Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)?

Oh, do let me.

(Assuming Vision From FeelingTM mode)

Jim, obviously, is mistaken. He might have psychiatric problems/schizotypal disorder/psychosis, too. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? And, to throw a little more pseudo outrage your way, how dare you! :D

:eusa_boohoo:
 
Last edited:
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.
Ah...but then you have her claiming stuff like this:

Tissue that has been operated on looks different than tissue that was born that way.
 
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.

She's definitely been proven deceitful. With this last study and GodofPie's conflicting story, we've seen her purposely hide the truth. I think we're done.
 
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.

To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well.
 
Oh, do let me.

(Assuming Vision From Feeling [how do you guys add that trademark insignia?] mode)

Jim, obviously, is mistaken. He might have psychiatric problems/schizotypal disorder/psychosis, too. Is there a psychiatrist in the house? And, to throw a little more pseudo outrage your way, how dare you! :D

:eusa_boohoo:

The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, TrademarkTM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.
 
To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well.

Well, "stupid" is debatable, but Anita HAS been repeatedly disingenuous-even when it paints her into a corner-and repeatedly illogical, deceptive, and irrational, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Fair enough, though. I'll agree that that claim is fairly far fetched and unfounded.

It would still be interesting to hear what the gentleman has to say about his encounter.

TheSkepticCanuck]The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, TrademarkTM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.

Thank you. TM
 
Last edited:
Well, "stupid" is debatable, but Anita HAS been repeatedly disingenuous-even when it paints her into a corner-and repeatedly illogical, deceptive, and irrational, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Fair enough, though. I'll agree that that claim is fairly far fetched and unfounded.

It would still be interesting to hear what the gentleman has to say about his encounter.



Thank you. TM

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear Wayne's perspective on the reading too. Given how different the previous perspective was (from godofpie), I am sure Wayne's would be most interesting.

I also like how Anita always has the out of "I don't say I can detect everything wrong with a person" to negate a miss. So, if she doesn't see something she should, it doesn't count, for some reason. However, if I am looking at a picture, and told to count the number of red items, and write down the answer, I couldn't claim a perfect score if I only found 3 of the 20 red items, simply because those 3 I did find were all red. She doesn't seem to understand this. Or else, she just refuses to.
 
Actually in some ways I'm rather glad Anita WAS allowed to talk to this Wayne guy.

For some reason Anita has in some posts seemes to narrow down the possibilities to either her 'ability' is real and paranormal, or she is an amazing cold reader.

That little test seemed to demonstrate neither is likely.

She clearly doesn't have a paranormal ability and appears to be getting nothing from cold reading.

Whuch leaves, 'simply wrong' as the most logical conclusion.

A quick recap of where I see we currently stand:

Anita makes many unverified claims.

Anita offers to formally test one of those claims, some sort of medical diagnosis. The specifics of the medical claim are never explained in a tightly defined way.
After all this time nobody (not even Anita by her own admission) can clearly describe what she claims to be able to do.
SHe contacts IIG over a year ago who are still unable to proceed with testing because of flaws and lack of clarity in Anota's proposed tests.
Anita blames IIG for the delays.

She declines to formally test any of the other claimed abilities formally even though they would all be better to test.

Anita claims casual studies will help her narrow down the specifics of her claim while not actually really being proper tests.

She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.
It fails.

She attempts a chemical identification test via video.
It fails.

She conducts a 'survey' at the mall.
She does not even speak of this again, claiming only that the details will be revealed 'eventually'.

She vists a skeptic group. She tries to get health information from a subject. She instantly breaches the test protocol she had described by talking to the subect, something she had claimed repeatedly she would not do in testing.
But ayway again she fails.

She also claims amazing ability to identify crystals (as she has elsewhere). Testing is again suggested.
She declines.

She sets up a study in an overly complicated way. The skeptic group suggests she use the group for testing in a more controlled setting.
She declines.
She also blames this new sceptic group for delays.

She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with.
Although none of this was ever a problem in any of the unverified stories.
Having had this for at least a week and definitely stared at them for over two hours, she has gathered no information from the samples.
More time is requested as Anita is apparently very busy.
It is unclear as to what point she would consider such a test failed.

If anyone would like to elaborate on a list of claims made, tests carried out etc. then please do. There are so many now it's hard to keep track.
I would imagine this is intentional.



Unlike others I don't think we are done here yet. The more Anita writes and the more tests she does, the more contradictions, inconsistencies and failures appear.
I think this is all going very well at the moment.

If Anita really is genuine about wanting to find out whether her ability is real or imagined then the good news for her is that we are already a very long way down that road.
We now have MUCH more information regarding this claim to form a conclusion from than we did at the start. And it's all pointing one way.

Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself."

It's getting a bit tricky now for Anita to claim success when other people are involved.
Never mind 100% success, we haven't seen anything correct AT ALL since we started even the most basic level of casual testing.

So... what's next?
 
So... what's next?


My predictions:

  • This thread will go on for another couple of pages.

  • Anita will eventually say something like "It's been nice talking to you my skeptics (group hug!), however I have to leave the forum now for good beacuse of school. I still believe I have an ability and I will continue to perceive accurate health information."

  • Anita will continue to claim psychic abilities.

  • She will claim skeptics and scientists were stunned. She will refer to her internet appearance and the enourmous amount of posts on the JREF forum as proof.

  • She will claim she is a skeptic and member of a skeptic group.

  • She will be debunked over and over.

Or, Anita, you could wake up right now. :) I have wasted too much time following this thread. (On the other hand, it is kind of amusing...)
 
Last edited:
She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with.
UNbelievable !
Particularly for some one who gets high, looking at a microscopic picture of marijuana ..

Did Anita ever mention if she experienced relief from pain, just by viewing an analgesic ? It would seem to follow ..

How does she manage to stay in a room in the presence of alcoholic beverages, without getting drunk ?
 
Last edited:
UNbelievable !
Particularly for some one who gets high, looking at a microscopic picture of marijuana ..

Did Anita ever mention if she experienced relief from pain, just by viewing an analgesic ? It would seem to follow ..

How does she manage to stay in a room in the presence of alcoholic beverages, without getting drunk ?

I wonder if she gets an oxygen high from looking at all those oxygen molecules in the air all day? Or nitrogen narcosis from looking at the nitrogen molecules in the air? Does she talk funny after looking at helium molecules? Enquiring minds want to know. :D
 
She is sent crushed tablets to carry out a chemical analysis test on actual material.
She does not like the amount of material sent, the colour, the sizes of samples, or the fact she is not given originals to compare with.
Although none of this was ever a problem in any of the unverified stories.
Having had this for at least a week and definitely stared at them for over two hours, she has gathered no information from the samples.

Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?
 
Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?
That was a possibility raised previously and it is why a faster response would have appeared more convincing.
Still, the results of the tablet test wouldn't carry any particular weight by themselves.

And announcing successful results wouldn't particuarly help Anita. If she announces positive results with the tablets... great - it would allow us a much easier opportunity to create a protocol.
And that's the last thing Anita wants.

Because of Anita's fear of anyone creating any protocol around simply identifying substances (which would be very easy to set up and very easy to set pass/fail criteria around) she is incredibly unlikely to announce positive results with the tablet test. Much easier to describe some new reason why she couldn't identify the tablets in this instance, despite claiming to have performed similar identifictions loads of times before.

I absolutely guarantee there is no way on earth she will announce that, yes, she could identify the tablets really well, and is happy for a test to be set up around this ability.

Remember, all of this is not really about having an actual test, it is about making all the motions towards having a test whilst avoiding one at all costs. It's all about the attention and excitement.
Anita enjoys talking about her 'ability' much more than properly testing it, because the whole fantasy screeches to a halt if it is ever properly tested. That's why she continually delays having real testing... apparently for ever.

The easiest way to delay the testing? Never give anyone a specific description of what you can do and under what circumstances.
 
Last edited:
godofpie:
Thank you Jim for posting here. I know that many of our JREF Forum members are curious about how our meetings went, since you are one of those few who have met with me in person. I feel that I need to explain as well as correct on some of your comments regarding our meeting,
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.
I am concerned that this might sound as if I was willingly avoiding to be near the other skeptics for my reading since that is not true. When it was time for me to view Wayne, everybody at the meeting started talking and it was very noisy in the location and that is the main reason why we had to find another table. At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.
She sat facing Wayne at the table.
True. I am working on taking what my everyday experience has been with the perceptions, and step by step conforming the experiences to a test setting. Every scientist knows that when you are changing the parameters of an experiment, you only change one parameter at a time so that a difference in results can be ascribed to the single changed condition. That is the approach I am taking as I am changing the conditions from everyday setting to test setting, so each time when I have the chance to view a new person I am changing one thing at a time. With viewing Wayne I was able to change two parameters, one at a time, by writing down my answers and giving them to him in full at the end of the viewing rather than speaking out what I see as I see it which has been how it goes in everyday experience in the past. I wanted to ask that he is facing me to not change that parameter since I had already changed a parameter by writing down my answers. But halfway into the viewing I asked him to turn around 90 degrees so that I am facing his left side and I experienced no decline in my perceptions and can now implement this as well in all future viewings. I treated my viewing with Wayne as an opportunity to proceed with the study, so I was testing out more conditions and parameters. I very consciously and most intentionally chose not to view Wayne according to a test procedure. It was intentional to begin viewing him facing him since this was part of the study that serves to let me gradually learn more about how the perceptions work or don't work.
They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.
Unfortunately this statement requires some additional information. When it was finally time for me to view Wayne, several or all of the other skeptics commenced into very loud conversation. The noise level was very bad and I had to move further away from them to even hear myself think. Everyone started talking and ignored the fact that I was going to attempt my paranormal claim and for the first time in the presence of other people. I didn't want to be rude by asking everyone to be quiet, so I chose a location further away for me and Wayne.

Yes I did speak to Wayne. I did not speak with him during the meeting itself. Once he announced that he wanted to volunteer to let me view him I told him that I would love to. He told me that he had written down his health conditions on a piece of paper and that this paper was with another member of the skeptics group. I was thinking out loud about where we should sit and I chose a table and told him where I would like him to sit.

I told him that the location was very loud and noisy, that it was cold, and that these distractions would not take place during the study that I am planning or a test, but I said that I would do my best anyway.

I then spoke to him to explain what is going to happen, while Wayne did not say anything to me. I told him that all I do is look at him and that we will not be speaking at all during the viewing. I told him that this is the first time I am writing down my perceptions rather than to tell the person right away as I see the perceptions. I told him that he will not be able to see my notes.

About halfway into the viewing, I spoke to Wayne and I said, "notice how when I am viewing you I do not look directly at the part of the body I am forming images of, but I tend to look away to your side, or to look away to not see you at all, or I close my eyes, to form the images" - Wayne said nothing about that. I told him this since I thought that as a skeptic he was interested in how I do this. I then told Wayne that him looking at me was distracting my work and I asked him to turn around so that I was facing his left side, he again said nothing and turned around.

Once I decided that I was done viewing, I made sure that I would not be writing any more on my pages and I asked him if he would like me to read the results to him, so I read it to him and explained one thing after the other. So at that point we were discussing the results, but all of my answers were already written down and from how it was written down I was not able to use any of what was said to help "shape" my answers, nor would I have wanted to do such a thing. I told him that I find absolutely nothing wrong with his health, and that that was my conclusion. He said that he had written down one thing on the paper. I then asked him to write it down in my notebook along with other, similarly difficult to identify, ailments that he doesn't have, so that I could see if I could detect it once it was on a list, but I told him that if I got it right it would not be evidence of anything but I was curious. I treated this like a learning experience more so than a test, even though I was open to welcoming inaccurate perceptions as evidence giving reason to terminate this investigation. I did not detect him as having any of the ailments he wrote down. I then asked him which one it was, he told me and I said that I still couldn't detect it once I knew what was there for me to find. At one point I also told him that his jacket was thicker material than what I am used to, he said he could take it off, I said that he didn't have to.

After the viewing I told him that I was pleased that even though my logical mind was expecting a long list of health problems, my mind had not invented any medical perceptions that he does not have and that my description of him as very healthy correlated with his description of himself as very healthy, but I said that this was not evidence toward anything, only that I had once again failed to falsify the paranormal claim.

Before Wayne left I made sure to ask him whether he had any lasting discomforts or sensation after the diaphragm injury, and he said that he didn't. I asked if he could feel any lasting sensation after the injury what so ever, and he said no, that it had healed perfectly. And before he left I thanked him for volunteering.

That is all that I can remember having been said between me and Wayne before, during, and after the viewing. Of course I spoke to him, but Wayne behaved as a very good skeptic by not speaking with me more than necessary. What I meant by "not speaking", was "not speaking during the viewing". The upcoming study will ensure that no speaking at all takes place between me and volunteers, it is designed that way.
After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success.
I'm glad it took only 15 minutes. Once I had begun viewing Wayne I realized that I had not recorded the time (I did not have a watch on me), but I thought that it was ok for now but I would be sure not to forget in the future. I am curious to find out how long it takes for me to view a person. Once I had finished, Dr. Carlson came to our table and asked how it had went. I said that I had detected no health problems. The only noteworthy things had been something in the throat, which I had figured out was the adam's apple and had written down that it was a "2" on a scale of 1-5, Dr. Carlson confirmed with me that 5 was the biggest and it was. I said that it was insignificantly minor and that I would not have reported it as an answer. Also that the left shoulder was slightly tired, but that again it was insignificant and was not an answer. I said that I detected not a single health problem, and that Wayne had reported that he has no health problems. I told Dr. Carlson about the past diaphragm injury, and that I had not detected this. I said that I had once again failed to dismiss the hypothesis and that I could still proceed toward the study.

I then walked over to the table and told Jim that I was successful, meaning that I had not failed. I think the way I told this was that I had not made any incorrect perceptions and that therefore I could proceed toward the study.
She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza.
I jokingly said to Jim, "Can I have my million dollars now?", I then jokingly said, "I'll just take my prize in free pizza".
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.
Speaking between me and the volunteers will not be available at the upcoming study. This was not quite on the level of the upcoming study in refinement, and you can see above what was actually said between me and Wayne. I apologize that I spoke with him, in case it "ruins" some of this particular experience from skeptics' point of view, but from my point of view I did good since I learned new things: 1) I can write down instead of speak my answers, 2) The volunteer can turn away instead of be facing me, 3) I once again noticed for myself that I do not look at the part of the body that I am forming images of, 4) My perceptions are not based on my logical expectations, 5) I did not make any incorrect perceptions and again failed to dismiss the paranormal claim and can proceed toward a study.

I have never claimed to detect everything or in every case. When I do make claimed perceptions, then those are open to be checked for accuracy. Had I for instance said that he has a heart problem, or that he doesn't exercise, I would have received two incorrect points right there. This man happened to be in excellent health, and his only ailment is a past injury that has healed perfectly. Let's just see what happens when I view persons with health problems, alright?
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.
Vision from Feeling, Jim. There was nothing for me to feel with respect to the past diaphragm injury. In the case of the heart bypass surgery, I was allowed to see the scar after I had announced my perception and it was a very large and wide scar, and I detected it by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue where cartilagenous tissue should not be. Maybe this particular diaphragm scar was different? Let's just see what happens next time when I do claim to perceive a scar.
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.
One of the new members asked me when I had my first perceptions, and that is why I brought up the story about the crystals being the first.
I pointed out that this would be much easier to test for
Then I said that I brought my crystals with me from Sweden and I haven't seen them in three years and that I think it's time to take them out and see if I could put together a simpler test with them.
she started back pedaling.
I did no such thing. I said that I should take the crystals out and check it out. What on earth.
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.
:( First of all, the crystals are not my claim. I was merely answering a question about how these perceptions first started. And I was the one who suggested to try such a test on my own to see whether I could form a claim based on that. And I wasn't even backing away from anything. :( I really wasn't. :cry1
Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson (...)
I do not have a drivers licence or a car and the only reason I brought someone with me was because I needed someone to take me there. I apologize if another person who does not represent me as a person nor my thoughts said some inappropriate things at the meeting. Personally I would not discuss ghosts with Dr. Carlson. He is a physicist and I can think of plenty other interesting topics to speak about when I have the chance to speak with him. Quantum physics for instance. When I had the chance to speak with Dr. Carlson at the meeting what I asked him about was what classes he teaches and I wanted to know more about them. Please judge me based on what I say. I will take the bus next time. That's not safe so late in the evenings.
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.
I did perceive these things when we drove through Old Salem. I spoke to Mrs. Carpenter from the 1700s, I think she was a teacher at the bible college, and I spoke to a woman who studied the bible at that school in the 1770s.
For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job.
There was no such thing there when we drove by. Maybe next time there will be, I would like that so that I can see if these actors got the clothes right based on what I saw that the women actually wore back then. ;)
They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show.
True. We are going to visit allegedly haunted sites and video record our visits. My role will of course be the psychic and I will see what comes up when I communicate with my perceptions of these people of the past. Our investigations will be made available over the internet. It is just for fun and entertainment and does not represent any kind of scientific investigation. I do have a life besides my studies and work or even this paranormal investigation into my medical perceptions, and this happens to be one of the things I do. I also go to the gym and like the old episodes of Star Trek. I like frogs and insects and I collect CareBearsTM. What does that do to my credibility, I wonder?
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.
Jim, I am only involved with the FACT group regarding my investigation into the medical perceptions that I have. I will not involve any other unconventional discussions into our group. I did mention my experience with the women at the Old Salem bible school to one of the FACT members who is a retired Anthropologist, because I described how I perceived that the lifestyle back then in Old Salem was based on extreme discipline and prudeness and I asked him what from an anthropological point of view would be the practical reasons for such a way of life?
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.
Yes Dr. Carlson suggested this. I said that I am preparing forms for the study that are better than UncaYimmy's since mine will include additional ailments as well as a means of reporting on the extent of ailments and not just what they are. I said that the skeptics will be very valuable as volunteers (since they are skeptics) and that I would rather wait until my forms are ready so that we can take the most advantage of them being volunteers. I was pleased with viewing Wayne though, to at least get started right away. But I wanted to save the other skeptics for later. I apologize if some don't agree with my choice of wanting to make the most out of the skeptics as volunteers, as my forms are not ready. I said that I would love to view the skeptics and some of their acquaintances. I also said that I will have the study at the mall as well. I want to do both, guys!

There are now 6 skeptics from the FACT group who have expressed definite interest in participating in the study on the weekend of January 31 and February 1. :) And yes I am making the arrangements. :)
Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand.
In fact I insisted that Dr. Carlson look over the paperwork of the study before they are put to use. I trust his judgement and I value his opinions.
I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.
My forms will be much better. The FACT skeptics will be the most valuable volunteers that I can ever find, and that is why I want to save them for when my own forms are available, since my forms will contain more information and that way we can learn more from it then. However I was happy to make a compromise by viewing Wayne.

I chose not to use UncaYimmy's forms with Wayne since Wayne had already written down in text what his ailments were, so I thought I might as well do it my way too by writing down all that I see. Since we would not be matching forms between claimant and volunteer, my own notes would be better than my answers on a form.

Thank you Jim and the other skeptics of FACT for your assistance in my investigation. I assure you that I am not trying to be a complicated paranormal claimant, although my claim itself is not as straightforward yet as we would like. I conducted my viewing with Wayne perfectly according to the manner in which I had carefully intended in order to advance in what I call the StudyTM. I made progress and learned from my experience with Wayne, and have again failed to falsify my paranormal hypothesis.

I apologize for commenting on your post in such a way but I had to clarify on things. After all we want to avoid misunderstandings. :)
 
Last edited:
Christian Klippel:
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".
I've consistently stated that these other types of perceptions are not very frequent. The medical perceptions are the most enhanced due to most experience.
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"
This statement is not true. I have never failed to work together with the skeptics group. They are working with me and the study. It is not clear from the start that the study at the mall would fail. And if it does fail then that is the objective since that would bring a conclusion to this investigation. So what if a jacket interferes with my perceptions? Besides I concluded that the perceptions could continue in spite of that. One of the purpose of the study, which is what my viewing with Wayne was part of, is for me to record what distractions I experience and to explore the extent of distraction. I'm working out what test procedures can be implemented. Nothing wrong with that Christian.
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.
I was successful in failing to falsify the hypothesis by not presenting inaccurate perceptions.
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.
The medical perceptions are easy to form yes. I've done no tests to confirm that though. I absolutely did not fail the viewing with Wayne. I made no incorrect perceptions. I look forward to having skeptics present to witness what happens. I did not say that I needed more time, in fact I am ready to have the study. I needed much time to plan the study and the planning for the study is finished now. More skeptics? I've never said that, I had several from the start, I've asked for four and now have six. So it looks as if I'm lying? Why is that?
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.
I am doing no such thing. But you don't know that do you. At least I know that.
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.
If anyone appreciates the drawings that I will make of the inside of the body (once I have time I can make better ones than the one I have up now) I can have it printed and sent to them. I'm sorry if it costs monies to have a picture printed in high quality on fine paper. I have not made a pennie with my alleged abilities. Lots of people buy and sell their drawings over the internet.

For your information... I did quite well with Lactobacillus detection tests and repeatedly did something like 9 out of 10, and I have not made a single confirmed incorrect medical perception so far. We don't know whether my paranormal claim of medical perceptions will stand even a slightly scientific test yet since one has not been made. The study gives ample opportunity for a non-ability to be revealed as such, so stay tuned.
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.
Think about what you claimed... I claimed medical perceptions from live persons. And what you came up with... not a single inaccurate perception yet. Analyze your reactions and behavior... working real hard to get the study together, trying to falsify my paranormal claim when ever the opportunity comes to test it, having the study SoonTM.
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.
Goalpost-moving? My goal has been all along to test my claim of medical perceptions, and as soon as it was realized that a study is needed I began arranging for it, and it will be held SoonTM.
 
Last edited:
You guys are right, she takes peoples words and phrase and makes them her own. Now she's doing the TM thing? This is very strange behaviour.

I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it. I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.

She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind.
 
GeeMack:
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.
I have experienced apparent accuracy but in everyday experience when skeptics and the sort were not present to witness it or make it into evidence that can be shared. But based on what I have experienced I am compelled to arrange for the study. You don't seem able to understand that I've detected vasectomy, that a person was taking large quantities of Lactobacillus supplement, very significant case of cysts of the internal reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar after bypass heart surgery, that the scull and brain had been crushed in the past, a significant and recurring feeling of strain and contraction just below the sternum, and more, in cases where I do not know what cold reading might have been available. I have reason to proceed in this investigation. I am open to falsifying the paranormal claim. I am looking forward to having the study together with skeptics, and if I fail to fail the study then I look forward to having the test that will show once and for all what's going on.

UncaYimmy:
And their story differs from yours.
#1654
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 did not mean to imply that you are supporting my claim. I have changed the text on my webpage. You were working with me, UncaYimmy. Very much. But since you have changed your mind, that has been reflected on the changes made on my website.
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.
I apologize. The line was clearly false and it is because back when I wrote it it was correct because back then I was planning to use your protocol. Then I made changes and wrote my own protocol based on parts of yours, and it is true that I should have changed that statement. Thank you for pointing that out. However I will continue to give you credit for certain elements that I have borrowed from your protocol. Your protocol might be ruined, but I like mine. ;)

Locknar:
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've said that I've detected scar tissue once. And I've said that I need a study and a test to find out how often I can detect it. Even so, what if I were to detect scar tissue in 50% of the cases in which it occurs, once yes but then the next time not? It would still be a testable claim. Each case in which an ailment occurs is different.
Because with his suggested test, she has no "out".
#1654 No. My health questionnaires will be more elaborate and will yield more information that would UncaYimmy's health questionnaires. The FACT skeptics will be among the most valuable volunteers and that is why I choose to wait until my forms are ready. My forms must be ready by the weekend of January 31 and February 1 since that is when the study will be held.

Chimera:
#1654 What I meant was that there would be no talking between Wayne and me during the viewing. In this case when viewing him, I did want to explain to him some of what is involved and how it works, since he was a skeptic and might have been curious. No speaking will be available between me and the volunteers during the study, the study is designed that way. I am not a deluded liar, I just wasn't clear enough about what I meant.

volatile:
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.
I beg your pardon? My medical perceptions are just as clear in everyday experience as they have been in the few more controlled circumstances that I have had the chance to do. Just as powerfully, easily, and vividly. I have not experienced a single case where the medical perceptions are weak or absent under any circumstances. As for the other aspects of the perceptions, they occur infrequently so I can not force tens of perceptions of chemicals or bacteria during a short period of time.
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.
We do not know that yet. I have not made any incorrect medical perceptions yet. Those "easily tested claims" are easy from a test point of view, but difficult from my point of view since such perceptions occur infrequently and not easily on demand. What part of that don't you understand?
Give it up. This is unravelling.
I'm not giving up on my paranormal claim or investigation until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions or pass the tests.
 
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?
I've detected heart bypass surgery scar once, and I've said that I need more experiences of detecting it before I can claim to detect it often enough to use it on a test. I've also said that when I don't detect something that should not count as a miss, since I do not claim to detect ailments in each case that they occur due to varied extent of ailments. That's like saying that "all cancer is equal", when in fact it is experienced very differently by the body depending on its extent and location. Where my perceptions draw the line on extent I do not know yet but intend to come closer to understanding on the upcoming study.

When I do make a claimed perception, then that becomes available to be checked for accuracy, and if I make an incorrect perception then I have provided evidence against an ability of detecting health information that is considered undetectable to ordinary human senses.
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?
I will have both the study with the skeptics being the volunteers and the study held at the mall. I wanted to wait before I use the skeptics as volunteers until my health questionnaires for the study are ready since mine will reveal more information than would UncaYimmy's. I am not avoiding a test. The skeptics are very valuable as volunteers and I intend to make the most out of that opportunity. My questionnaires are more thorough.

(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.
What I meant (and should have stated when I said this since it was not obvious) was that the participating skeptics might not want to verify what takes place during the study, since the study is not done under controlled circumstances such as a test would. So the skeptics might not want to say that "Anita accurately detected that a woman had cancer" even if it appears that I did, because the circumstances of the study are not controlled for as they would on a test, how do we know that the accuracy was reliable. That is also why I say that the study can not provide evidence for an ability, but it can provide evidence against an ability. I hope that explains it.
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 !?
I have never claimed to be able to detect a particular ailment in each case in which it occurs due to the varied extent in which they occur. Lets just wait until I actually do claim to perceive something, and then that is open to be checked for accuracy. I was working real hard to perceive health problems in Wayne and it is more than likely that I will actually claim to detect health information in other volunteers. In this particular volunteer I detected nothing, so I made no claimed perceptions that accuracy could have been checked for. Bring me a person with health problems. This man was healthy, and his only ailment had healed perfectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom