Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

Say what? "Nothing psychic is mentioned in any way"? What about the bit where you're seeing inside people?

It happens all the time. Most people use machines to do it, though.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ah. You didn't know her in a way to talk about it, but she, apparently, knew you (and every other coworker) in a way where she could. Right.

I think if you're going to accuse someone (in effect) of lying, you should have better reasoning on your side.

What was Anita supposed to say? "Good morning, Barbie. Cold out there this morning, huh? By the way do you have any cysts in your reproductive organs?"

The woman didn't say anything until she was scheduled for surgery at which point she announced it to her coworkers. That's really not surprising to me considering people will be wondering about the scheduled time off. And if you tell one person, you gotta figure it's gonna hit the rumor mill anyway, so why not announce it?

I think her description of the situation was plausible. I've learned about private medical conditions from coworkers in a similar fashion in smaller offices (50 or fewer people). And I would not have been comfortable asking them one-on-one about such private issues. Hell, I did essentially the same thing years ago when I had my testicles operated on. Trust me, no guy is gonna ask another guy, "Hey, man, I sense a problem with your balls. Wanna talk about it?"

Unless we see an overt lie or a very clear contradiction in versions of the same story, I see no reason to question her honesty. Her anecdotes taken at face value present all sorts of problems as it is.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just checking in again.

I see Vision (I may call you Vision, may I?) has not won a Million yet. And not even managed to prove anything to anybody about her astounding abilities.

I'm beginning to run out of quotes but how about:

Shakespeare's Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5:

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

 

[desertgal]

I think her description of the situation was plausible. I've learned about private medical conditions from coworkers in a similar fashion in smaller offices (50 or fewer people).

Well, that surprises me. I don't doubt you, it's just not something I would do. I might tell my boss the reason for the surgery, but, to anyone else, I wouldn't elaborate. I would be uncomfortable in doing so.

I apologize, Anita. I was looking at it from my personal point of view. It doesn't change my opinion about your severely delusional state, but I'll admit that I shouldn't have questioned your honesty. As I said before, I don't believe you are intentionally lying about any of your claims.

What was Anita supposed to say? "Good morning, Barbie. Cold out there this morning, huh? By the way do you have any cysts in your reproductive organs?"

Well, no, not in that way, but there are better ways to put it. At the very least, she could have mentioned to the woman that she sensed something wasn't right, and advised her to visit a doctor. Even if the woman hadn't done it, or hadn't taken her seriously, it would have been better than remaining completely silent.

As far as being invasive, well, she's apparently looking into testing people-strangers, I expect-on whether they have had vasectomies or breast implants. Aren't those considered intimate subjects?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Locknar:

In your possible defense for getting everything wrong? To funny. You claim to be subjective, and yet in the face of 100% defeat won't admit it; yeah...very subjective I'd say.

The word you intended is objective. I have not been wrong with what my claim is yet. Hopefully Thursday we will have some results that can be verified by my local skeptics group. I love having a local skeptics group!

And yet you claimed you could do just this, detect health problems from pictures. That aside, if the results were what you expected - why did you agree/proceed?

I claimed that I have accurately detected health problems from pictures before, yet I emphasized that it occurs very rarely and does not occur on demand/by request, and the results were in accordance. I proceeded to try anyway just to find out, and to satisfy everyone's curiosity.

I'm shocked it took this long for you to being "quantum physics" into this discussion.

Don't you insult one of the most respectable fields of physics. I'm interested since quantum physics translates the physical world into vibrational information.

Your "powers" are utter non-sense...something you'll never admit to...and anyone that tells you different is just being nice/playing along.

Honey, you are just being silly now, and the sad thing is that I am the only one who knows that. Based on the experiences I know I've had, this statement is unfounded. First of all I do not claim to have psychic powers. What I claim is that I've had some interesting experiences that need to be looked into with tests of scientific standard. If I fail tests and tests show that there is no extrasensory ability I will admit to the conclusion that the perceptions are not based on extrasensory perception. There have been many cases where the accuracy of my perceptions has been confirmed in ways where someone being nice to me or wanting to agree could not have been responsible.

Diogenes:

What would be your possible defense for missing a heart transplant ?

The fact that my claim is not to detect health information from pictures. Bring me a person in real life who has had a heart transplant and we will see if I detect it.

Oh, I keep forgetting, you really can't get valid readings from photos - except when you make a good guess - then you claim you really can get a good reading....

Nope. I concluded that I can not produce health information from pictures on demand.

skeen:

Oh for goodness sake! You're the reincarnation of a star now? And other than vibrations, we're now bringing quantum physics along with us? You people are all the same!

Do not trash quantum physics. Study it, you might love it.

VFF, you are delusional at best. How Randi has been able to cope with this mind bendingly utter nonsense all these years is beyond me; I think it is he who has the supernatural ability!

That is just plain rude. I have had experiences that make me interested in having a test of scientific standard to find out what is the source of my accurate perceptions of health information. There is nothing delusional about making such a conclusion. Hopefully with my local skeptics group I can provide some documented examples of how this thing works and doesn't work. I would not involve Randi in my case until I have thoroughly examined what exactly I can and can not do. For instance I need to try reading people who are behind a screen, I need to have more experience to see how reliable the frequency of perceptions are, etc. I would only bring a fully researched paranormal claim to Randi, and I am not at that point yet.

I also concur with Old Man's idea. That's just one of a trillion things you could to do instantly verify your supposed ability. I mean, literally, you could be making worldwide headlines tomorrow morning if you started right now.

Inspiring. I will wait until Thursday though.

Go to a hospital reception area. When you "see" peoples ailments, write them down, then ask the patient if they have said ailment, and tick it off if it's correct.

The thing is I am very responsible when it comes to dealing with health information. I would LOVE to do what you suggested, but tell me is it legal? I would have to contact the hospital's administration, thoroughly explain what it is I want to do, and have their full approval. This is not trying to make excuses not to test these perceptions, I am just being careful and responsible that's all.

I'm being humble and careful in how I deal with this investigation. I can not rush into things, such as approaching random people about their health situation, risking to invade their privacy. I don't want to provoke anyone with this subject. I prefer a careful and well thought through approach.

desertgal:

And my experience of you leads me to the conclusion that it is likely some level of self deception. Or attention seeking. Or both.

It is the case of neither. If I look at a person, and I see vasectomy, and the person confirms that this is true, and I conclude based on that and other similar experiences that I should proceed toward further testing... how on earth is that self deception? And I am trying to be as careful and humble as possible and to attract as little attention to myself as I can get away with.

While this thread may only be about your alleged ability to medically diagnose, all those claims should be taken into consideration concerning your credibility-and I gotta tell you, it ain't lookin' good.

Well let's just see how I perform with what my claim actually is: medical diagnose from live persons. Don't you want to find out?

Moochie:

Well, I think this is all very entertaining, Absurdly silly, but entertaining.

Yes, entertaining at times, and at other times just exhausting and disappointing.

nathan:

Yes, this thread was interesting, but has now regressed to the woo mean.

We haven't even gotten to what my claim actually is.

UncaYimmy:

Her saying that she cannot detect things all things all the time is not prima facie evidence of failure. What it shows is that testing is premature because the claim is vague.

I have also stated that there is a reliably high frequency of perceptions to enable a test of this claim.

What Anita seems to be asking for with this protocol and what IIG appears to be trying to do is set up a test to see what, if any, abilities she has.

Nope. I am asking to test my claim of detecting health information with extrasensory perception. Already know that.

While I am not a member of the IIG, I humbly suggest that any protocol be put on hold until Anita can be much more specific in her claims. The IIG should not be submitting a list of ailments for her approval - Anita should provide a list of ailments she believes she can reliably detect in anyone (or specific characteristics of the people she can read). Anita must also be specific about the conditions under which she can do it rather than sitting back waiting to see if IIG comes up with a condition under which her ability won't work.

!!!!!!!!!!! How absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!! I sent them a large list of ailments a long time ago. I explained that I do not perceive all possible ailments in existence, and that I can not approve of an ailment in the test if I do not have specific past experience of having detected that specific ailment. The IIG then suggests a test where they can put all sorts of ailments on a form and I might not even be able to detect some of them in any case! That would not be testing my claim. I then said that if they come across some additional ailments, besides the ones I have already listed to them, that they would like to add to the test, then please send me this information so that I can either approve or disapprove of having it in my test. Why do I bother with all this nonsense and misconceptions...

If a person has a certain ailment and I detect it, I have made a perception whose accuracy can be checked. If I am incorrect, it is evidence against an ability of detecting health information. If I am correct, it is evidence for an ability. I have an absolutely testable claim.

It's quite another to ask a bunch of men, "Excuse me, but I don't sense that you have had a vasectomy. Can you confirm this for me?"

Only when I detect that a certain ailment is present will it be checked for accuracy.

I hope I'm getting my point across, especially to Anita. It's not to IIG to figure out if you have an ability or not. That's your job. Once you are very confident in your ability, then IIG will help you eliminate the normal and mundane as an explanation (or not).

I've already outlined what it is I can do!

 

[skeen]

I admire your patience, VFF. If I was the most incredible person the world has ever seen, I'd wanna prove myself pretty darn quick.

I'm sure a conclusive test will be carried out soon.

 

[Locknar]

I claimed that I have accurately detected health problems from pictures before <snip>

And in this case, you failed...you did not get anything right. You were 100% wrong and then proceeded to try and wiggle out of it all "explaining away" your wrong "percepctions."

I'm interested since quantum physics translates the physical world into vibrational information.

I am always fascinated when the "woo woo's" want to use quantum physics to defend what ever claims they are making.

I have an absolutely testable claim.

100% false, but you know this. With these "health perceptions" you always have a wiggle, just as with the picture here you tried to "read".

You look at someone and proclaim "you've had your appendix out"...and they say "no"; is that the end of it? I doubt it...just as you did with the picture here, you would wiggle with "oh, but your appendix is inflamed and will need to come out soon."

You are doing cold reading, and nothing more.

No you say? Then why the insistance to actually see the people you are "reading"...I'm guessing you blindfolded and with ear plugs (for example) would not work...why?

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

If I fail tests and tests show that there is no extrasensory ability I will admit to the conclusion that the perceptions are not based on extrasensory perception.

Then you will never admit to that conclusion. No test can show that you so not have the extrasensory ability you describe, only that you did not display it during the test.

This is especially true of the test you are arranging with IIG, in fact, it is one of your stipulations.

I propose that in the case where I can not diagnose 10 subjects, the test is considered not failed but is considered inconclusive due to insufficient test material.

There have been many cases where the accuracy of my perceptions has been confirmed in ways where someone being nice to me or wanting to agree could not have been responsible.

Could you give some examples and demonstrate how you ruled out all possibility of the subject "being nice" to you or "wanting to agree." I accept that your ovarian cyst colleague story is such an example but I would like to hear a few more in order to rule out fluke.

!!!!!!!!!!! How absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!! I sent them a large list of ailments a long time ago. I explained that I do not perceive all possible ailments in existence, and that I can not approve of an ailment in the test if I do not have specific past experience of having detected that specific ailment. The IIG then suggests a test where they can put all sorts of ailments on a form and I might not even be able to detect some of them in any case! That would not be testing my claim.

Could you post the list of detectable ailments that you sent to IIG? If the list does not contain enough ailments with no external signals for IIG to easily assemble an appropriate group of subjects for the test then I would consider UncaYimmy's suggestion to be quite legitimate.

 

[desertgal]

First of all I do not claim to have psychic powers.

I am asking to test my claim of detecting health information with extrasensory perception.

So, you don't claim to have psychic powers, but you do claim to detect health information with extrasensory perception?

I can not rush into things, such as approaching random people about their health situation, risking to invade their privacy. I don't want to provoke anyone with this subject. I prefer a careful and well thought through approach.

Funny, you were willing to do just that with Femke's suggestion of approaching random people in malls about their appendectomies. You thought that was a marvelous idea. Even asking about an appendectomy is an invasion of privacy, when it is being done by a perfect stranger. (No offense intended, Femke.)

desertgal:
If I look at a person, and I see vasectomy...

...then you have a 50% chance of being right. The odds are probably slightly higher if the gentleman is middle aged. In my opinion, it's the "seeing vasectomy" that is the delusion.

Well let's just see how I perform with what my claim actually is: medical diagnose from live persons. Don't you want to find out?

Finding out isn't as option. I fully expect that, if the test does actually happen, and does not go the way you want it to - that is, confirm ESP ability, which it cannot do - you will provide plenty of excuses reasons as to why.

 

[Hokulele]

I've already outlined what it is I can do!

The problem many people are having with your claims is that your "outline of what you can do" has changed considerably from the first page of this thread, and even from your website.

You still claim that you can discern between chemicals just by looking at them on your website. Now you claim you cannot. You have claimed that you can "see" things wrong with people, even if you are not sure exactly what the problem is (lactobacilus). Now you claim you cannot. You have claimed that you are most comfortable with vision defects. Now you claim it is other ailments.

If you would pick just one claim and devise a properly blinded and rigorous test (unlike the cereal test as it was performed, and unlike approaching random people and claiming to see things), then we would have something worthy of discussion.

As it is, I have completely lost track of any goalposts, and haven't bothered to participate recently. Please try to understand why people cannot accept your claim of 100% reliability (mostly due to the fact that you wave off any misses as "not part of your talent").

To help move this thread forward, please state simply and clearly what it is you claim to be able to do. If there are discrepencies between your earlier claims, as well as with the claims on your website, and you refuse to update anything to repair these discrepencies, pardon me for remaining skeptical...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Please, oh, PLEASE stop saying that. ESP has never, ever been proven in the history of the world. As a scientist things that are unproven are not on your list of things to dismiss. You can only dismiss things that are known to be possible. When you run out of those, your next step is to run it by other people to see if they can come up with other proven ideas to test and be dismissed. If they run out of things, bring it to even more people.

Seriously. I've made accurate descriptions of health that should not be possible through ordinary perception. I've done all the simple tests that I can arrange on my own and at this point that have failed to dismiss the possibility that I perceive accurate health information. That is not to conclude that the information is accurate. There is nothing wrong with concluding to proceed toward further tests. I am in contact with skeptics for assistance in my investigation. Maybe if you think about what I'm saying here it might click and suddenly make sense.

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

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

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

In that same reading you say that you guessed peanut oil or "some other oil" and it turned out to be peanut oil. You thought this was significant because you "assume that most people use olive oil or other vegetable oils" for frying.

On the observations page I simply give examples of the type of things I perceive and how I reason about them. None of the examples on the observations page are evidence for an extrasensory ability. I hope to provide documented examples of my perceptions soon. Calm down. Had this person said that he never eats peanut oil, that would have been significant. The fact that he does eat peanut oil I take as a reason to proceed toward better testing, but I do not take it as evidence toward an ability. I just proceed...

That's wrong. Olive oil has a low smoking point and is not a good choice for many types of frying. Peanut oil is one of the preferred oils for frying because of its high heat tolerance.

If you say so. I'd ask a Cardiologist.

What I'm driving here is that you are making far too many assumptions to even begin considering the paranormal.

Dear Jimmy... I've had plenty of other experiences with these perceptions, not listed on the observations page since they occurred before the date when I begun documenting these perceptions, that have been far more compelling. We will see what documented examples of my perceptions can conclude.

To be blunt, Anita, you are being selfish by asking to be tested for the paranormal when you haven't even taken the rudimentary steps of eliminating the ordinary and mundane. As outlined elsewhere you don't even have a solid claim to test. That's why the protocol is such a struggle.

The examples you mention are ones that if I were a scientist I would not waste my time with studying. I have experienced giving accurate descriptions of health that should not be detectable by ordinary perception. The simple tests that I have been able to set up all on my own have failed to dismiss the possibility. Therefore I proceed toward further testing. Simple tests can be set up rather quickly and if I fail those we can quickly and easily conclude to stop this investigation. What on earth are you struggling with here? Besides the protocol negotiations between myself and the IIG are going well.

Everything I do is wrong...

Pixel42:

But that's exactly the information you want to exclude anyway, isn't it, if you're going to prove that it's your ability that is giving you the health information?

Exactly. And that's why I depend on the participation of others in my investigation. I can't investigate myself by myself.

Akhenaten:

The only reason that your past experiences have failed to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory perception is that you totally lack any objectivity about your hallucinations.

First of all it is not the case of hallucinations. I consistently perceive accurate health information. I am objective. I conclude that the perceptions are based on information that comes from somewhere, and I objectively want to find out from where. You are not objective since there is no evidence against a possible ESP ability or an ability that is not paranormal in nature, since you seem to make the unfounded conclusion that the perceptions do not yield accurate information.

So your answer to criticism of anecdotal evidence is to offer more anecdotes?

I have never said that my own experiences are evidence. I say that they are experiences that fail to dismiss a possible ability. Documented examples of perceptions will be provided shortly I hope, and that depends on the participation of others.

We can conclude that the source of your "perceptions" is your self-delusion. There is ample evidence for this, and only one person here is unable to see it.

There is no evidence against an ability. There is no evidence for an ability. I will obtain evidence by making medical diagnose in a controlled setting with reliable witnesses who can document the results. Then we have evidence, and then we can conclude whether the evidence is for or against.

What's this dichotomy all about? You keep referring to "either" possibility as though there are only two. Whatever your choices are, I'll bet I can think of others.

As in many or most scientific research hypotheses, there is a hypothesis and then there is a null hypothesis. The hypothesis may be "extrasensory perception", and the null hypothesis may be "no extrasensory perception". The scope of the tests are not vast enough to then begin to investigate what exactly is the source of the perceptions. At first we just want to find out if it is ESP or not.

If your "ability" was real then your career of choice is redundant. If it's not, you'd better switch to an Arts degree. Scientific inquiry does not appear to be your forte.

I have no more respect for you, I do not appreciate this insult. I am a brilliant science student, in this I just happen to have an unconventional research subject, and I thought I was doing it well.

The Wall o' Text™ posts are hardly the mark of someone who shuns attention. Neither are the outrageous claims.

I don't mind bringing attention to the phenomenon I have experienced, but I try to keep my personal self out of this. The claims might seem outrageous, but they are based on my experiences, and that is why I want to proceed with scientific tests.

The discomfort and hostility shouldn't be a complete surprise.

I expected a little more from you guys.

If you truly think you can perceive the things that you say you do, then wanting to find the origin of these hallucinations is a good thing. Attempting to establish their accuracy is like trying to establish the health benefits of having Cholera.

I don't think one way or the other. All I know is when I look at people I see images of organs and tissue, and can describe health problems, and as far as I have been able to try to check the accuracy on my own the accuracy concludes to proceed toward further testing. No documented or reliable evidence has been obtained. It is too early to assume to know the nature of these perceptions or to speculate whether they are hallucinations or accurate perception. If it is not the case of ESP I can conclude that it is synesthesia or something of the sort that is not a negative or unhealthy thing. Their accuracy can be established. When I make a claim of detecting health information that is undetectable by ordinary perception, the accuracy of this information is checked. It is a testable claim.

You may have, but we aren't privvy to them. That's the trouble with anecdotes.

I have consistently stated that my anecdotal experiences are not evidence. So why do you get upset because they are not evidence? We already knew that. I will bring documented examples as soon as I possibly can.

That's not what you said when you were offering to do the tests here that you failed so dismally.

I have not tested my claim yet. Let's just be patient and find out how I do on those tests.

There are many people already participating. Remember us? You've already done real tests, and obtained real results. You failed. Remember?

My claim is medical information from live people. This has not been tested here yet. If you guys could gather up in a room and meet me in person, then we could have real tests on my real claim and obtain real results.

I have done what I can in terms of simple tests on my own and have failed to dismiss the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.

With the participation of my local skeptics group I can provide some evidence for or against ESP. Alright? It is actual and existing health information I am trying to detect. Pink unicorns can not be proven as existing. What I claim to detect can be proven to exist.

I see no failures here. Your investigations have revealed a great deal.

Not yet they haven't. They've only conclude to proceed toward real testing. My claim is medical information from live persons.

And we aren't all frustrated and impatient.

I am impatient because I want to find out about these perceptions, but I am not frustrated. I'm glad you aren't either. We have to wait patiently.

You do not have x-ray vision. You cannot see inside bodies. Your descriptions are made up. You have no idea whether your information is accurate.

We don't know that yet, and it is a testable claim and we can find out. My descriptions aren't made up. They are based on what I perceive, things that I see and feel when I look at people. When I am able to ask a person about what I perceived, I am checking the accuracy best I can, and people report excellent accuracy. I even throw in information that I did not perceive just to see if they are simply always agreeing with me, but, Kuko 4000 didn't like that. I hope to bring documented examples where skeptics, not I, are checking the accuracy.

These are misguided beliefs, and we see them, whether you do or not.

I think you are being silly. There is no evidence against my claim yet. I am working towards having tests and soon we will have evidence.

BTW. Are there going to be pyramids in this story? I like pyramids.

Nope, no pyramids.

Femke:
I really like your idea. I just want to think about it to ensure that we do not invade the privacy of persons who are asked about their health. I will keep in mind your suggestion, it is a good one.

desertgal:

Ah. You didn't know her in a way to talk about it, but she, apparently, knew you (and every other coworker) in a way where she could. Right.

I know that you are all skeptics and you are wired to charge at every single piece of detail whether it is innocent or not. In the absolute truth of what happened, I did not feel comfortable talking with a coworker about a personal ailment such as that. And in the truth of what happened she shared with us once she was diagnosed and scheduled for surgery, probably to get some support. The fact that you are arguing about something that I know to be true, makes me understand that I'm not as bad as you guys think I am. There's a lot in my claim and I will proceed confidently toward further tests.

I am objective. I have made accurate descriptions of health, so therefore I proceed toward further tests.

ETA: For the record, I don't think you are intentionally lying. Judging from ALL your claims, I think you are delusional, and the first test you should consider doing should involve your own psychiatric evaluation. Seriously. Proposing to diagnose strangers in a mall (or anywhere else) might, in your opinion, prove or disprove your alleged ability, but it could also have serious repercussions if you "sense" something that could cause someone great distress and anxiety, especially when it turns out not to be true. The only difference between you and someone like Sylvia Browne is that she knows she is making her conclusions up. You are inherently more dangerous because you apparently can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy

I am not intentionally lying. My only claim that I want to have tested is medical information from live persons. If it is not the case of ESP, the perceptions would not be defined as a psychiatric problem. To diagnose strangers in a mall would prove nothing. It would suggest something. Proof will be obtained in a proper scientific setting. I agree that the mall experiment would have to be done carefully. Only information that is innocent and harmless should be checked for accuracy. I can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy? I know that the perceptions aren't the same stuff as what my eyes see. And I also know that so far the accuracy has appeared to be very good. It is not fantasy to proceed toward further testing, as that is all I have concluded.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, that surprises me. I don't doubt you, it's just not something I would do. I might tell my boss the reason for the surgery, but, to anyone else, I wouldn't elaborate. I would be uncomfortable in doing so.

You'd think so, but I learned things about people that I wouldn't have otherwise if they didn't have to take off work for surgery or treatments. In my case I was 20 years old, so once I realized people wanted to know why I was taking off a couple of days, I started telling them I was having ball reduction surgery rather than a varicocelectomy. These days I might be more discreet.

Well, no, not in that way, but there are better ways to put it. At the very least, she could have mentioned to the woman that she sensed something wasn't right, and advised her to visit a doctor. Even if the woman hadn't done it, or hadn't taken her seriously, it would have been better than remaining completely silent.

I think we're all guilty of trying to say what we would do in a situation and then draw a conclusion about someone who doesn't do what we expect. The more I think about it, though, the more I think we're wasting our time doing so.

If she had asked the woman directly and got an affirmative, somebody else would be saying, "Yeh, like you'd just come right out and ask a coworker if she has cysts. Right." It would pop into my mind.

If she had mentioned that the woman get checked by a doctor and the woman didn't react like Anita was a nutcase, then I'm sure other people would be calling *that* unrealistic (I would).

So, really, what's to be gained by even discussing the likelihood of her anecdotes? I say in cases like this just treat them as truthful and move forward accordingly. Eventually you'll either get direct contradictions or something you can test.

As far as being invasive, well, she's apparently looking into testing people-strangers, I expect-on whether they have had vasectomies or breast implants. Aren't those considered intimate subjects?

This kind of illustrates my point. Apparently she asked one person about a vasectomy, and as I recall ,it was a friend. But I could be wrong. Breast implants were my idea. So, should we spend a bunch of time debating the whether that behavior (whatever it is) is inconsistent with other situations?

Is asking a friend about a vasectomy the same as asking a coworker about cysts? We don't know any of the personalities involved or if we got the entire story with all the characters involved. In the end does inconsistent behavior indicate deception anyway? Fine, she's inconsistent.

What I took from this was to ask Anita, "If you can see cysts and vasectomies, can you see circumcision?" She indicated that she can see private parts, but had never considered if she could sense anything about circumcision. She will look into this for testing purposes.

When she said she could sense discomfort, swelling, compression, and such, I came up breast implants. Since she can see the spine and back issues from in front of the body, then certainly she can sense implants from the back. This makes it an ideal test since I can't think of anything seen from behind that indicates implants except maybe a big tattoo that says, "I used to be AA-okay, but now I'm DDoing great!"

To me these things are much more useful in helping her figure out what she's experiencing than debating why she behaved the way she did.

 

[Hokulele]

<snip>

She indicated that she can see private parts...

<snip>

If that is the case, line up 10 professional male-to-female transvestites and 10 "real" women and see what how accurately she can identify which are which.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
Seriously. I've made accurate descriptions of health that should not be possible through ordinary perception.

From MedLinePlus...
"A cyst is a fluid-filled sac. In most cases a cyst on the ovary does no harm and goes away by itself. Most women have them sometime during their lives."

Vasectomies - One in six men over 35 has had one. (http://www.newmalecontraception.org/why_new.htm)

Once again I will tell you that you have made virtually no effort to eliminate the ordinary and mundane. It took me five minutes to gather that information. Why didn't you do it?

When I said, "I have had plenty of examples where guessing and cold reading could not be responsible.", you said "No, you haven't. You might think that, but you're mistaken." to which I respond yes I have. All I have concluded from my own experiences is to proceed toward further and proper testing, and I don't see why you skeptics argue with that conclusion.

See the above.

Had this person said that he never eats peanut oil, that would have been significant.

"Peanut Allergy is the most prevalent food allergy in the US..."
http://www.peanutallergy.com/statistics-and-facts.html

See what I mean? You are making far too many assumptions. First, you thought peanut oil was uncommon for frying when in reality it is very common. Then you counter by saying if he didn't use peanuts that would be highly unusual when in fact peanut allergies are the most common allergies.

You were wise to come to a skeptics forum, but you are unwise in that you so readily dismiss what we have to offer. If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is your response to one part of my post:

The discomfort and hostility shouldn't be a complete surprise.

I expected a little more from you guys.

This is what I actually posted:

The discomfort and hostility shouldn't be a complete surprise. People from other stars who have x-ray vision tend to upset our sense of reality. Maybe we react out of fear.

Better people than you have attempted to erase the words of Pharaoh. I find your snippage here to be evasive to the point of dishonesty.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If that is the case, line up 10 professional male-to-female transvestites and 10 "real" women and see what how accurately she can identify which are which.

Hormones don't make your hips spread or your shoulders contract.

http://www.mf2fm.com/toptips/skirts.php

"Dresses can be difficult to wear. T*Girls' figures are quite different from 'regular' women, especially around the shoulders and the hips (which also tend to be of different sizes)..."

 

[Jonquill]

Anita, do your parents and siblings (if you have any) claim to have any extraordinary abilities?
And what do they think of your abilities?

 

[Hokulele]

Hormones don't make your hips spread or your shoulders contract.

http://www.mf2fm.com/toptips/skirts.php

"Dresses can be difficult to wear. T*Girls' figures are quite different from 'regular' women, especially around the shoulders and the hips (which also tend to be of different sizes)..."

The pro's are well aware of some of the challenges of passing as women.

And to make it more fair, you could use transvestites from another ethnicity, where the body type isn't what a typical European/American is used to. In addition, you could compare VfF's success rate to that of two or three other people.

(Meh, I just thought it would be more entertaining to round up a bunch of transvestites than a bunch of guys who have/have not been circumcised. )

Regardless of the exact test used, I think the idea of a simple binary test, such as guessing gender or whether or not someone has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy/breast implants, would be much easier to control for than the vague descriptions VfF has used in this thread so far.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Another ridiculously long post without any evidence whatsoever...

Akhenaten:
This one's starting to act a little grumpy... Charging at things where there isn't even a problem.

Say what? "Nothing psychic is mentioned in any way"? What about the bit where you're seeing inside people?

That's right. If I have a test where I go to the mall and simply approach people and ask "as a school project we'd like to ask you whether you've had heart bypass surgery?" it is a way to have a test where we do not have to mention anything psychic in nature to the participants. And I like that.

As for not daring to do it by yourself, there's a reason you feel that way, and for once you should go with your feelings. I think I know how a lot of people would answer a single-question "survey" like that, especially if they were apprised of the real reason you were asking. "Security!"

Well that's exactly why I am not so certain about having a test where people are approached with personal questions. I would however prefer to have a table with a sign that asks volunteers to approach us and to participate in their own will. You're right about that. I mean, I could be aggressive in finding out more about my perceptions, but I don't want to end up hurting people in the process. So a careful approach is more appropriate.

Of course you may choose Femke's suggestion and lie to the punters about the nature of the "survey", but that would just be adding "unethical" to "unbelievable" and wouldn't be a good career move for a prospective scientist, now would it?

Well I agree with that. So I am still thinking about how to go about a mall or a hospital experiment. Or, why not just have a table, with a sign that says "volunteers needed for psychic medical diagnose experiment", that explains that there is a person who will try to detect certain health information. I think actually a lot of people would be curious to participate, but where would I set this up, and legally?

Gord in Toronto:

I see Vision (I may call you Vision, may I?) has not won a Million yet. And not even managed to prove anything to anybody about her astounding abilities.

No, no real progress yet, other than that I've joined a local skeptics group and we are meeting this Thursday. I'm doing all I can think of. Of course I could go about more aggressively and just hunt people down and ask them about their health, but I can't do that. I'm going to look into the possibility of setting up a table somewhere asking for volunteers. I think a lot of people would be curious. I just worry because I am in a Christian community and this subject might be provocative to persons. I do not know how to go about. I welcome ideas though. All this talk here page after page is because I am accused of things that aren't true, and being the person I am I have to respond and defend myself and explain as it is. So we go on and on with lots of talk and no progress. It's like cats and dogs. Skeptics and psychics.

desertgal:

I apologize, Anita. I was looking at it from my personal point of view.

Maybe it is the way skeptics behave.

Well, no, not in that way, but there are better ways to put it. At the very least, she could have mentioned to the woman that she sensed something wasn't right, and advised her to visit a doctor. Even if the woman hadn't done it, or hadn't taken her seriously, it would have been better than remaining completely silent.

From my experience, nurses establish a strict order of hierarchy, based on experience, education and age. I was on the bottom of the hierarchy and was not going to say anything unconventional about a medical condition to a superior nurse. You'd have to have been there.

As far as being invasive, well, she's apparently looking into testing people-strangers, I expect-on whether they have had vasectomies or breast implants. Aren't those considered intimate subjects?

Yes Hon, but these will be people who have volunteered to participate in the test. It is a different matter to approach people in the street.

skeen:

I admire your patience, VFF. If I was the most incredible person the world has ever seen, I'd wanna prove myself pretty darn quick.

I'm sure a conclusive test will be carried out soon.

Well I am gradually growing impatient and excited to have some tests done! I've experienced these perceptions for years now, so that is not the reason I'd be in a hurry. I just want to find out what this is and what it isn't. I am working as fast as I can.

Dear Locknar:

And in this case, you failed...you did not get anything right. You were 100% wrong and then proceeded to try and wiggle out of it all "explaining away" your wrong "percepctions."

I never claimed to detect health information from pictures on demand/by request, and that is what the picture tests concluded. We have learned nothing new, and we proceed toward tests with live persons.

I am always fascinated when the "woo woo's" want to use quantum physics to defend what ever claims they are making.

So am I. I am also fascinated by all the scientific things that can be explained by quantum physics.

100% false, but you know this. With these "health perceptions" you always have a wiggle, just as with the picture here you tried to "read".

Nope. On a formal test with live persons there will be no excuses. You'll see, I'll just have to show you.

You look at someone and proclaim "you've had your appendix out"...and they say "no"; is that the end of it? I doubt it...just as you did with the picture here, you would wiggle with "oh, but your appendix is inflamed and will need to come out soon."

Yes it'd be pretty much the end of it. And I'd miss you guys.

You are doing cold reading, and nothing more.

Nope. Not on vasectomy, ingested bacteria, reproductive cysts, etc.

No you say? Then why the insistance to actually see the people you are "reading"...I'm guessing you blindfolded and with ear plugs (for example) would not work...why?

No I say. Well I have to see the people I am reading, that's just the way it happens to be. Blindfolded would not work, but earplugs would be fine. In fact I can suggest that to the IIG because I worry that music would distract me. Maybe there is another way to block the sound. Why I have to see the persons? Because that is how I detect the microscopic vibrational information that builds pictures in my mind.

Coveredinbeeees:

Then you will never admit to that conclusion. No test can show that you so not have the extrasensory ability you describe, only that you did not display it during the test.

How on earth can you conclude what I will or will not do after the results of a test are in? We just have to be patient and wait and see. A test can definitely show that I do not perceive accurate health information, if I claim to see information that is shown to be inaccurate. If I claim to detect something during a test, and I report a good confidence level in what I see, then that enables those perceptions to be checked for accuracy.

What I mention to the IIG is that in case I do not detect information, the test should be inconclusive. When I do detect information however, then we have obtained the material to be checked for accuracy, and the results of the test can be calculated.

Could you give some examples and demonstrate how you ruled out all possibility of the subject "being nice" to you or "wanting to agree." I accept that your ovarian cyst colleague story is such an example but I would like to hear a few more in order to rule out fluke.

Well, I like to throw in information that I did not detect, just to see if the person is going to agree with everything I say. It is so much fun when I detect a shoulder problem and I say, "Do you have a shoulder problem?" and they say yes. I do not detect headaches, and I say "Do you have headaches?" and they say no. So that is one thing I like to do. I also ask and plead that they answer honestly, and that when possible they prove that what I detect does in fact exist. I tell persons that I am more interested in finding out the truth than in being correct all the time, and I tell people that if they would give a false positive result then that could lead me to waste time and work in a more proper test and that we don't want that.

Could you post the list of detectable ailments that you sent to IIG? If the list does not contain enough ailments with no external signals for IIG to easily assemble an appropriate group of subjects for the test then I would consider UncaYimmy's suggestion to be quite legitimate.

Will be posted here shortly.

desertgal:

So, you don't claim to have psychic powers, but you do claim to detect health information with extrasensory perception?

I claim to perceive health information that has so far appeared to have good accuracy.

Funny, you were willing to do just that with Femke's suggestion of approaching random people in malls about their appendectomies. You thought that was a marvelous idea. Even asking about an appendectomy is an invasion of privacy, when it is being done by a perfect stranger. (No offense intended, Femke.)

I think it sounds like a good idea, yet I express that I am not certain about doing that. It's exactly as I have consistently said. Silly.

...then you have a 50% chance of being right. The odds are probably slightly higher if the gentleman is middle aged. In my opinion, it's the "seeing vasectomy" that is the delusion.

I'm not sure it's a 50% chance unless 50% of all men have had a vasectomy. The interesting thing is that even if I would be guessing, so far I'd have been guessing right all this time. Proper tests should reveal what the accuracy in fact is.

Finding out isn't as option. I fully expect that, if the test does actually happen, and does not go the way you want it to - that is, confirm ESP ability, which it cannot do - you will provide plenty of excuses reasons as to why.

Nope. My objective is to find out. I would not favor having ESP over having something else like synesthesia, or any other outcome of the test. I do not attach myself to any possible outcome of a test because that might end up making me disappointed. I'd just be happy to find out. I think synesthesia is interesting in its own right too. I'll just have to show you how I behave in a test, hopefully by video taping a test. Now that would be nice.

Hokulele:

The problem many people are having with your claims is that your "outline of what you can do" has changed considerably from the first page of this thread, and even from your website.

No, it was and still is "medical information from live people". Isn't it?

You still claim that you can discern between chemicals just by looking at them on your website. Now you claim you cannot. You have claimed that you can "see" things wrong with people, even if you are not sure exactly what the problem is (lactobacilus). Now you claim you cannot. You have claimed that you are most comfortable with vision defects. Now you claim it is other ailments.

The claim I want to have tested is medical information from live people. The other aspects of the perceptions, including chemical identification, or medical information from pictures or video, are as I have consistently claimed rare occurrences. I have shown that I can not produce those perceptions on demand. What the accuracy has been of past experiences that came on their own without effort we will never know for sure, and we do not even care. I have another better and testable claim.

If you would pick just one claim and devise a properly blinded and rigorous test (unlike the cereal test as it was performed, and unlike approaching random people and claiming to see things), then we would have something worthy of discussion.

Exactly. Medical information from live people.

As it is, I have completely lost track of any goalposts, and haven't bothered to participate recently. Please try to understand why people cannot accept your claim of 100% reliability (mostly due to the fact that you wave off any misses as "not part of your talent").

My claim is to detect medical information from live persons. The 100% accuracy is my own anecdotal experiences and I have never intended to present that as documented evidence toward ESP since it is not. I have however stated consistently and over and over again that my own experiences are what compel me toward further testing. Please do not argue with my wanting to have proper tests because my accuracy appears to be excellent.

To help move this thread forward, please state simply and clearly what it is you claim to be able to do. If there are discrepencies between your earlier claims, as well as with the claims on your website, and you refuse to update anything to repair these discrepencies, pardon me for remaining skeptical...

My claim was and is medical information from people in person. Thank you for clearing that out for everyone, maybe you have more of an effect than I've had.

UncaYimmy:

Is asking a friend about a vasectomy the same as asking a coworker about cysts? We don't know any of the personalities involved or if we got the entire story with all the characters involved. In the end does inconsistent behavior indicate deception anyway? Fine, she's inconsistent.

I was much more comfortable asking the friend about a vasectomy than to ask a coworker about a serious health problem. One is a procedure, the other is a serious and intimidating health problem. One was a friend, the other was a higher ranking coworker in a very professional and strict medical environment.

 

[Uncayimmy]

(Meh, I just thought it would be more entertaining to round up a bunch of transvestites than a bunch of guys who have/have not been circumcised. )

Yeh, but what woman wants to risk being labeled as a guy?

Regardless of the exact test used, I think the idea of a simple binary test, such as guessing gender or whether or not someone has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy/breast implants, would be much easier to control for than the vague descriptions VfF has used in this thread so far.

I agree 100%.