This seems to be key. Her m.o. seems to be all about keeping these things as one-off anecdotes.
I told her more than once that it was ridiculous to test the kidney claim because even if you take her story as 100% true, it only happened once.
However, all of the stuff about her many claims aside, I contend we have ample evidence that she is a conscious fraud and a liar.
Maybe she didn't start out that way, but by now she is.
If nothing else, I wouldn't say she's a liar if she had done what she said over and over she would do (see post 935 for a few examples): take failure at the IIG demonstration as the falsification of her claimed ability to see inside people.
On her website, she made it clear that this lumped together many related, but distinct claims--all the ones having to do with sensing medical conditions in people (sorry I can't find that exact quote at the moment, and it may no longer be there, but I'm pretty certain she said she would abandon all her claims of medical sensing powers).
Your facts are essentially correct. I do, however, disagree with your interpretation. It's not terribly important that you or anyone agrees with me, but I don't think she's a deliberate liar and fraud. That said, I don't think the English language has the right words to describe her because from a practical standpoint, none are needed. We simply choose not to trust those people.
To use an analogy, think of someone in love who has recently been dumped. They say they know it's over, but they rationalize things to give themselves hope. They say they won't call the person, but then they find an excuse to call (you left a pair of socks at my house). They say they are over the person, but they still check them out on Facebook. You get the idea.
Are they deliberate liars and frauds? Well, not really, but how else would you describe them? They go back on their word. They may even know deep down that they are lying at the time, but I think a lot of the times their thoughts are muddled and confused while their intentions are genuine.
To compound the problem, I firmly believe that Anita is suffering from mental illness. She is disconnected from reality. I've had quite a number of chats with her, and in doing so interact with her in a way that nobody else here understands unless they have dealt first-hand with someone desperately clinging to delusions.
Contrary to what the great Longtabber asserted, we have yet to see Anita try to parlay this into any type of woo career. It's important to note what she has *not* done, which is try to build up a woo following. She repeatedly throws herself into the lion's den in a desperate attempt to get the validation from the people she believes to be on her level. In her interactions here with woo-ish people, she looks down on them. This is one of the characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which I think on the surface explains her actions over the last year.
On my site I tried to get her to
answer questions about what the test would mean if she failed, but she refused. In a way it was almost an "honest" non-response because I was very specific. She tried to appease people, gain praise, and all the while try to leave wiggle room.
Sure, we could see through it. Maybe on some level she could as well. But if you actually sat down with her and talked about this, I bet you would conclude that she's twisted but sincere.
Like I said, it's not important if you agree or not because we have to deal with her the same way regardless of how judge her. And both interpretations explain her reaction to failing the test and why she refused other simpler tests.
By your "logic", if there had been 12 rounds and Anita had come up with the correct person each time, but had missed the locations, you would conclude that she has no paranormal ability and that there is no need to investigate further.