VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[Femke]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I wish it were that simple. First of all, I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us. And it was the most compelling medical perception I had had. Again, the reason I did not write it down, was because I was logically convinced that it could not be true, which makes the whole thing even more interesting since it was true after all.

<delurking>
Sorry, it's been said before, but you did not address it, and I really would like you to consider this.
If you are doing an experiment, and your observation does not meet your expectation, are you a real scientist if you then discard that observation without even acknowledging it? Or would you be a scientist if you write down the observation, maybe even mark it as remarkable and then set out to see why it is so remarkable?
Your remark about desertgals memory in one of the other threads suggests that you have read the links provided about false memories. Why do you refuse to even consider that you might have been fooled by your own memory, like the many people who were convinced they saw Bugs Bunny in Disneyland?

Quote:

My logical thinking and my perceptions of health information are two entirely different things. And at the IIG test I was confident in knowing the accuracy of each trial immediately after each trial, being confident that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong and trial 2 correct.
<snip>

And this part of your reactions keeps puzzling me. If you knew that your answer was wrong, then why did you submit it in the first place?
If I claim to be able to see which person is missing which arm, then I will be always confident that I gave the right answer, because I saw a void where an arm should be. Knowing when you were wrong does not make sense to me. Can you please explain why you think it is relevant?

Femke

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

That test would be far too easy for her to pass, as would any similar test, including a new kidney test. All she would have to do is try to fail. She could deliberately answer the ALL trivia questions incorrectly and then predict that she missed them all and she would have 100% accuracy.

With a new kidney test, it would be a little more difficult, because she might be accidentally right (again) in one trial. Still, the odds are much better of her prediction of being wrong 100% of the time, and she could predict as much and would look like she had special predictive powers.

It's a lot like when she chose "left" as the missing kidney in every case at the IIG test. The odds were that left was the most likely answer in each case since a donated kidney is usually the left kidney.

Besides, who's going to set up a test like that for her?

Ward

You are right, that would be too easy to cheat at. I didn't think it through enough. That'll teach me to make off the cuff tests.

On the other hand, if she always knows she is correct or incorrect, then it should be a simple matter for her to guess each kidney of each person is missing, one at a time in sequence, know if she is right or wrong immediately, and then mark each score sheet accordingly. That should allow for 100% accuracy, and a much quicker test than the one she did with IIG West.

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I wish it were that simple. First of all, I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us.

First of all we don't believe you.
We have never believed this claim and we will never believe this claim.
Repeating it over and over will not make us believe this claim.
It is entirely irrelevant to keep repeating this claim as it is indistinguishable from a postdiction aka a complete lie.

Quote:

And it was the most compelling medical perception I had had. Again, the reason I did not write it down, was because I was logically convinced that it could not be true, which makes the whole thing even more interesting since it was true after all. My logical thinking and my perceptions of health information are two entirely different things.

All irrelevant as no-one believes you and no-one will ever believe that claim about Dr Carlson.

Quote:

And at the IIG test I was confident in knowing the accuracy of each trial immediately after each trial, being confident that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong and trial 2 correct.

You confidence is irrelevant. You are attempting to 'weigh' trials you like with more meaningful results than trials you do not like. That was never part of the test as it is entirely open to abuse by you. As you are doing right now.

It's like guessing ten coin tosses and getting 5 correct, then afterwards saying you felt confident the times you got it correct.

It's absolutely and totally meaningless and just a desperate and painfully transparent to try and claw back something from chance results.

Remember your "Never been wrong" comments from the early days of the claim? We sure are a long way from that now.
Now your best is "Results indistinguishable from guessing, but when I guessed right I was really confident".

Quote:

My answer in trial 2 of the IIG test was so compelling, that I declared right there and then that if it were incorrect then that would be the time to falsify the claim. From 1 hour 38 minutes into Part 1 of the test I said that the perception for trial 2 was so compelling that if it were incorrect I would know without doubt that the claim is falsified. The claim would have been over with right there and then.

Why do you keep changing test protocols during tests?

It is about how you performed over the trial. Period. That was what was being tested, not how important you suddenly randomly decide certain bits of the trial are compared to other bits.
Have you ever actually read how a single scientific experiment is actually conducted in real life?

Quote:

I learned that it takes me longer to see through larger persons and that three trials was far too much and I was affected by fatigue and my claim stopped working in trial 3. I did document my fatigue on the draft papers and also told IIG staff about it well before the results were established.

All irrelevant. Another attempt to 'weigh' the trials differently in your own favour. That's not how this works.

Anyway you just said above you were sure trial 1 was wrong too. Surely you were least fatigued then?

Quote:

I will arrange to have another test, and hopefully it will be able to settle my curiosity more conclusively. Sorry about that if you don't like it.

You actually sent me a PM asking my opinion about your results. You asked if you thought in light of these results it was worth you continuing investigating. I categorically told you there was clearly nothing worth investigating.
Why do you ask people their opinion if you have no intention of taking anything ayone says to you on board?
You clearly want to pursue your fantasy not because of positive results, but in direct contradiction to negative results.

Still it's your time and your life you are wasting. At some point even you will be unable to continue the fantasy - I hope you don't look back and regret this colossal waste of all this time pursuing something that everyone, apart from you, is totally agreed is clearly a fantasy.

Quote:

Besides. It is better to have another test, because if I make incorrect perceptions that I thought would be correct, that will be able to better falsify the claim.

No it isn't. Anyone with the tiniest interest in following the scientific method already has more than enough information to reach a conclusion on this matter.
Only someone indulging a fantasy would continue at this point.

If your next test yields chance results you will simply then say "It is better to have another test, because ... blah, blah, blah..." (insert unconvincing and unscientific reason here)

Quote:

I have so many woos contacting me telling me that the IIG tricked the test and all other sorts of nonsense, and if I fail more conclusively, then it should make an even better example to all the woos out there.

What difference would it make? The type of person you describe will no more believe further negative results than, well, you would. Nothing will convince them (or you) otherwise.

Quote:

My goal is to falsify the claim if there is nothing to it, but, that can not be done yet with the data that is available so far.

Yes it absolutely can.

You simply have no intention of falsifying your claim. There are no set of results you would view as falsification.

If you perform above chance this would be viewed by you as confirmation.
If you perform at chance you say you felt far more confident the times you were correct.
When you perform below chance you say that you actually got the answers right, but your logic made you say a different answer, or people have told you "that the IIG tricked the test", or you were fatigued, or the conditions were wrong, or it was a learning experience and next test you can improve or... excuse after excuse after excuse.

What is the point in running tests?

Quote:

Another test will be helpful.

No it won't, quite the opposite in fact. Do enough tests and one will randomly yield results that, if taken alone, will appear above chance. This is clearly what you are hoping for.

Do enough trials tossing ten coins and you will have a trial where you guess at least seven correct.

But so what? What does that tell us? Nothing when viewed as a body of data.
But you aren't interested in viewing this scientifically, you only want to keep running trials until one randomly shows results above chance.

And at this point that would be the most damaging result of all because it might encourage you to waste further years on this nonsense.

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I don't spread my personal life here, but I do defend myself when others spread hurtful lies about me.

Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. You go around and tell everyone that you are a "star person". You go to great lengths to come up with loads of fantasy claims that you think make you special. You post wall-of-text's on a almost regular basis. And you lie. So, grow up and stop complaining that others don't buy your fantasy stories.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I have been entirely honest about everything. I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us about it. All I have done is be honest, but you people disbelieve it so much you can not even imagine that it may be the truth.

Oh my ... Has anyone told you already that your record seems stuck? Methinks it needs a little nudge. Your constant repeating of that kidney nonsense doesn't make it true.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is possible. And there is even less reason to believe that you are honest about it, given your posting history here and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I will defend myself against lies about me.

You seem to have a huge disconnect to reality. As so many others said already, the only one lying here is you. Repeatedly. You have no credibility left. I really hope that no one else falls for your utter nonsense and puts a lot of effort into testing you again. It would simply be a waste of time. And a dishonest one, for that matter.

What you have done with the IIG test is just disgusting. You wasted a lot of people's time there. In the end you spit them in the face and continue to claim your nonsense. Dishonesty at its purest form. Remember, it was you who told us beforehand that you would admit that a failed test there falsifies your claim. But you have chosen to not stick to your words. You made the whole process nothing more than a pointless charade.

Really, you should be ashamed for that. But to the contrary, you have the guts of coming back here and tell US that WE are the bad people? If anyone, it is you who should apologize and go away. You brought yourself into this situation, now you have to live with the consequences.

You know, at first i was skeptical about UY's website about you. But your actions since the IIG test just strongly confirmed to me that he is on the very right track. There is no honesty in you. You have to be stopped from wasting peoples time and energy. Sad as this is, but it is so.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Is there anyone else (another student in the class) who could verify this, as an eyewitness?

There is a student who publicly shed some light on the conflict between Anita and the Meanie Professor at StopVisionFromFeeling.com, and it was, not surprisingly, quite different than what Anita described.

Originally Posted by ReasonRox on StopVisionFromFeeling.com

ALthough this is my first post on the forum, I have been following this site since Jim's first article on Anita. I am also a student at UNCC, and I find it shameful that our science departments will now be associated with Anita and her ludicrous claims. Regarding the statement that a professor at UNCC physically and verbally harassed Anita, it is completely blown out of proportion (as usual). Anita and I were in Organic Chemistry together, and the unfortunate recipient of her claims was Dr. Jim Crosthwaite - he is now a member of the emeritus faculty. Dr. Crosthwaite was giving a review session right before the test, and Anita asked him to provide a list of the interactions we were supposed to look for when analyzing organic compounds. This is a process we had been working on for the past three weeks. Dr. Crosthwaite told her in no uncertain terms that if she needed that list, she was not prepared for the test and should leave to go study instead. Apparently, that was the wrong thing to say to someone who is obsessed with her own perfection. Throughout the semester, Anita continued to do poorly in the class. Rather than going to his office to receive help, she focused her efforts on a character assassination of Dr. Crosthwaite (ironic, isn't it?). By the end of the semester, she started a petition for students to sign stating Dr. Crosthwaite's verbal abuse made it impossible for students to learn in his class. She cornered my husband and I outside the chem lab and tried to get us to sign it because we were among the top students in the class. Would you believe the only people who signed it were the ones who did poorly? She fought very hard to tarnish his reputation and took her false claims to very high levels. Ultimately, she lost. It is very unfortunate she is up to her old antics again causing trouble for a professor who has really done nothing wrong.

While ReasonRox's post was enlightening, I noted that it didn't address Anita's claim that the Meanie Professor had been physically abusive towards herself and other students. I thought that was an important issue to clarify, so I asked ReasonRox about it...

Originally Posted by desertgal on StopVisionFromFeeling.com

...I'd like to ask you if you ever witnessed any incident where Dr. Crosthwaite was physically violent towards Anita or any other student? Excluding tapping her with papers-equating that with serious physical violence is just stupid on her part. I'm not trying to belabor the issue, but "hits his students" is a pretty serious charge to be spreading around the Internet, and I think Dr. Crosthwaite deserves to be defended on that point if there isn't any truth to it.

...to which ReasonRox replied:

Originally Posted by ReasonRox on StopVisionFromFeeling.com

I'm glad you mentioned the paper incident. Dr. Crosthwaite taught 2 sections of Organic Chemistry, but we all took our tests together. He made two separate tests for each section, so he spaced us every other seat. Anita sat at the desk assigned to the wrong section, so he more than likely tapped her on the head with a stack of papers to knock some sense in her when she refused to move (the tests were color coded and the colors were explained on the chalkboard at the front of the classroom). In answer to your question, I never witnessed anything that could constitute physical violence toward Anita or any other student. Dr. Crosthwaite was an amazing professor and did not deserve what Anita put him through.

While I am not aware of ReasonRox's identity and cannot vouch for her personally, her logical explanation, in contrast to Anita's repeated inconsistent ranting about the Meanie Professor, does, in my opinion, give RR credibility. As well, it doesn't appear that she had an axe to grind by relating her version of the episode-other than expressing embarrassment that Anita's behavior reflects poorly on the college they both attend-so there's no reason to doubt her honesty.

We know that Anita twists circumstances of past events in her favor, in order to play the victim. We've seen her do it firsthand, several times. I think it is safe to suspect, in light of RR's posts, that she has done the same here.

Pretty sad, Anita.

[wardenclyffe]

Has anyone been reading this thread?:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163935

It's a guy in Australia who claims to hear the thoughts of others. How does that apply here? Well here are a few quotes from him:

(while trying to guess the color of a mug on someone's table) "i think im wrong but im saying white with some writing."

(after his powers gave him a wrong answer) "no cause i know i was wrong, i was trying to go back and find out why i was wrong to be right the next time.."

(when someone tries to convince him that he might not have powers) "so you just trying to have a play with me, make fun of my claims and/or try to convince me otherwise that i cant.. ive already said its not gonna work"

Then there's this whole other thing he wrote on a different website:
http://www.psychic-experiences.com/r...php?story=2266

He says he's been under the care of a mental health professional in the past, but he no longer takes the medication they prescibed.

Does all this sound similar to (but obviously not identical) our friend who claims she is "not a typical woo?"

This other guy speaks English as his first language (I assume), but does not write nearly as well as VfF. I don't think he's in any kind of school, nor do I think he could currently handle being in school. They are not identical, but the similarities surprised me because they were so close in so many ways.

Ward

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by desertgal

While I am not aware of ReasonRox's identity and cannot vouch for her personally, her logical explanation, in contrast to Anita's repeated inconsistent ranting about the Meanie Professor, does, in my opinion, give RR credibility. As well, it doesn't appear that she had an axe to grind by relating her version of the episode-other than expressing embarrassment that Anita's behavior reflects poorly on the college they both attend-so there's no reason to doubt her honesty.

I can vouch for ReasonRox with a great degree of certainty. I was actually expecting to hear from someone giving me a first-person version of the story because two people at UNCC advised me it would be forthcoming. I am familiar those two people via Facebook, and I had a long video chat with one of them. These people assure me that ReasonRox was indeed in that class and that she is considered reliable.

I should note that ReasonRox first sent me her version privately. I asked if I could share it publicly, and she decided on her own to make that post. I've mentioned before that I am privy to information that I have not shared publicly. This is another example. Other examples include things Anita has shared privately. I told her last summer that I would not longer consider our private conversations private. For things before that, I don't believe I have revealed anything that I agreed to keep private. Anita tended to send me unsolicited IMs and ramble on without any response from me, so I regard that information not to be in confidence so to speak.

I have revealed some previously "private" details for various reasons such as Anita making claims that I knew to be misleading or contradictory to what she had told me already or to refute accusations she made about me. Considering that she has harassed me by phone, threatened lawsuits, and repeatedly contacted me after I told her not to, I don't feel that I owe her any degree of privacy.

Along these same lines, in the Alenara thread I played coy with Anita regarding how I came to know of her previous identity. Truth is, I received a tip. I do not know for certain who this person is, but I am 80% sure of its identity. I do have a valid e-mail address for the person. I am 100% sure it was not the people Anita accused. Well, I'm only 99% sure it wasn't the person who posted the Alenara videos - it could be a scam. I just can't see why that person would go through so much trouble to impersonate someone else.

There are still several things I am aware of that are not known publicly. Some I have shared privately with a few people, and they have kept quiet. However, there are still some things only known to myself and the person who told me.

Just in case anyone was curious.

[Skeptical Greg]

The " I was right, because I knew I was wrong . " claim from VFF is just mind bending.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ..

Your example is similar in that regard ..

[bookitty]

Ward, I noticed that as well. The Australian fellow is so dissimilar to VFF in nearly every way (except, possibly age) and yet there's a striking similarity in how they perceive their "powers" and excuse their misses. The main difference is that the Australian isn't claiming to go about this scientifically. His only recognition of any scientific method is that it might help him win one of the cash prizes.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

The " I was right, because I knew I was wrong . " claim from VFF is just mind bending.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ..

Your example is similar in that regard ..

Whose example?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by desertgal

Whose example?

I was responding to wardenclyffe's post..

Which was the last post at the time..

UncaYimmy's got interposed during the approval process..

[wardenclyffe]

rorylee (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163935) continues to channel VfF. Here are a couple of examples:

"if i fail, i fail but im not about to turn my back on what ive already experienced and known to be true and real infront of my eyes."

or

Explaining why he does not want to take his medication: "i dont want to silence it cause i know now, nearly 2 yrs later, its an ability and not a delusion or anything."

As bookitty has said, they have nothing in common (except their age). And yet they seem to have so much in common.

Not your typical woo?

Ward

[wardenclyffe]

Once again, our friend, rorylee (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=163935) delivers another classic VfF line.

You may remember a from a few posts up, he was trying to psychically determine the color of a mug that someone had sitting on their coffee table. His guess was:

"i think im wrong but im saying white with some writing."

Now, a week later, he is told that the mug was red with no writing. rorylee's response?

"and see i was right :P i knew it wasnt and i shoulda said red writing at the time, cause now it looks like *ahh his only saying it cause he knows now*. but yea thats what i thought of back then, anyway i was wrong yay :P"

While rorylee is a fairly cryptic writer, I think this can be translated two ways.

Number 1. "I knew the accuracy of my answers beforehand."

Number 2. "I really, really saw the missing kidney"

Not your typical woo.

Ward

[VisionFromFeeling]

As most of you are for understandable reasons concerned to see that I never become part of the woo economy, here is a letter from a woo enthusiast asking me to offer her medical advice, and my response to her. Here, her letter. I have removed names and other identifying information. I am sure she won't mind me sharing this, there is no way to trace back to who she is, and I consider that her privacy has been maintained:

Quote:

Hi Anita,

now I'd like to introduce myself a little bit: my name is [name removed], I live in [location removed]. Knowing a lot of great things about you, your unconditional Love and tremendous paranormal, actually *normal for me*, abilities (all from my best friend [name removed, back then of [location removed] - now living in [location removed]), a few days ago I decided to find you. On some, probably spiritual(?), level I know that you can help me. It wasn't even difficult to find you - a good sign for me: )) I have a lot of health problems, and nobody actually can tell me what it is and help me. I tried different natural therapies but the outcome is miserable. It's been 10 years of living in pain and other poor conditions of my body. Despite my bad health I have a lot of night dreams (sometimes veeeeeeeeeeeery strange) and visions. Additionally I'm having an uncertain life situation right now. So as you can see I have lots and lots of problems, but I truly believe, that you can help me somehow. I wish I could chat with you, rather than write emails, because my English is very poor, but it's up to you. Feel free, please, to call me at [number removed], or leave me a message here or on skype - my skype name is [name removed]. I hope we'll contact each other pretty soon.

[name and ending phrase removed]

To post this is not intended as offensive toward the person who wrote this to me.

And here is my reply:

Quote:

Hi [name removed],

Thank you for writing, and I am sorry to hear about your various problems, with health and otherwise. A lot has changed for me since I did those seminars on living on light in [location removed]. I am today a science student at a university in North Carolina. I am studying both Chemistry and Physics, as a matter of fact I am specializing in the scientific study of light, called optics, or photonics. Today I have taken my love for light and love for what light can do from the strictly spiritual and New Age and into the science laboratory.

I am of course concerned for you, and of course it makes me want to help you somehow, if only I could. Problem is, giving someone specific health advise is regulated by law and requires professional credentials. All this to ensure that "psychics" don't give people false advise, whether knowingly or unknowingly, charge money for useless services, or destroy people's foundation in reality, science, medicine, and in answers and solutions that are proven and established scientifically, and practiced by highly skilled professionals.

This entire paragraph in one sentence: I am not allowed to give out health advice.

I have been contacted by a person before, who asked me for health advise. I then decided, that the only way I could do so, is if I meet with them in person. I would also bring a credible third person who will document what I do and don't do, so that there may be no suspicion of me having done anything that would be considered illegal, harmful, or unethical. And the only way that I could ever dispense health information to someone is that I write it into a letter that I will mail to that person's medical provider.

[Added in JREF post: I did not meet with this person referenced to here!]

That letter to their doctor will then explain that I have attempted to obtain this information through some sort of intuition, and that the doctor may decide whether it provides any helpful hints that they have not thought of before - unlikely - and that may fit with the symptoms of their patient. They would then practice their professional judgement to determine whether what I have written provides any possible clue as to a patient's diagnose or treatment, and whether the symptoms already established by them, and with some possible new lead, would warrant the expense of various testing to verify or dismiss those.

In other words: I can not give medical advice to a person, regardless of whether I would be correct or incorrect in a particular case, because I am not a licensed medical practitioner, and also because if the advice that I give is incorrect and is acted on, it will lead to harm, not recovery.

I would only ever provide this information to the doctor of that person. That is why there would be a third person with me to verify that I have not given any medical information to a person. Of course, what's to say that a psychic would not then send a letter to the person they were attempting to sense information about? I suppose there is no way to prove that that does not happen, although I would know that I would have taken all measures conceivable to ensure that a person does not receive any "intuitively" derived health advice.

[Also added in JREF post: Truth is, there is no way to confirm that someone has not dispensed "intuitive" advice to persons. I could have had a psychic practice for years now and been making tons of money and no one would necessarily know about it. However that is not the case.]

I know this is not what you want to hear. I do not, and do not attempt to, sense health information from a distance, such as over the internet. And I would not give you that information, it would have to be given to your doctor. But even that is something I am very hesitant to doing.

Regardless of any benefit that I may bring about by doing such intuitive readings on a person's health, there are general risks that need to be respected and that apply to all "psychics" as a whole; regardless of whether one might be better than others, with any ounce of sense of responsibility in such a person, they must all abide by the restrictions that are set upon such work. All in the best interest of persons who seek out help from those who claim to have any insight that conventional medicine might not.

In other words, I can not and may not do "psychic readings" over the internet. And if we ever meet, I would certainly write down my impressions, but those would be mailed to your doctor, and your doctor could not tell you what I wrote.

This is all in your best interest. Because there are "psychics" out there who can not perform as advertised or as intended, and no matter how accurate I might be, or how much I would otherwise like to offer advice to someone like you, my commitment to science, conventional medicine (even with its flaws), and morals prevent me from doing so.

All in one sentence: I do not do readings over the internet or the phone, I do not do readings at all, if I would do a reading I would need to meet in person, and there would be a third person there to verify that I do not tell you what I sense, and that information would only be sent to your doctor and you would not be told about it, you would only receive medical advice from your doctor, and if my suggestions would have been useful to the doctor to provide leads in diagnose or treatment plan, it would still be carried out in accordance to conventional medicine.

If I am ever in [location removed], I will let you know. I have taken a big wonderful leap from my interests in New Age and am now applying all of my creativity and ideas within conventional science. It works.

Wishing you only the very best,

Anita Ikonen

I do not expect to participate in any discussion that may follow. I am quite busy with school. However I did want to provide you with this example that hopefully exemplifies what my intentions are, and what they are not, with the claims that I experience. But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science. I would also strongly encourage any of you to take on the role of undercover Skeptics and write to me a fabricated letter asking for medical advice, just to see what my authentic reply would be. In case you question the authenticity of the correspondence posted here, which you rightfully should do, as Skeptics.

Happy New Year everyone,
VisionFromFeeling

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science.

That's just so wrong. And coming from a person who claims to get an education in science, makes me worry.

Science is not confined. It has no "confines". All it has are certain limitations _at_the_current_time_ that reflect the fact that we do not know everything yet.

And then there are boundaries to what is physically possible. That has nothing to do with science in general having boundaries. Quite the opposite is true: in such cases science extended the knowledge up to a point where it became clear that such and such is a physical limitation. We do not know all of these limitations yet. Others have been changed, according to what new insights came around.

However, we know that eye-sight alone can not penetrate the human skin in a way you describe and claim to be able to do. But we know that we can use certain radiations to do that. However, these are radiations that do not appear naturally in the required intensity. So we know that a human without the help of more or less sophisticated machinery is not able to look inside another human (unless he cuts her/him open to look around). These are just the physical limitations that our eyes have. We simply lack the "sensors" to do otherwise.

If science as such would be confined, we all would still believe that the earth is flat with the sun revolving around it. Oh, and we would not be able to talk about that here anyway, because computers and internet would not exist.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

.....here is a letter from a woo enthusiast asking me to offer her medical advice,

That letter sounds contrived.

Why should we believe you actually received such a letter ?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I do not expect to participate in any discussion that may follow. I am quite busy with school. However I did want to provide you with this example that hopefully exemplifies what my intentions are, and what they are not, with the claims that I experience. But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science. I would also strongly encourage any of you to take on the role of undercover Skeptics and write to me a fabricated letter asking for medical advice, just to see what my authentic reply would be. In case you question the authenticity of the correspondence posted here, which you rightfully should do, as Skeptics.

Happy New Year everyone,
VisionFromFeeling

This is a bit odd. It implies that you thought the letter was fake. So your incredibly adamant response is a bit suspect. A simple, "Thank you but no." would have sufficed.

However, I do applaud the more scientific evaluation of your claims and your determination to put the needs of the patient first. If there is one thing we know from the IIG test, it is that your "vision" is not entirely accurate. Recognizing that a false reading can do harm is very important.

[wardenclyffe]

While I'm certain that VfF does indeed receive mail from true believers. I'm also pretty certain that it's rare. It's probably more rare since her test with IIG. Earlier, she published communication that she received from someone saying that the IIG test was rigged and she defended IIG. I believe that that was real, and VfF should be commended for standing up for IIG and not falling into more predictable accusations of wrong-doing (see Connie Sonne).

This latest note is probably also real. It takes all kinds. But her desire to have skeptics write fake letters to her seems a bit odd. I'm certain she has to look at all correspondence from someone new with suspicion. Maybe if she gets us all to write fake letters and get it out of our systems, then she can trust her inbox again in a month or so.

Ward

[UncaYimmy]

Your post, VFF, is nothing more than posturing in an effort to keep people seeing the true danger you pose with your antics. Your breatharian site is still up, and it's still promoting factually incorrect nonsense like "Many nutrients are formed from prana, and many of these can combine to form yet other nutrients. But a problem I found is that there is the requirement of an almost electric nutrient in order to form some minerals and all metal nutrients. Such as zinc, magnesium and other. This metal is quite dense and electric in energy. I haven't yet found its sorce. But I can say that it is not found in foods. No foods contain this important metal building block for metals and minerals. Most of the food we eat is cooked and insufficient with this particular nutrient." What a crock!

Your site also spreads nonsense about prana as being some real source of nutrition. In fact you claim to have found prana and say, "Prana is golden yellow, and vibrates in air and matter." You wrote this in 2008, and say on the same page, "I am blessed with what I at least perceive to be extrasensory perception and am able to experience matter, molecules, atoms, and various forms of light on my own without the use of instruments." How many times have you told us that you're just "investigating" experiences and don't conclude that you have ESP?

Sorry, but your post is just a weak attempt to fool a new crop of people who are not familiar with your history of lies, misleading statements, and factually inaccurate claims. People have died from breatharianism, and yet your breatharian site is still up. Even if your exchange is real, you still have thousands of words giving people advice on nutrition that is wholly unfounded scientifically. You're using your claims of ESP and VisionFromFeeling to fool people into thinking you have some special insight that is beyond medical science. You even contacted a migraine sufferers support group to attempt to heal them.

You're dangerous as VisionFromFeeling and even more dangerous as Alenara. I hope my website stops your Alenara the Breatharian and VisionFromFeeling characters from doing any actual harm. I'd say further harm, but that would only be a supposition based on how popular Alenara is to the poor folks who buy into that nonsense.

[Ashles]

I'm a bit lost in this thread now. Does Anita have any claims left?

Last I understood she had taken the very, very best ability of all of her myriad claims, tested it and failed.

Isn't this all over now?

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by bookitty

This is a bit odd. It implies that you thought the letter was fake. So your incredibly adamant response is a bit suspect. A simple, "Thank you but no." would have sufficed.

However, I do applaud the more scientific evaluation of your claims and your determination to put the needs of the patient first. If there is one thing we know from the IIG test, it is that your "vision" is not entirely accurate. Recognizing that a false reading can do harm is very important.

I think that even alluding to the possibility that "psychic abilities" exist can be exceedingly damaging to vulnerable people.

I'd have preferred a much more succinct and incisive disavowal of any such "abilities," and any bogus "natural remedies" as well.


M.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by wardenclyffe

Earlier, she published communication that she received from someone saying that the IIG test was rigged and she defended IIG. I believe that that was real, and VfF should be commended for standing up for IIG and not falling into more predictable accusations of wrong-doing (see Connie Sonne).

Sorry, can't agree. Since the demonstration, the "Alenara" information has come to light. Considering that it is now apparent that the IIG test was merely Anita's attention seeking capstone to her pretend 'scientific' investigation, and a total sham on her part, her defense of the authenticity of the demonstration and the IIG falls rather flat. How do you commend someone for blatant hypocrisy?

(Which is not intended to suggest that the IIG rigged the demonstration.)

[LightinDarkness]

And just when you thought the VFF saga had gone away for a while...its BACK! It like a zombie movie or something.

She keeps posting here to get attention, because she knows she will get it. If the letter is real, a simple "Sorry, as the IGG proved I do not have paranormal abilities and it would unethical for me to give you any sort of readings based off the delusion I have powers. PLEASE seek help from a licensed medical professional as soon as possible." That's it. No need to post it here, no need to provide commentary for us, nothing.

Of course, that would mean Anita would have come to terms with her (lack) of superpowers. From what we know about her past woo shenanigans, I expect shes even now working on her next new age character.

[Farencue]

The writer of this fake letter is NOT someone who has "poor English" as claimed.
Look at the spelling and grammar, it is nearly spot on. Oh, unless Anita of course fixed all the mistakes, and substituted words like "tremendous" for the original ones

And, Alenara/Anita - you will need to post the original copy of this letter, with identifying information blacked out, for me to believe one word you say.

By the way, you did not need to remove the location of your seminars, we all know you conducted them in Poznan, Poland.

[VisionFromFeeling]

In November 21 2009 I had a paranormal demonstration ("preliminary test") with the Independent Investigations Group IIG West. The demonstration was to test my paranormal claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney just by looking at their clothed backs. The test had a total of three trials. Each trial had six persons, one of which was missing a kidney. My answer had to state which person is missing a kidney and whether it was the left or the right kidney missing. To pass the test all three of my answers had to be correct.

My answer in trial 1 was incorrect. I chose the wrong person. But I knew in advance (ie. well before the results were in) that it was incorrect and stated this as soon as the six subjects of that trial had left the stage, immediately after that trial.

My answer in trial 2 was correct. I knew in advance that my answer was correct. I was very confident in my answer, or, the perceptions that led me to make that answer were absolutely compelling, to the point where I several times asserted that if I were incorrect in this trial, I would be fully convinced that my claim is falsified, and that my claim would definitely be over. I proceeded to be correct in that trial.

My answer in trial 3 was incorrect. I picked the right person but the wrong side. Again, I knew that it was incorrect in advance. I was very tired by trial 3 and came very close to cancelling that trial early. I wrote on my draft papers that I was tired and those papers are with the IIG.

Here is what I had to say about trial 2__________________

VFF - "This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"
James - "You said this one went better?"
VFF - "I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious, but this one I never saw, either, but this one was more apparent, and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense. So, that's nice."
VFF - "This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and I can't do it."
VFF - "I feel good about this..."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 1 time 01:37:56 to 01:40:13

Trial 2_____________________________________________

VFF - "I'm excited about the second one, because..."
VFF - "As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all of the kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well. I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me. I'll be darned if it's the other one. Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."
VFF - "The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 1 time 01:42:20 to 01:44:26

And what I say about all trials_________________________

VFF - "I know I failed, but..."
Mark Edward - "No!"
VFF - "Yes! Yes! I got very tired on the third round, it, I could just, it just stopped working."
Mark - "Really?"
VFF - "I feel myself using the back of the head, which is where images are formed, in the brain. It just shut off, and I was getting headaches, and everything."
Mark - "Well also because you're focusing, your concentration..."
VFF - "It was hard, I had to just pick one. Why? Do you know the answers?"
Mark - "No I don't know anything, I'm just saying..."
VFF - "I feel good about the second round, even though it was between two. First round..."
Mark - "Why do you feel good about it?"
VFF - "Because it was between two, and, it, it, well..."
Mark - "Did it happen when you're focusing?" (I think that's what Mark said)
VFF - "No, but it was confirmed many times. (Can't hear what I say next.) Oh my gosh!"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 2 time 00:06:26 to 00:07:36
__________________________________________________

And like I said at the demonstration, had I been wrong in trial 2, the claim would have definitely been over, and that would have been nice. I hope to receive copies of the draft papers from the IIG soon. IIG's Steve filmed the demonstration and also before and after and promised to make a documentary so I am looking forward to that too, more of what was said in between the trials in the breaks should be on Steve's film whereas the internet UStream video had the sound cut off during breaks. I will be posting additional sequences. I apologize for the poor video quality.

I failed the IIG test. I am not making my fail into a pass. All this means is I am having another test. And if I can not do what I claim, an additional test will only emphasize that. The next test will be much more rigorous in test design, so if I can not do this, that will be more obvious in the next one.

Here is some of what Mark Edward had to say about the test:

Originally Posted by Mark

I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes alloted, told me point blank that she "felt very positive " about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim [James Underdown] then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused. Luck? Chance? ….or Woo? We were all surprised. My magical mind thought for a moment that the casual aside she had made to me (almost as if to herself) was a little …weird. Just a tad. She never said anything about the first test, so I was piqued. She was tired out and resigned about the third test before the results were in- and made a comment to me expressing the sentiment that she probably had missed that one.

Originally Posted by Mark

Watching Anita was very entertaining. In the process of observing her I even found a few things to cop for my own act! [...] She was confident, but not over-confident, didn't show any of the usual telltale signs of a woo priestess one might expect and carried on her conversations with a shyness that was disarming. She was well-dressed, attractive, educated and often self effacing. A far cry from a Sylvia Browne copy cat.

Originally Posted by Mark

One thing I really liked was her intense "psychic" concentration. This was eventually followed by a sort of slight nod to herself, as if some other part of her was agreeing with a voice in her head that was guiding her. [...] This was usually an affirmative nod and I never saw a "no" response from her. [...] As I watched her it was hard to see any signs of outright charlatanism.

Source, heavily excerpted and taken out of context, of course.

www.visionfromfeeling.com
www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html

[VisionFromFeeling]

It's official, I am now a bad psychic! BadPsychics

I have my name in the proud list among other heavyweights such as Carla Baron, John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and Geller. How did this happen?

I started investigating an experience that is possibly related to my synesthesia that has me perceive health information in people. Interesting cases of accuracy that I could not explain led me to investigate, and I decided to make that a public and open investigation, why not, for educational purposes. Aren't paranormal claimants shrouded in mystery? Rarely allowing insight into the secrets behind their claims, refusing to answer all questions, and avoiding to have real tests with Skeptics. I thought, why not allow some insight into what is going on.

I have never offered psychic readings, I have not made any money off this paranormal claim and have in fact spent quite a bit of money in my skeptical investigation. I refuse to tell people, other than Skeptics, about the perceptions I have of them, carefully designing a study that I had to ensure that none of the participants find out what I perceived of them.

I have never discussed my claim or investigation with other woos, other than when approached by them, to enthuse to them about Skepticism. I turn down requests for psychic readings, explaining that I am not a confirmed psychic, that in a psychic reading my perceptions would not have any guaranteed accuracy and that they are better off seeing their conventional medical provider for their concerns.

I must have done something to earn my place in the list of Bad Psychics, but I sure don't know what that is. Most woos have to work very hard to earn their place on such a prestigeous list. Oh, what a privilege.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

To pass the test all three of my answers had to be correct.

My answer in trial 1 was incorrect.

The rest of your wall of text is utterly irrelevant. You agreed to a test. You agreed that the test would prove you could not actually do as you claimed if you failed it. You failed. End of story.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I started investigating an experience that is possibly related to my synesthesia that has me perceive health information in people. Interesting cases of accuracy that I could not explain led me to investigate

As we all already know, you do not have synaesthesia, even if you did it could not possibly explain the experiences you claim to have had, and you have never had a single case of accuracy, let alone an interesting one. I'm sure you're upset that your threads are no longer on the first page, but that is not a good reason to yet again post things that everyone, including yourself, know aren't actually true.

Quote:

I have not made any money off this paranormal claim

Are you sure about that, Alenara?

Quote:

Most woos have to work very hard to earn their place on such a prestigeous list.

And indeed you have. After all, we know you've been promoting the same nonsense since at least 2002. I believe you were 18 then? 8 years of giving talks, writing web pages, trying to scam skeptical organisations, and so on. Sounds like working hard to me. In fact, you've worked so hard at it that you've managed to get on the list before even managing to convince anyone that you're anything other than a fraud and a liar. Which is quite an achievement really. Congratulations. You've gone straight from nobody to exposed, without ever passing the "famous psychic" stage that most woos aim for.

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

...blah blah blah, same excuses as ever blah blah...

As has been explained to you over and over, your confidence on each stage of the test is and has always been entirely and utterly irrelevent.

It is a very poor science student who cannot understand that.

You make a claim to score X. If you fail to score X you fail the test.

The whole 'confidence' game is a painfully transparent method of weighting results in an attempt to introduce significance where there is none.

Unfortunately for you and your claim, you cannot talk your way into having better results than you in reality have.

And again I find it interesting how controlled tests compare to all your amazing anecdotal stories from last year.

As I wrote right back in the original thread, your claims, behaviour and interpretation of your own results are no different to those we have seen many times before. Amazing abilities that disappear to nothing when actually tested (but oh how many creative excuses we see generated afterwards...)

Same old same old.

[skeen]

You do not have synesthesia.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

In November 21 2009 I had a paranormal demonstration ("preliminary test") with the Independent Investigations Group IIG West. The demonstration was to test my paranormal claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney just by looking at their clothed backs. The test had a total of three trials. Each trial had six persons, one of which was missing a kidney. My answer had to state which person is missing a kidney and whether it was the left or the right kidney missing. To pass the test all three of my answers had to be correct.

My answer in trial 1 was incorrect. I chose the wrong person. But I knew in advance (ie. well before the results were in) that it was incorrect and stated this as soon as the six subjects of that trial had left the stage, immediately after that trial.

My answer in trial 2 was correct. I knew in advance that my answer was correct. I was very confident in my answer, or, the perceptions that led me to make that answer were absolutely compelling, to the point where I several times asserted that if I were incorrect in this trial, I would be fully convinced that my claim is falsified, and that my claim would definitely be over. I proceeded to be correct in that trial.

My answer in trial 3 was incorrect. I picked the right person but the wrong side. Again, I knew that it was incorrect in advance. I was very tired by trial 3 and came very close to cancelling that trial early. I wrote on my draft papers that I was tired and those papers are with the IIG.

Here is what I had to say about trial 2__________________

VFF - "This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"
James - "You said this one went better?"
VFF - "I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious, but this one I never saw, either, but this one was more apparent, and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense. So, that's nice."
VFF - "This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and I can't do it."
VFF - "I feel good about this..."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 1 time 01:37:56 to 01:40:13

Trial 2_____________________________________________

VFF - "I'm excited about the second one, because..."
VFF - "As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all of the kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well. I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me. I'll be darned if it's the other one. Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."
VFF - "The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 1 time 01:42:20 to 01:44:26

And what I say about all trials_________________________

VFF - "I know I failed, but..."
Mark Edward - "No!"
VFF - "Yes! Yes! I got very tired on the third round, it, I could just, it just stopped working."
Mark - "Really?"
VFF - "I feel myself using the back of the head, which is where images are formed, in the brain. It just shut off, and I was getting headaches, and everything."
Mark - "Well also because you're focusing, your concentration..."
VFF - "It was hard, I had to just pick one. Why? Do you know the answers?"
Mark - "No I don't know anything, I'm just saying..."
VFF - "I feel good about the second round, even though it was between two. First round..."
Mark - "Why do you feel good about it?"
VFF - "Because it was between two, and, it, it, well..."
Mark - "Did it happen when you're focusing?" (I think that's what Mark said)
VFF - "No, but it was confirmed many times. (Can't hear what I say next.) Oh my gosh!"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From UStream Part 2 time 00:06:26 to 00:07:36
__________________________________________________

And like I said at the demonstration, had I been wrong in trial 2, the claim would have definitely been over, and that would have been nice. I hope to receive copies of the draft papers from the IIG soon. IIG's Steve filmed the demonstration and also before and after and promised to make a documentary so I am looking forward to that too, more of what was said in between the trials in the breaks should be on Steve's film whereas the internet UStream video had the sound cut off during breaks. I will be posting additional sequences. I apologize for the poor video quality.

I failed the IIG test. I am not making my fail into a pass. All this means is I am having another test. And if I can not do what I claim, an additional test will only emphasize that. The next test will be much more rigorous in test design, so if I can not do this, that will be more obvious in the next one.

Here is some of what Mark Edward had to say about the test:






Source, heavily excerpted and taken out of context, of course.

www.visionfromfeeling.com
www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html

You can spin, fold or mutilate it any way you want. You failed.

[Maia]

This entire thing is incredibly sad. I wish that Anita would just drop it all and get the help she needs.

That being said, I have to admit that I've rarely laughed so hard at anything as I did at the following info from the Wiki page on inedia:

Quote:

Wiley Brooks is a purported breatharian, and founder of the "Breatharian Institute of America". He was first introduced to the public in 1980, when he appeared on the TV show That's Incredible!.[15] Wiley has stopped teaching in recent years, so he can "devote 100% of his time on solving the problem as to why he needed to eat some type of food to keep his physical body alive and allow his light body to manifest completely."[16] Wiley Brooks believes that he has found "four major deterrents" which prevented him from living without food: "people pollution", "food pollution", "air pollution" and "electro pollution".[16] In 1983 he was allegedly observed leaving a Santa Cruz 7-Eleven with a Slurpee, hot dog and Twinkies.[17]

He told Colors magazine in 2003 that he periodically breaks his fasting with a cheeseburger and a cola, explaining that when he's surrounded by junk culture and junk food, consuming them adds balance.[18] On his website, Brooks explains that his future followers must first prepare by combining the junk food diet with the meditative incantation of five magic "fifth-dimensional" words which appear on his website.[19][20] In the "5D Q&A" section of his website Brooks explains that cows are fifth-dimensional beings or higher that help mankind achieve fifth-dimensional status by converting three-dimensional food to five-dimensional food (beef) while in the "Holy Cows" section of the website a picture of cows with glowing eyes is provided so that the readers can sense the energy of the picture.[21] In the "Question and Answer" section of his website, Brooks explains that the "Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese" meal from McDonald's possesses a special "base frequency" and that he thus recommends it as occasional food for beginning breatharians.[22] He then goes on to reveal that the secret of Diet Coke is "liquid light".[22] Prospective disciples are asked after some time on this junk food/magic word preparation to revisit his website in order to test if they can feel the magic.[20]

He further mentions that those interested can call him on his fifth-dimensional phone number in order to get the correct pronunciation of the five magic words.[20] In case the line is busy, prospective recruits are asked to meditate on the five magic words for a few minutes, and then try calling again;[20] he does not explain how anyone can meditate with words they cannot yet pronounce. Brooks's "institute", in the past, charged varying fees to prospective clients who wished to learn how to live without food, which ranged from US$15 million to US$25 million. A payment plan was also offered.[23] These charges have historically been presented as limited time offers exclusively for billionaires.[24][25] New lower fees have been set to US$100,000 with an initial deposit of US$10,000.[1]

And I never would have found it, if not for this thread.

[UncaYimmy]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I started investigating an experience that is possibly related to my synesthesia that has me perceive health information in people.

That's a lie. Your Alenara site is littered with bold claims such as, "I can also 'scan' nutrients - not real proof for others, but helped me find the connection between chakras, nutrients, glands, aging, breatharianism etc. I noticed that iodine, the nutrient which we need to support our thyroid gland, is also a blue flame in its energy! The blue flame of iodine is the same wavelength as the blue flame of our throat chakra!"

You've believed in this stuff for years - long before you contacted the IIG. This "investigation" is a sham.

Quote:

I have never offered psychic readings,

That's a lie. You were soliciting people on your website to contact regarding psychic readings. You contacted a migraine support group to "treat" them, and part of your "treatment" involves using your VFF abilities to scan their brains.

Quote:

I have never discussed my claim or investigation with other woos,

That's a lie. Your Alenara site is evidence of that as is your VFF website. You also toured Poland and gave lectures about breatharianism, which includes touting your "special' abilities.

The evidence is there for all to see:
Alenara, VisionFromFeeling, Anita Ikonen

Don't think you can go quiet for a little bit and capture a brand new audience.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I failed the IIG test. I am not making my fail into a pass.

Correct. You failed. And you neglected to make your promised announcement that your failure in the IIG show would put an end to your magical x-ray vision claims. Everyone recalls you stated clearly and unambiguously that when you failed that test you would make such an announcement.

Many dozens of people invested much time and effort over many months trying to help you assemble a reasonable test of your claimed magical powers. By neglecting to carry through as a reasonable scientist, you disappointed every single one of those people when you failed the test and still refused to make that announcement. You destroyed any credibility that you may have been seeking as a skeptic. Even now, months later, you still haven't thanked everyone and you still haven't apologized to anyone. That is not how a reasonable scientist acts.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

Given your request that people on this forum make a skeptical assessment of your honesty, and applying that skepticism to how you've handled your failure of the IIG show, many of us continue to take the skeptical position that you're a liar and a fraud.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

(Gee, I am still about the only paranormal claimant in history who was able to spell. Or write full sentences.)

No. You're not. But I'm sure you've already convinced yourself that you are - without any evidence to back it up. You never do let facts get in the way of a claim.

[Belz...]

This and the following posts split from Telepathy Test in MDC "Telepathy Test Feb 20" thread.

Posted By:Tricky

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Hi Regen! I am *the* Anita Ikonen/VisionFromFeeling who had a test with the IIG on November 21st 2009! I wanted to let you know that the IIG are wonderful people, my test was set up and carried out very professionally, they are highly trustworthy, honest, and dependable and I expect the same for your test. I failed my test fair and square and if you do have the telepathic skills you proclaim then the IIG test will be sure to show that.

Best of luck to you and I hope you enjoy your test as I did mine! If you fail, it probably won't be their fault so don't blame the IIG for it or you will break my heart! I will be watching you on the 20th wishing both you and the IIG all the best.

(Gee, I am still about the only paranormal claimant in history who was able to spell. Or write full sentences.)

Hi, vision. I haven't followed your story for quite a while, now. Are you saying that you failing your test convinced you that you have no such ability ?

[Belz...]

Vision, could you answer my question ? It was not meant to be insulting or anything. I'd just like to know how your test affected your belief in your abilities, if it did.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Vision, could you answer my question ? It was not meant to be insulting or anything. I'd just like to know how your test affected your belief in your abilities, if it did.

Well certainly, only that I have been warned before when ever discussing my claims in other threads. So, be warned, your posts and this one of mine may be moved all of a sudden to other, more relevant threads. I was just expressing that Regen's thread is perhaps not the one to discuss my claims in, not that I felt offended by your questions, I would actually be happy to answer them.

My paranormal claim is that when I look at people I can feel a vibrational landscape across them, which then translates into corresponding visual and other forms of felt perception in my mind. The images depict the inside of human bodies and can contain a great deal of detail regarding health information. These perceptions are nothing but impressions, similar to when we look at a painting and it evokes a "feeling", so to say these health perceptions are not part of my otherwise normal sensory intake nor do I assume accuracy or reality to these health perceptions. I regard them in the same way I do my other forms of synesthesia, such as seeing colors associated to reading numbers or letters. I know that "e" is not really orange-yellow, even though I live with the perception of this in my mind.

If it weren't for a sometimes uncanny accuracy of my medical perceptions, I would never have had a reason to formulate the paranormal claim around them and to begin to investigate.

Before having the official IIG test, I studied the perceptions to see how various conditions would affect the formation and accuracy of the perceptions. This study process involved doing "readings" on participating Skeptics, and also some non-Skeptics but in ways that ensured that they not find out what I would have perceived about their health, so that no one could be harmed by incorrect information regarding their health. From the study process, I learned among many other things that I prefer to see a person from behind, that it does not work in darkness, and that I do perceive through clothes, and based on what I learned I was then finally able to formulate a test protocol for our IIG test.

When I had the IIG test I was surprised to encounter the diversity in how quickly I would perceive kidneys as present or absent in a particular person. In some, the perception came very quickly, and in others it took much longer. This contributed to my difficulties in trial 1, and involves an additional parameter that affects my performance; one I could not have foreseen and had not encountered during my study of my claim.

So I basically learned that larger persons do take more effort to feel into and perceive from. See my comments on this at http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/stu...IIGPreliminary

By trial 3 I was exhausted and also learned more about what my limits are in attempting to practice my claim.

Interestingly, immediately after trial 1 I knew my answer in trial 1 would be incorrect. I also knew that trial 2 would be correct, and that trial 3 would be incorrect. I correctly "knew" the accuracy or inaccuracy of each trial. I was so confident in my answer from trial 2 to be correct, that I several times announced that would I be incorrect then the claim would "definitely be over", and also that that "would have been nice".

I definitely evaluated my claim during the test. In trial 2 I succeeded to deliver a conclusion in my perceptions that I held to be compelling enough to represent the claim and I fully allowed this trial to be able to falsify the claim were I to be incorrect.

Can I falsify the claim by giving the wrong answer in a trial when I already "knew" that my answer in that trial would be wrong? My claim has never been to always get the answers, but that when I do claim to see something and when it is compelling to me, then it has had uncanny accuracy that I can not deny or explain.

I can not falsify or end the claim just yet, there are still more questions around my experience of "feeling health information when I look at a person" that I need to answer by having another test. My goal is to reach a point where the claim is obviously falsified, even to the point of convincing any woo of such, and to at that point have gathered the relevant data around what conditions finally falsified it and how it was concluded as falsified.

I can not expect to arrive at some verified ability of extrasensory perception. This still provides me with an interesting case study of an unusual experience, and by studying it properly I hope that my work can add a contribution to Skepticism overall, and at the conclusion of my claim I can then focus my attention to the claims made by others and devote the same amount of exhaustive investigation into those in order to also see those investigated into completion in a manner to be satisfactory both to any Skeptic and to any woo. (And it takes a lot to convince a woo that woo isn't real!)

I hold the IIG test that I had to be inconclusive. Yes I failed to meet the criteria for passing the IIG test and for proceeding toward their official test but what did I learn about the claim, and what was revealed about the claim in the test? My goal is not to pass as some psychic, and I do not offer psychic readings. The objective is to learn more about my experience, ultimately reaching at a point of falsifying a claim of extrasensory perception.

I still recognize an interesting experience that needs further study still.

So to answer your question, I entered the IIG test not having arrived at a belief that I truly do possess some ability of accessing health information that by any known means should not be accessible to human sensory perception under the conditions implemented during a test... And I left the test still not having arrived at a final conclusion as to whether I can do this or not. And as for how the IIG test has changed my beliefs regarding my claim, it has further enforced my belief that in this I have something fascinating to look into, as well as all the many things I learned about the claim by being given the opportunity to experience the claim during this test setting.

So, the claim survives for a little bit longer. I have not confirmed some psychic ability, nor do I feel the claim would have falsified itself in its performance during our IIG test. The claim and investigation go on, and I will be happy to put the claim to rest as soon as I form an utterly compelling perception of the presence or absence of a kidney to be able to proclaim that it becomes capable of falsifying the claim, and to find that such a perception would be incorrect. Only an incorrect perception that I was convinced of, can falsify the claim in my opinion, or at least settle my own curiosity in it.

To be unable to detect each case in which an ailment is said to occur, does not in my opinion falsify the claim, as the claim is that when I do claim to perceive something, it would then be accurate. Not that I would be able to perceive all things and always.

Phew. Sorry Regen, let's hope the moderators move this post into where ever it better belongs.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

<snip>


The images depict the inside of human bodies and can contain a great deal of detail regarding health information. These perceptions are nothing but impressions, similar to when we look at a painting and it evokes a "feeling", so to say these health perceptions are not part of my otherwise normal sensory intake nor do I assume accuracy or reality to these health perceptions.


<snip>

my bolding


This is something that I've never understood about this particular claim.

Even if you'd scored 100% correct at the IIG demonstration and ascertained where all the kidneys were, how can this be desribed as 'health perceptions'?

Even if someone tells you that they have a missing kidney, you are no closer to 'perceiving health information' about them.

Even a fully trained, competent and experienced renal specialist could not make any diagnose from just that one piece of information.

[Belz...]

Thanks for the clarification. I would've been very surprised if you had changed your mind about it. Most people simply can't.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Hi, vision. I haven't followed your story for quite a while, now. Are you saying that you failing your test convinced you that you have no such ability ?

No. Actually you'll notice from the excuses she just presented in this thread, she failed the test, 100%, and that convinced her all the more that she might have magical x-ray vision.

Also you may recall that a handful of people who never claimed to have any magical powers got the same results on the test as she did. How? Maybe it was just blind luck. Interesting that the non-psychics could get correct answers by guessing, yet the self proclaimed possessor of magical abilities thinks her lucky guesses mean her powers could be real.

As to the follow up, rather than take the high road and be scientific about it, she chose to spit on the dozens and dozens of people who tried to help her, and she hand-waved away the failure. Her rationalization, backpedaling, and excuses can be found in this thread and on her own web site. She rejected her failure even though she had clearly stated before the test that the protocol was perfect, and she unambiguously stated that failure would end her claims of magical abilities. It was a lie.

Her response was predicted by several members of this forum. And it didn't take anyone with psychic powers to make those correct predictions. On the other hand, after having repeatedly proven herself a liar, it was easy. Nobody really expected her to carry through with any honesty or scientific integrity after the test.