• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The VFF Test is On!

AvalonXQ said:
If her "treatment" is entirely a mental phenomenon (not changing the person's habits or anything, but staring at them until they get better), then I think it would follow under this exception in the law. You get in trouble if you use woo to actually have people do things (like fasting, dieting, stopping prescription meds, etc). This I think would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine). Probably not, but Anita should verify that and not just assume that exception applies. :)
 
Marcus said:
Judging from this thread (I didn't read your other ones) you seem very rational to me, and appear to have respect for scientific methods. I have high hopes that you will be the very first (if you fail) to admit that you don't have your claimed powers. Good luck!
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. It is true that I am quite ready and willing to falsify the claim if I fail the IIG Preliminary demonstration. This Preliminary is based on the very strongest expression of the claim, and this protocol offers the very best chance for that claim to show what if anything it can do, and so if I fail this Preliminary there is no other alternative, no changes to the claim or to the protocol could make it any more likely that I pass. The claim would be falsified. And I'm happy about that. I have faith in the IIG and in the design of the Preliminary. The goal is to reach a reliable conclusion.
 
If the claim is falsified, then what IS happening? I know that's putting the cart before the horse, but VfF has said she thinks she will fail. If that's the case, she must have put some thought into what she believes is actually happening if it's not accurate medical perceptions.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
If the claim is falsified, then what IS happening? I know that's putting the cart before the horse, but VfF has said she thinks she will fail. If that's the case, she must have put some thought into what she believes is actually happening if it's not accurate medical perceptions.
Click to expand...


When she fails this demonstration (remember, it's not a test, it's only a demonstration... and there's good reason to believe she might never actually go through with it...) she's going to publicly announce that she doesn't have the magical powers that she currently believes she has. There'll probably be a big round of told-ya-so's from many people who told her so, and if she's got any integrity at all, a pretty hearty apology from Anita to all those people she's treated poorly all the way through this ordeal.

Here's her statement regarding disavowing her powers when she fails...

Anita at stopvisionfromfeeling.com... said:
I am tremendously pleased with the test protocol. From my perspective it is absolutely perfect, and it contains no elements that I worry could reduce my performance. I have confidence in my single past experience of detecting that a left kidney was missing, and am willing to let this specific claim represent the entirety of the medical perceptions claim. And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified.
Click to expand...


Also, when she does fail she may not bother looking for the real reason she sees things that aren't really there. She has to know as well as we do that the most likely answers could be very unflattering.
 
It is not as simple as that, GeeMack. The claim is based on a genuine experience. I did detect the missing left kidney in the past experience. I truly really did.
 
GeeMack said:
When she fails this demonstration (remember, it's not a test, it's only a demonstration... and there's good reason to believe she might never actually go through with it...) she's going to publicly announce that she doesn't have the magical powers that she currently believes she has. There'll probably be a big round of told-ya-so's from many people who told her so, and if she's got any integrity at all, a pretty hearty apology from Anita to all those people she's treated poorly all the way through this ordeal.

Here's her statement regarding disavowing her powers when she fails...


Also, when she does fail she may not bother looking for the real reason she sees things that aren't really there. She has to know as well as we do that the most likely answers could be very unflattering.
Click to expand...

Note that she says [emphasis mine]: "And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified."

Her paranormal claim. Not her claim of having [self diagnosed] synesthesia. So, she will likely announce that her 'genuine experience' was not paranormal, but still synesthesia, continue to ignore that this self diagnosis has never been, and likely never will be, verified with a diagnosis from a qualified doctor, and sidestep into other miraculous and extraordinary claims.

That is, of course, if she doesn't turn her failure into a "non failure" with various excuses and what not.
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
It is not as simple as that, GeeMack. The claim is based on a genuine experience. I did detect the missing left kidney in the past experience. I truly really did.
Click to expand...


Interesting that the evidence has shown otherwise, and you're the only one left who actually believes that.

VisionFromFeeling said:
Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...


At your request, the general consensus here, in this forum filled with skeptics who have watched this sideshow from the beginning, is that you're a liar and a fraud.
 
desertgal said:
That is, of course, if she doesn't turn her failure into a "non failure" with various excuses and what not.
Click to expand...


You mean she could fail this demonstration completely, like she failed that college course completely, and she could still claim some manner of total success, like when she claimed to have a 4.0 GPA after failing that class? Like when she didn't even mention that Dr. Carlson was missing a kidney, failed utterly in her attempt to detect his medical condition, then later, after he told her he was missing a kidney, she claimed a 100% success in detecting something that she only knew because he told her about it? Yeah, that is certainly a possible outcome.

And again, that is if she actually carries through with the demonstration. Just like in college, if she quits before she even starts, she doesn't have to acknowledge her failure. So that's another strategy.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
It is not as simple as that, GeeMack. The claim is based on a genuine experience. I did detect the missing left kidney in the past experience. I truly really did.
Click to expand...
It's far more likely that you made something up in your head that by luck happened to coincide with reality (assuming that your postdiction was sincere). That doesn't deny your experience, but it does invalidate your claim that something other than coincidence was going on.

Assuming that the following test/demonstration does not validate VFF's claim: when a more properly designed test/demonstration fails to confirm that one "truly' did detect something, it cannot matter that one's experience led one to think that something was detected. There are too many ways for one to think that one has supernatural powers when one really doesn't, and when this is multiplied by the strength of even a slightly more properly designed test/demonstration, this overwhelms one's personal, intuitive interpretation of what one thinks has happened.

Sometimes things are not what they seem, no matter how much it seems that they are what they seem. Experience can be deceiving, even when seemingly incontrovertible.
 
desertgal said:
Note that she says [emphasis mine]: "And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified."

Her paranormal claim. Not her claim of having [self diagnosed] synesthesia. So, she will likely announce that her 'genuine experience' was not paranormal, but still synesthesia, continue to ignore that this self diagnosis has never been, and likely never will be, verified with a diagnosis from a qualified doctor, and sidestep into other miraculous and extraordinary claims.

That is, of course, if she doesn't turn her failure into a "non failure" with various excuses and what not.
Click to expand...
There's nothing paranormal about synesthesia, she's welcome to that claim. If she follows through on her promise to renounce her claim to be able to detect missing kidneys, that would put her a step above MDC applicants, even if she comes up with another claim later.
 
Marcus said:
There's nothing paranormal about synesthesia,
Click to expand...

There is if it allows you to see kidneys (I mean "really, really" see kidneys). It strikes me that in her formulations that she's saying even if paranormal explanations are ruled out, it is nevertheless still true that she saw Dr. Carson's kidney, but the meachanism was "normal". ("The claim is based on a genuine experience. I did detect the missing left kidney in the past experience. I truly really did.")

Anita has never, as best I can tell, ever been willing to reject the hypothesis that she really does have "vision from feeling", just that such vision is magical in operation. This is what we're up against.
 
Yes, synesthesia is not a paranormal claim. It's also not a very good explanation of VFF's claims. (Getting sensory wires crossed does not give you information you can't have through ordinary means about a person's insides.)

Or more precisely, if VFF offers "synesthesia" as a possible alternative explanation (i.e. to the paranormal explanation), it is incomplete. If she's experiencing synesthesia, then she is also committing some seriously flawed thinking in concluding, even provisionally, that she might have the ability to see inside people's bodies.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Never mind. We'll just see what the Preliminary demonstration concludes.
Click to expand...

And we all already know what's it going to be, don't we? The only question hanging as I see it is that do you have integrity or not. And most of us are already pretty certain about that part too.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Never mind. We'll just see what the Preliminary demonstration concludes.
Click to expand...

Can I ask a straightforward question? Do you consider this a demonstration of paranormal power vs synaesthesia, as a binary, or are you open to the third possibility that neither is the case, and it's all been in your mind?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yes, synesthesia is not a paranormal claim. It's also not a very good explanation of VFF's claims. (Getting sensory wires crossed does not give you information you can't have through ordinary means about a person's insides.)

Or more precisely, if VFF offers "synesthesia" as a possible alternative explanation (i.e. to the paranormal explanation), it is incomplete. If she's experiencing synesthesia, then she is also committing some seriously flawed thinking in concluding, even provisionally, that she might have the ability to see inside people's bodies.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't see how synesthesia could account for detection of missing organs, it is merely misrouted signals (I've experienced it myself, mushrooms, decades ago) . Regardless, I'm rooting for VFF, she is much more rational then most paranormal claimants
 
SezMe said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
Seconded. I have browsed this thread, and it is full of predictions about what VFF will do. OK, you guys and gals, if you think you can make predictions, apply for the MDC, or else sit tight and wait for the facts to come in, please?

Hans :cool:
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Hey guys, really, we've beaten up VFF sufficiently, I think. Let's just wait and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

+5 appropriate.

I've said this before in a different VFF thread, but I really think the focus should be on getting claimants to a test, as opposed to trying to convince them they can't do what they claim they can. It's _after_ the test, when the rationalizations start, that it's time to pile on. It's not after the test ... yet.

All the fortune-telling going on right now about how she'll perform, while admittedly supported by historical evidence of others who've tried and failed, is still an attempt to predict the future. We can't know -- we can just know which way we'd bet. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom