Vision From Feeling

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Madalch:
Phosphorus and Nitrogen.

Okay- I'll keep that in mind should you wish to try it again.

I think I'm restricted to phosphates for phosphorus, though- I no longer have access to triphenylphosphine and all sorts of funky phosphorus compounds that were involved in my thesis.

A follow-up question: are there any elements which you can't sense at all, or are significantly less obvious? If, say, chlorine has a distinct signature, then ammonium nitrate would be a better nitrogen-containing sample than ammonium chloride.

PS- don't capitalize the names of elements or compounds. They're not proper names.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

It is like an ability that is hard to control, when it comes to chemical detection. When it comes to health information it is entirely different, which again is why I want to test my ability on detection of health information.

But the chemicals are so much easier to standardize.....

[nathan]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

volatile:

Oops! I would never intend to skip a question! Thanks for catching that!

But you did intend that time to not answer it, right?

With the latest diversion into transmitting this stuff over TV, this claim has now entered the homeopathy-via-internet realm. (If I know anything about TV -- and I do know a reasonable amount -- if there was any information captured that is not needed for regular human vision and audio, it would be filtered out for transmission. Heck, TV filters out information that you can notice! TV signals are incredibly bandwidth limited.)

[logical muse]

Sorry, but I cannot supply video. Is audio OK? Archives of my radio show are available online.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Pup:

Not really. The problem is that with chemical identification I do not always perceive the information.

volatile:

Oops! I would never intend to skip a question! Thanks for catching that!

That doesn't answwer the question, VFF. Why did you make a positive guess, instead of saying "I don't know", or "I am not receiving any reading". If you were receving information sufficient for a reading to be made, why was this reading incorrect, if indeed you do have the powers you claim?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Madalch:
We can try chemical identification again over webcam, however I need to try this in real life before I can conclude on whether I can or can not distinguish chemical elements. Furthermore chemical identification is not the main part of my claim, I am here to test my ability on medical information.

I do not think there are any elements that I can not detect, but there are plenty of ones that I have not learned to identify; I need to learn a label for what I am observing each element at a time.

I know that elements are not capitalized, it is just a habit of mine and I've done it consciously. And yes a chemical test is much easier, but I perform much better with a reliably high frequency of observations with medical information.

nathan:

Originally Posted by nathan

But you did intend that time to not answer it, right?

Not at all. In fact if you read this entire thread I have always carefully ensured that I answer to all questions and comments.

My claim is not to receive information over television or from pictures, although I have experienced it a few times. I claim to detect information when I see a person, and that is what a test will involve.

logical muse:

Originally Posted by logical muse

Sorry, but I cannot supply video. Is audio OK? Archives of my radio show are available online.

No audio is not ok since I have never detected information through audio and it is not part of my claim. A test involving audio, pictures, or video can not conclude no ability since I still might perform when I see persons in life. A test involving audio, pictures, or video might turn out successful, indicating that I do have an ability, yet I resist having a test that could only conclude a pass but may not conclude a failed test because it sounds like something that goes against the scientific method.

volatile:

Originally Posted by volatile

That doesn't answwer the question, VFF. Why did you make a positive guess, instead of saying "I don't know", or "I am not receiving any reading". If you were receving information sufficient for a reading to be made, why was this reading incorrect, if indeed you do have the powers you claim?

Because I was finding out if I can perform on such a test, and found out that the answer is no. Chemical identification under the exact conditions that were with me and Madalch were never a specific part of my claim, or a specific past experience with the ability, and I was interested in finding out. Same for the cereal tests, they were designed to find out what I can and can not do, therefore I push the limits. Once an official test which outlines the specifics of my claim has failed, that is when I am liable and a conclusion can be made.

All of this is of course of interest since it may discover from test purposes easier methods of testing the ability, but so far I still insist on having the test on medical information and seeing the persons in life.

[Tristan Chi]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Because I was finding out if I can perform on such a test, and found out that the answer is no.

This wasn't an answer to the question either.

Why did you make a positive guess, instead of saying 'I don't know', or 'I am not receiving any reading'?

You were apparently either deliberately guessing, or you actually thought you were detecting something. Which was it? And why?

[nathan]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

nathan:
Not at all. In fact if you read this entire thread I have always carefully ensured that I answer to all questions and comments.

Except by your actions you are studiously avoiding answering volatile's question. There's a difference between saying you're doing something, and doing it. People who say they're doing something but are plainly not doing it, tend to have their word doubted.

You have responded to the question in the same posting, but you've not answered whether you perceived a difference, or whether you guessed.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

My claim is not to receive information over television or from pictures, although I have experienced it a few times. I claim to detect information when I see a person, and that is what a test will involve.

In light of that, do you wish to withdraw or clarify what you claim here?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I have to see the person to receive information. I detect information about the health of celebrities when I see them on television, but I'd prefer to meet with a person. My radio show would have me meet with people and describe what I see on radio to the listeners. I would love to try this with you anyway. Is there any way you could send me a video of yourself? Do you have a webcam?

I've emboldened the bit where you claim you get information when you see people on the TV.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Tristan Chi:

Originally Posted by Tristan Chi

This wasn't an answer to the question either.

Why did you make a positive guess, instead of saying 'I don't know', or 'I am not receiving any reading'?

You were apparently either deliberately guessing, or you actually thought you were detecting something. Which was it? And why?

Because I was interested in finding out whether I could do this under those conditions or not, and now I know that I can not. Nor did I state that I was confident in my answer, which I do when I detect health information from persons in real life. I did not take it as seriously as I would an official test. On an official test I will have to state clearly whether I believe in the answers that I give, and so no excuses of any kind can be made after that, and its test results will be conclusive.

Hej i Sverige! Jag är ursprungligen från Sverige och flyttade till USA tre år sedan för att studera på högskola. Vad roligt att träffa någon från Sverige. Jag ska kanske till Sverige igen i Jul i år, och om du har möjlighet och intresse kan vi kanske träffas i Stockholm, alternativt kan vi träffas någonstans halvvägs mitt emellan.

Har du några särskilda intressen inom det paranormala? Jag är främst intresserad av allt som har med vibrationer (s.k. “energier” inom New Age) och strålning att göra, och studerar en fysikutbildning som specialiserar sig i just ljus och strålning.

Jag är här på JREF Forum för att diskutera att jag uppfattar bilder inifrån människokroppen och kan korrekt beskriva hälsotillstånd. Jag hittar definitivt inte på det här och är öppen för en naturlig, snarare än en övernaturlig, förklaring.

(Sorry guys and my apologies, although, Swedish might make more sense to you than the rest of it has.) Translation: Hello Sweden! I am originally from Sweden and moved to the United States three years ago to study at college. How nice to meet someone from Sweden. I might come to Sweden this year for Christmas, and if you are able to and interested perhaps we could meet in Stockholm, or meet somewhere halfway in between.

Do you have any particular interestes within the paranormal? I am mainly interested in all things dealing with vibrations (the so called "energies" of New Age) and radiation, and am studying a physics degree which specializes in light and radiation.

I am here at the JREF Forum to discuss that I perceive images from inside the human body and can correctly describe the health situation. I am definitely not making this up and am open to a natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanation.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I've joined the Winston-Salem skeptics group in North Carolina, and can't wait for our next meeting! Yes, I'm a psychic claimant, and I can't wait to enter a room full of skeptics! That's like throwing a piece of meat into a room full of starving pitbulls. Ha ha we'll find out.

It'll be fun. I'll give everyone a "psychic reading" and we'll see how accurate I am, and being skeptics their accounts of my accuracy should be even more reliable which I welcome. I will also suggest that everyone bring one or two friends who would volunteer, although perhaps we could set up a simple test first so that we don't run out of volunteers.

[godofpie]

Hi Anita-Just to keep everyone up to date- Our next meeting of Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers is Thursday, December 18th at Wake Forest University in the physics building (time and room # TBD). I spoke with the host of our next meeting, Dr Eric Carlson, who has done testing for the MDC, and he has agreed to perform an informal test on Anita. He said he would have no problem obtaining the necessary chemicals to perform some of the basic tests that have been suggested in this thread. As far as live subjects, he is a bit trepidatious because of the reasons listed in this thread. Eric is currently putting together his final exam for his students and his arse will be in a sling if he doesn't have it completed soon. I am sure he will join the discussion as soon as he is able.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Tristan Chi:

Because I was interested in finding out whether I could do this under those conditions or not, and now I know that I can not.

Still not an answer.

Did you think you were receiving information, which subsequently turned out to be erroneous, or were you simply guessing?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Because I was interested in finding out whether I could do this under those conditions or not, and now I know that I can not.

But the point of my question was... wouldn't you know immediately on looking at the beakers that you couldn't see any "colors" under those circumstances?

Let's say John Doe claimed the very ordinary ability of telling normal colored paint swatches apart, yet John was actually red-green color blind.

So he successfully picks out the blue swatch amid the nine yellow swatches, and the brown amid the black, and so forth.

But when he's shown the red swatch amid the green swatches, and it all looks the same shade of gray, he wouldn't need to guess which was red and wait to see if he was right, to learn whether he had the ability to tell red from green. He'd immediately realize, "wait a minute, if there are supposed to be two different colors here, I can't see them--they all look the same. Maybe I can tell other colors apart, but I can't tell red from green."

Guessing which was the red paint and waiting to be told he was wrong would be unnecessary.

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

UncaYimmy:
I sense pain in various locations of the body involving an enlarged skeleton. The vertebrae of a region of the lower back but not sacrum (hipbone), neck vertebrae especially, and partially the region of the long bones of forearms and upperarms that are just adjacent to the elbows. Not in ribcage or leg bones, not in hand or fingerbones, not in the bones of the feet.

Quote:

ETA: It is the vertebrae of the lower part of the neck and not the upper neck vertebrae. And it is the right elbow more so than the left elbow. The elbow problem concerns the bones though, and not the cartilage which is what the elbow in itself is made of.

1) I have a scar on my right eye which makes images appear as though they are coming through a broken piece of glass.

2) In some pictures I have a deviated septum and lots of swelling in my sinuses. Other pictures are post-surgery where this has been corrected.

3) I suffer from severe sleep apnea, which is unrelated to my nose and sinuses. It is due to some deformities in my jaw and the tissue around my throat.

4) All of my visible teeth are porcelain veneers - not real teeth.

5) I am missing a 1 1/2 molars.

6) I have been treated several times due to an issue in one of my neck vertebrae. The vertebra itself is not enlarged. The little hole where the nerves go through is narrowed causing inflammation of the nerves. I am currently a couple years out from my last round of steroid treatment, so it's irritating me a bit. This causes pain and tingling in the neck, right shoulder blade area, and right arm into my thumb.

7) I have tendinitis in my right arm above my elbow.

8) I have cartilage damage in my right wrist.

9) I dislocated my left shoulder some years back and suffer from some damaged cartilage in that joint.

10) I have had surgery for a varicocele (abnormal enlargement of the veins in the scrotum draining the testicles). The surgery leaves the veins in place - it just cuts off blood flow.

11) I have deep scar (required stitches under the skin) on my left thigh. I have no sense of touch or heat over a couple square inches.

12) I have a torn ligament in my right knee. In some of the pictures that knee is swollen.

13) Both of my ankle joints are misaligned, which causes the joints to separate slightly every night. I also fractured my right ankle, which contributes to the problem.

14) I broke my little toe many years ago.

As to what you did notice:

1) I have been treated by several doctors and physical therapists because of my neck vertebra problem (including two MRIs). Not one has ever mentioned anything about an enlarged skeleton.

2) I do not have any issues with the vertebrae in my lower back or in my hip bones. Because I have a gut these days and don't exercise properly, my lower back gets stiff. This is entirely a muscle issue.

3) My right elbow is just fine. The pain is under the bicep and wholly unrelated to the joint itself.

4) The left elbow functions perfectly.

5) Of course I have pain in various parts of my body. What 42 year old man doesn't?

What would you conclude about this reading?

Quote:

If I see you on webcam I might be able to detect additional information as well and to double-check this perception. I am not fully confident in this perception.

I have to skip the web cam now. And since the relevant technology is virtually identical to a digital camera, there's really no need.

Quote:

If it is correct it can not provide evidence toward an ability, and if I am incorrect it can not disprove an ability.

You claim to be a scientist, but you don't speak the language of science. If your reading was a success, it would be evidence supporting your claim. Since you have an extraordinary claim, you will need extraordinary evidence (and probably an extraordinary amount of it).

As for the latter half of your statement, one cannot really prove a negative like this. Nobody can prove you do not have the ability. It's not incumbent on anyone to even attempt to do so. It is up to you to demonstrate that the ability exists. The presumption must be that it does not exist until you prove otherwise.

This is an extremely important point. To quote from Wiki, "Though a lack of positive evidence can never disprove a hypothesis, a statistically large number of negative instances may make it highly improbable."

Quote:

Thank you UncaYimmy for participating! Let's find out how I did!

Glad to help. BTW, most of what I have noted in terms of my health I have mentioned over the years in various forums and newsgroups. If you have any doubts about my veracity, I can try to supply a written record.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by godofpie

I spoke with the host of our next meeting, Dr Eric Carlson, who has done testing for the MDC, and he has agreed to perform an informal test on Anita. He said he would have no problem obtaining the necessary chemicals to perform some of the basic tests that have been suggested in this thread. As far as live subjects, he is a bit trepidatious because of the reasons listed in this thread.

VfF, it appears you may have jumped the gun a bit when claiming that you would attend the meeting and "give everyone a psychic reading." That doesn't enhance your credibility.

[VisionFromFeeling]

volatile:
On the beaker test with Madalch I chose to give an answer I was not confident in. I have never had a specific experience as was outlined in the test, ie. to distinguish one chemical compound from another over webcam quality video. I am happy to have tried it and can conclude that I am unable to detect the difference in chemicals over webcam video.

Pup:

Originally Posted by Pup

But the point of my question was... wouldn't you know immediately on looking at the beakers that you couldn't see any "colors" under those circumstances?

Yes I knew that I could not perceive a color difference. Yet I gave it a try to go by hunch just to see whether an ability might have materialized in another way than color, and I found out that the ability does not function under these conditions.

Originally Posted by Pup

Guessing which was the red paint and waiting to be told he was wrong would be unnecessary.

True, yet I wanted to give it a try anyway as I do not yet fully understand under what conditions the ability may function. I am pleased to know however that I have defined yet another limitation to the ability and am closer to finding out what exactly it can and can not do. If the end result is that there is no extrasensory perception at all and under any conditions then I will accept it as readily as I have this. Yet chemical identification over webcam was never part of my claim.

UncaYimmy:
Thank you for volunteering, it was informative. It was harder for me to sense anything over a picture, although I was somewhat confident in the back, neck and right elbow problems, I also expected there to be other ailments that I was not detecting.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

1) I have a scar on my right eye which makes images appear as though they are coming through a broken piece of glass.

This is among the things I would expect to be able to detect if I meet in person.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

2) In some pictures I have a deviated septum and lots of swelling in my sinuses. Other pictures are post-surgery where this has been corrected.

Do not know if I would detect, would have loved to try.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

3) I suffer from severe sleep apnea, which is unrelated to my nose and sinuses. It is due to some deformities in my jaw and the tissue around my throat.

Interesting and probably would have detected in person. Sorry you have that though.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

4) All of my visible teeth are porcelain veneers - not real teeth.

Do not know if I would have detected, have never come across a person with this before who volunteered.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

5) I am missing a 1 1/2 molars.

Often I detect missing molars.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

6) I have been treated several times due to an issue in one of my neck vertebrae. The vertebra itself is not enlarged. The little hole where the nerves go through is narrowed causing inflammation of the nerves. I am currently a couple years out from my last round of steroid treatment, so it's irritating me a bit. This causes pain and tingling in the neck, right shoulder blade area, and right arm into my thumb.

Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

7) I have tendinitis in my right arm above my elbow.

Possibly but not necessarily what I detected. I detected an issue with the bones above and below the elbow cartilage, at least the region is correct.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

8) I have cartilage damage in my right wrist.

Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards, I did detect an issue with the right wrist but failed to mention it. This does not count but for my purposes I am interested.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

9) I dislocated my left shoulder some years back and suffer from some damaged cartilage in that joint.

Might have detected if seen in person.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

10) I have had surgery for a varicocele (abnormal enlargement of the veins in the scrotum draining the testicles). The surgery leaves the veins in place - it just cuts off blood flow.

Might have detected in person, do not know.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

11) I have deep scar (required stitches under the skin) on my left thigh. I have no sense of touch or heat over a couple square inches.

Would have to see you in person to have a chance of detecting such a thing.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

12) I have a torn ligament in my right knee. In some of the pictures that knee is swollen.

The first thing I detected was knee problems but I failed to mention this. It does not count but is interesting for my own record.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

13) Both of my ankle joints are misaligned, which causes the joints to separate slightly every night. I also fractured my right ankle, which contributes to the problem.

Might have detected in person, do not know.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

14) I broke my little toe many years ago.

Might have detected in person do not know.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

As to what you did notice:
1) I have been treated by several doctors and physical therapists because of my neck vertebra problem (including two MRIs). Not one has ever mentioned anything about an enlarged skeleton.

Score.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

2) I do not have any issues with the vertebrae in my lower back or in my hip bones. Because I have a gut these days and don't exercise properly, my lower back gets stiff. This is entirely a muscle issue.

As I said nothing wrong with hip bone. I was incorrect on the back vertebrae though.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

3) My right elbow is just fine. The pain is under the bicep and wholly unrelated to the joint itself.

As I said the elbow joint is unaffected.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

4) The left elbow functions perfectly.

In accordance with what I said.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

5) Of course I have pain in various parts of my body. What 42 year old man doesn't?

I would not assume so, I meet plenty of 40-year olds in whom I sense no pain.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

What would you conclude about this reading?

I conclude that I probably picked up on many of the correct areas of the body that are affected. And that I missed several ailments that might require me to see the person in life. And I am sorry about your ailments.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I have to skip the web cam now. And since the relevant technology is virtually identical to a digital camera, there's really no need.

Brilliant comment since I do not need to read the movement of a person, a picture should be equally useful as a webcam video - which means that both are equally useless!

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

You claim to be a scientist, but you don't speak the language of science. If your reading was a success, it would be evidence supporting your claim. Since you have an extraordinary claim, you will need extraordinary evidence (and probably an extraordinary amount of it).

On the contrary, I have a suspicion that if I were to pass a test that was hastily set up like this, a skeptical scientific look into it might find a flaw in procedure and disqualify the results. I choose to wait until a rigorous test has been set up, and if I pass such a test I will accept a passing result. Say for instance if I had read about your ailments and had prior knowledge. This test was not to scientific standard and I could not accept a passing score as evidence toward an ability. I have not changed where I stand on this. I believe that a test arranged not to scientific standard, that may include flaws, can not conclude a passing result, however if I were to fail such a test, even if it had flaws that might simplify things for me, it should indicate towards no ability.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

As for the latter half of your statement, one cannot really prove a negative like this. Nobody can prove you do not have the ability. It's not incumbent on anyone to even attempt to do so. It is up to you to demonstrate that the ability exists. The presumption must be that it does not exist until you prove otherwise.
This is an extremely important point. To quote from Wiki, "Though a lack of positive evidence can never disprove a hypothesis, a statistically large number of negative instances may make it highly improbable."

Alright I will accept that.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Glad to help. BTW, most of what I have noted in terms of my health I have mentioned over the years in various forums and newsgroups. If you have any doubts about my veracity, I can try to supply a written record.

And thank you for participating. In conclusion I am satisfied with my results although they are far weaker than how I perform in real life. Our test did not give me reason to strongly doubt an ability, nor were the results positive enough to satisfy mine and probably the general requirements of what would constitute evidence toward an ability. I was happy to find out that pictures are harder than real life, and will proceed with a real life test.

[Tristan Chi]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Tristan Chi:

Because I was interested in finding out whether I could do this under those conditions or not, and now I know that I can not.

This, again, was not an answer to the question. If that was your goal, then simply stating that you could detect no indication in that setting would have been the sensible thing to do. Instead you went ahead and tried it.

Let me rephrase: Did you think you detected something, or did you guess/pretend/lie?

The obvious follow-up question would be either:
1. What does your erroneous detection indicate?
or
2. What did you hope to accomplish by guessing/predending/lying?

As for a Swedish rendez-vous, I'd like to politely decline. If you are interested in meeting Swedish skeptics, you might want to try through VoF.

[VisionFromFeeling]

godofpie:

Originally Posted by godofpie

Hi Anita-Just to keep everyone up to date- Our next meeting of Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers is Thursday, December 18th at Wake Forest University in the physics building (time and room # TBD). I spoke with the host of our next meeting, Dr Eric Carlson, who has done testing for the MDC, and he has agreed to perform an informal test on Anita. He said he would have no problem obtaining the necessary chemicals to perform some of the basic tests that have been suggested in this thread. As far as live subjects, he is a bit trepidatious because of the reasons listed in this thread. Eric is currently putting together his final exam for his students and his arse will be in a sling if he doesn't have it completed soon. I am sure he will join the discussion as soon as he is able.

Unless I am tied up in final exams myself, I will arrange so that I can attend. Alright, sure we can try the chemical identification test. I might fail it though, I have not determined the conditions under which it would function, and what ever the test conditions are, are probably not within my specific experience of chemical identification. I will need to investigate myself to determine what exactly my chemical identification claim is.

I would prefer a medical information test since that is the claim I have made and have wanted tested. I do not mind failing a chemical identification test since it is of less importance to me and would proceed with what my claim is; medical information.

desertgal:

Originally Posted by desertgal

VfF, it appears you may have jumped the gun a bit when claiming that you would attend the meeting and "give everyone a psychic reading." That doesn't enhance your credibility.

I have every intention of attending a meeting and giving everyone a "psychic reading", for the opportunity to again assess the accuracy of the information. No it does not enhance my credibility of having an ability, but it should show that I am really doing all that I can to find out whether there is an ability or not. What would you propose I do right now towards testing my claim of medical diagnose? What more could I do?

Tristan Chi:

Originally Posted by Tristan Chi

This, again, was not an answer to the question. If that was your goal, then simply stating that you could detect no indication in that setting would have been the sensible thing to do. Instead you went ahead and tried it.

Let me rephrase: Did you think you detected something, or did you guess/pretend/lie?

The obvious follow-up question would be either:
1. What does your erroneous detection indicate?
or
2. What did you hope to accomplish by guessing/predending/lying?

In the test with Madalch I did not detect a color, but I decided to try on hunch (guessing if you will) anyway, just to find out whether that would end up being successful, which then could have been indicated as successful through repeated trials. I have never made the claim of distinguishing chemicals over webcam and this was not a test of my claims but a test to further determine what the capabilities might be. I did not pretend, nor lie, so if the only other option is such then I guessed. However I did not tell Madalch that I was certain, either. It is when I am certain of what I see when it is of interest and can be used to either prove or disprove an ability. This was just a test.

1. My erroneous detection indicates that I am unable to distinguish chemicals from one another over webcam.
2. By guessing (since that is among your options that best fits with what I did) I hoped to accomplish to find out whether an ability was working on other information besides color, and found out that that was not the case.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

desertgal:
I have every intention of attending a meeting and giving everyone a "psychic reading", for the opportunity to again assess the accuracy of the information. No it does not enhance my credibility of having an ability, but it should show that I am really doing all that I can to find out whether there is an ability or not.

Not to nitpick the issue to death, but that wasn't, actually, my point. You said you would be attending the meeting, and you "will give everyone a psychic reading", and suggesting that they all bring a friend or two, thus giving the impression that using live subjects had been arranged and confirmed with the society. Yet, it seems that the host has some trepidations about using live subjects, thus giving the impression that that has not been confirmed. Thus, it appears you jumped the gun. Thus, it does not enhance your credibility when it comes to manipulating information.

In any case, we are where we have been since you began posting over a month ago-awaiting some confirmation about your alleged ability, or lack thereof. I await any results you care to post with baited breath.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Found at http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...-pretense.html
dead yeti:
When/if I fail the double blind tests and it is shown that I have no ability, paranormal or normal, of correctly describing health information that is otherwise inaccessible to human perception... I will have acchieved the objective of the test and have an answer. The perceptions will continue, and I will have to live with them but without expressing them to the persons involved since it will have been proven to be nonsense! Things would change for sure, but I am certain I would cope with it well. Thank you for asking, good question.

Ricsuth:
I will apply to the JREF MDC only once I have met with the requirements on applicants, which include media presence and having passed an informal demonstration, and I am not at that stage yet but am working towards it. This thread discusses the work I am doing towards that goal. The goal is not to win a million dollars, the goal is to find out whether I have an ability or not.

Skeptic:
I am working on having tests to prove that I am not incorrect. The fact that I have not been incorrect "so far" can not be proven since it involves past experiences where evidence was not collected. But my past experiences have failed to dismiss the possibility of having an ability which is why I proceed toward tests. Of course vague nonsense would not count on Randi's test, and luckily I usually detect specific and detailed information that is not vague nor open for interpretation.

And, believe it or not, if I were a working psychic, I'd definitely pay taxes for it. I know, it's ridiculous but I kind of like the stuff that the government buys for us like safety and streets and I couldn't afford it myself.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

No, the only reason people go to psychics is because they believe they're real. Since they aren't, they're either deluded, in which case they should be locked up for treatment for their own protection until they stop seeing visions and hearing voices, or else (most of them) they're conscious frauds, in which case they should be locked up for commiting a felony.

Yes, there are a lot of people willing to believe because they want to believe and they want to receive those things that are being promised by a psychic. Just because I have perceptions doesn't mean I want to prey on people. And my perceptions are harmless, they are simply images of human tissues and do not distract or interfere in any way. Like a lot of people I was uncomfortable with the image of "blood", "tissues" and "organs" at first but over the years I've come to truly appreciate it and look forward to studying Histology at college to see and to learn more.

Cuddy Joe:

Originally Posted by Cuddy Joe

VFV... I win every game where I'm the one keeping score too. Do you play poker? Do you realize you're a lawsuit waiting to happen?

Ouch.

Originally Posted by Cuddy Joe

b) Oh that. That's just something we have to put up for legal reasons, because of all the nonbelievers out there, you know, skeptics and their ilk. Ah, but you and I, we know better, right? Pay it no mind and let's get down to helping you with your problems and worries. You did bring your checkbook, correct?

I do not openly offer any services nor do I charge money for them, so I do not fall into this category. I am simply here, as a responsible person, to find out what the accuracy of my perceptions are and what their source is.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just checking in again (see my previous posts in this thread).

So nothing anyone rational could call proof yet. All that arm waving has the potential to trigger a tornado though.

Why am I reminded of:

Quote:

Owen Glendower:" I can call monsters from the vasty deep"
Hotspur: "Why, so can I and so can any man, but do they come when you do call for them".

(W Shakespeare -- 1 Henry IV)

[Dubious Dick]

VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

Originally Posted by desertgal

Not to nitpick the issue to death, but that wasn't, actually, my point. You said you would be attending the meeting, and you "will give everyone a psychic reading", and suggesting that they all bring a friend or two, thus giving the impression that using live subjects had been arranged and confirmed with the society. Yet, it seems that the host has some trepidations about using live subjects, thus giving the impression that that has not been confirmed. Thus, it appears you jumped the gun. Thus, it does not enhance your credibility when it comes to manipulating information.

In any case, we are where we have been since you began posting over a month ago-awaiting some confirmation about your alleged ability, or lack thereof. I await any results you care to post with baited breath.

That's right, I have not heard from the skeptical group about my attendance with them, yet I expect some discussion to arise when I meet with them, also I expect that I will be asked to, or allowed to, try my ability on the participants. It has in no ways been confirmed or arranged, I now see what you meant.

desertgal and Gord in Toronto and everyone else:
No there is no new evidence yet. I am working as fast as I can. There's just a lot of talk and no results yet.

Dubious Dick:

Originally Posted by Dubious Dick

VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!

I absolutely couldn't agree more! However I am not prevaricating. I am arranging a test with the IIG and I reply immediately to any material that they send me and am always left waiting for months for the next one. I'm working as fast as I can, I guess I could work even faster than that.

[Soapy Sam]

Tsk.
Such cynicism!

[Pup]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Pup:

Yes I knew that I could not perceive a color difference. Yet I gave it a try to go by hunch just to see whether an ability might have materialized in another way than color, and I found out that the ability does not function under these conditions.

True, yet I wanted to give it a try anyway as I do not yet fully understand under what conditions the ability may function. I am pleased to know however that I have defined yet another limitation to the ability and am closer to finding out what exactly it can and can not do. If the end result is that there is no extrasensory perception at all and under any conditions then I will accept it as readily as I have this. Yet chemical identification over webcam was never part of my claim.

Your ability is starting to sound like my ability to predict a coin flip. I can do it with 100% accuracy, but only when my ability is working, and it only works about half the time. Problem is, I can't predict when it'll be working, until I guess wrong, and then I know it didn't work under those conditions. But the other half of the time, I'm always right.

[Dale]

Way to go, Dubious Dick!! This thread is putting my feet to sleep.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Soapy Sam:

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Such cynicism!

Not from me I hope.

Pup:

Originally Posted by Pup

Your ability is starting to sound like my ability to predict a coin flip. I can do it with 100% accuracy, but only when my ability is working, and it only works about half the time. Problem is, I can't predict when it'll be working, until I guess wrong, and then I know it didn't work under those conditions. But the other half of the time, I'm always right.

My claim is to detect health information in people that I see and information that is specific and detailed and that should not be detectable by ordinary perception! Everyone: stop making a big deal about cereal, chemicals, and pictures - those are not my claim. And so far when I have had the opportunity to check my medical information against the facts I have not been incorrect a single time. There is every reason to proceed toward properly set-up tests of this claim.

Hokulele:

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That is what you are claiming on your website.

Yes, I do receive perceptions on occasion that are not related to medical or health information, but those perceptions occur much less frequently and I have not identified under what conditions nor under what test conditions. The claim I wish to have tested is on medical information.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Everyone: stop making a big deal about cereal, chemicals, and pictures - those are not my claim.

That is what you are claiming on your website.

Originally Posted by website

On the small scale of atoms and chemicals, things appear in interesting colors that are not the same as the colors we see when we look at chemicals with our eyes. It bothers me that chemistry molecule sets that are used to attach different colored atoms together to make three dimensional physical models of molecules are in different colors than what I see. In my vision, nitrogen is neon green, phosphorus deep blue, potassium light blue, hydrogen red. Carbon is black, argon is a kind of purple-red, calcium is a light blue (different shade of light blue than that of potassium). I have an internal spectroscope in my mind and can distinguish atoms around me by their color and feeling.

[Dubious Dick]

VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, you certainly see things differently than I do. I'll address the major points:

Quote:

It is the vertebrae of the lower part of the neck and not the upper neck vertebrae.

Quote:

Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. And it's not vertebrae (plural). It's one side of one vertebra where the channel for the nerve is narrowing and has a little spur.

Quote:

Possibly but not necessarily what I detected. I detected an issue with the bones above and below the elbow cartilage, at least the region is correct.

Is detecting the "region" significant? What do you mean by region? You said upper and lower arm. It's only upper. You said bone when it is in fact soft tissue. From the photos you know I am middle aged, right-handed, play bass and have two young children. Guessing that my right arm has an issue is nothing extraordinary. That fact that you got the specific region and type of tissue wrong makes all of this a complete miss.

Quote:

Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards, I did detect an issue with the right wrist but failed to mention it. This does not count but for my purposes I am interested.

Correction. It's the left wrist. I originally typed it as "wright wrist" and removed the "w" and failed to notice that I got the wrist wrong. I apologize for the mistake.

Note: If you're thinking to yourself, "what a load of bull" then you know how people feel about what you wrote. However, like you, I am sincere.

Quote:

The first thing I detected was knee problems but I failed to mention this. It does not count but is interesting for my own record.

You do your credibility harm by evening mentioning this and the above about the right wrist. History is full of charlatans who claim knowledge after the fact.

Quote:

As I said nothing wrong with hip bone.

This is not a hit. How can you even think it might be? I listed a number of ailments that may make me look like I'm in bad shape, but in reality just about everything about my body works just fine. Should you get points for saying my liver, pancreas, appendix, heart, thyroid, etc, are all working fine?

Quote:

As I said the elbow joint is unaffected.
The left elbow functions perfectly.

See the above.

Quote:

I would not assume so, I meet plenty of 40-year olds in whom I sense no pain.

That's a meaningless statement. It's your ability to detect these things that is in question, so you're proving nothing. You made a general statement about pain that just about everybody my age would agree is "accurate" in a general sense. I also stated that in advance that I have several specific ailments, which probably means I have pain somewhere.

And then just look at me. I'm a big guy, which indicates that I was probably an athlete at some point (I was). Every athlete suffers aches and pains as they age. I am carrying extra weight (obviously), which adds stress to the body which manifests itself in pain. I play in a band, which means that I have to wear an instrument across my shoulders, put my arms in unnatural positions, and stand on stage for hours. That causes aches. Plus I have two young children, which means lots of bending and lifting (more stress on the body).

No offense, but any idiot looking at me would guess that I have aches and pains.

For the record I say that you missed every ailment that I actually have and reported ailments that I do not have. You get zero points for this. If you disagree, then that calls into question your claims of accuracy.

I think in the interest of fairness you should post links to my photos, your assessment, and our subsequent responses on your Observations page on your website.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Everyone loves to talk about how I fail on tests that have been done under conditions that were never part of my claim.

Let's discuss the aspects of what my claim is that I wish to have tested. Why did I detect reproductive cysts? Vasectomy? The specifics of vasectomy? That a person had ingested a specific type of bacteria? A problem with the esophageal sphincter? The specific small region of small intestine under the sternum that on occasion experience rigidity? The exact shape, size and color of a brown patch in the field of vision? Back problems that are not detectable with eyesight? Pains? Discomforts? Pregnancy and the gender of the baby? Tinnitus? And many more. Why don't we discuss these? You guys are only trying to find flaws in things that are not even the claim that I want tested. The other aspects of my perceptions are not significant enough for me to proceed with a test, at least not at this point. I want to discuss the medical information aspect of the perceptions.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
Thank you for participating and for being reliable in your account. I have never made the claim of being able to consistently produce information from a picture, even though I have experienced it before. And I now know thanks to you that I will not have a test on medical information with pictures (or webcam).

I will not post this on my observations page. If I'd met you in person and had made perceptions that I felt confident in, I would add it to my observations.

My claim is to detect information from people in life. That has to be tested and then conclusions can be made. See my comment above about tests on things that are not the main part of my claim. Thank you and we now know that my ability does not function with pictures or webcam, which in itself is helpful to know to proceed toward a test.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Note: If you're thinking to yourself, "what a load of bull" then you know how people feel about what you wrote. However, like you, I am sincere.

Not at all, I have faith in your credibility.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

You do your credibility harm by evening mentioning this and the above about the right wrist. History is full of charlatans who claim knowledge after the fact.

And I also mentioned that:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards, I did detect an issue with the right wrist but failed to mention it. This does not count but for my purposes I am interested.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

This is not a hit. How can you even think it might be? I listed a number of ailments that may make me look like I'm in bad shape, but in reality just about everything about my body works just fine. Should you get points for saying my liver, pancreas, appendix, heart, thyroid, etc, are all working fine?

And nowhere did I say it was a hit.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

No offense, but any idiot looking at me would guess that I have aches and pains.

For the record I say that you missed every ailment that I actually have and reported ailments that I do not have. You get zero points for this. If you disagree, then that calls into question your claims of accuracy.

I encounter plenty of people who you would assume to have pain, but I do not sense pain. And plenty of people who you would assume to not have pain, but I sense pain. I make no assumptions on pain based on looks, but, that is yet to be shown on a test. I think we can all agree that it is only once we have a formal test and can see what information I list that any claims made by you or me as to this become valid.

[Locknar]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Let's discuss the aspects of what my claim is that I wish to have tested.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Why did I detect reproductive cysts?

Proof?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Vasectomy?

Proof?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

The specifics of vasectomy?

Proof?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

That a person had ingested a specific type of bacteria?

Proof?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

A problem with the esophageal sphincter? The specific small region of small intestine under the sternum that on occasion experience rigidity? The exact shape, size and color of a brown patch in the field of vision? Back problems that are not detectable with eyesight? Pains? Discomforts? Pregnancy and the gender of the baby? Tinnitus?

Proof for any of these claims?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Why don't we discuss these?

Because you offer no proof, just baseless claims.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I want to discuss the medical information aspect of the perceptions.

Without any proof, what exactly do you want to discuss - your claims? A rather boring converstion without, you guessed it - proof.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Locknar:
Agreed. I can not bring some of the persons who were involved in these confirmed perceptions here to verify, since you don't know that I am not signing in as a different user. Since the IIG West is taking forever with the arrangements, and if any of you are growing as impatient as I am, I think the next step is for me to contact a local skeptics group and ask that they set up a simple medical information test and that they publish the results here.

Those of my readings that have been with family and friends, have been to detect new conditions that were not mentioned to me. Their accounts on my accuracy can not be used as formal evidence since we can never rule out bias in my favor no matter what things appear to be. The accuracy of perceptions are most interesting when done on someone I've just met, such as the most recent entries on the observations page http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html. I have been reluctant to discuss openly this ability and also not known how to have access to strangers who would volunteer, but the next natural step here is to begin arranging for tests.

If a local skeptics group can arrange to bring volunteers together, which of course can (and should) include themselves, we could get started. Even if such preliminary and very primitive tests may contain flaws that have not been worked out or identified yet, if I make incorrect information it would at least give reasons to suspect no ability.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

UncaYimmy:
we now know that my ability does not function with pictures or webcam,

But, you stated in a previous post that:

Quote:

I have had experiences of detecting information from photos, although not often. I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct. I do detect information about the health of people on television, although this occurs more often than with photos, and has also been confirmed as accurate many times.

So, which is it? Your ability does function through pictures, or it doesn't?

[godofpie]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That is what you are claiming on your website.

This is the part that I thought would be easiest to test. Is that not true? Do those chemicals appear as colors to you or not? That is what it says on your website. This particular skill that you claim to have is what I have talked about with Eric and he believes he can devise a test to prove or disprove your claim. I am not saying we can't come up some kind of medical diagnostics test, but the ability to distinguish between different chemicals by site would be so much easier to test.

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

Originally Posted by desertgal

But, you stated in previous posts that you diagnosed celebrities via television (how accurately, you did not say) and that you also made an accurate diagnosis through a picture.

So, which is it? Your ability does function through pictures, or it doesn't?

I have done so and later had confirmed that I was accurate, and do not recall a single case of having been incorrect (and of course that could be confirmation bias that I am unaware of). My answer would be that I have been able to, and that these forms of perceptions do not occur always. And I have shown that they do not occur at will. Therefore I will not bother to test an ability on this aspect of the many types of perceptions that I have had. If all I claimed to be capable of were medical information through pictures or video, I would at least by now have concluded that there is no point in proceeding with tests of that particular nature.

I would say that the ability may or may not function through pictures. The times I have made perceptions that I've believed in have not all been checked for accuracy and we can not conclude whether there lies such an ability or not. I do conclude that this here is not an ability that I will have tested.

godofpie:

Originally Posted by godofpie

This is the part that I thought would be easiest to test. Is that not true? Do those chemicals appear as colors to you or not? That is what it says on your website. This particular skill that you claim to have is what I have talked about with Eric and he believes he can devise a test to prove or disprove your claim. I am not saying we can't come up some kind of medical diagnostics test, but the ability to distinguish between different chemicals by site would be so much easier to test.

Chemical identification would definitely be the easiest to test, but as I have consistently explained these perceptions occur far less frequently than does medical information. I would find myself in chemical identification tests where I am forced to guess when the ability fails to kick in. I do not always sense colors from chemicals, but when I do it has been accurate. When it comes to medical information the information appears to a higher frequency, and to a frequency that is reliable for a test.

When I make the effort to detect chemical information it gives me a serious headache and nausea. When I make an effort to detect medical information there is no such problem. I have consistently outlined several reasons why I will have a test on medical information and not chemical identification.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I agree that a chemical identification test would be easier for test purposes, but it would be harder from my perspective. It is also not my claim and is not what I have approached skeptics groups about having tested.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

desertgal:
And I have shown that they do not occur at will.

Huh?

Quote:

I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct.

Is that not at will?

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

Originally Posted by desertgal

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct.

Is that not at will?

In that particular case it was not at will, the information was automatic and I made no effort. I know this sounds like excuses, yet that is another reason why I will not have a test on pictures. I rarely detect information from pictures, and not to a reliably high frequency to enable a test.