Responses in patented Can't-nest-o-vision.
ME: "In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?"
No, Ashles, seeing the volunteer from the side wasn't going to help the perceptions at all. I was simply conforming to another test condition. On a test it is better if I see the volunteers from behind and not front, since eye contact definitely needs to be disallowed. That is what I was doing.
So you were conforming to the test condition that you had to view the subjects from the back by... viewing the subject from the front and side?
Your answers are losing even the vaguest sense of coherence.
My starting point in this investigation was what I call my "everyday experience" with the perceptions. This means that I look at the person and have eye contact with them, that I tell the person what I see as soon as I see it. Well, some of my past experiences took place under circumstances that are more test-appropriate than that, but this is the worst possible starting point in which I know that the perceptions supposedly took place. I then started with that and have begun changing one condition at a time toward what is to be proper test conditions.
Why have you decided on viewing from the back? If you get much better readings from the front, fine, view from the front. If at any point you ever told us what you could do to what degree of confidence under what circumstances we might actualy be able to understand what test protocol you are proposing and why.
If you could describe your absolute optimum viewing requirements then do so. The first test should always be under the best possible conditions for you so your ability can be tested at maximum. For example when dowsers are tested the first run of trials allows them to see the water. This is to allow them to confirm that their ability is working properly and nothing else is interfering with their ability.
Up until now you have implied viewing from the back is no problem for you. If it is, just say so and the tests can be formulated around a front view.
Describe the circumstence in which you feel your ability would be most likely to perform at its best. Only then can we suggest what controls would be useful.
Don't introduce the viewing from back aspect if you are then going to complain that was the reason you performed worse than you 'usually' do.
Run a test from the front. it would be ideal to avoid eye contact but if you say you need it to perform at your best well then we try to run tests with that and analyses the test results to see if that caused any potential problems.
If you say you
have to speak to the person then obviously that is a problem but at least we could witness (or some skeptic could witness) your test and judge whether that was likely to have been providing cues.
I already know that I can write down my answers and present them in full at the end of the viewing, and that I do not require eye contact in order to have the perceptions. That is what I am doing, and that is why I asked the volunteer to turn around.
See, you say here you do not require eye contact. You say you already knew this.
So why start with eye contact then? Is your actual claim that you need to
start by having eye contact then the subject can be slowly turned round?
If you don't need eye contact at all and you already knew this... why did you do it?
ME: "If you mentioned it as a perception, it WAS an answer. You had an actual perception."
No, Ashles. I wrote down plenty of perceptions and impressions that I had that I was not going to consider to be health problems that would be significant enough to have checked for accuracy.
And then you mentioned and checked them.
I wrote that I saw that his heart was healthy and nice and orange pink, that his liver was smaller than average, that his left shoulder was slightly tired, and that I felt his adam's apple.
really? That's what you actually wrote was it?
because on your website you say:
I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment". Besides I was fully convinced that what I was feeling was his adam's apple. I drew a picture of the exact size and location of this sensation, which correlates with the adam's apple so that's probably what it was. It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat
It does not say that you wrote down it was his adam's apple. It says you wrote down "discomfort of the throat" (which he
did not have). Adam's apple appears never to have been written down.
Please clarify what was actually written down (and we will check with Jim).
All the talk of adam's apple appears to have been after you were demonstrated to be wrong.
Are you actually genuinely attemptinh to imply that you detected a perfectly normal adam's apple, and detailed this perception by writing 'discomfor of the throat'?
And anyway it is a stupid rationalisation. You detected something that everyone has? Er why is that worthy of mention? Did you detect his legs? His ears? His aorta? Are you going to pick random parts of the body, write 'discomfort', then when you are informed it was incorrect simply state you were detecting a healthy example of whatever is commonly known to be in that location anyway?
Painfully transparent.
You are obviously trying 2 different ways of attempting to wriggle out of a clearly wrong answer.
1. imply that what you wrote was different to what you actually meant to say. What you meant to say was that you detected something everyone has. And described it as a 'discomfort of the throat' for some reason
2. That it didn't really count because it was only a '2'
But when I presented the conclusions, I stated that I find no health problems what so ever. Because the shoulder and the throat were insignificant.
There either was something or there wasn't. If you perceived it and wrote it down, it clearly wasn't insignificant. Insignificant would not have been worthy of recording.
ME: "Firstly you DID mention it. It's simply stupid to say you would never mention it when you actually did. "
To not mention it as an answer. I perceived it, but I perceived that it was insignificant and that it was not an answer that I would want to be checked for accuracy.
That. Is. Ridiculous.
"I perceived this but it's not really an answer so just ignore it. Unless it was right. Was it?"
ME: "(And we all know full well that had Wayne declared a shoulder injury you would have counted it as a hit. A giant one.) "
Hm. Hopefully not, since I declared that I perceived that it was insignificant. I do realize the issues you are raising, and the study will be done differently to avoid these questions.
Well thanks to your own answer above we don't even have to speculate on this one any more.
You provided an example of what would happen if you said '2' and the subject said '5'.
You said in such an instance:
the shoulder pain was a match
If you had said you would have considered it a complete miss then at least you would have been consistent with your previous claim. But you couldn't help yourself. Even in an imaginary scenario you had to not be incorrect.
So, thanks for the quick confirmation.
Want to make a modification? Ditch the scale. It only renders the study meaningless in yet new ways.
Oh unless this is all simply another way to continue generating interest and attention at the expense of real testing.
In which case keep the scale.
Maybe you could call it Anita's special Vibrational Scale of Wondrousness.
Instead of 1,2,3,4,5 why not replace numbers with Anita is Fab, Anita is Great, Anita is Really Great, Anita is Super, Anita Rules All.
Really. Why not. Beleive it or not that wouldn't render the study any less ridiculous than it will be with the scale.
ME: "And I really cannot fathom the business about the adam's apple other than the weakest attempt to rationalise a failure away so far."
I concluded that it was the adam's apple before I announced my answers. How's that.
So is that what you wrote down? Adam's apple? Can we actually see what was written down by you?
Because if you perceived it was a perfectly normal adam's apple, then why would you
possibly detail this by writing 'discomfort in throat'.
You arenow entering a credibility rating of negative figures.
ME: "Your whole claim now revolves entirely around when you actually make positive diagnoses (and those have sure decreased in frequency)."
Of course there was a low frequency of perceptions of health problems in my viewing with Wayne! He declared himself to have perfect health! Ashles!
Well there was the giant scar you missed but let's ignore that.
the point I am making is that now sketpics are watching you I suspect there will be far fewer perfect readings or frim diagnoses.
Let's face it, you claim this ability comes to you often, you have said you can do it on demand, and you can even do it for clebrities you have never met.
Two visits to a roomful of skeptics... nothing.
A single instance of a firm reading of one of them would have made people wonder a little bit.
But no, all the subatomic viewing ability, sense all chemical information, better than MRI scanning, perfect record, scan at will... all that has mysteriously disappeared.
I can't wait to see what the first '5' on your study will be.
Or will we never actually see a '5'? Is that level of accuracy gone for good?
I have not been incorrect.
Yes you have. You simply absolutely have. Deal with it. Move on. It doesn't destroy your claim. In itself if you were to admit the 'ability' isn't necessarily perfect it might help people believe you a tiny bit more.
But when you lie about things everyone can easily see are untrue because they disagree with other things you yourself have posted (the incorrect answers spun as somehow not incorrect) it simply casts doubt over
everything you say and
have said.
I declared that I sensed a slightly tired left shoulder and I declared clearly that it was insignificant and was not my answer. My answer and conclusion after the reading was that I found no health problems and that according to my perceptions all was very healthy and healthier than average people. The thing I sensed in the throat was the adam's apple. No incorrect perceptions were made in this experience. Maybe you don't like that.
You were wrong. Twice. When tested by skeptics. Anita it's ridiculous to protest this - it's clear to anyone.
Maybe you don't like that.
Well Ashles because I asked for your mailing address so that I could send photocopies.
Oh my actual home address? Well why didn't you say so.
Of course not.
You are not a credible person, you are claiming a variety of paranormal abilities and visions that may, possibly, be considered delusional, you have not come across as particularly stable on this thread, you appear to be pathologically incapable of admitting error...
What makes you think I would possibly consider giving you my home address?
I do not have an electronic copy.
Your University doesn't have the latest technology known as a 'scanner'?
How incredibly likely.
"