of "postdicting". "Excitement" indicates a temporary condition, and, from this description, "anxiety" indicates a recurring condition of distress or uneasiness.

From an objective point of view, it appears that Anita sensed this woman was excited. Perhaps from being "read", but more likely because the gal was hanging out with fellow skeptics, talking about interesting stuff, and having a good time. There could have easily been outward signs-flushed skin, bright eyes, etc. Anita detected her excitement through external clues, wrote it down, and then changed her data after she learned the woman experiences anxiety.

It makes her "perception" suspect. Again.