Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gmonster2 said:
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/...agnosis_or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)
Click to expand...


Anita should consider adding this to a description of her claims (if she hasn't already):

A Physical Scan known in the traditional medical field as an intuitive anatomical medical diagnosis addresses your current physical energy, (every thing that has happened to your body I held in your cellular memory including even the “boo boos” you experienced as a child).(
Click to expand...

It must really seriously boost the chance of hits if you can include a person's entire medical history. It must be all stored in some kind of quantum vibrations I suppose.
 
Last edited:
LONGTABBER PE said:
Thanks DG and it may very well be a combination of the 2 but after reading the links you posted ( some of those ghost stories were cute- thanks) ans Farencues post- I'm now even more solidly convinced this is a "for profit" scam.
<snippety>
Click to expand...

Fair enough. For my own reasons, I still leans towards a combination of delusional/scam, but I accept that your conclusion might equally be true. Only time will tell.

Anita, of course, protests that she is just a science student looking to explain experiences that have happened to her, but her constant contradictions and irrationality indicate otherwise. IMO, if the 'study' doesn't yield results that point to a paranormal ability, she will disregard them and continue proclaiming herself a "psychic medical diagnostician", inventing "accurate", anecdotal results repeatedly in the future.

I am curious as to your opinion on, if Anita is running a scam, why here? Obviously, in the beginning, she may have had the hope that she could 'fool the skeptics', but is pretty apparent that no one believes a word she says at this point. Why persevere? She can't sell us anything, and if her presence here is so she can proclaim to have discussed this with skeptics (and/or twist our words for her website as she did Unca's and Miss Kitt's), then she has done that. She has no interest, really, in using any protocol or scale that anyone here presents. It's baffling. (If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize-haven't had the chance to go back through the thread.)
 
Gmonster2 said:
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/...agnosis_or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)
Click to expand...
From the site:

Other values of an Intuitive Diagnostic or Anatomical Medical "Body Scan"
• It SAVES TIME! in catastrophic or trauma injury, critical or intensive care or emergency medicine situations
Click to expand...
Catastrophic injury? A new high in lows....downright criminal (or certainly should be).
 
desertgal said:
I wonder how old this article is - there's no date. Anita's 'inspiration', perhaps?
Click to expand...

At the bottom of the page, there's a copyright 1996-2009. Seems it's a long-running woo site, and of course our "guest" will be aware of it and any like it. She would have done the research, I'm sure.


M.
 
Moochie said:
At the bottom of the page, there's a copyright 1996-2009. Seems it's a long-running woo site, and of course our "guest" will be aware of it and any like it. She would have done the research, I'm sure.


M.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. I viewed the souce, and it appears to draw from a folder named "1999".
 
Locknar said:
I noticed that too. I viewed the souce, and it appears to draw from a folder named "1999".
Click to expand...

Thanks, M & L.

Given that Dr. Curry signed her guestbook, and she his, I'm guessing we now know where Anita's "claim" comes from.

Gee, Anita, looks like someone might beat you to that Nobel medal. Darn.

"No soup for you. NEXT!"
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
I believe Farencue is on to something ..
LONGTABBER PE's investigative skills should really add to the mix also ..

Further revelations should be interesting.. I think Anita is about to be pwned..
Click to expand...

The problem I have with the scammer theory is this: Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam? The evidence is that 99.99% of the scammers avoid skeptic websites altogether. Those rare few that have approached typically want to take the challenge, which is a great way to get publicity.

In the case of The Professor he played it almost perfectly, even offering skeptics $25K for helping him win. He wanted his "test" to be publicized (in a cemetery at midnight on Halloween in the Devil's Chair). Even if it didn't "work," so what? All he had to hope for was some noise on a tape, which he could then claim said something. People will hear what they want to hear. If there was no noise, then he could accuse the JREF of doctoring the tapes or simply say, as Uri Geller has many times, his abilities are unreliable and difficult under laboratory conditions.

He also pointed out on other sites how unfair and close minded the skeptics were. If somebody called him delusional, do you think he would take the time to address that symptom by symptom? No. He'd use it as evidence that the skeptics are afraid of him and refuse to even consider the paranormal. He turned negative responses into positive responses by spinning them to his audience. Anita has done none of that.

Anita's guestbook was up for almost a year before the Doctor and Psychic guy signed it. That was a day after she signed his guestbook. Looks to me like she stumbled across his site, and he took the opportunity to get a link back to his site. It's the only one we've seen. Pretty much every other link to her site is from skeptic sites.

If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

If you were a scammer, what would you do? First thing is I would promote myself to my target audience: those who believe in woo. I would link to all sorts of other woo sites and ask for links back. I might approach the skeptics, but only to the point where I could make them attack me (which we've done). I would cherry pick the attacks and post them on my site.

I would make a big deal out of how the IIG can't explain my powers and therefore can't test me despite 18 months of trying to devise a protocol. I wouldn't keep the negotiation open. I would point out that after 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 posts the skeptics at the JREF could not figure out how to test me and instead called me delusional. I would point how how they were wrong about me being from Sweden - not one person took me up on my offer to call me and hear my accent. I would point out how they insisted that I couldn't be taking a double-major even though it's clear on the UNC website that it's possible - what kind of skeptics can't do basic research?

I would make up much better "observations" than what is currently on her site. I would have passed the chemical identification test with flying colors - if they said I was lying, then why did they ask me to take the test in the first place? I would tout my success at the FACT meeting without linking back to a site the rips that reading to shreds - "Look, I even accurately read a skeptic on their home turf, right under the nose of the president of the group! They were too afraid to let anyone else test me."

I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen.
 
I agree with the Unca. I met Anita at the infamous Winston meeting (This is George, if I met any of you) but unfortunately had to leave before she could do her study on Wayne. I am of course very doubtful of her claims, and seeing some of the ways she's expressed herself on this thread makes me even more so. Of course, it also makes me question the personalities of several of the people on the board. However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.
 
Last edited:
I reckon she picked up a lot of her language (vibrational frequency etc) from this sort of site, but she probably found the sites when looking for information on what she thinks she can do.
 
UncaYimmy said:
With "longer than a year" as a qualifier, yer UncaYimmy would check 25 of the 26 conditions listed under pain (never had heart pain). Hang around on this planet for 42 years and you're bound to have pain just about everywhere at some point.
Click to expand...
Anything Anita puts down as N, 1 or 2 will be omitted from the Hit, Miss analysis. Her marking 3 to a volunteer's 1 will be omitted.
If you mark down symptoms of something as 2 or higher and Anita marks it 3 or higher then, to be honest, I think it is fair enough to consider that a Hit within the parameters of this unofficial study.
If someone marks almost everything as 2 or higher then their form will skew the results. If someone has had pain of 2 or higher in all the places mentioned on the form then they really need to see a doctor.
Anyway, in a real test this level of freedom of interpretation would not be allowed. This isn't a test and, to be honest, the number of Hits here are only peripherally relevant.

With the discomforts that have a time frame, I would check 12 out of 15. C'mon, who has never been nauseous or dizzy? If you've had the flu at some point in your life, that gives you several things to check.
Click to expand...
Unca it looks like you are telling me Anita's form is badly designed.
Uh, I know. :confused:

Therefore, a purely random guess has a 90% chance of being right. Your hurdle to continue this charade is that she is only right 15% of the time.
I'll put it back on you. What is your mathematical basis for 1:5 hits to misses? On what are you basing that? What percentage of boxes have to be checked by participants for 15% to have any meaning?
Click to expand...
Any percentage of boxes ticked allow a Hit:Miss ratio to be calculated. Please see my definition of Hits and Misses within Anita's described scale. (I'll list all the permutations again when I have a moment - maybe tomorrow night)

The main point of my rather arbitrary figures is that it introduces a pre-agreed point of possible falsification which, as far as I can tell, has been completely absent in the 12 years Anita claims to have had this 'ability'.
It is simply a start point - an introduction to the concept of falsification, rather than anything I feel has any particular importance as a specific statistical cut-off point.
It could easily be argued to alter the weightings or the ratio to be stricter on Anita (and more in line with real statistical analysis) but I feel that would lead Anita to reject it and, within this study, doesn't, inmy opinion, serve a particular purpose other than to simply remove the possibilty of falsification at this stage.

My fugures are clearly well skewed in Anita's favour (i.e. outright falsification is pretty unlikely given the assumptions I have made), but the important point is to agree a real calculable falsification scenario, no matter that it could probably be beaten by the random rolls of a six-sided die.

Also if Anita rejected this definition of falsification then it is clear she would reject anything and therefore is not genuinely interested in having any sort of falsification scenario.

The study, if it goes ahead, is almost certain to use Anita's new forms. Nobody likes these forms except Anita, but it looks like they aren't going to change.
I have tried to generate a possible falsification scenario using those forms. If Anita agrees, for the first time, it would be possible for Anita to fail to a level that would have been pre-agreed constitutes no ability.

There is also agreement by both Anita and skeptics that this test cannot in any way provide evidence towards suggesting the existence of any 'ability'. So I don't see it is a huge problem to use the figures and assumptions I have made.

But of course I am open to suggestions or modifications.
 
Anybody know of anybody on this board who could run some numbers for us? Is FLS a statistician?

Ashles, since Anita told IIG that she needed people to be in pain for the test, how about we only count a limited set of time frames? Just eliminating within the year or longer than a year would reduce the number of eligible check marks considerably but still give her the data she wants.
 
dirtygreek said:
Of course, it also makes me question the personalities of several of the people on the board.
Click to expand...

Not to be critical but I expect that, except for Anita, Jim, and Dr. Olson, you haven't actually met the people posting in this thread, so your judgment of their personalities would be limited by that. After all, from one point of view, in this thread, some question that Anita is a scammer - and you say that isn't accurate.

Was that comment really necessary?

However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :)

Professor Yaffle said:
I reckon she picked up a lot of her language (vibrational frequency etc) from this sort of site, but she probably found the sites when looking for information on what she thinks she can do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :)
 
Last edited:
Quote:
However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer ( I am aware of ) would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.
Click to expand...
There , fixed it for you ... Personal incredulity doesn't count for much here.

Since when can't a scammer be - soft spoken, not at all pushy, very genuinely nice and interesting ?

Endearing herself to the skeptical community could just be part of the set up; even though it may not be working for her in any way that we can comprehend.

While she is avoiding a legitimate test, she can make claims about how hard she is trying to work out a testing protocol with card carrying skeptics, and cry foul when things don't go her way .
 
Last edited:
Furthering that, a lot of mass murdered have been said to be interesting and nice people.
 
A scammer can come across in many ways - even in the form of a delightful, ditzy "I just cant get my head around this science stuff" international student.
A scammer can spend a lot of time and effort to set the stage for the scam.
A scam doesnt always happen in a short time frame.

The scam here is to set herself up as the next famous woo who can scan the body for illness with the accuracy of an MRI machine and perhaps even perform gasp! psychic surgery!

Anita is a woo. A delusional woo? Fair enough call from those who would know. A delusional woo who dreams of one day making money and achieving fame through SCAMMING other desperate, gullible woos. Leon E Curry was a self described sceptic who "on a dare" phoned a housewife who was struck by lightning and could medically diagnose people after that event. The doctors scepticism was pushed aside as he witnessed the miracles. I doubt it is a happy coincidence that he and Anita have come across each other. In fact on the doctors guestbook there were a few other woos vying for his attention - maybe he will write a book about them, take them on the tour circuit with Sylvia - heck might even get on Oprah!!

Anita professes to be a sceptic. Yeh right. She believes that claim gives her some credibility - joining sceptic groups and running the scam by JREF.
Whoever said something about being the one Randi couldnt debunk is right.

As always, this is just my opinion although as a business owner I have seen many many scammers - some act like aholes and some of them are just as sweet as Anita seemed at first. She doesnt seem so sweet now, she sounds desperate.
 
OK, assuming that dirtygreek is who he (for the sake of this post, I'll assume that he's a male and not a female) claims to be, I think that the responses to his post are counterproductive. Another member of the skeptics group is willing to give his take on VfF after meeting her in person. Granted, he missed her "reading" of Wayne, but he was there and met her and presumably, he'll be there in the future and he's probably one of the skeptics willing to help her with her study (however flawed).

Suddenly, he's attacked from all sides. People offer "helpful" edits to his post. Generally, it seems like this new potentially very helpful poster is very unwelcome.

Yes, he fired the first shot by questioning the personalities of some of the other posters. He did not attack any one poster. I suspect that as we've read through the 2000+ posts here that we've all thought at one point or another, "I wouldn't have said it that way," or "That person has issues" about someone other than VfF.

While there's been some back and forth. We mostly keep our big traps shut. dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us do.

I assume he showed up to help, and I'm guessing that he has real help to offer.

Is he an expert on scam vs. delusion? Probably not. Has he read this entire thread? Who among us hasn't skipped at least a few posts (or portions of posts)? He's not perfect, but rather than attacking him for incomplete information or not backing his analysis with clear evidence, we could probably more easily get the information we want by politely asking.

Sorry. I just think his welcome to the forum has been unnecessarily unfriendly and counterproductive.

Ward
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom