Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:

Hilarity! So, finally, finally Anita attempted to test her claim, and failed miserably (of course). And what she concludes is that she has failed to dismiss no ESP ability. Well, heck, I'm failing to do that right now! Does that mean I might have this mythical ability which has never been established to exist?

Hm, very interesting how you can be so incorrect and seem to absolutely believe that you are right. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? Anyone? What's going on here with skeen? I did not fail the test with the skeptic as the volunteer. I will not explain to you because obviously you don't understand any of it.

She seems intent on studying the accuracy of her ability, and yet, completely dismisses the first step: is there any ability? We haven't established that there is one yet!

I have established that there is an ability of detecting accurate health information when I look at people, information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception. Therefore I proceed with study and tests. The skeptics at Thursday's meeting had a small glimpse into this and in the Upcoming Study^TM they might have some more experience with it to see why I am doing this so that we can know where to go next.

Anita, you cannot do anything! You can't even think properly. No amount of failure is going to change your mind, because you are in fact crazy. It's time for you to see a psychiatrist.

When I look at people I perceive health images and information. That in itself is not crazy. The perceptions are not overwhelming or distracting (except for when I see liver worm or other very serious things that I can't stop looking at), nor do I assume them to be reality. What is interesting is that there is correlation with actual health information, in many cases such that is not supposed to be detectable by ordinary senses of perception and where I do not know what cold reading could have been available. I am investigating to find out what the actual accuracy is and what's going on. There's nothing wrong with me, I really do have an interesting experience and my reasons for being compelled to investigate it are valid based on my experience and the experience of those who've witnessed it too. There are no documented examples for evidence yet, but that is some of what the Upcoming Study^TM is for. For Upcoming Evidence^TM.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Agatha:

January or November?

Oops! January 31 or February 1! Oh no, I think I've written January/November in all my correspondence to everyone regarding the study! I don't have much time for the investigation at the moment and I think that's why I made that mistake. Also earlier I meant to post a link to the observations.html page but posted it to the study.html. I apologize!

wardenclyffe:

Didn't we hear from members of the North Carolina Skeptics after last month's meeting (VfF's first)? If they are still around and were at this latest meeting, could we hear from them? I don't doubt that Anita's test subject was healthy and that she saw nothing, I'd just like to hear what went down from a different point of view, if possible. On the other hand, they might be in the middle of an active investigation of VfF's claims and feel uncomfortable talking about it publicly. Still an eyewitness other than VfF might provide some insight.

I will forward to the members of the local skeptics group that some of the JREF Forum skeptics are interested in correspondence with them.

UncaYimmy:

Now you're playing games. You can't blame them for not helping with your study if you didn't ask them. Thus, as I suspected, the reason they didn't help you was because you didn't ask. Thus, you are not acting in good faith or you are simply protecting your delusion.

I am not blaming them. I have let them know that I am interested in their participation with my study and tests, but they have other things to talk about at the meeting and I don't want to interrupt or barge in with my own ideas. I would prefer the opportunity to discuss the study at our monthly meetings, but I have to resort to e-mail and phone communication instead, which works almost as well by the way. So the study is on its way.

Your revised protocol sucks. I've already explained why.

Because I want to involve four skeptics and you believe that four skeptics can't be found? I already have five who are definitely interested. I love my protocol.

Why should he? It's your responsibility. If everyone had agreed to stay an extra hour, you were totally unprepared. Once again, you are either not acting in good faith or protecting your delusion.

I was hoping that I could attempt the medical perceptions with all the skeptics at the meeting, but they discussed their other topics first and I didn't want to interrupt and then when it was time to talk about my study at the very end they didn't have much time left for that. There is no evidence of delusions. There is indication of accurate perceptions of health.

And once again guaranteeing that nothing could have possibly happened this weekend.

If some of the most valuable skeptics can not attend a study this weekend, but can the next, then I will of course plan the study for next weekend. At least that's not my fault, so don't throw it at me. Don't throw it at them either, they can't be expected to put their life aside for the investigation. Family, work, studies, life come first, for me too. I'm very eager to do this asap.

You haven't done anything right. You're either insincere or delusional.

I'm doing everything right in this investigation. I'm not insincere, and there is no evidence of delusion.

skeen:

She always acts as if she's doing everything right, and there's nothing more that she can do. It's ridiculous. This is the easiest thing in the world to prove, if it exists, if you can do it. I believe that at this point she is knowingly protecting her delusions.

This requires the participation of volunteers, of skeptics, it requires paperwork, and careful planning, and it requires permission from those who represent the location at where it will be held. You don't know how eager I am to demonstrate my perceptions. I was so happy when one of the skeptics volunteered! I wish I could enter a room full of volunteers for medical perceptions!

volatile:
The crushed pill samples are still waiting for me to have time to pay them some more attention. I've already spent two hours on them and I am not ready to post any answers even though I've perceived clues as to what they might be. I need more time with them, but you have no idea how busy I am with school, and now the study is approaching.

TheSkepticCanuck:
No! It was a repeated typo! I must have written it that way in all my correspondence about the study! I apologise! The correct dates are of course January 31 or February 1.

 

[volatile]

volatile:
The crushed pill samples are still waiting for me to have time to pay them some more attention. I've already spent two hours on them and I am not ready to post any answers even though I've perceived clues as to what they might be. I need more time with them, but you have no idea how busy I am with school, and now the study is approaching.

Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly.

You have "vision" from "feeling", remember? Remember what you say you can do? You can look at chemicals and perceive their molecular structure and their pysiological effects. Why the sudden need to "perceive clues" and "spend more time with them".

When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?

You do not have vision from feeling. You cannot perceive the molecular structure of chemicals, or their effects on the body. You are not special.

 

[godofpie]

Didn't we hear from members of the North Carolina Skeptics after last month's meeting (VfF's first)? If they are still around and were at this latest meeting, could we hear from them? I don't doubt that Anita's test subject was healthy and that she saw nothing, I'd just like to hear what went down from a different point of view, if possible. On the other hand, they might be in the middle of an active investigation of VfF's claims and feel uncomfortable talking about it publicly. Still an eyewitness other than VfF might provide some insight.

Ward

I am Jim, and a member and founder of FACT (Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers-thanks to madurob for the name ) To give you a brief rundown of what happened at the meeting concerning Anita- She and her friend (Chris?) really wanted to test someone at the meeting. Wayne, a new member, his first meeting, volunteered to be read by Anita at the end of the meeting. Wayne wrote down his health information on a sheet of paper and left it at the table with one of our members. Anita decided where she wanted to "view" Wayne and she chose a table about 10 feet from the area where the rest of us were sitting. She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success. She said that she had expected to find some sort of health problems with Wayne, but she found none. She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza. I then asked the person that had held the paper what had been written on it ( I personally never saw the paper) and they told me that Wayne had written down that he had a scar on his chest from surgery on his diaphragm but other than that, he was healthy. The meeting broke up after this and everyone said their goodbyes. What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery. Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias. It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about. She will come up with a list of ailments that she says she can detect and we can go from there. A couple of other things I feel I should mention. Anita was given a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss her claim and to take questions from our members. She mentioned that when she was young and experimenting with crystals, she could tell which crystal she was holding by its Vibrational ^tm information and that she got so good that she didn't even need to be holding the crystal to tell which one was nearby. I pointed out that this would be much easier to test for than medical ailments on live subjects and she started back pedaling. Anita, if you are to maintain any level of credibility with skeptics you must refrain from making claims like that and then backing away from them. Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson what his explanation would be if he saw scratches appear on someone with no apparent explanation. I think he was hinting at some kind of paranormal explanation but it was an odd way to ask a question. Kind of like "If you saw a pink dragon flying over your head, how would you explain that?" The first thing I would do is go to my doctor. At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem
http://www.oldsalem.org/ here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College http://www.salem.edu/ is an all girls school. Her friend was very excited by this and says that there is no other way she could have known this information because she has never been to Winston and knows nothing about this area. For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job. They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show. For the record, I am not opposed to FACT being involved with Anita and her activities but it must be known that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We presuppose nothing. I personally do not believe in ghosts, paranormal entities (evil, scratching, or otherwise) the lochness monster, or bigfoot, but I am willing to look at evidence and be proven wrong.

As far as Anita's study at the mall is concerned-
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements. Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand. I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. I guess that's all for now. As you were.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Anita,

i really don't get it. That is, your behavior. You obviously have time to write really, really long posts. People have given you protocols, they have given you "instructions" about how to get people involved in your test. You have contact to a local skeptics group. You said repeatedly that you can see/feel conditions right away. You said that you can see "vibrations" of chemical substances and classify them based on these "vibrations".

Yet you fail to take simple, controlled tests. You fail to work together with the skeptics group. You suggest "studies" in malls where it should be clear from the start that it would fail. You claim to see stuff in colour, 3D, down to a sub-atomic level, but then say that some simple jacket may interfere with your "vision"

Reading the post from godofpie, where you said, and i cite him:

"They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on. After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success. She said that she had expected to find some sort of health problems with Wayne, but she found none. She jokingly asked for her million dollars."

So you ignored a very basic rule for such test, you claimed success but found nothing, while in your recent posts you stated that this contradicts your feeling vs. your impressions, or whatever.

You repeatedly stated that you can see/feel/detect stuff really easy and quickly. You said you did tests that confirm that. But when it comes to tests that are controlled, and observed by independent people, you somehow suddenly fail, wiggle out and say you need more time, more planning, more skeptics, whatever. The more you post about all this, the more it looks like you are simply lying to us, and yourself.

What does this mean, again a citation from godofpie:

"At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem
http://www.oldsalem.org/ here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College http://www.salem.edu/ is an all girls school."

And don't even get me started on your previous claims of what you can do and see. Really, one has to think that you are either pulling our collective leg, that you are deluded to no end, or that you try to get a bargain out of our participation in that you can claim on your site that you involved skeptics, just to make you sound plausible.

Sorry that i have to say it so bluntly, but you more and more like a person who wants to scam other people to get their monies. What about that drawing-babies-while-still-in-the-womb stuff? so you _are_ making money with your alleged abilities, don't you? That is, with abilities that can't stand even a slightly scientific test.

Really, take a step back. Do what i did, re-read (almost) the whole thread, just to get it a second time. Think about what you claimed, and what you came up with. Analyze your reactions and behavior, if you can do that. Maybe ask a second person to do that for you.

If then you still see that you are just misleading us, then i have to agree with other have stated so far: you should seek professional help. That is, not from skeptics, but from a good doctor in psychology.

Sorry to say that, but your behavior and posts here leave no room for any other conclusion, imho.

Greetings,

Chris

P.S.: If you like do answer to this, to it in short, meaningful sentences. Do not try to apply your wiggle-out an goalpost-moving tactics on me. Really, try to be sincere.

 

[GeeMack]

Because I know how well I can always see inside a person.

And so far you've demonstrated to us that you simply can't.

Because the accuracy comes from somewhere. If not from cold reading, then what...?

Then what? Uh, first you'd have to demonstrate accuracy. But you have not. And for some reason you don't seem able to understand that you have not. Since all you've demonstrated is that you believe you've been accurate, and since the veracity of that which you believe is totally unsupported by evidence, and since believing without evidence falls squarely within the definition of delusional, your being delusional is your very best explanation given all we know about the situation so far.

And to accept that as being your answer, provisionally, is how science works, Anita.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No. This one is not just an anecdote anymore. It was witnessed by a room full of skeptics, so it is a little bit better than a simple anecdote. And the volunteer himself (the "dude"), was a skeptic.

And their story differs from yours.

I'm not here to pick favorites! If UncaYimmy shares material that is useful in this investigation then I can take advantage of that regardless of what I think of him as a person! His ideas were excellent! Everything I do is wrong, even when I do the right things by taking someone's useful suggestions and using it to progress...
I don't mind being happy.
I was not aware of that problem.

Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).

Furthermore, this is a public request (copy sent via e-mail) that you do not associate my name with the protocol you are proposing. Specifically, this line on your website is incorrect and needs to be removed:

UncaYimmy is the author of the study protocol which will be used shortly in an upcoming study

I am not the author. You took something I wrote and ruined it. Do not associate my name with it.

 

[Locknar]

Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias. It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about.

Actually, in this very thread she has said just that...that she can "see" scar tissue. She has mentioned this in relation to the vasectomy discussion, and the heart by-pass one as well.

I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it. I guess that's all for now.

Because with his suggested test, she has no "out".

 

[Chimera]

From http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html

I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

Posted by GodofPie:

What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery. Anita needs to be careful of confirmation bias.

Dammit, Anita, you're a deluded liar. When are you going to see that?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

volatile:

Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly.

Hm, perhaps yes, but I count none of these as formal evidence, that is what I mean. All they were are interesting experiences that I've had of perceptions of apparent accuracy, and I understand that only results that have taken place in a proper test setting that controls for cold reading and other ordinary sources, and in the presence of skeptics as realiable witnesses who can account for what happens, only then can valid conclusions be made out of the results that are observed.

You have "vision" from "feeling", remember? Remember what you say you can do? You can look at chemicals and perceive their molecular structure and their pysiological effects. Why the sudden need to "perceive clues" and "spend more time with them".

Chemical perceptions occur very infrequently and are among the less compelling expressions of the perceptions. Perceptions about medical substances come on their own sometimes. To then have to force perceptions on demand is something that is not parallel to what my chemical identification perceptions are in their everyday experience and I am forcing the chemical perceptions to do more than they normally do. I think I've been quite clear about the fact that these other aspects occur much less often than the medical perceptions that I am investigating. I've already spent over two hours with Pup's crushed medicine samples, yet in contrast in Thursday's experience with medical perceptions I didn't note the time but I think I must have spent not more than half an hour to be complete with viewing the person.

When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?

The other aspects of the perceptions, as I call them, occur very infrequently in everyday use and also on tests. That is why I have to force them. Even though it is perhaps the same "ability" that is responsible for any expression of the perceptions, it is with medical perceptions I have the most experience.

You do not have vision from feeling. You cannot perceive the molecular structure of chemicals, or their effects on the body.

We don't know that yet. It is fair to begin with the starting point that there is no special ability since one has never been scientifically confirmed in anyone in the past, but I do have reasons to have this investigation and if this is what the tests conclude then I would be happy with that either way.

You are not special.

I am not doing this investigation to be special. I already have everything else in my life that makes me feel fulfilled and content. I'm doing this because I have apparently accurate medical perceptions when I look at people.

 

[tsig]

And their story differs from yours.



Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).

Furthermore, this is a public request (copy sent via e-mail) that you do not associate my name with the protocol you are proposing. Specifically, this line on your website is incorrect and needs to be removed:

UncaYimmy is the author of the study protocol which will be used shortly in an upcoming study

I am not the author. You took something I wrote and ruined it. Do not associate my name with it.

No good deed goes unpunished.lol

You have stumbled into a black hole of confirmation bias and are beyond the known universe.

 

[volatile]

We don't know that yet.

Yes, we do.

In uncontrolled circumstances, your perceptions come powerfully, easily and vividly. You can see molecules, feel stoned from looking at weed, sense bacteria in people's stomachs. In controlled circumstances, these "perceptions" are conspicuously weak and absent.

You do not have any powers. You do not have vision from feeling. It is mindblowingly amusing and not a little tragic to see you maintaining that the easily tested claims are "not interesting", when you yourself have made so much of the hits in setting out your numerous, absurd claims.

Give it up. This is unravelling.

 

[Gmonster2]

The guy u viewed at the skeptics group had a scar on his chest from surgery, you previously said you had detected scars on the chest from heart surgery.

You failed this viewing why can't you admit that?

The skeptics group is quite happy to conduct the study but you still want to arrange it at a mall.

You are avoiding testing why can't you admit that?

 

[Gmonster2]

quotes from post #491 on scar tissue

Anita and unca jimmy from post #491

(Anita)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.

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

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


Here you claim that its not cold reading you detect heart surgery scar tissue , you failed at the viewing! He had one possible thing to detect and you missed it right !?

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten:

<snipped lies, delusions, evasions, back-pedalling, exaggerations, distortions, flights of fancy, hallucinations, faulty memories and bad English>

OK. Asking you multiple questions was always a losing move on my part, given your highly-developed Selective Reply™ ability

See if you can snip this to avoid answering:

Why does your account of your meeting with FACT differ from the one given by Jim (godofpie)?

 

[Akhenaten]

Start with this:

UncaYimmy:
No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he.

I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita: Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me!

GodOfPie: Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.

Anita: I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

GodOfPie: She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.

Anita, you should address the questions in the moderated thread where I ask you to demonstrate why anyone should take the time to test you.

 

[Pup]

Nonsense.

When you reported hits in the past - with chemicals in school, with the cereal test, with the peanut oil, with the marijuana and countless others - you got results instantly.

(snip)

When faced with a real, blinded test of something which you have claimed to be able to do easily in non-controlled circumstances, you encounter what seems to be insurmountable difficulties. What do you think might be the reason for this?

What he said. The pill test was a fail. You couldn't do what you said you could do. The test with Wayne was a fail. You couldn't "see" the scar--something that a person with normal vision would notice if it was visible to them.

It's now obvious, if it wasn't already, that you're stretching hard to try to keep alive the idea that you're getting real information from your "vision from feeling," when in fact it's a subjective experience created by your own mind from non-paranormal clues.

 

[desertgal]

The guy u viewed at the skeptics group had a scar on his chest from surgery, you previously said you had detected scars on the chest from heart surgery.

Correction: Anita previously said that she had detected a scar on the chest from heart surgery when she knew, in advance, that the gentleman had had open heart surgery. In other words, it was just another totally bogus claim.

From her website:

I had already been told that he has had bypass heart surgery but I perceived that I was able to see scar tissue, resembling cartilage tissue, embedded in the chest at where the incision was...I already knew about the heart surgery but am glad that I at least was under the impression of perceiving the scar tissue at such a significant site of operation.

The gentleman at the skeptics meeting did not tell her, in advance, that he had had surgery on his diaphragm, so, of course, she didn't "envision" the scar.

You don't know how eager I am to demonstrate my perceptions. I was so happy when one of the skeptics volunteered! I wish I could enter a room full of volunteers for medical perceptions!

Except, of course, when that is actually offered:

Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall.

It would be interesting if the gentleman from the skeptics meeting would give his version - and reassuring, since I have to wonder at the fact that a new member, attending his first meeting, is the one who volunteered to allow Anita the chance to demonstrate her "ability". Not to cast any aspersions on the unknown Wayne, but there is always the off chance that he was in cahoots with Anita. At this point, I don't think any of us can trust a word she says.

lies, delusions, evasions, back-pedaling, exaggerations, distortions, flights of fancy, hallucinations, faulty memories and bad English

Yep. Add "attention seeking" and "unethical", and that sums up Anita.

We don't know that yet.

No. WE do know that. YOU don't.

I am not doing this investigation to be special. I already have everything nothing else in my life that makes me feel fulfilled and content. I'm doing this because I have apparently accurate delusional medical perceptions when I look at people.

Here's the problem: You are using my name in a way that implies that I somehow support your claim (I do not) and that I am working with you (I am not).

I also have to point out that Anita misrepresents a statement by Miss Kitt on her website:

As Forum member Miss Kitt brilliantly pointed out, since I've experienced good or perfect accuracy in the past, it should be enough for me to simply state what I experience and to base a test on that.

I can't speak for Miss Kitt, of course, but, if she is unaware of this, she may wish to request that Anita remove that misleading statement about her.

 

[skeen]

Oh, gee. Anita truly is as woo as they come, isn't she? She even has some woo friends it seems. Why she would try to offer Scientific explanations for her delusions, when she believes in everything a general woo believes in, is beyond me.

I mean, what's the point? She may as well just call it magic. And, it does sound like she's trying to make money in the woo economy. Pathetic woman.

EDIT: And to add, to say that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I could do that all day. I have my confirmation that she's a goddamn liar and manipulator.