Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected. With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision. I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery.

This paragraph is an indication of definite progress, but at the same time it illustrates the difficulty you have in making specific claims and developing reliable protocols.

Take for example your claim about heart surgery. The *only* claim you can make about detecting a scar is that, well, you detected a scar in a certain location. The reason for that scar is irrelevant. Just leave it at that.

As for vasectomies, what you have described so for is vague and no different than that expected from a layperson imagining what a vasectomy might look like. Since you didn't do the research, I'll explain what I mean.

There are two vas deferentia in the normal male, so referring to "the vas deferens" is imprecise. Maybe you know there are two but don't know the plural form. Maybe you think there's only one, which is not an uncommon assumption by many people.

Not all vasectomies result in the vas deferentia being cut. There exists a technique in which a special clamp is used to effectively crimp off the vas to prevent the flow of sperm.

In those vasectomies where the vas are cut, each is cut at least once. The two ends of the vas are heat sealed (cauterized), stitched, tied or clipped, before being returned to the scrotum. Some doctors remove a piece and some do not. Sometimes the piece that is cut was removed from the cauterized section. Sometimes small hemoclips remain in the scrotum.

So, if you are going to claim "vasectomy" you will have the additional burden of providing other important details. Vasectomies are relatively common (1:6 among men 35 and older). Specifying the existence of crimping, clamping, cauterization, and/or tying off will allow you to demonstrate a level of accuracy much better than you could with a simple yes/no about vasectomy based on a claim that a section is missing.

 

[desertgal]

Not a liar. Not here for attention. No need for therapy.

Not a liar, but definitely delusional. Here for attention. Therapy desperately needed.

No! That is another person by my name! Those scientific publications are definitely not mine!

Well, he didn't say those scientific publications were yours, did he? Learn to read carefully.

desertgal:
I do not have an alleged ability. What I say is that I have medical perceptions.

Perceptions from utilizing an alleged ability.

And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website.

No, see, I mean a real field diary, Anita. Includes variables, controls, background information, etc. What you have on your website is laughable.

How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?

How do I? With my eyes, Anita. The same way you do. Yes, yes, I know-you do it with your alleged ability sooper imagination.

I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived...

And that statement is even more hilarious the second time around.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm steering toward a test. I just don't want to disturb people by asking them to share personal information with me. That is why I want to advertise for volunteers instead. So that they come to me.

Then stop yacking about it and do it. Over two weeks ago I posted a protocol for you in another thread. I'll repeat it here with a minor addition:

Contact the local skeptics group by phone (you have the number). Ask them for a volunteer or two to assist you. Post an ad on Craigslist and at your school asking for volunteers. Arrange for everyone to show up a local restaurant (Taco Bell will do) at around 2:00 next Saturday afternoon (it won't be busy). Then proceed as follows:

Below are links to the original Word document and a PDF. It's not perfect, but I believe it is quite adequate for our purposes.

http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.doc
http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.pdf


The protocol is simple:
* One person acts as secretary.
* Anyone can participate.
* Volunteers complete the form and give it to the secretary first.
* The secretary copies the identifying information to a blank form.
* The secretary brings the blank form and the person to you.
* Without any conversation with the volunteer you make your reading and complete the form.
* All attempts must be made to keep you from seeing the person moving around the room, but this will be difficult to manage.
* You may not ask the volunteer to move around.
* You may not get up and move around the volunteer
* You must not say anything at all to the volunteer
* When done with your reading, you give the form back to the secretary.
* Results are not tallied until all readings are done.

When all is said and done, have the volunteer start a new thread and post the results like this:

Anita viewed X people.
Anita checked off N boxes as conditions she detected.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y times.
The volunteers checked off N2 boxes.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y2 times.

Also post the form with all of the conditions. For each condition list the following:

Anita detected this N times.'
Anita matched it Y times.
Volunteers checked this N2 times.
Anita matched it Y2 times.

This will give us a definitive study about with which conditions you are most and least accurate. If there's anything worthy of further study, we can design a protocol to test those conditions only. The experts in statistical analysis will help us with that.

Here it is, Anita. I'm handing it to you on a silver platter. You don't need to "design a study" - it's already done. Just do it.

 

[skeen]

I predict she will do it.

Joke! Can you imagine?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You're missing all the drama, the tragedy, the pathos and bathos, the sheer comedic witlessness...


M.

I know. I know. But shortly after my first post in this thread my Lizard Person Overlord gave me the option of continuing to participate or have white hot steel needles pushed into my eyeballs. I went for the needles. As best as I can see, this was not a mistake.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Then stop yacking about it and do it. Over two weeks ago I posted a protocol for you in another thread. I'll repeat it here with a minor addition:

Contact the local skeptics group by phone (you have the number). Ask them for a volunteer or two to assist you. Post an ad on Craigslist and at your school asking for volunteers. Arrange for everyone to show up a local restaurant (Taco Bell will do) at around 2:00 next Saturday afternoon (it won't be busy). Then proceed as follows:

Below are links to the original Word document and a PDF. It's not perfect, but I believe it is quite adequate for our purposes.

http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.doc
http://uncayimmy.googlepages.com/VFFChecklist.pdf


The protocol is simple:
* One person acts as secretary.
* Anyone can participate.
* Volunteers complete the form and give it to the secretary first.
* The secretary copies the identifying information to a blank form.
* The secretary brings the blank form and the person to you.
* Without any conversation with the volunteer you make your reading and complete the form.
* All attempts must be made to keep you from seeing the person moving around the room, but this will be difficult to manage.
* You may not ask the volunteer to move around.
* You may not get up and move around the volunteer
* You must not say anything at all to the volunteer
* When done with your reading, you give the form back to the secretary.
* Results are not tallied until all readings are done.

When all is said and done, have the volunteer start a new thread and post the results like this:

Anita viewed X people.
Anita checked off N boxes as conditions she detected.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y times.
The volunteers checked off N2 boxes.
Of those boxes, Anita had matches Y2 times.

Also post the form with all of the conditions. For each condition list the following:

Anita detected this N times.'
Anita matched it Y times.
Volunteers checked this N2 times.
Anita matched it Y2 times.

This will give us a definitive study about with which conditions you are most and least accurate. If there's anything worthy of further study, we can design a protocol to test those conditions only. The experts in statistical analysis will help us with that.

Here it is, Anita. I'm handing it to you on a silver platter. You don't need to "design a study" - it's already done. Just do it.

Unc,
As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way.

You're right to say it's not a way to test a claim, but you're wrong assuming that a claim is being tested. There is no claim to be tested. Yeh, I know what you're thinking: Two months and 900+ posts later and there's still no definitive claim? We're all thinking that.

All we have are some anecdotes and her assurances that when she *does* detect something, she is 100% accurate (no false positives). She has no definitive list of things she can or cannot detect. She has no idea how many times she has missed detecting something in one person that she has detected in another. She has not kept any records over the years. About a month ago she started noting "observations" but they are vague and incomplete.

What I put together is a study to put us further along to finding *something* that leads to an actual and testable claim. Her anecdotal evidence will be replaced with real information, which would be a big step in the right direction.

All of this should have been done before she ever asked to be tested by the IIG last year or came here to announce her abilities, but what's done is done. If you have a better suggestion to help discover the scope of her abilities, let's hear it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

OK, . If the local skeptics can locate 20 volunteers that either have a condition she says she can detect, 10 who have it and 10 who do not., then under the tightly controlled conditions that you suggest (double blind) she gets to choose who has the condition without any feedback whatsoever.
The appropriate test would be Fisher's exact probability test.
For example, of the 10 who have it, suppose she gets 8 right, or hits and 2 false posititives. Of the 10 who don't have it, 6 false positives and 4 false alarms.
Signal detection theory could help us out here, because there is a tendency to say "yes" whether there is a signal or not.
However, there must not be any way she can say "I don't know" and not that have that counted as a miss or wrong response.
That's been her out all along.

 

[Uncayimmy]

OK, . If the local skeptics can locate 20 volunteers that either have a condition she says she can detect, 10 who have it and 10 who do not., then under the tightly controlled conditions that you suggest (double blind) she gets to choose who has the condition without any feedback whatsoever.
The appropriate test would be Fisher's exact probability test.
For example, of the 10 who have it, suppose she gets 8 right, or hits and 2 false posititives. Of the 10 who don't have it, 6 false positives and 4 false alarms.
Signal detection theory could help us out here, because there is a tendency to say "yes" whether there is a signal or not.
However, there must not be any way she can say "I don't know" and not that have that counted as a miss or wrong response.
That's been her out all along.

You're jumping ahead. We don't have a condition we can test. What I devised was a quick and dirty way to reveal some possible conditions to pursue. Any ideas along those lines?

The "I don't know" has been a factor, yes, but it's not entirely fair to call it an out. It's a problem. I see two ways to overcome it. The first way is to get Anita to make a specific claim where "I don't know" counts as a miss. She has not done the legwork to come up with that claim. And since she's had this ability for over a decade, it's safe to assume that she needs some assistance in this regard. Hence my proposed study as a first step.

The second way to overcome the problem presents all sorts of logistical problems. First, it requires a condition with no visual cues (that includes demographics). Second, it could possibly require an incredibly large pool of subjects.

So let's say that we put together 1,000 people. We give them all a glass of water, but only 500 of them get water with lactobacillus in it (double-blinded, of course). Suppose we ask Anita to only pick those she believes to have taken the bacteria. If she says she "knows" 100 consumed the lactobacillus and gets all 100 correct, I'd crap my pants. Beyond such a magnificent feat we'd have to consult the experts in statistics to tell us what results would indicate that something there was worth investigating. It would *prove* nothing specific, but it would be worth looking into.

Is such a test feasible? Nope.

Is such a test reasonable? I think so. It would indicate that *something* seems to be going on. After years of research we might find that those 100 people all have a gene that makes the body convert lactobacillus to another chemical that is then excreted through the skin. Anita could have a gene that allows her to smell that chemical.

However, given Anita's descriptions of her abilities, I don't believe that such a test is in order. She needs to come up with a specific claim. Once that's done, the testing is the easy part.

Like I said, if her perceptions are as accurate as she claims, my study should help her find avenues to investigate. If on the other hand she has a bunch of false positives, that will force her to reassess her beliefs.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Survey done, Study being designed

Today I conducted what I refer to as a survey at the local mall. A survey involves going out and looking at people and making notes of what medical perceptions I experience, as well as details of the conditions under which they take place, and other comments and conclusions that are learned along the way. Unlike what I refer to as a study, the survey offers no opportunity to check for the accuracy of the perceptions, but to merely account for what was perceived. Some of the benefits of a survey include to become better acquainted with the paranormal claim and to gather a list of what specific health information I claim to perceive. The conclusions of this survey will be posted eventually.

I sent an e-mail to the local skeptics group, the e-mail can be found here, asking for their participation as skeptics on the upcoming study. The assignments I have in mind for the skeptics are listed on that e-mail. I forgot to mention and to emphasize in that e-mail that the study is not a test and that it can not conclude in favor of an extrasensory ability.

I am working on writing up the various documents that are involved in the study:
-An information sheet for the participating skeptics which describes my paranormal claim, the objective of the study, the procedure of the study, and the assignments I have in mind for participating skeptics.
-An information sheet for those who volunteer to let me look at them to attempt psychic medical diagnose, describing me as a person, the paranormal claim and what that means, the purpose of the study, how the study will be carried out, about who is eligible to volunteer, what the volunteer will do and what happens on the study.
-A thorough disclaimer for the volunteers that describes the concerns and potential risks that are involved in an exercise of psychic medical diagnose and how this study has been designed to avoid those, with a reminder that the information presented by the claimant is not to be taken as truth regardless. Volunteers must read through the disclaimer and sign it to state that they understand, before they are allowed to participate.
-The advertisement notices that will be published in newspapers, placed in shops and restaurants, which ever of these, or other, methods become available. The advertisement briefly describes the study and asks for volunteers.
-A legal representative will be contacted to ensure that the carrying out of this study is in accordance with law and to obtain a licence if one is required for this type of events. An information sheet is prepared for this purpose to be presented to them along with all the other material, in case written material is requested.

Once I have finished preparing the drafts of these documents they will be made available on my website, and I will then ask for the participation of you guys to improve on them until we agree that they are ready.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I applaud your efforts, but I feel I need to advise you that you are making it more difficult on yourself than necessary. Design the study so that you do not need any disclaimers or release.

* Print the medical questionnaires in pairs with a randomly generated five digit number. One copy is completed by the volunteer and one copy is completed by you.

* Have the volunteer complete one form and seal it in an unmarked envelope.

* Have them put the envelopes in an opaque box.

* They bring the other form to you so you can complete it. You seal that one and put it in another opaque box. Don't let the volunteer see it.

* Don't use the word diagnose. Ever.

* Don't provide your name or your website.

This way you do not give any information back to the volunteer. All information submitted by the volunteers is anonymous because you will never see their completed forms. The person analyzing the data will be blinded as to the identities of the volunteers.

No license is required. No disclaimer. No potential liability.

And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future.

 

[desertgal]

And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future.

I agree with you. But, I will give Anita credit for taking precautions now, even though she didn't before. She may not need to, but, at least, she's trying to do the right thing.

I am curious as to what she means by "legal representative", though. If you mean attorney, Anita, then say "attorney". For all we know, "legal representative" could mean a paralegal or a legal assistant - in which case, any advice they give would be suspect, since they aren't fully versed in the relevant laws.

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”.

No, that isn't what I meant, but I said it very poorly. I shouldn't have used the word "test". What I was trying to say is that, if someone makes a medical diagnosis with the primary objective of displaying their alleged psychic ability, rather than having the subject's health at heart, then I believe it is irresponsible. And I'm thinking of Sylvia Browne as an example, with her l-e-t-h-i-c-i-n, etc. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Is that so? It's a little different testing one's own claim. I'm still mostly in the stage of trying to establish understanding into my perceptions, to better know how to adapt this into a test, because that's what we're working on with the IIG and also with the local skeptics group. How to take an phenomenon from its environment and into a test environment. Isn't that what a scientist does? Collects samples and observations before doing tests on them? I hug myself for staying here. .

In your obsession with responding to absolutely every single sentence posted now ('last word' obsession perhaps?) you have apparently stopped actually even trying to be relevant to the actual comments.

I have just encoutered all this stuff in the moderated thread:

Oh yes. I love looking at their bodies and also at how they perceive the world, their thoughts and sensory perception. Amphibians and vultures have among the most beautiful thoughts. Both are non-aggressive animals.

Except when they aren't:
http://www.petplace.com/reptiles/how-amphibians-behave/page1.aspx

Amphibians can be aggressive. Perhaps the most aggressive amphibian is the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]horned[/color][/color] or Pac-Man frog, a fist-sized ivory-with-brown blotched frog that conceals its plump body under leaf litter in its South American jungle habitat. When an appealing food item (an insect, mouse-sized mammal, bird, or another frog) wanders by, the horned frog roars out of its cover and grabs the food item. With a huge mouth, jaws strong enough to crush the skull of a mouse, and a pair of bony processes in the front of the jaw to make sure prey doesn't wriggle free, the horned frog packs an impressive bite.

More examples
http://www.livingunderworld.org/amphibianArticles/article0007.shtml

There is no difference in difficulty of perceiving human or animal tissue. I have less practical experience with animals but I think I could do just as well with them. One of the things that amazes me is that the alveoli in the lungs of the African clawed frog are proportionally MUCH larger than they are in the human lungs.
I love looking at the chemicals in the body fluids of insects and would love to study insect biology and find out exactly what those are. It is tremendously different from the internal chemistry of humans. I love reading the sensory perceptions of insects. For instance one black flying insect makes a sound with their wings that humans can't hear, but I hear it with these perceptions and can also decipher to understand what animals communicate. How? By taking in my mind a copy of the vibrational aspect of the communication and applying it to a copy of the vibrational aspect of the animal, I see how these combine and what the effects would be.

Yet more testable claims. Interpret insect communication then predict what the insects will do. Read a bee dance, identify the location they are describing etc. etc. etc.

I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

Okay this is testable right here.
Please show an example of your vibrational algebra. You can use example data to demonstrate.
Go into as much detail as you like. You can do these calculations - please show us how.

Quote:
6b) How about insects and spiders?

Insects are my favorite animal to study. They are superior to humans in many aspects. I can look at a spider and perceive the extent of its venom in a human body, by combining the vibrational aspect of the chemical with the vibrational aspect of the human body in my mind, observing where "something happens" and looking closer.

How do you know. Have you done this? Studied someone who has been bitten by a spider? Where?

Don't forget that I also see bacteria.

Except when anyone tries to create a test protocol around this.
I love the way the claims are so fixed and clear on the general descriptions, yet whenever any of these are questioned it all becomes so vague and unreliable as to be untestable.

The interesting thing is that I can download the vibrational aspect of a bacteria and experiment in my mind by applying different types of vibrations to it to see for instance what would kill it. I can then translate the effective vibration into a corresponding light structure (to be generated with electronic instruments)

Give an example.
What 'electronic instuments'?

or a chemical medicine, or other large scale, "real" things (as if vibration weren't real, but some of you might think so). This way I've invented a hypothesis for a treatment method for the flesh eating bacteria that I want someone to study but to give me the credit of its discovery.

If you have enough details to run the experiment why don't you? Your University shgould have professors who would jump all over this.
Unless it's the ones who ruffle your hair, laugh and say "Oh yeah 'Vibrational information' well done" and carry on walking.

Quote:
6c) How about plants?

I perceive images of the cells of plants and perceive the vibrational aspect of their molecules. I can take those vibrational understandings of the molecules and in my mind apply them to a variety of theoretical situations, and have discovered for instance a plant that has a very potent cancer remedy.

Which plant, which chemical.

I've also seen a cancer remedy in an orange mushroom, except that this molecule would also destroy the human kidneys.

What's the plant, what's the molecule?

When I take the vibrational aspect of a plant's chemical and apply it to the full vibrational aspect of a human body, all the effects that the chemical would have are highlighted in the body and take place in animation for me to observe, and I can observe the theoretical effects that this chemical would have.

Obviously unless anyone suggests a test around this new 'ability' in which case the 'ability' will be once again relegated to 'unreliable'.

I can also look at medicines and apply their vibrational aspect to the one of a human body to see what the effects of the medicine are.

Obviously unless anyone suggests a test around this new 'ability' in which case the 'ability' will be once again relegated to 'unreliable'.

This leads to a lot of very interesting conclusions. I can very often by doing this figure out what the medicinal intention amidst all the harmful side-effects is. The very first thing besides crystals, that I perceived a vibrational aspect of was our houseplant, of this kind, the prayer plant,

Again no specific examples. This is like talking to a 14 year old playing an imagination game.

Add some real science to any of this. Real tests. Real calculations.

If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.

You have specifically said:

I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

This is one thing you can do here on the forum.

Provide a proper worked example of this from initial data and values through to results that tranlate 'back into real worls physical things' and how they do so.

Let's try and introduce some real science and maths into all the vague generalisations.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

This way you do not give any information back to the volunteer. All information submitted by the volunteers is anonymous because you will never see their completed forms. The person analyzing the data will be blinded as to the identities of the volunteers.

Oh my UncaYimmy you are brilliant! This makes everything uncomplicated!

 

[Moochie]

"Anita," when can we expect a denouement to this internet novel of yours? Interested readers of science fiction wish to know.


M.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

She's a college student with paranormal beliefs.

With paranormal experiences. All I believe is that I have medical perceptions. I do not believe to know where the perceptions come from or their actual accuracy, and that is what the test is for.

I have only stated that is has not been proven to exist. I have *repeatedly* stated that ESP cannot be proven not to exist. No one test can be devised to conclude that it doesn't exist.

And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have ESP. We can say that it is unlikely that I have ESP, or that we do not expect me to have ESP, but to say that I do not have ESP did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have ESP. And I was right about that.

Akhenaten:

You haven't noticed at all, have you, that people here have time and again rejected this legal and moral smokescreen that you're trying to create?

I assure you that the reason I want to ensure that my study is in accordance with law is not to delay the process. It won't take more than a few minutes to ask a legal representative, and then I can proceed with good confidence. This will be done on Monday.

I believe I can detect redheads. I can test this by going to a public place and counting all the european people as they pass me, and noting the number of redheads that I perceive.

My claim is not the same as claiming to be able to detect readheads. To test my claim we do need volunteers who disclose their health information.

Locknar:
I saw the gaps of the vas deferens and concluded that it was a vasectomy. I saw it in such detail to know that he was not born that way. Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way. It's a good point though, Locknar, you are right that symptoms of various health information could also have come about due to other causes. This will need to be taken into account on tests. All that we conclude on my accurate detection of vasectomy is that it might be part of my claim, that yet again I failed to falsify the claim, and to proceed toward a real test.

See above. There are any number of reasons someone may have a "vertical scar on the chest"...heart transplant, pace maker, injury, etc.

Then that makes it simpler. The information to look for can be "vertical scar on the chest" and heart bypass can be disregarded. Unless the study gives me experience to state that I do detect heart bypass from perceiving symptoms that are found on the heart itself. I never got that far in this experience.

"large and significant" is ambiguous, so in that list you could also include stents, angioplasty, etc.

True, that is why I can for instance draw what I see, or make a detailed description of its dimensions and placement. In this anecdotal case, I detected it in the same size that it was. Just an anecdote, I know it happened, and you don't know whether it happened, and we know that. It's just part of my claim, and all of this claim will be tested for.

Same question as above...if someone has a "large and significant vertical scar" on their chest, but did NOT have bypass surgery....would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?

In this anecdotal case, I was able to conclude that it was a heart bypass surgery. On a test, if I detect the scar only, then I will write down that I only perceived a scar. I will be very specific and careful in my answers on the test.

This is a assumption on your part. You have no way to prove or validate your contention that in every case people were not forewarned or were not otherwise just "playing along."

I have had many (anecdotal) experiences where the accuracy of my perceptions was confirmed by means that exclude the possibility of forewarning or playing along because the person did not know about my perceptions. And all that concludes is, "proceed toward a real test to find out the actual accuracy involved in my perceptions."

Exactly what "means" were used to verify your claims? See above, you can not summarily rule out that people are just "playing along."

I know that people could be just wanting to agree with me. I have already acknowledged this risk earlier upthread, and that is why I look forward to having real tests.

So you independently verified the presence of "marks or scars" wrt the vasectomy, specifically how did you do this?

I assumed that the person was not lying about having had a vasectomy. I didn't think a person would lie about such a thing, but then again, I do realize the concern that a person might be lying and that is why a proper test will be better at revealing the actual accuracy behind my medical perceptions. All I can say about my anecdotal experiences is that they have failed to falsify the claim of extrasensory medical perceptions.

Cold reading could have taken place in EVERY incident you have described. In fact, everything you have described can be attributed to cold reading and a over active imagination.

No, I have had experiences where I do not know what the cold reading might have been. Regardless, the study and tests will give us the actual accuracy and provide us with documented and verified examples of the perceptions.

So? Have you asked them, and they all declined? How odd that everyone you have used your "power" on feels health information so private they'd decline to be mentioned.

It is my choice not to involve these people in this discussion. I realize that that might place suspicion on my credibility, but I don't care. There will be real, documented examples of perceptions up ahead and I don't think it necessary to involve my family and friends.

Which is why you've carried on about how accurate they are?

I do say that I have been honest in my description of the anecdotes, yet I have consistently agreed that they do not serve as formal evidence. They do compel me toward real tests, and that's all they are.

You claim to have a ability/"power" nobody else on the planet has ever had. Wouldn't a bit of discomfort be worth conclusively proving this ability, rather then carry on (since 2007) about your vague and ambiguous claims with no proof?

Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know. I've had a hard time adjusting to American culture. Thankfully people who volunteer for the test know they will be looked at and will allow it!

This could be over and done with...your local skeptic group (for example) could have already conducted the "cereal test", and you could be well on your way to collecting the $1M from the MDC (for example).

Perhaps. But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea. I'd prefer to work on my main claim, with the perceptions that occur the most frequently and comfortably. It really is a testable claim, even if a bit more complicated to arrange.

Given the context as you have outlined it is more accurate to say "medical perceptions" are vague and otherwise ambiguous (especially in the context you have outlined), and allow more "wiggle" to feed your belief.

You've made some very important points. You are absolutely right, and the study and tests must take this into account.

Gmonster2:

My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions.

Wonderful idea. I will try it with the crystals I have at home while I work on the main claim of medical perceptions. If in this I discover a claim that is easier to test, and that I am as confident in as the medical perceptions, I might switch the subject of the test.

 

[desertgal]

With paranormal experiences.

Paranormal beliefs. You haven't proven that any of your paranormal fantasies actually happened.

 

[Locknar]

I saw the gaps of the vas deferens and concluded that it was a vasectomy. I saw it in such detail to know that he was not born that way. Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way.

There is that "wiggle" again; previously you said you saw the vas deferens had been severed (my paraphrasing) and mentioned NOTHING about scars, surrounding tissue, etc....now you mention "tissue that has been operated on looks different." This would be along the lines of a "after, after the fact" explanation.

All that we conclude on my accurate detection of vasectomy is that it might be part of my claim, that yet again I failed to falsify the claim, and to proceed toward a real test.

"We"...who is "we", you and the parrot on your shoulder?

All that can be concluded is you had a 1:6 chance of guessing right, and that you may or may not have since (as you note) you did nothing to validate the claim and offer nothing to validate your campfire story ever took place.

The information to look for can be "vertical scar on the chest" and heart bypass can be disregarded. Unless the study gives me experience to state that I do detect heart bypass from perceiving symptoms that are found on the heart itself. I never got that far in this experience.

Yet again, "wiggle" appears...you claim to see on a atomic level, yet the only apparent thing you can "see" related to heart bypass is a "vertical scar on the chest"? My...that seems awfully ambiguous.

All I can say about my anecdotal experiences is that they have failed to falsify the claim of extrasensory medical perceptions.

EVERY single event you claim can be explained via other means; you simply choose to link them to "woo woo."

It is my choice not to involve these people in this discussion. I realize that that might place suspicion on my credibility, but I don't care. There will be real, documented examples of perceptions up ahead and I don't think it necessary to involve my family and friends.

YOU already involved them.

So rather then ask family/friends to come forward and thus establish credibility AND be well on your way to claiming the MDC, you continue to waffle, delay, etc.

We are talking about validating a "power"/ability that has never been shown to exist in the entire existence of the human race...surly if asked at least one of them would be willing to step forward?

I do say that I have been honest in my description of the anecdotes, yet I have consistently agreed that they do not serve as formal evidence.

Honesty is ambiguous; have you been factual...and the answer is no. "How can this be" VFF says...because you offer nothing in the way of corroborating facts. You don't keep a diary and thus by default - no diary, it didn't happen.

Real scientists keep written diaries, document corroborating information, etc.; a blog outlining your perceptions/memory of events is nothing more then fantasy (ie. campfire stories).

Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know.

Just more "wiggle", and planting of explanations should you fail.

But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea.

Excuses.

I'd prefer to work on my main claim, with the perceptions that occur the most frequently and comfortably. It really is a testable claim <snip>

Not surprising, because pursuit offers enough "wiggle", delay, and excuses to perpetuate the fantasy (that is to say, attribute normal every day events to "woo woo").

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:

Oh gee. So, Anita admits that her "perceptions" don't even enter into reality, but are merely in her mind. Well, we knew that already, but that she knows it rules out any possibility that she's going to realize what she's doing - fantasizing.

In the way that I experience the perceptions, when I look at a person I locate where the information is, and then feel the vibration patterns within the material. This information comes to me in the form of feeling. I do not see the images in the world itself, I do not take in the perceptions in the form of visual input. The input is feeling, in nature. A feeling not like when we touch things, but feeling things that are invisible and at a distance, like heat and temperature for instance. I experience that the vibration that I feel contains patterns in its structure, and that each unique pattern corresponds to a specific chemical element, the atoms. My mind distinguishes the different types of vibrational structures based on how their shapes are perceived by feeling them. My mind then automatically associates vibrational structures to corresponding atoms and presents to me the colored, non-solid spheres that are a perceived image of atoms. Now I have an image of atoms in my mind, even though my eyes never saw the atoms, and all I did was feel the vibration that I feel in things. If I stop on the atomic level, I can distinguish based on color, size, and distinct feeling, which of the elements they depict.

My mind quickly assembles the perceived atoms into molecules, which contain more meaning than their individual atoms. These visual and felt perceptions of molecules quickly assemble upward into the cells they compose. And these perceptions quickly build upward into the perception of tissue. So, based on feeling, I perceive vision from feeling, which is what I call it.

These images are formed in my mind. They are not images that are ready and floating around in the world around me. I do not see these images with my eyes. To have perceptions such as these is perhaps not interesting from a paranormal point of view in itself. What we are investigating is not the perceptions in themselves, but we are investigating to find out whether these perceptions have any correlation with the actual structures of the body that can not be perceived by ordinary senses of perception.

Gmonster2, crystals, eh? In learning more about Anita, I am actually disappointed by just how much the same she is as other woo's. Spirits, crystals, vibrations, quantum things. Tut.

Crystals and vibration are very interesting from a strictly scientific point of view too. A few years from now I hope to use crystals in electronic instruments, to generate very detailed light structures and vibrational patterns. And I will do so in a strictly scientific manner, where all of my observations and conclusions are ones that are established based on instrumental readings or other results that are mutually observable by all scientists. My paranormal or just unusual perceptions and ideas will be nothing but inspiration and ideas and they do not reduce the quality of my professional work.

I revoke what I said about her having psychological issues. I just think she's silly. And she does not have synaesthesia. Anita just needs to grow up. She's clearly the type of woman who hangs out in Arizona looking for "vortexes".

I do have synesthesia. I automatically associate things with colors, shapes, and character and based on how I know some of my friends, I do this to a greater extent than most people. The question is whether my perceptions are synesthesia or what they are. I normally do not look for these kind of experiences. They are part of how I perceive.

And I still believe no test will ever be performed.

The study is up next, and if I fail to falsify the claim at that study then a test will definitely take place.

EDIT: Just to add: I love her false sense of concern about going out and "perceiving" medical information in other people. As has been pointed out, she doesn't need to ask people to share their personal information with her. She can perform a simple yes or no. If she is correct, which she believes she will be, no-one is going to mind.

I am concerned with people because they could get hurt by participating in psychic claims and also I am concerned to ensure that the study and tests are in accordance with law. If I came here acting like I was not concerned with people's well-being with this investigation I'd be criticized for that too. Like I've said, to some of you guys, everything I do is wrong. So I'll just do what I know is right.

desertgal:
When I said, "...what my beliefs and experiences are, or what I do besides talk to you guys", desertgal misinterpreted,

Well, then, why are we here at all? Why did you start this thread, if not to discuss your "beliefs and experiences"? If you want to limit this conversation to the sole fact that you talk to us guys, then here you go: You talk to us guys. Thread over.

I said that I am on this thread to discuss the perceptions, and that the things that I do when I am not here, the things "I do besides talk to you guys", is not of interest here. This thread is not over, stop bullying around this thread and twisting the intent of this thread! If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.

YOU brought these beliefs and experiences and your other activities to this forum. We didn't ask you. YOU threw it all on the table, and now you want to dictate what parts of it all we can discuss and what parts we can't. Rubbish to that.

This thread is about my paranormal investigation. The Ghost thread was about my ghost experiences. This one is not.

When I said, "No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild.",

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is. And it is very obvious.

Opinions and expectations are fine, just remember that we haven't proven one way or the other yet.

Well, what does this mean? I've visited a large number of crime scenes in my work - and I can accurately describe any of them while I am there. I can accurately describe the room I am sitting in, too, while I am sitting in it. Doesn't mean I have a sooper power.

I see the people and events that took place and everything I have described has either been confirmed as accurate, or seems likely, and none has been proven as inaccurate, or seemed unlikely. And these are sites that today show no record of what happened. If you want to discuss this topic, please see the Ghost thread, but I won't be there since I'm busy working on my paranormal claim.

And one I take serious issue with. I've worked with a great many excellent law enforcement officers over the years, and your statement is a thumb of the nose to these fine men. They spend years honing their investigative skills. They collect and analyze evidence, they conduct endless interviews, and they often work round the clock for weeks at a time to solve crimes. You have no clue about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes hand in hand with investigating a crime.

And then it takes me one second to see everything that happened, oh boy. Not to disrespect their work. It's just easier to actually see it.

That you claim to have walked into a crime scene, as a child and beyond, and solved instantly what grown men dedicate months upon months to solving is an absolute fantasy-and you should be ashamed of yourself for making that claim. And please don't respond to this. Whatever defense you might offer up won't change the fact that you said it, you meant it, and it is false. It may be a result of your endless fantasies, but it is still false.

And once again desertgal makes an incorrect assumption. I have never solved crimes. I've described them. I never made that claim. You should be ashamed of yourself for making an incorrect assumption again and for throwing it at me! OF COURSE I'LL RESPOND TO THIS! YOU'RE LYING ABOUT ME! I DID NOT SAY IT! I DID NOT MEAN IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT! And the only one who is false here is YOU! It is your false fantasy that I claimed to have solved crimes! You've made a fool of yourself, again.

My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability.

You must understand that I come from a different perspective than everyone else. I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions, that is why I can approach this investigation in a different manner, from a different starting point, and you guys approach from your starting points, and all of us arrive at the same testing point. I know more about the claim than any of you. Besides you're the one making tons of incorrect conclusions that you place your belief on and then throw at me and judge my character based on.

skeen:

And almost every time Anita writes a wall of text

When you guys write a wall of text, I write a wall of text. That is what happens when I answer questions. If I don't answer questions, I get criticized for that as well. Everything I do is wrong to you guys.

I concur regarding what she said about crime scenes. It's disgusting, and distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

I have never solved a crime scene nor have I claimed to have solved a crime scene. I claim to have seen and perceived crime scenes. I think your false accusations, your strong belief in these false accusations, and your willingness to judge my character negatively on false accusations, is disgusting, distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

Coveredinbeeees:
Thank you for your proposed crystal detection protocol. I think it is a wonderful idea, and it would make for a test that is easy to arrange. I will look into it while I continue to work on this main claim. If I discover in crystals a different claim that I am more confident or equally confident in as the medical perceptions, I can change the specifics of my paranormal claim to crystals, and I would love that. I haven't worked with crystals for over ten years now and look forward to taking them out again.

 

[Locknar]

I do have synesthesia.

No, you claim to have synesthesia since as you've noted before you have not been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have this condition.

Opinions and expectations are fine, just remember that we haven't proven one way or the other yet.

"We"? To be clear - YOU are the one making the claim, it is up to YOU to prove it.