Vision From Feeling - Results from 'study'

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've never seen an MRI but I wouldn't imagine they are like Anita claims to see medical images 'the heart is nice and pink' kind of stuff?
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
One of the benefits of having such a test of matching MRI and other medical images with persons are that we are no longer limited to health information that can be verified on site (such as a scar on the surface of the skin) and can work with information that is embedded in the body. Such information is of course out of sight and therefore suitable for a test since there is no question of whether it would be detectable from the outside with plain eyesight....
Click to expand...
But of course will be ignored by you, just as you ignored the fact that you missed trauma to a "subject's" diaphragm.
Proof was given that this trauma occurred and when you failed in recognising it, you pretended it never happened.
:shocked:
 
Jonquill said:
I've never seen an MRI but I wouldn't imagine they are like Anita claims to see medical images 'the heart is nice and pink' kind of stuff?
Click to expand...
An MRI can be done with and without contrast and can be T1 or T2 weighted...I can pick out big things on a scan but anything subtle; I leave to those with 3+ years of residency.

The cost is prohibitively expensive for this test, this of course will undoubtedly lead to the suggestion of using people with preexisting MRIs...of course this will lead to selection bias since people with MRIs tend to have something abnormal.
 
paximperium said:
The cost is prohibitively expensive for this test, this of course will undoubtedly lead to the suggestion of using people with preexisting MRIs..
Click to expand...


I thought that was what she meant anyway

"there are plenty of people who have had MRI's and other medical imaging done and these images are still available!"
 
Unless I misread VfF's post, I understood it to mean matching MRIs to the person whose image it is. Simply a guessing game, made easier if the person's present and subconsciously provides a "tell" of identity.


M.
 
It's not a brilliant idea. It's really rather silly. I can't believe anyone is even entertaining it. Anita sure has a way of suckering people. My guess is that she wants to distract people from asking her about the things she keeps ignoring. Or maybe she wants to distract from the fact that it's Thursday before spring break and she doesn't hasn't set a date and time for her study.

There is no point to having MRIs. You could accomplish exactly the same thing just by having everyone write down their ailments ("brain tumor") on a piece of paper and matching those to the people.

Adding MRIs to the mix causes several problems. First, Anita is not trained in reading an MRI. This gives her a HUGE out. "I saw the tumor is his brain, but I couldn't see it on the MRI. That's not an incorrect reading." Or maybe, "What I saw is not visible on the MRI because <who knows what>."

Second, it greatly reduces the pool of potential candidates to be read. How many people have MRIs laying around?

Anita, you need to focus. Where are the survey results you promised to send?
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
Dear Skeptics,
If we focus on my paranormal claim and refrain from personal attack, I've just had another brilliant idea and I'm surprised if you guys find cause to criticize it! Since I claim to see images of the inside of human bodies and am interested in investigating what its correlation is with real information, there are plenty of people who have had MRI's and other medical imaging done and these images are still available! How about a simple matching test where I match medical images with persons? This is a brilliant idea and would make a very easy to arrange test. Before I claim this and proceed to such an official test, I do need to try this on my own because I do not make specific claims until I have experienced the specifics of the claim as would be outlined in a test.
Click to expand...
Two words -
Bony Adam's Apple. :D

You've proved your skill at this - You're 100% incorrect.
 
Moochie said:
Unless I misread VfF's post, I understood it to mean matching MRIs to the person whose image it is. Simply a guessing game, made easier if the person's present and subconsciously provides a "tell" of identity.


M.
Click to expand...
Good point. I misread her post.
Yes, it is nothing more than a loaded guessing game, loaded in favor towards her direction since:
1)People who got MRI's usually have medical problems.
2)There is a measurement of subjective judgment in reading MRIs.
3)Being able to see a patient does nothing more than give her information to make her guesses.
 
Moochie said:
Unless I misread VfF's post, I understood it to mean matching MRIs to the person whose image it is. Simply a guessing game, made easier if the person's present and subconsciously provides a "tell" of identity.
Click to expand...
Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.

paximperium said:
Yes, it is nothing more than a loaded guessing game, loaded in favor towards her direction since:
1)People who got MRI's usually have medical problems.
2)There is a measurement of subjective judgment in reading MRIs.
3)Being able to see a patient does nothing more than give her information to make her guesses.
Click to expand...
There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.
 
There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.
Click to expand...
Of course there are.. Just as there are in the protocals you have already been provided ..

That is why you will never actually submit to such a test ..

new_guitar.gif
 
No Anita it is not a brilliant idea. As detailed by others above it is another distraction/guessing game to avoid doing the following activities.

Please try to stop posting pointless theorising and 'planned' new activities until you have actually completed some of the very, very basic things you should have done by now:

Ashles said:
  • Detail what happened in the Study on January 3rd
  • Fax the notes of said study to the contact details Unca Yimmy provided some time ago (the details are linked to at the bottom of his posts)
  • Run a test on identifying crystals (as she claimed she could do to an amazing degree)
  • Provide the results of the analysis of Pup's pill experiment (even if the result are that she simply couldn't detect anything)
  • Detail what exactly she wrote down regarding Wayne (providing a scan of her notes would be even better)
Click to expand...
Despuite all your many, many words, you have so far actually not done a single useful activity towards this claim. Not one.
Until you carry out at least some of those (very simple to complete) bulleted activities you are going to have zero credibility as someone who is genuinely attempting to cary out analysis of a claimed 'ability'.

Igoring this list wil not make it go away.

What was the point of agreeing to Pup sending you crushed pill samples if you refuse to ever refer to them again?
What was the point of your 'survey' at the mall if you never describe anything about it?
What was the point of saying you would send notes to UncaYimmy if you then refuse to do so?
What was the point of claiming you would test yourself with crystals (which you have claimed amazing previous ability with) if you then do not do so?

Leave the MRI to one side for now - it is simply unworkable. You cannot read an MRI so it is a pointless test - juat an elaborate guessing game with, yet again, no clear success/fail criteria.
Not 'amazing'. Silly.

Science is about steps. Try at least taking the very first steps towards testing.

Why do you continue to post here if you have no intention of taking on board anything suggested to you?
You are not even responding to discussions and tests you yourself previously agreed to.

How many times have I posted the same list of simple actions?
Why do you continue to completely ignore it?

What messages do you think that sends regarding your credibility?
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.

There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.
Click to expand...

Your skills at devising tests absolutely suck. Do you want me to pick this apart for you? How about instead you point out all of the potential problems in such a test? I will grade you on your answer. Let's see if you can maintain your 4.0 outside of the classroom.

And where are the results from the survey that repeatedly promised to send me?
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Such a matching test can be arranged to be virtually impossible to succeed in by guessing or by using external clues, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
You were also sure your study would be able to falsify a non-ability.
You turned out to be incorrect about that too.

There can be a number of healthy individuals among the ones that have had an MRI seen at the same time. There are ways to ensure that one can not pass such a test by cold reading or guessing.
Click to expand...
But if any such ways were suggested past experience indicates you would simply ignore them or reject them, substituting a poor protocol of your own that does not actually allow for objective marking or falsificaion.

No, the MRI comparison is not a good idea. In fact quite the opposite. You have already described how you use your ability and have rejected protocols that detail protocols that move away from how you describe your ability as having worked in the past.
You wanted the study and testing to be as similar to how it 'naturally works' as possible. So the MRI comparison must be rejected .

Also you say your ability is not actually MRI so comparing your visions to a graphical representation of something completely different is an illogical next step anyway.
Aside from the fact that you cannot interpret an MRI anyway.

As UncaYimmy says - focus. Pick a direction and follow it until you have learned something (be it positive or negative), not keep changing direction as a substitute for actually doing anything.
You say you can describe what medical ailments people have - keep that as your claim (as you have told us repeatedly you wish that to be considered your main and 'strongest claim).

It comes across at the moment that you love writing theoretically about imagined scenarios (without proper detail), but get very nervous whenever any sort of actual activity is close to being carried out.

And as another reminder please adress the bulleted list of actions.
 
VfF reminds me of NASCAR drivers. 500 miles later, after going around and around in circles, the drivers are back where they started from. :D

I find the whole protocol nonsense quite humourous. No matter what the proposed protocol is, the end result always seems to be, from the VfF perspective, that if she says something is there and it isn't, it is a miss, but if she doesn't say something is there, and it is, then it doesn't count as a miss. By this method of analysis, she could be guaranteed to never falsify the claim merely by saying nothing except when there is an obvious issue present, like a wart in an obvious place or a scar on the face, or any sort of easily noticeable issue. Heck, she doesn't even seem to grasp the concept that in science, one posits a theory, and then tries to disprove the theory, and when the theory survives many attempts to disprove it, then, and only then, does the researcher start to think that maybe, just maybe, there is something to the theory after all. Until she starts doing her studies or tests or whatever with this methodology in place, the entire exercise will be moot.
 
Ashles said:
In this thread let's focus on the study and if we feel it is going to be a pointless study, focus on criticising the shortcomings in the study itself.
Click to expand...

Please can we all try to focus on the actual topic of the thread and not get distracted by yet more personalised discussions or red herrings.

Anita, do you have anything to say on the subject of your proposed study? If you want to talk about a completely different test, I would suggest you start a new thread in which to do so.
 
A little update for those who are interested:

I had a chat with Anita today. She was unable to conduct her Sidewalk Study over spring break. Turns out only one person from FACT was willing to assist her, and her protocol requires at least three people.

I asked her about using psych students like she said she was going to do. She said the psych professor she contacted told her to read up on synesthesia before attempting any such study. This could have been a polite way for the professor to say, "What you're describing ain't synesthesia." After all, there is no documented case of synesthesia that even remotely resembles the things she has described.

I also asked her again about the survey results. She once again promised to get them to me, but, of course, she is busying maintaining her pseudo 4.0 average, so she can't say when she will have the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom