VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[desertgal]

If she continues to work with them, she might finally get to the bottom of all this.

Ward

I beg to differ. For the most part, when she is incorrect, she offers excuses as to why she was incorrect. She only pays lip service to the suggestion that her "ability" is anything other than paranormal, but contradicts that with her excuses and her refusal to confirm or eliminate other sources for her "ability".

As long as Anita refuses to objectively assess the results of any "study", "test", or "survey", even cooperation with the FACT skeptics will get her exactly nowhere.

Her high level of denial and her arrogance renders every effort futile.

 

[wardenclyffe]

desertgal,

I agree that for the most part in the past, she has offered excuses as to why she was incorrect. This time seems different, though. She seems to accept that she did not do better than the controls (although she avoids saying she came in third out of four); she seems to accept that nothing paranormal was going on.

Of course, we've seen this with other claimants in the past. They are initially dumbfounded by their lack of paranormal abilities in a controlled test, but then the excuses come later after they've had time to concoct them. I would not be surprised if that happened in this case. I'm also not blind to the fact that she fudges things like the difference between the neck and the head. I just think she's made a (single) step in the right direction. Hopefully, it's the first of many. I also think that she should be encouraged to continue in that direction.

A lot of folks here have been in attack mode for a long time on this subject. It might be time to re-assess how we approach this. F.A.C.T. seems to be having success in getting her to see what's happening where we have not. I don't know what they are doing exactly, but I suspect that they are kinder and gentler than we have (for the most part) been.

I'm not suggesting that criticism should stop, but criticism could be tempered with encouragement of her sometimes good behavior.

Just sayin',
Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

At least the new claims she's studying are testable. Her methodology might be questionable, but hopefully the F.A.C.T. group will keep her in line. Despite the fact that the first study was flawed, she seems to (mostly) accept the fact that she failed to do better than the controls. If she continues to work with them, she might finally get to the bottom of all this.

Where does she accept the fact that she failed to do better than the controls? On her website she wrote, Unlike what is implied at stopvisionfromfeeling.com, the study was not a test and I did not fail a test. The study was for me to try out test procedures and was not designed to conclude on the claim. I identified unforeseen issues with the procedure, such as when I say "back of the head" and the volunteer says "neck", there are possibilities for receiving negative score although having correctly identified an ailment.

She says outright that she did not fail a test, and she's making excuses for her inaccuracy. She has plans for a future study.

As for the F-A-C-T group keeping her in line, the group was unable to get her to correct the fundamental flaws in her "study." They refused to participate in the study without changes to it,. but Anita still didn't change anything. Why should she? Dr. Carlson and a few other people agreed to be read informally. Other members volunteered to help conduct her study. They reviewed the results at the meeting. Their name is all over her website.

She got what she wanted from them, which is the appearance that she has their support (those "brilliant skeptics"). She got to do the study her way. She gets to conclude whatever she wants from the data. She gets to throw Dr. Carlson's name all over he website, but not his conclusions.

The group hasn't kept her in line yet, so I don't expect them to in the future.

As for Anita acknowledging anything, you've got to be kidding. This is from her website:

Note that the results on this page do not convince me one way or the other. More data and consistent data is required before conclusing on anything. For instance I had high accuracy in the beginning with the constracted fists and later in the evening when I was tired there was no accuracy, so all that can be concluded is that it seems that some factor was different in the two studies with fists and that it affects the study results.

Right. She concludes nothing...except that she does. When she's "accurate", she has an ability despite the numerous flaws in her procedures. When she's not accurate, it's because she is tired or a particular change in the protocol prevents her ability from working. And she considers getting 2 out 3 to be accurate "early on" and missing 3 out of 3 to be a result of fatigue.

Here's the thing: As flawed as her Big Study was, the results could still be used to demonstrate that there is no ability. Suppose somebody says he is psychic and wants to use a deck of cards to prove it. We let him choose the deck. We let him handle the cards, sometimes even out of our sight. We let him perform what we know looks like a well-known card trick.

If he correctly guesses the card several times in a row, it proves nothing, right? But if he never correctly guesses the card, then it's safe to conclude that there's no psychic ability. The flaws in the study would not hamper a pyschic ability. The flaws only serve to indicate other possible explanations for success - they don't excuse failure.

Nothing has changed with Anita. We still have a large collection of unsubstantiated claims including some new ones. Every time any testing is done, she fails. And yet she continues with her fantasies, delusions or deliberate scam (your choice).

 

[desertgal]

desertgal,

I agree that for the most part in the past, she has offered excuses as to why she was incorrect. This time seems different, though. She seems to accept that she did not do better than the controls (although she avoids saying she came in third out of four); she seems to accept that nothing paranormal was going on.

Where? To date, she hasn't published the results of the most recent study. If I recall correctly, she's offered excuses for that, as well.

Of course, we've seen this with other claimants in the past. They are initially dumbfounded by their lack of paranormal abilities in a controlled test, but then the excuses come later after they've had time to concoct them. I would not be surprised if that happened in this case. I'm also not blind to the fact that she fudges things like the difference between the neck and the head. I just think she's made a (single) step in the right direction. Hopefully, it's the first of many. I also think that she should be encouraged to continue in that direction.

I don't disagree with that. I'm simply not sure where she's indicated that she has made a step in the right direction.

A lot of folks here have been in attack mode for a long time on this subject. It might be time to re-assess how we approach this. F.A.C.T. seems to be having success in getting her to see what's happening where we have not. I don't know what they are doing exactly, but I suspect that they are kinder and gentler than we have (for the most part) been.

Perhaps. They've also had the advantage of dealing with Anita face to face, which is a definite benefit when it comes to communication. That said, when it walks like a fraud and it talks like a fraud, then there isn't much point to pretending it is something else.

I'm not suggesting that criticism should stop, but criticism could be tempered with encouragement of her sometimes good behavior.

I accept that. I'm still not clear where the good behavior has happened.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I agree that for the most part in the past, she has offered excuses as to why she was incorrect. This time seems different, though. She seems to accept that she did not do better than the controls (although she avoids saying she came in third out of four); she seems to accept that nothing paranormal was going on.

Wow! I'm amazed that you make that conclusion.

She has not retracted a single claim she has made. Everything she says is from the position that she has a paranormal ability. She says that what she is doing might be explained by "automatic cold reading" or her unproven and completely ignorant ideas about synesthesia. This, of course, means that she still believes there is some sort of data that needs to be explained. Here's the thing: there is no data that needs explaining!

Go back and read the Interview thread. There is no way that cold reading is going to explain seeing inside the human body (nor is that synesthesia).

No way to does cold reading explain this: Don't forget that I also see bacteria. The interesting thing is that I can download the vibrational aspect of a bacteria and experiment in my mind by applying different types of vibrations to it to see for instance what would kill it.

She seems to be doing a pretty good job of manipulating you into looking only at one little thing at a time and thinking that it's some innocent "study" into the possibility that there is something special. The big picture hasn't changed.

Her 25+ outrageous claims are still out there. Her website still describes numerous claims of the supernatural. She's still soliciting people to book her for a psychic demonstration.

Of course, we've seen this with other claimants in the past. They are initially dumbfounded by their lack of paranormal abilities in a controlled test, but then the excuses come later after they've had time to concoct them. I would not be surprised if that happened in this case.

Look at her history. She failed the chemical tests, so she dropped them from her "main" claim. She failed the photo/video tests, so she dropped them from her "main" claim. Now she's playing games with buckets of ice and cups of sauce without any indication that failure and retraction are on the table. It's all more of the same. If this doesn't go where she wants it, then she'll move on to something else. She will do everything except perform an actual test where failure is a possible outcome.

I'm also not blind to the fact that she fudges things like the difference between the neck and the head. I just think she's made a (single) step in the right direction. Hopefully, it's the first of many. I also think that she should be encouraged to continue in that direction.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. She is undeterred. Despite knowing the results, she has been preparing another study like the first one. She has embarked on new things to "study" using techniques she knows are unreliable. She has already set up excuses for failing (fatigue) before she even has any data.

She devoted one sentence to her big study results, and that sentence was misleading at best. Meanwhile, she has written thousands of words on the same page describing everything she learned from the study and how she discovered flaws that kept her from doing better. Nothing has changed. She has not backed off from any claims.

A lot of folks here have been in attack mode for a long time on this subject. It might be time to re-assess how we approach this. F.A.C.T. seems to be having success in getting her to see what's happening where we have not. I don't know what they are doing exactly, but I suspect that they are kinder and gentler than we have (for the most part) been.

F-A-C-T hasn't accomplished anything. In fact, they have enabled her. She severely curtailed posting here when, after thousands of posts, she found she was getting nowhere. Their group has given her credibility she doesn't deserve because she is using their name.

Besides Dr. Carslon posting on my website and a couple of posts from F-A-C-T members here, have they done any critical analysis of what she has done or claimed? I'm not trying to put down the group. What I am showing is that she is using them to further her agenda/fantasies/delusions (your choice). She's one small part of their monthly meetings, and she's milking it for all it's worth.

I'm not suggesting that criticism should stop, but criticism could be tempered with encouragement of her sometimes good behavior.

She has repeatedly ignored the advice we have given her on how to conduct a proper test. What is the point of encouraging her to undertake "studies" that are worthless for proving success when she refuses to accept failure as a possible result?

She came here - we didn't go looking for her. She publishes updates on her website - we're not spying on her. If she does something that deserves encouragement, I'll encourage her. I have done so several times, but in the end she ends up doing what she wants, and that has invariably been worthy of criticism.

 

[Moochie]

Where does she accept the fact that she failed to do better than the controls? On her website she wrote, Unlike what is implied at stopvisionfromfeeling.com, the study was not a test and I did not fail a test. The study was for me to try out test procedures and was not designed to conclude on the claim. I identified unforeseen issues with the procedure, such as when I say "back of the head" and the volunteer says "neck", there are possibilities for receiving negative score although having correctly identified an ailment.

She says outright that she did not fail a test, and she's making excuses for her inaccuracy. She has plans for a future study.

As for the F-A-C-T group keeping her in line, the group was unable to get her to correct the fundamental flaws in her "study." They refused to participate in the study without changes to it,. but Anita still didn't change anything. Why should she? Dr. Carlson and a few other people agreed to be read informally. Other members volunteered to help conduct her study. They reviewed the results at the meeting. Their name is all over her website.

She got what she wanted from them, which is the appearance that she has their support (those "brilliant skeptics"). She got to do the study her way. She gets to conclude whatever she wants from the data. She gets to throw Dr. Carlson's name all over he website, but not his conclusions.

The group hasn't kept her in line yet, so I don't expect them to in the future.

As for Anita acknowledging anything, you've got to be kidding. This is from her website:



Right. She concludes nothing...except that she does. When she's "accurate", she has an ability despite the numerous flaws in her procedures. When she's not accurate, it's because she is tired or a particular change in the protocol prevents her ability from working. And she considers getting 2 out 3 to be accurate "early on" and missing 3 out of 3 to be a result of fatigue.

Here's the thing: As flawed as her Big Study was, the results could still be used to demonstrate that there is no ability. Suppose somebody says he is psychic and wants to use a deck of cards to prove it. We let him choose the deck. We let him handle the cards, sometimes even out of our sight. We let him perform what we know looks like a well-known card trick.

If he correctly guesses the card several times in a row, it proves nothing, right? But if he never correctly guesses the card, then it's safe to conclude that there's no psychic ability. The flaws in the study would not hamper a pyschic ability. The flaws only serve to indicate other possible explanations for success - they don't excuse failure.

Nothing has changed with Anita. We still have a large collection of unsubstantiated claims including some new ones. Every time any testing is done, she fails. And yet she continues with her fantasies, delusions or deliberate scam (your choice).

All I "get" from her past and more recent shenanigans is that Anita is perfecting her "paranormal" style, ably assisted by people here and elsewhere. Nothing that has occurred convinces me that she is not preparing herself for a full-time career in woo. As always, I could be mistaken, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll stick by my opinion.


M.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I'm referring to this from VfF's website:

"Me and two out of three controls ended up with almost identical total correlations in the study. It could suggest that my medical perceptions are based on automatic and unintentional cold reading, however only a future test can provide a final conclusion as to my medical perceptions. I still await the questionnaires back and can publish more data from the first study. I emphasize again that I am not against reaching a final conclusion that my perceptions would be due to automatic cold reading and synesthesia, but we are not at the stage of final conclusions yet."

Who here ever thought she'd write something like that. Yes, it's not definitive. It's full of hedges, but as I said before, I think it's a step in the right direction. As she realizes she's losing X-Ray vision, she's still trying to hang onto an unheard-of form of synesthesia, but I think that will eventually fall away as well with further studies or tests or whatever. She'll be left with few options and it may still get ugly, but I see this as positive movement.

I think the criticisms of F.A.C.T. are unwarrented. UncaYimmy knows VfF better than I do because he's had an online relationship with her through PMs, MyFace, and whatever else. I grant that he's more of an expert than I am on that subject. But I would suggest that the F.A.C.T. folks know her better than UncaYimmy because they've had significant face to face time with her. I doubt Dr. Carlson would do something that he thought was grossly irresponsible in a paranormal investigation. He probably felt pretty safe (with good reason) when he let VfF do her (failed) reading on him. So far, everything they've helped her with has led to less than stellar performances on her part. I suspect that will continue.

I've been overly optimistic before. I supported UncaYimmy's original moderated thread even though all evidence suggested that VfF would not allow herself to be so constrained. I support her studies. I hope she even makes a testable claim and travels to Hollywood to try and win IIG's $50K prize.

I actually hope she realizes what's really going on before she gets to that point, though.

Ever the optimist,
Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

You are welcome to call what I wrote about F-A-C-T criticisms, but a careful reading should tell you that my issues are with Anita. Officially, the only thing the group did was offer suggestions (Anita rejected most) and refuse to formally participate in her study.

Informally, individuals in the group have interacted with her as I have indicated. Anita has used this in her self-promotion. She uses their name to give herself legitimacy. She has never named anybody else she has tested, has she? But when it comes to her horribly failed reading of Dr. Carlson, she mentions his name repeatedly. Thus a respected skeptic and professor is working with her on her study.

Get it?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy post #202:
I do not call myself a psychic. What I say is that I am a science student who happens to be the kind of person who experiences things that many other types of persons who have them could interpret as psychic impressions. Yet being a science student I choose to remain rational and I investigate these impressions.

The reason I considered offering psychic readings was to find volunteers for the investigation. The results would have been included in the study and there would be restrictions to how much of my impressions the volunteers would know about. My reasoning was that there are already so many psychic practitioners out there and people who go to them, why couldn't I do this within the investigation? I do consider the possible harm to persons and that is why I have not done this and most likely won't. I have worked three years in a nursing home and am headed toward a career in the field of medicine, I am very empathic. I would not like to cause harm to persons.

I gave a "psychic reading" to a new FACT member last Thursday. I told him right away that he must consider everything I say as nonsense, because it could be nonsense. I'm just curious about my phenomenon, because I experience it first-hand so I am investigating it.

I do not only report the hits. Check out www.visionfromfeeling.com/induced1.html, it is just absolutely full of misses! I report all data and I know that that is a vital part of scientific research to do so. The misses are beautifully emphasized in red.

I do not present myself as a psychic to the public. If I have the opportunity to try the so called "psychic reading" with a person I always emphasize that I am investigating it and that all that I say is to be considered as nonsense. Only close friends and family and FACT members get to experience this. It breaks my heart how "psychics" hurt people. I will be working in conventional medicine in my career, I love the direct and proven answers and non-vagueness in it. I just happen to be the unlikely combination of science student and one who experiences impressions.

I am not lying to the general public. I present myself as a science student who investigates an interesting experience. Jim Carr I have not lied to anyone about what I am doing.

My motivation is to find out more about my experience. It is not money. I will have a high-paying job in conventional science. To me the MDC is not about money, I just think the JREF is an interesting resource in these kinds of claims.

Yes I am working on using screens now and am having some success with it. My plan is to find out what is the "most screen" I can use while still having confidence in my perceptions. The biggest and the least see-through screen will be used in further studies and testing.

I am not doing this for attention for myself, I do this for attention to my interesting experience of medical perceptions. I have found nothing in literature about synesthesia toward internal organs and health information. The other unusual experiences I have I mention mostly in other discussion threads when the topics come up because I don't mind trying to describe the experience to those who don't experience it.

I don't like the way you conclude on your assertions as truths. It makes Skeptics look bad when they conclude on things that are in fact not true. Like when someone concluded that I am not from Sweden.

The medical claim is the one that I experience the most and the easiest. I have now found a way to test it in a very easy way: with induced information.

I have chosen to make the investigation public because I think it is interesting and others might think so too. There are few "woos" out there who allow open access to their experience and reasoning, and how many woos have actually even intended to scientifically investigate their claims? I guess I am not your typical woo.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles post #204:
Think of it more like a chemistry experiment. Chemical reactions can be very sensitive and you need to investigate effects of temperature, reaction time, amounts of reagents, and processing methods and how they affect the obtained product before deciding on the procedure. I am sure there are many chemical reactions that were discovered only by very careful scientists who paid attention to the details and the allowed ranges of the parameters. I'm afraid this is not as easy as throwing a rock. Now that I'm using induced information I can work much faster. I was having difficulty finding volunteers with medical information for the study. I need to study the experience to know what test conditions it works with.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy post #207:

3) You *do* place belief in what you perceive to be abilities. This is abundantly clear based on your website and the moderated thread here.

I believe that when I look at people I perceive images of *their* internal organs and tissue and impressions of their health.

4) You *do* express to others what you perceive. Not only do you tell the person you're "reading" what you perceive, you tell the world via these forums and your website.

What I meant was that I do not tell random people about what I perceive. It is always in a controlled safe situation within the investigation where I emphasize that what I say must be considered as nonsense but that I am curiuos about the accuracy, and always with family, friends, or FACT members. I do not go around stopping people at the street telling them they have cancer. That's what I meant. If I share examples of perceptions on my website it is less likely to cause harm to others who read my website because the information does not apply to them personally.

If you want to be a skeptic, don't refer to these people as "practicing psychics" and suggest that they get endorsement from the government in the form of licensing. No psychic ability has ever been proven. Ever. Therefore, any license would be a sham.

And therefore they would not have a licence, and people should not go see them. That is what I meant.

Stricter regulations? What regulations currently apply?

Well, obviously it is legal today to charge $1100 for a medical psychic reading! No! It is now $1810!!! O-M-G! Could I get away with this? If I had no sense of moral and responsibility that is?

What harm have you caused? You have advised people about very serious subjects such as heart disease.

This particular friend has heart pains and I did not know that when I first met him and gave him my impressions of his health. So since this is the only "serious" case you quote, just relax since it turned out to be true. Phew.

If you have a skill, then prove it!

That's what we have been telling YOU.

Working on it.

Except in your case, where apparently multiple "studies" are needed first. Speaking of which, we've been waiting for the results of your big study. Spare us the accusations of impatience. If you're going to make multiple announcements before the test, then expect people to want to hear about the results after the test.

It was NOT my fault that the data was not returned to me sooner.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I wonder if Dr Carlson knows that Anita picked his missing kidney but didnt mention it!

Yes I e-mailed him right after that FACT meeting and told him all about it.

I think there's no longer any doubt -- she's preparing herself for a full-time career in woo. Just don't go adding any credibility to her nonsense.

There is no career in woo ahead. I spend my days studying conventional science.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread

Anita, just in case you are serious about all this, if a person with real psychic powers would exist, the JREF million dollars would not be that impressive compared to the money she / he / it would get from countless other sources.

Like this.

she / he / it

It?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy post #219:
"Induced information" is not a new claim. It still falls within the claim of medical perceptions which has always included perceptions of what a person is feeling. Induced information is all about having a volunteer do something that induces to them a sensation, such as hand in ice or contracting the hand into a fist, and I am then supposed to feel which hand, or both hands, or no hands, are subject to that sensation. Induced information is not only as sensory provoking in me as natural health information, it seems that it can even be better. So I am happy with working with induced information from now on. There are no disadvantages or steps back with respect to the scientific or skeptical quality of the investigation. There are nothing but advantages and improvement both for me and for the quality of the investigation.

The first page of studies on induced information was a simple beginning. I am quite aware of necessary study procedures but this was a very quick assessment of its potentials. I was hoping you would see that from comments such as,
"The study procedure will be improved upon"
"A simple and quick study"
"Improvements on the procedure were made gradually."
"Although these study procedures are not good enough"
"and keep improving the procedures successively"
"These three very preliminary studies"
And,
"Conclusions: These three very preliminary studies on induced information, using the information of a hand contracted in a fist, did of course not follow an adequate procedure. For instance it could be that contracting a hand translates a subtly visible contraction of neck muscles that provides subconscious clues. I also received feedback after each run, something which I have been told is also not proper test procedure. There was no randomizer used. But other than that, the idea of using induced information is a very good one."

And so many other examples. Please read the text before you critique on the text.

In at least one test she is allowing the subject to "randomly" choose one of four options even though we have explained that if somebody chooses something, it's not random. At least in one test she had the person roll a die.

I clearly emphasized that a randomizer must be used. The first studies on induced information were just an assessment whether there is anything at all before setting up more elaborate procedures. I do wish you would read more closely. And ever since the study with taste we do use a randomizer. Also this way it could be determined whether the use of a randomizer affects the results of accuracy because there is some pre-randomizer data available. I am not just rushing into any specific test procedure because if and when the perceptions fail I want to know what test procedures were the cause of that. In scientific testing you can not change but one parameter at a time in order to learn what change was the cause of the change in results. I am not just trying to prove/disprove some claim, I am investigating the claim to learn more about it.

I also find it interesting that when it came to the chemical identification tests, she claimed it made her physically ill to do even 10 guesses, ahem, readings. She flat out refused to do anymore testing despite repeated claims and anecdotes about this ability. She even refused to do two tests per day for a few weeks just to get some data.

Now, though, apparently she is able to make make than 10 guesses (collectively) in one evening about fist clenching, ice in a bucket, cotton in the hand, and tasting stuff.

Strange...

*cough* *read*
"Conclusions: I was starting to feel tired and also something reminiscent of the beginnings of the headache and nausea I had before when I did tests on identifying Lactobacillus bacteria in cereal samples. I need to be careful and not exhaust myself because it can take several days for me to recover to the point where efforts in doing these studies won't make me feel uncomfortable. My level of energy seems to have effect on the results of the contracted hand studies as it did with the cereal tests in the past."

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

UncaYimmy post #202:
I do not call myself a psychic. What I say is that I am a science student who happens to be the kind of person who experiences things that many other types of persons who have them could interpret as psychic impressions.

This is like me saying that I am not a biped, I am just a software developer who happens to be the kind of person who moves about on what many other types of persons who have them could interpret as two legs. All you said is that you aren't a psychic, but you are what others who can do what you can do would call a psychic. Do you even read the nonsense you write before hitting the submit button?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

She seems to accept that she did not do better than the controls (although she avoids saying she came in third out of four)

At last month's FACT meeting me and Dr. Carlson got together and calculated the results of total correlation from the first study for me and the three controls each. According to that calculation I was not the third out of four. Two days ago at this month's FACT meeting Dr. Carlson announced to me that he redid the calculation and that according to that I came third out of four. I do not avoid any results.

I'm also not blind to the fact that she fudges things like the difference between the neck and the head.

If I identify this issue and I consider this to be a valid issue with study procedures then I can correct that issue and devise a better study procedure that takes care of that concern. That is the purpose of the study: to identify issues with the procedure and correct for them. Once I arrive at a procedure that I am confident in and I proceed with using it at a test, I can make no more excuses or complaints in procedure unless they are obvious and unforeseen and agreed on by the testing organization.

I don't know what they are doing exactly, but I suspect that they are kinder and gentler than we have (for the most part) been.

FACT members are very kind. I've always suspected that most of the Forum Skeptics who dare to be excessively rude would be more polite if we were having the conversation face to face. I've invited many upset Forum Skeptics to engage with me in private conversations in a live chat room but all but UncaYimmy have declined and then mysteriously disappeared.

 

[desertgal]

This particular friend has heart pains and I did not know that when I first met him and gave him my impressions of his health. So since this is the only "serious" case you quote, just relax since it turned out to be true. Phew.

You mean, the one where you told the guy that the tissues around his heart were saturated with peanut oil, and if he stopped using peanut oil, his "potentially fatal" heart condition would reverse itself? A medical impossibility that turned out to be true? Riiiight, Anita.

What were you saying about having "moral and responsibility"? You exhibit no more proof of that than you do of any of your claims. Just something else you "believe" that doesn't jibe with reality.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy post #202:
I do not call myself a psychic.

I gave a "psychic reading" to a new FACT member last Thursday.

That's what we call double-talk. My website lists 25+ claims by you from telepathy and sensing animals to speaking with ghosts to sensing a full bladder. If it waddles and quacks like a duck...

I do not only report the hits.

I never said you did. What I did say was that you spin your misses into hits. When you can't, you make excuses or stop testing.

Check out www.visionfromfeeling.com/induced1.html, it is just absolutely full of misses! I report all data and I know that that is a vital part of scientific research to do so. The misses are beautifully emphasized in red.

Right. And you excused the misses with, "I thought that some of the flavors were similar to one another. Also I was tired. "

I do not present myself as a psychic to the public.

Who are we if not the public, Anita? This is a public forum. Your website is open to the public. You went out on the streets to peform your study. Granted, it didn't say PSYCHIC in big bold letters, but it had your name. Type your name into Google and what site comes up first? Sites about you and your claims.

Only close friends and family and FACT members get to experience this.

Now I remember why they closed the original thread. People got frustrated with your constant repetition. You have told us this all before, but it is not true. You have told us you have read people you "just met that day" - nobody except you would consider such a person a "close friend." You also read strangers on the street. Your website invites people to sponsor you to come see them to give a "psychic demonstration."

I am not lying to the general public.

In another thread you said to The Professor, " Let me offer you some advice one claimant to another. Do not get caught up with the JREF Forum members. They are a suspicious bunch who won't let themselves be deceived."

I find the way you phrased those sentences quite interesting. It sounds to me like you an admission that you are deceiving the skeptics, seeing how you don't consider us the general public.

My motivation is to find out more about my experience. It is not money. I will have a high-paying job in conventional science. To me the MDC is not about money, I just think the JREF is an interesting resource in these kinds of claims.

You claim we are a resource, yet you ignore virtually every bit of advice given to you. The F-A-C-T group flat-out refused to formally help you with your study under your conditions. You don't use anyone else as a resource. You use people to further your agenda and gain attention.

Yes I am working on using screens now and am having some success with it. My plan is to find out what is the "most screen" I can use while still having confidence in my perceptions. The biggest and the least see-through screen will be used in further studies and testing.

Your study already falsified your claim. You came in third out of four people. You have no ability that needs to be studied.

I am not doing this for attention for myself,

I can accept that. After all, most people who make websites about themselves, announce that site on several public forums, write tens of thousands of words about themselves, and apply for the IIG $50K prize are not seeking attention or money. They are shy, quiet people hiding under rocks.

Not.

I don't like the way you conclude on your assertions as truths. It makes Skeptics look bad when they conclude on things that are in fact not true.

I don't really care whether you like my conclusions or not. I draw from the evidence. When the evidence changes, my conclusions have and will continue to change.

Like when someone concluded that I am not from Sweden.

If the worst the skeptics did was suspect that you were not from Sweden, discuss it amongst themselves, then within a day or two conclude that you probably are from Sweden, then I'd say we're doing pretty good.

The medical claim is the one that I experience the most and the easiest. I have now found a way to test it in a very easy way: with induced information.

You continue to claim on your website, "I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals, and even what I call the vibrational level inside the atoms."

How is tasting sauces going to prove that? How is clenching a fist? Holding cotton? Putting a hand in ice?

I have chosen to make the investigation public because I think it is interesting and others might think so too. There are few "woos" out there who allow open access to their experience and reasoning, and how many woos have actually even intended to scientifically investigate their claims? I guess I am not your typical woo.

I think you are a very typical woo.

 

[wardenclyffe]

It's true that she kept dropping things from her "main" claim. She now seems to have dropped her '"main" claim' from her "main" claim. She has moved on to easily testable claims. She can mess around all she wants on her own with her current "induced information" idea, but any "study" or "test" she does with F.A.C.T. (or its members) or the IIG will probably yield honest results.

In her eyes she "did not fail a test." But she knows and acknowledges that she failed to do better than the controls in her study. In fact, she knows she came in 3rd out of 4. She continues her fight, but I think this has shaken her beliefs more than she (or we) recognize. Time will tell.

Also, note that she did a reading on someone at the F.A.C.T. meeting again this past week. She forgot to include the results of that reading.

I see a real battle brewing between the part of her brain that knows how science actually works and the part of her brain that wants to believe she has special powers. I think the science part of her brain had a small victory with the recent study. The other part is fighting back, but not very well. She should have gone on to something even more untestable than her vague health diagnosis claim. But she chose something that is easily testable instead---her induced information thing. This is the rational part of her brain pushing the other part toward something that can actually be tested.

I've been wrong before, but again, I remain an optimist.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy post #207:
I believe that when I look at people I perceive images of *their* internal organs and tissue and impressions of their health.

Right. Like I said, you believe in this nonsense. Thing is you're not perceiving images. You're making them up in your imagination or they are part of some mental illness. People just don't see images of internal organs.

Of course, you could be lying about the whole thing.

This particular friend has heart pains and I did not know that when I first met him and gave him my impressions of his health. So since this is the only "serious" case you quote, just relax since it turned out to be true. Phew.

You lied when you said you never read anything serious. There's the heart thing, which you admit is serious. You claim to have done a hundred readings. You have only documented a handful. In that handful there is this one. That's what we call evidence.

It was NOT my fault that the data was not returned to me sooner.

Grow up, Anita. You wrote on your website that through the F-A-C-T group you "learned that I am personally more responsible for the work than I had thought." It's your study. Take responsiblity. Quit making excuses.

 

[Moochie]

Yes I e-mailed him right after that FACT meeting and told him all about it.

There is no career in woo ahead. I spend my days studying conventional science.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread

Like this.

It?

Taking all that you have said since you began to post here at face value, which is all I can do since I don't know you except as an anonymous poster in this place, all I can say is that to this reader you have zero credibility.

Zero credibility because you make claims about "abilities" for which there is not a shred of evidence, and you profess belief in things for which there is not a shred of evidence.

If what you have written about practicing your "abilities" on others is true, then I would accuse you of having utter contempt for people, and that you treat them derisively.

At this point in your self-made saga, I profess a complete incredulity about anything you have written. I doubt you are who you say you are, and I certainly doubt that you are a "brilliant" student anywhere but in your imagination.

Please don't bother responding to this post, because all I will accept from you is verifiable evidence, nothing less.


M.