The VFF Test is On!

[GeeMack]

Now watch what I say [*BS snipped*]

Anita, watch what I say. You failed. And all the lying and twisting and contorting you do isn't going to change that. You don't have magical x-ray vision, and you didn't psychically predict which guesses would be right and which would be wrong. Your desperation is glaringly obvious to everyone except you.

You want to know why you see things that aren't really there? Arrange to see a qualified mental health professional.

 

[ynot]

VFF/Anita - Is looking for a kidney that isn't there "remote viewing"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're really embarrassing yourself now, VFF.

And please respond to post # 935.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are obviously psychic

The test I suggested is no more "remote viewing" than the one she did for IIG.

I agree, and I tried arguing that at some length some time ago.

The claim is what's commonly called x-ray vision. And identifying the presence of a person behind a screen would be a good way to test that claim.

VFF wants to believe that she's special or unique somehow, but there are plenty of people who've made such claims before, and they've all done exactly the same thing: failed to prove it, made much out of faulty memories and anecdotes and all the same stuff she's doing.

Nothing new at all.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I very nearly raised my hand to say that I need to cancel trial 3, but I leaned back, closed my eyes, took some deep breaths, and proceeded.

I sure don't remember that. I'd go back and review the tapes but I am so disgusted with your post-test behavior that I don't want to be a part of the crap from now on.

You can clearly hear me sighing in trial 3 in the video. And if they took footage from the front view, you can clearly see that I am fine in trials 1 and 2, and in trial 3 you would clearly see me leaning back, sighing, stopping, closing my eyes and resting, and showing clear signs of fatigue.

And wait til you read my draft paper from trial 3, SezMe. I clearly wrote on that paper that I had fatigue. Why don't you call James Underdown and ask him to read to you what I wrote on the draft papers from trial 3? Then you can kindly take back your rude comment here accusing me of lying about fatigue.

You say you are disgusted by me saying that I had fatigue in trial 3. Would you feel the same, if I actually had fatigue in trial 3? When I attempt the medical perceptions, it requires a tremendous effort from my brain, and beginning into the third trial I was feeling headache and nausea, and an electrical imbalance over my body. I nearly raised my hand up to cancel the trial. And luckily, there is ample evidence indicating that this was the case.

I have learned what my limitations are in terms of for how long I can go on with having perceptions. And I am sorry if you are disgusted by the fact that I don't feel good after some time.

Oh well. I love you anyway.

 

[GeeMack]

You can clearly hear me [*more BS snipped*]

Clearly hear me... You've failed to support your claim. 100%. Totally. Not only that but you've lied to us all, Anita, and you continue to lie. You've crapped on every single person who has tried to help you. We're not going to let you make up new crap to cover up the old crap. All that does is make a deeper pile of crap. And it stinks.

If you want to know why you see things that aren't there, and why you're alienating everyone you cross paths with, go discuss the matter in depth with a competent mental health professional.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

In response to post #935, I was expecting results that would be more conclusive. I did not expect to do as well as I did. The only consequence is that I will have another test. There is no harm in that. I do not claim to be a psychic. I do not have any verified psychic abilities, and the results of the IIG Preliminary indicates more to there not being abilities. What you guys don't understand, is that I am not doing this to be psychic. I am doing this to investigate my visual and felt experience of health information, and within that objective of learning more about the experience, there is more work to be done, more tests to be made. Not to lead up to some paranormal cash prize, or to a verification as a psychic, but to learn more about the experience.

How does cold reading work? What type of cold reading could be responsible? How will I do if I don't see the arms, legs, skin, hair, and head of the subjects? If I think three trials is too many and lead to fatigue, how will I do in two trials? What will the accuracy be? What other excuses would I make, if any? Would I ever make a perception that I was absolutely certain of to be correct, only to find out that it would be incorrect (this did not happen in the IIG Preliminary)?

Well, since all we are interested in in this JREF Forum, is to fight down paranormal claimants who wish to practice woo, and we are not interested in any curiosity or inquiry into an unusual experience, then I must of course take my investigation elsewhere.

Thank you those of you who have been helpful in leading toward the final test protocol that was used in the IIG Preliminary, and for any other bits of information that I have taken from you over the past year that have helped me in this investigation. You may continue arguing with those who wish to be psychic, meanwhile since I am not one of those persons, I must obviously ask you to excuse me from being here.

 

[Hokulele]

I did not expect to do as well as I did. The only consequence is that I will have another test.

Bull.

 

[Audible Click]

You failed the demonstration and now you're making yourself look really bad by trying to weasel your way out of falsifying your medical perception claims. I've had enough of your lies and BS to last a lifetime. If you do arrange another demonstration I sincerely hope you don't post about it on this forum.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In response to post #935, I was expecting results that would be more conclusive.

I don't think you read post number 935. According to you, the test was conclusive. (ETA: There was only 2 possible outcomes: success or failure.) You said repeatedly that if you failed the test, it would falsify your claim.

I did not expect to do as well as I did.

But you failed the test. Therefore, according to you, your claim is falsified. Yet now you're claiming it's not.

Everything else you said about psychics and the motivations of people on JREF is irrelevant to what I put in post 935. But it's typical of your style. You slip and slide and wiggle and evade.

As I said, that's nothing new. Paranormal claimants--the self-deluded and the frauds-- of all kinds have done this for ages.

Care to try again to respond to post number 935?

 

[Drs_Res]

You are obviously psychic

The test I suggested is no more "remote viewing" than the one she did for IIG.

No, not psychic. Just:

 

[ynot]

I think Blondie has left the building.

If not - You may have missed my earlier question - If looking for a person that may or may not be there is ”remote viewing”, then why isn’t looking for a kidney that may or may not be there not also “remote viewing”?

Bye Bye Superwoman . . . make sure you keep avoiding the Kryptonite truth.

 

[Gmonster2]

You said before the test you were practising looking at kidneys. How come u never realised before hand in all your practising that u get tired or that some times it works and sometimes it doesnt? and fat poeple are harder to read?

I mean seriously u could have known this all before the test, it took months to set up just by reading any friends fellow students or a passersby.

It just an excuse as we have come to expect from you and its a pretty poor excuse at that, no one is taken in by it (except Rodney) the plain fact is that you are a liar and a fraud and failed the test and have no sooper powers.

Forget about more investigations and tests and get a life...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Go look at the reveal: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2611955

Anita is given the answers along with her notes...

Anita: Ooh! Trial #1. What I did was <explains note taking>.

Then she outlines her results.
#11: Left -2X and Right - 4X
#12: Left - 0X and Right - 2X
#13: Left - "almost twice" and Right - 3X
#14: "I never saw the left kidney and that was the one that was missing. Every time I looked I just couldn't find it. I put a question mark."

Audience Member points out that #11, not #14 was the one who was missing a kidney. Anita then stops enumerating the results.

In other words the spin began just minutes after the test was over. Now we know why she said, "Oh" in an excited voice. She was prepared to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. She shut up real fast when she realized that her hedging didn't work out.

Are you paying attention, Rodney? She detected a kidney where none was two times. She then failed to detect a kidney that was present an unknown number of times.

Regarding round two:
Anita: I felt really good about the second trial. I was seeing ALL the kidneys many, many times, almost 10 time each. Except for two.

She didn't say she "knew" she was right. She couldn't "know" she was right because she was unable to detect two kidneys. She was just happy because she was "detecting" the presence of kidneys multiple times. ALL kidneys...except for two.

Let's think about this for a moment. In round one she detected one kidney four times, so it's a fair assumption that she attempted each location four times, but she told us that for several people she only detected a kidney twice. In round 2 she said she detected each kidney at least 10 times. So, how many times in round 1 did she fail to detect a kidney?

Am I the only one who sees how incredibly stupid this is? Not only is she detecting kidneys where none are, it's extremely likely that she was failing to detect kidneys numerous other times as well for just about everybody. Does anyone honestly think that for #11 she only checked the left side twice but checked the right side four times? Of course not. She failed to detect the kidney probably twice for #11 or even 8 times if round 2 is any indication.

But wait, there's more. She made a big production about how she was so sure about the one that she she got right. It was right there in her notes with all the question marks indicating how she just tried and tried, but couldn't find it. "I marked it very clearly and I was very sure about this trial."

Funny thing, though, at 37:25 or so she says, "I picked [pauses and looks at the sheet where the correct answer is] number 24." Yes, my friends, it was so clear in her notes that she had to look somewhere else to determine which one she picked. Like she said, there were so many question marks and "it was very very...that was my surest answer." Talk about spin!

And there's just one more nail in the coffin. I was able to take a screen shot (see below) when she talked about round 3. She didn't share the full results, but I was able to see that on her notes she marked at least two people as missing a kidney, one of which was her answer.

Are you paying attention, Rodney? She hedged her bets in all three trials. She made a total of 6 guesses about which kidney was missing. That gave her a 40% chance of getting one or more correct. If you look at your ridiculous notion about detecting people, she got two people "right" in your words. That's a 25% chance with six guesses.

There's nothing to see here except a woman who, in her own words, says she will not see a mental health professional about her perceptions because she's afraid they will be taken away. It's sad, but at least it's over.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Something for those of you who assume too much

For those of you who are worried that I might become a woo, or that I would associate with woos, here is a friendly email response I just sent to someone who is obviously a woo:

> I have serious issues with whether you were given the opportunity for a
> fair test in the first place. As I had said before. I don't think ANY of
> these groups that take donations from skeptics EVER intend to find "clear
> and compelling evidence of psychic phenomenon"....even if the test results
> supported those findings. Because they'd A) be out 50,000 dollars, or a
> million dollars with James Randi, which is motive enough for some people
> to lie or fudge data and B) would negate the entire reason for their
> existence as an organization and cause the donations from their followers
> to dry up. Which is why James Randi and IIG will NEVER allow psychic
> phenomenon to be discovered.

Listen very carefully: The test conducted by the IIG was absolutely and
100% fair. Several IIG members even approached me after the test and said
that they were hoping that I would win. Any issues you have, is from your
own insecurity. If you have an ability, an IIG test will prove it. If you
don't have an ability, you would fail a paranormal test. It's really quite
that simple.

The IIG is a highly credible, reliable organization, and their work is
based on science. There is no "conspiracy" for them to try to keep
paranormal abilities from ever being discovered. They would have been
thrilled to discover something new and exciting like that.

And if the IIG were to discover a true paranormal ability, they would earn
a lot of money in excess of their then humble $50,000, as the rightful
owners of partial rights to its discovery. So don't be ridiculous.

None of the data in my IIG test was fudged. I was there the whole time,
and all of the data was pure and simple the way it was displayed. Stop
being ridiculous, the IIG conduct good and reliable tests.

And if the IIG were to discover a paranormal ability, they would STILL
continue to receive donations from skeptically-minded people. If a
paranormal ability is discovered, that ability turns into science. New
science. And so, skepticism continues. Skepticism is about truth, and as
soon as a paranormal ability were to be verified, it would also be truth.

>
> If you think you were treated fairly and not shafted, then I got nothing
> I can say if YOU feel it was a satisfactory test. But if you were somehow
> cheated (and then sensed what the people would say when they came back to
> you....that two of the results would be declared wrong...perhaps because
> they were in the back fudging the data and you sensed it?), don't you
> think you should at least raise the possibility of "tester bias"?

It WAS a satisfactory test. That is the whole point of science. The
quality of the test and the data is not based on how I feel about it, or
how the IIG feels about it, or how you feel about it, the data is truth
for all of us. That is why it is called science. I was absolutely not
cheated. I picked a person, that person had an ultrasound, and their
number of kidneys was verified. No cheating was possible.

Besides, if cheating were possible, I would not have gotten two out of
three persons correct.

Absolutely not. I knew I was wrong, because I knew that I had picked the
wrong person. NO ONE fudged the data. Stop being ridiculous. The IIG is
very credible, I failed the test by my own means. I am fully responsible
on my own for the failing of that test, stop blaming it on the IIG.

There is no tester bias. I picked the wrong person or the wrong kidney.
That's all it was.

> These tests are inherently slanted toward the group sponsoring them to
> begin with. James Randi, IIG, whoever are the ones who hire the doctors,
> supply the people involved...and you can't tell me that you were allowed
> to pick people to be tested, they wouldn't have agreed to that...so what
> do you know about these people? Maybe all of them are card carrying
> members of James Randi's organization. You can't know what their
> backgrounds are. Every one of the people their might have a religious or
> past experience axe to grind with psychics or spiritualists and be willing
> to say or do anything to make it happen.

Absolutely not. You are full of crap. The test is based on science, and
anyone can embrace science. I am the one who hired the ultrasound
technician. Her instrumentation was not flawed. There was no cheating
going on. It doesn't matter who the subjects were. I picked a person, and
their number of kidneys was then verified with the ultrasound machine. It
doesn't matter who they were, or who picked them. No cheating by the
testing organization was possible.

It also doesn't matter what their religions, thoughts, or personal past
experiences were. I was the one who picks a person, and the ultrasound
machine determines their number of kidneys. I made the wrong choice in two
out of three trials, and I am the one who failed.

The IIG gave me every opportunity to pass the test. But I failed. The IIG
did not cheat. So stop that.

> See..I"m not convinced you were wrong. Maybe you were. Maybe you are a
> fraud for all I know. IIG is certainly SAYING that you are a fraud.And
> truthfully, this test looks bad for you. You can try to say you don't care
> about the results...that you are happy you went etc etc...but the fact is
> it makes you look like you can't do what you claim. If you are legit, that
> ought to be a concern to you. If you are a fraud, I don't care what
> happens to you...I'll admit that up front. But I am of the opinion that
> you MIGHT have actually gone to California and given good results...and
> had those results altered by people paid off by the testers. I have no
> evidence FOR that...but the way they had the test designed made it
> POSSIBLE for them to do so...and I think some people in the spiritualist
> community ought to start pointing out how much potential fraud exists
> within James Randi and IIG's testing programs. These guys are making
> money, professionally, by being
> skeptics. If they EVER find psychic phenomenon, the gravy train is over
> for them. Their supporters would drop them like hot rocks.

I am convinced I was wrong. I even knew that beforehand. I knew that trial
1 and 3 were wrong, and that trial 2 was correct. IIG is not saying that I
am a fraud. IIG is saying that I failed our Preliminary demonstration. And
I don't think this test looks bad for me. I am investigating my claim, and
this test helped me learn more about my claim. I am not trying to be
psychic. I am trying to learn more about my experience, and the IIG
Preliminary was a very valuable part in that.

If I am legit or a fraud? I am just investigating my experience. I am
finding out whether my claim works or doesn't work. Well, some skeptics
don't seem to like that I have chosen to continue with investigating my
claim, because they assume that that is the same thing as "trying to be
psychic", but all it is is I am wanting to learn more. So be it.

Nobody tricked the data. The IIG conducted the test very reliably and
fairly. Trust me: if I had a true ability, the IIG would want to know and
they would love to be the ones to discover that.

The way the test was designed, there was NO WAY to trick the data. Unless
some of the subjects had an identical twin in the background.

And let me repeat: if a true paranormal ability were discovered and
verified, it would be a true scientific discovery, and all skeptics
worldwide would celebrate.

> The reason I say these things is because I was hoping you might at least
> be willing to introduce a section at your website where I or other people
> might be allowed to discuss the bias that exists in the so-called testing
> programs fronted by IIG and James Randi.

Absolutely noooootttt!!!!! You will not talk this nonsense on my website!
My website is a skeptical inquiry, not some woo-talk! I love the James
Randi Educational Foundation, and the Independent Investigations Group,
and Skeptics are not bad people: Skeptics are close to the truth. And I am
learning more about my claim and experience, and that is part of
skepticism, truth, and science. You will not talk trash about my precious
IIG on my very own website! No!

And I love James Randi. Just take a day to review some of the work he has
done. His testing and discussions about skepticism and science on
television programs, and my favorite is always the test he did just like
that spontaneously on the floor of the JREF library, when a claimant
showed up and wanted to do some gold dowsing. It is nothing short of
brilliant, and I love that man and the work he has done. So don't trash
skepticism, it is one of the most important things we have got.

> In short, I think you were screwed the minute you agreed to let IIG handle
> the hiring of "experts"...the doctor, the patients etc. With them being
> able to hire whoever they wanted, they can control who comes on board. So
> even a seemingly "independent" doctor could have been in their pay.
> Likewise the patients. Likewise the computer programmer for the ultra
> sound machine or whatever other equipment was used. Likewise anyone else
> who was provided by IIG...

Absolutely not. I was part of hiring the ultrasound technician, and I have
full faith in the images she produced. Besides. Just think about it. If it
were that the IIG wanted me to fail, then why on earth would I have gotten
trial 2 correct? The data was accurate, and I failed by my own means.

Besides. I already knew that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, beforehand and
before the results came in. So it is all consistent with it having been a
fair test.

> In my opinion ma'am...you got blinded by the $$$$ signs. It happens.
> People who are doing honest work in the psychic field..who KNOW they have
> abilities...can start to believe that all their good work will offset any
> negative effort leveled against them....such as having a seemingly
> independent organization with a seemingly honest agenda offering money...a
> great deal of money...for you to do something you do every day for other
> people. You probably got to thinking..."what the hell? I need the money
> and I know I can do it". And that's when they had you. That's how con
> artists work. And in my opinion the "Million Dollar Challenge" and IIG's
> proposals are nothing short of good con artists at work.

What? What on earth? None of what I have done has got anything to do with
the money prize. I am doing this for investigation, besides, I have my own
career, within science thank you very much, that takes care of my
finances.

And I beg your pardon? I do not do any work in the psychic field! How dare
you! I am simply investigating my experience! And I don't know that I have
abilities! What negative effort? Science? Skepticism? The only negative
thing here, is when people think that they are psychic when they haven't
even proven that in a test.

The IIG is very honest and genuine, and the results of the IIG Preliminary
test is fully credible and I stand by it. I know that I failed. It was no
trick on their part, they did not have to help me to fail, I did it on my
own.

The money prize is not an issue here. Besides, had I won, I would have
donated back most of it to the IIG, and some also to the JREF, because
Skepticism is just that important. Skepticism finds out the truth.

I do NOT do any psychic things for other people every day! In fact, I
never do! I do not offer psychic readings! I am simply investigating an
experience that I have!

I don't need the money from skepticism or from the paranormal. My money
will come from my career in science. Besides, the IIG is a non-profit type
of organization, that does very valuable work in their community and also
extending out into the world, and so I would have donated back most of the
prize to the IIG, and also to the JREF.

And no, I don't know if I can do it as often enough, or as reliably
enough, or accurately enough, to conclude even for myself that what I have
is a true and worthy ability of any sort. I am finding out, through tests
that are conducted according to the skeptical and scientific method.

How dare you insult the IIG! They worked very hard with me to set up a
test for me! The results of the IIG Preliminary are reliable, and I failed
the test all on my own thank you.

> The way the test SHOULD have worked is to have IIG put up the money if you
> win your "bet" with them, you provide the time....and then some other
> third party come up with the test criteria that can be agreed to by both
> of you. University of Oregon, or UCLA or Guinness Book of World Records.
> Someone OTHER than IIG. When you go to a casino in this country..and you
> hit a jackpot on the slot machine...why doesn't the casino refuse to pay
> you? A lot of people hit after walking in the door. They haven't spent 500
> dollars, but they may win 10,000. Why doesn't the casino tell them to
> leave? They've made a bet with you, and you met their criteria....but why
> does the casino ACTUALLY give you the money? Why don't they keep it?
> They've got security guards. They can toss you out. Or have you arrested
> for trespassing. So why don't they?

Well, I don't argue with that. But please stop talking about money or
about cash prizes. The IIG is not about money. That is just to lure some
of the more greedy-minded psychic frauds to test with them. What my test
was about, was a scientific inquiry into an unusual experience that I was
unable to explain or to deny on my own. The IIG is not some casino, they
are a skeptical organization.

> Because a third party...the government...is standing behind them watching
> what is going on. Essentially, you got involved with a casino that made a
> bet with you...but there is no government entity standing behind them to
> make them play fair. If the government didn't watch casinos I'm certain
> they WOULD just keep the money when people won. In fact, in other
> countries with weaker governments that's not an uncommon practice at their
> casinos.

I am not entitled to the IIG prize, since I failed our Preliminary. But it
is not about money. It is about learning the truth behind a paranormal
claim or experience. The test was conducted fairly, and the results of the
test are reliable. We don't need any third party watching the IIG. I trust
them.

> So you may have honestly gone to a honest test and failed...or they may
> have stacked the deck against you and made you fail. Worse, with them
> holding all the data, their is no way for you to know. You can't even know
> if the data you've been given was truthful. It may LOOK good..but how do
> you know? With all the money coming to them in donations from their
> supporters, I'd guess they had huge financial insentives to make sure you
> did NOT pass your test. In much the same way that a casino has insentives
> to make sure that too much money doesn't flow outside of their casino and
> of course to make sure people still get sucked in to coming in in the
> first place.

No they are not holding all the data. I had access to the data myself, and
in fact, I am the one who made all the data. The data came from my own
choices. I wrote and signed the papers that are the data.

And look, again, if I had a true ability of extrasensory perception for
detection of internal organs, the IIG would earn so much money as part of
its discovery.

> I want to make it so no one comes to James Randi's or IIG's "casino" ever
> again...until there is a testing program that has an outside agency...a
> government, so to say....monitoring the results. If no one comes to play
> their little game, then their bogus testing "research" organizations start
> to look like the money grubbing leeches that they are. It's ironic that
> some people get a bad psychic, turn to James Randi or IIG, and end up
> getting stuck for more money when IIG or James Randi says to them..."we
> have a way for you to get back at them...just give us your money". People
> get cheated twice then. Once by a bad psychic, and the second time by
> James Randi promising to "make it all better".

Excuse me? I would actually highly recommend for anyone, who has an
interesting and testable paranormal claim, to consider testing it with the
IIG. But sure you are right, it would not hurt to involve a third party
for quality control, only that I did not need it. And the IIG is not about
money, it is about Skepticism, and of that I am entirely certain.

And James Randi does make things better, doesn't he? Why are you so
suspicious? He is such a good observer, that if there truly was an
authentic paranormal ability or phenomenon, and he would experience it and
witness it, he would surely become a believer. But the thing is, he won't
be fooled by tricks or deception.

> Honest testing I support. What you got was NOT it I believe.

How rude. I am quite happy with the high quality and standards of the IIG
test.

> I'll have a video or a podcast ready in a few days where I will make a lot
> of these points. I'll send you a link if you want to see it.

Sure, I will watch and listen. But I won't be happy, if you are dissing
the IIG.

> Yours
> [Name]

Sorry, it is just that you ran into a Skeptic. A paranormal claimant who
is a Skeptic, or is it a Skeptic who is a paranormal claimant. Either way,
I am one of those who considers themselves a Skeptic. And you know how we
are.

Anita/VisionFromFeeling

 

[Uncayimmy]

Oh, and one more thing. If Anita was able to detect kidneys multiple times (10X in round 2), why did she need 27 minutes? And if she knew she would get tired (that's allegedly why she quit lactobacillus testing), why in round 2 would she continue to make 10 detections for each kidney? What's the point after the 5th detection, especially when there are two that have no detections?

This fantasy stuff is bad enough, but her logic, even if the ability were 100% real, is pathetic. I'm seriously considering sending her a hammer and a sponge and asking her drop each one on her foot in order to determine which one hurts. I wonder how many times she will drop the hammer?

 

[SezMe]

Then you can kindly take back your rude comment here accusing me of lying about fatigue.

I actually wrote:

I sure don't remember that. I'd go back and review the tapes but I am so disgusted with your post-test behavior that I don't want to be a part of the crap from now on.

in which I say NOTHING about your lying. I just said I would want to review the tapes.

You say you are disgusted by me saying that I had fatigue in trial 3.

I actually wrote:

I sure don't remember that. I'd go back and review the tapes but I am so disgusted with your post-test behavior that I don't want to be a part of the crap from now on.

in which I say NOTHING about you fatigue in trial 3. In fact, I specifically state that my disgust arises from your POST-TRIAL behavior.

Damn, I've gotten hooked in again. Who's the bigger fool? Wonder Woman or me for responding to all the woo? I fear the answer.

 

[Gmonster2]

Oh, and one more thing. If Anita was able to detect kidneys multiple times (10X in round 2), why did she need 27 minutes? And if she knew she would get tired (that's allegedly why she quit lactobacillus testing), why in round 2 would she continue to make 10 detections for each kidney? What's the point after the 5th detection, especially when there are two that have no detections?

This fantasy stuff is bad enough, but her logic, even if the ability were 100% real, is pathetic. I'm seriously considering sending her a hammer and a sponge and asking her drop each one on her foot in order to determine which one hurts. I wonder how many times she will drop the hammer?

Unca, She calls herself a science student but I think her last science experiment was lighting up one of her farts

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Oh no, SezMe doesn't like me anymore!

What is so wrong with having another test? Listen, if the claim is destined to be falsified, then an additional test will certainly add to that conclusion. Certainly so.

I detected that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney, and in this Preliminary demonstration I picked the correct person in two out of three trials. I for one find plenty more to investigate. However, it is turning into an investigation of some cold reading skill. What on earth am I picking up, visually, when I look at a person, that translates into a feeling of a kidney? An additional test would screen off much more of the subjects, and I for one would be interested in seeing how that affects the results. Would I do worse, or would I do about the same?

What you people don't understand, is that this is not about being psychic or not. I am just investigating something.

And I knew that trials 1 and 3 were wrong, in advance. Karen, James, and Mark can all verify that, and it is also evident in the tapes from what I say until the sound is cut off during the breaks.

If all it is, is some form of automatic cold reading, it would still be an investigation and I would still be interested. You are all arguing because you seem to think "psychic" or "not psychic", when I am interested in simply finding out more about what ever it is. I don't think it is psychic, but I want to know how it works.

You don't have to share my enthusiasm. This is not a science forum where we can discuss an investigation on various levels, this is a skeptics forum where we attack paranormal claimants. I will leave the JREF Forums for now.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

She didn't say she "knew" she was right. She couldn't "know" she was right because she was unable to detect two kidneys. She was just happy because she was "detecting" the presence of kidneys multiple times. ALL kidneys...except for two.

Let's ask the people who heard me talk in between trials, while the sound was cut off. And maybe even it is on some of the other cameras.

Funny thing, though, at 37:25 or so she says, "I picked [pauses and looks at the sheet where the correct answer is] number 24." Yes, my friends, it was so clear in her notes that she had to look somewhere else to determine which one she picked. Like she said, there were so many question marks and "it was very very...that was my surest answer." Talk about spin!

Bah. I still can't remember what number was what subject and still have to look that up each time just to make sure I get the right number. That doesn't change things.

And there's just one more nail in the coffin. I was able to take a screen shot (see below) when she talked about round 3. She didn't share the full results, but I was able to see that on her notes she marked at least two people as missing a kidney, one of which was her answer.

I have never claimed to be able to detect everything in each case. I just claim that when I claim to detect something, it would be accurate.

Are you paying attention, Rodney? She hedged her bets in all three trials. She made a total of 6 guesses about which kidney was missing. That gave her a 40% chance of getting one or more correct. If you look at your ridiculous notion about detecting people, she got two people "right" in your words. That's a 25% chance with six guesses.

I did no such thing. I was simply marking kidneys when I felt them present, and not marking when I didn't find them. Different kidneys and in different people are differently difficult to find. That is why I spent more time on some subjects, than in others.

There's nothing to see here except a woman who, in her own words, says she will not see a mental health professional about her perceptions because she's afraid they will be taken away. It's sad, but at least it's over.

Liar. I have never said that I would be afraid that my perceptions would be taken away, and I know for a fact that I wouldn't have said that, because I know that my perceptions can't be taken away. The perceptions occur on their own. And they are not a mental illness, I am just as entitled to them as anyone is to their synesthesia.

None of this is sad, except for your dislike of scientific research. And this isn't over yet. I am going to have another test with slightly improved upon testing procedures.

ETA: Improved upon in three ways. The two concerns that I experienced during the Preliminary will be addressed, in that none of the subjects can be heavy-set since that takes a bit longer time for me to perceive. And there would be two trials, not three, so that I can not blame anything on experiencing fatigue. The third improvement is that the screens will be more extensive, so that no one can come afterwards and say that I picked subject #24 because he has tattoos, as if that would be a clue to having only one kidney. But I also want to find out whether the accuracy goes down when there is less information visible on the subjects. Just to learn more about what visual information I am using.

Never mind. Don't take part in it if you don't want. If it bothers you.