VFF and the Diaphragm Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you suppose that instead of constantly going off on tangents, you could actually address direct questions and just settle on one simple test rather than constantly zigging and zagging all over the place?

In multiple threads many people with far more patience than I have tried to help you develop a clear and simple protocol for a test. Yet you dodge, misdirect and just ignore. For example, you failed to even acknowledge this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150822 in which a very simple and clear-cut test protocol was outlined. Is there some reason you did not respond even once?

For the record, I alerted VFF to this post via PM.

And here is how I answered, in PM:

Dear Skeptic,

I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG. The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys. The tangents are merely accounts of experiences and ideas that come up while I am experiencing and investigating my claims as a whole, meanwhile they are not diversions from the main claim and the test that are planned to take place with the IIG.

The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place. Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.

I hope that answers your questions.
Regards,
VFF

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita's argument seems to be designed around her potential as a MDC applicant.

Isn't it reasonable to deny that argument by her lack of good faith. Koenig was denied, rightly so, on that basis, and he was given special treatment by the mods because he submitted an application. Anita has submitted nothing, no paperwork, plenty of hassle.

I am not applying with the JREF at the moment. I am working with the IIG.

 

[Vanda]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia? ...

You would schedule an appointment with a neurologist.

VFF - why is it that you have not been to see a neurologist to discuss your possible synesthesia?

Why won't you schedule an appointment?

 

[Ashles]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

Don't worry, this isn't a test you need to invent for once. Other people already have perfectly good tests for this.

Go visit a doctor and I'm sure he will be able to put you in touch with an appropriate specialist in cognitive neurology, or whoever else is appropriate.

It's that simple.
Will you do this? It's an important first step if you believe it's something you may have.

In fact, since you have mentioned it so many times as something you think you may have, this is something now you should do before any further medical perception testing.

ETA: Apart from anything else, if you are diagnosed with Synesthesia then you know there is no paranormal claim to investigate so it negates the need for any further test designs, protocols, studys, surveys etc.

The Synesthesia test should now be considered a priority above any 'paranormal' test design.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

[aside]Why do you use bold letters when addressing GeeMack, VFF?[/aside]

 

[Kariboo]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

See a neurologist. They do that for a living as you may know wanting to get into the medical field.


While this
,

for instance colors and shapes associated to letters, numbers, physics equations and the written abbreviations of chemical elements and molecules.

may be synesthesia

This

I claim to experience correlating medical images,

Absolutely isn't, never was, never will be. Can not be. At all. Ever.

 

[desertgal]

(I wonder what the circumstances were that lead to that.)

Dear GeeMack, how about that the perceptions are automatic and I am not making them up. And how about I remain skeptical (yes, skeptical) and have not concluded whether there is an extrasensory perception or not. Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, imagination/delusions/scam or automatic inaccurate synesthesia. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Fixed it for you, GeeMack.

 

[desertgal]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

Go visit a doctor and I'm sure he will be able to put you in touch with an appropriate specialist in cognitive neurology, or whoever else is appropriate.

It's that simple.

And you've only been told that about 40 times before.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ah, stop it with the synesthesia nonsense this instant. All of you. If you don't, I'm gonna turn this thread around and take us home.

Whether she is a synesthete or not is irrelevant. The only reason she brings it up is so that she can rationalize to herself that she's not creating the images on her own but that it's some sort of involuntary reaction. It also gets people talking as though she has some sort of apparent accuracy that is triggered by "ordinary" means. Here's the reality:
* No form of synesthesia even remotely resembles what she describes.
* She does not have any apparent accuracy which needs to be explained.

If you really care about her synesthesia, we covered this before in the original VFF thread. Here's where she said she took the test:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4325579#post4325579

And here is where Professor Yaffle wrote, "If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4325873#post4325873

I also took a few tests. They are designed to include as many possible synesthetes as possible. In other words it's like a casting call. Passing a test merely means it might be worth investigating further. If you don't pass, you definitely don't have that type of synesthesia. I should also note that I was able fool the test and get an extremely high score.

VFF, of course, made several excuses, but as usual they didn't hold up. For example, she claimed that the musical test had discrepancies in producing the notes. As a musician, I knew this not to be true just with my ears. I also verified this using a waveform analyzer. She also claimed that the she sometimes saw two colors, but that's just silly. Pick one color and stick with it.

VFF also attends a university. I'm sure her they have the facilities to do some sort of testing or at least have someone on the faculty that could steer her in the right direction. If she wanted to confirm this irrelevant claim, she could do it. But she hasn't.

The book on VFF's synesthesia is closed. Let's not reopen it, especially in this thread since this thread is about detecting foreign objects in the vagina. I hope the mods will leave this brief derail in place. If they choose to move it, I hope they move it to the moderated general claims thread.

 

[SezMe]

I am not applying with the JREF at the moment. I am working with the IIG.

No, you are not.

I just now talked to the Exec. Dir of IIG and you are doing with them exactly what you are doing here: evasion, delay, and vagueness are all common. You have been talking with them for over a year and have not come up with a protocol for the kidney test and, in the process, suggested other kinds of tests. Those alternatives have gone nowhere.

So I assert that you're working with the IIG in EXACTLY the same manner that you are working with us. Which means you are not working toward a test at all. Full stop.

You are just feeding your need for attention or something like that. I'm no psychologist but something doesn't seem right with you and it is not that you can peer into people's bodies.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place. Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.

That only makes sense to you.

1) The chemical identification test is quick and easy. If you fail, you can cross that claim off your list. This is a worthy goal.

2) I find it very telling that you use the word "allow" as if you have any choice in the matter. Tests will falsify or confirm claims whether you "allow" them to or not. You claim to be a junior scientist in training, but you're ignoring the most basic lesson: the scientist and the subject cannot be the same person.

3) On what basis are you saying that failing to detect a missing kidney falsifies a claim of detecting chemicals? What exactly have you done to establish that relationship?

4) Furthermore, what exactly have you done to conclude that failing to detect chemicals has no bearing on whether your medical perceptions are valid or not?

5) Most importantly, why did you even bring up the whole diaphragm thing when you never confirmed your perception? Is it because it was strong? What the heck does "strong" mean? How can it be "strong" if you don't even know if it was a diaphragm, IUD, tampon or a roll of quarters?

 

[Vanda]

I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, you think it's more difficult to find five women willing to wear one for a test than it is to find one woman who is willing to repeatedly go into a stall in a bathroom and hike up her skirt so can insert and remove a diaphragm based on the flip of a coin? You can't be serious.

It's certainly easier (and would result in a more controlled test) than finding volunteers who are missing a kidney. If not that, then how about 10 women who are willing to walk past once either with or without a diaphragm. I like that whether or not the woman has a diaphragm in is based on a coin toss and nothing else that might provide Anita information. (Again, she claims she could "see" the diaphragm in, not that she can determine who is or is not a regular diaphragm user.)

Doesn't matter much, though, because Anita will never do a controlled test anyway.

 

[bookitty]

I have been contact by VFF in response to this previous post of mine:
A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck).

As it says, my friend is currently in the hospital getting titanium implants to repair both his leg and arm as a result of a horrific motorcycle accident. VFF wants to know if he is in her area and if she can scan him.

I am sickened and appalled. It is bad enough to be worried about my friend but for someone to take this heartbreaking situation and try to use it for the glorification of their own narcissistic delusion is beyond insulting. She claims to be a healer. That hasn't yet been disproved but it is safe to say that her bedside manner is repugnant.

Especially since a test where the medical problems have been spelled out in detail would be utterly useless. There was no point at all to this vile little message.

 

[Audible Click]

I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

Since you're late to this party, as the VfF threads were started 8 months ago I'll explain: When posters are trying to develop a protocol the posts are long due to the back and forth necessary to refine the protocol.

Many posters respond to long posts by VfF in a point by point manner which leads to long posts.

Some posters are/were genuinely interested in her many paranormal claims and were asking for answers, that can lead to long posts back and forth.

Lastly, in almost all threads on this forum you will find long posts, especially in GS&TP, CT, 911CT, Politics, Religion&Philosphy, Science, Social Issues, etc.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

VfF, was the woman in question walking around the school wearing only one layer of thin cotton, or were you able to see the "item in question" under a heavier clothing layer, such as blue jeans? It's also curious that you could see the item almost instantaneously, yet require 30 minutes to detect the presence or absence of a kidney in a person wearing only a thin layer of cotton.

Yes, that's curious. She attributes that (and the inability to do her x-ray vision through a sheet) to the fact that she gets disoriented in the body.

I suggest a very basic (like 5 minute!) anatomy lesson.

 

[Vanda]

Audible Click,

Thanks, but I actually have been following all of her threads (and many others in this forum) since the beginning. In fact, I was addicted to reading the original thread until I gave up after a thousand or so posts.

I have great respect for the people who persist in working with her and admire their myriad "explaining" skills, but I stand by my original comment that more concise editing is always a good idea, particularly in the VFF threads.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While this
,

may be synesthesia

This



Absolutely isn't, never was, never will be. Can not be. At all. Ever.

Exactly. She can't get action potentials in her nervous system that are somehow perceptions of a person's internal organs that are being confused with vision. There is no way to get those perceptions (of some other modality?) confused with vision because those other perceptions don't exist and aren't possible.

But, as UncaYimmy says, her theories (even theories of why her claim is wrong) aren't of any consequence to the problem of testing her claim.

 

[Audible Click]

delete..double post

 

[Audible Click]

Audible Click,

Thanks, but I actually have been following all of her threads (and many others in this forum) since the beginning. In fact, I was addicted to reading the original thread until I gave up after a thousand or so posts.

I have great respect for the people who persist in working with her and admire their myriad "explaining" skills, but I stand by my original comment that more concise editing is always a good idea, particularly in the VFF threads.

Fair enough but you won't get that in a thread where the feelings run high.