Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
This is a bit odd. It implies that you thought the letter was fake. So your incredibly adamant response is a bit suspect. A simple, "Thank you but no." would have sufficed.
However, I do applaud the more scientific evaluation of your claims and your determination to put the needs of the patient first. If there is one thing we know from the IIG test, it is that your "vision" is not entirely accurate. Recognizing that a false reading can do harm is very important.
Earlier, she published communication that she received from someone saying that the IIG test was rigged and she defended IIG. I believe that that was real, and VfF should be commended for standing up for IIG and not falling into more predictable accusations of wrong-doing (see Connie Sonne).
Sorry, can't agree. Since the demonstration, the "Alenara" information has come to light. Considering that it is now apparent that the IIG test was merely Anita's attention seeking capstone to her pretend 'scientific' investigation, and a total sham on her part, her defense of the authenticity of the demonstration and the IIG falls rather flat. How do you commend someone for blatant hypocrisy?
(Which is not intended to suggest that the IIG rigged the demonstration.)
And just when you thought the VFF saga had gone away for a while...its BACK! It like a zombie movie or something.
She keeps posting here to get attention, because she knows she will get it. If the letter is real, a simple "Sorry, as the IGG proved I do not have paranormal abilities and it would unethical for me to give you any sort of readings based off the delusion I have powers. PLEASE seek help from a licensed medical professional as soon as possible." That's it. No need to post it here, no need to provide commentary for us, nothing.
Of course, that would mean Anita would have come to terms with her (lack) of superpowers. From what we know about her past woo shenanigans, I expect shes even now working on her next new age character.
The writer of this fake letter is NOT someone who has "poor English" as claimed.
Look at the spelling and grammar, it is nearly spot on. Oh, unless Anita of course fixed all the mistakes, and substituted words like "tremendous" for the original ones
And, Alenara/Anita - you will need to post the original copy of this letter, with identifying information blacked out, for me to believe one word you say.
By the way, you did not need to remove the location of your seminars, we all know you conducted them in Poznan, Poland.
In November 21 2009 I had a paranormal demonstration ("preliminary test") with the Independent Investigations Group IIG West. The demonstration was to test my paranormal claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney just by looking at their clothed backs. The test had a total of three trials. Each trial had six persons, one of which was missing a kidney. My answer had to state which person is missing a kidney and whether it was the left or the right kidney missing. To pass the test all three of my answers had to be correct.
My answer in trial 1 was incorrect. I chose the wrong person. But I knew in advance (ie. well before the results were in) that it was incorrect and stated this as soon as the six subjects of that trial had left the stage, immediately after that trial.
My answer in trial 2 was correct. I knew in advance that my answer was correct. I was very confident in my answer, or, the perceptions that led me to make that answer were absolutely compelling, to the point where I several times asserted that if I were incorrect in this trial, I would be fully convinced that my claim is falsified, and that my claim would definitely be over. I proceeded to be correct in that trial.
My answer in trial 3 was incorrect. I picked the right person but the wrong side. Again, I knew that it was incorrect in advance. I was very tired by trial 3 and came very close to cancelling that trial early. I wrote on my draft papers that I was tired and those papers are with the IIG.
Here is what I had to say about trial 2__________________
VFF - "This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"
James - "You said this one went better?"
VFF - "I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious, but this one I never saw, either, but this one was more apparent, and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense. So, that's nice."
VFF - "This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and I can't do it."
VFF - "I feel good about this..."
VFF - "I'm excited about the second one, because..."
VFF - "As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all of the kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well. I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me. I'll be darned if it's the other one. Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."
VFF - "The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."
And what I say about all trials_________________________
VFF - "I know I failed, but..."
Mark Edward - "No!"
VFF - "Yes! Yes! I got very tired on the third round, it, I could just, it just stopped working."
Mark - "Really?"
VFF - "I feel myself using the back of the head, which is where images are formed, in the brain. It just shut off, and I was getting headaches, and everything."
Mark - "Well also because you're focusing, your concentration..."
VFF - "It was hard, I had to just pick one. Why? Do you know the answers?"
Mark - "No I don't know anything, I'm just saying..."
VFF - "I feel good about the second round, even though it was between two. First round..."
Mark - "Why do you feel good about it?"
VFF - "Because it was between two, and, it, it, well..."
Mark - "Did it happen when you're focusing?" (I think that's what Mark said)
VFF - "No, but it was confirmed many times. (Can't hear what I say next.) Oh my gosh!"
From UStream Part 2 time 00:06:26 to 00:07:36
__________________________________________________
And like I said at the demonstration, had I been wrong in trial 2, the claim would have definitely been over, and that would have been nice. I hope to receive copies of the draft papers from the IIG soon. IIG's Steve filmed the demonstration and also before and after and promised to make a documentary so I am looking forward to that too, more of what was said in between the trials in the breaks should be on Steve's film whereas the internet UStream video had the sound cut off during breaks. I will be posting additional sequences. I apologize for the poor video quality.
I failed the IIG test. I am not making my fail into a pass. All this means is I am having another test. And if I can not do what I claim, an additional test will only emphasize that. The next test will be much more rigorous in test design, so if I can not do this, that will be more obvious in the next one.
Here is some of what Mark Edward had to say about the test:
Mark said:
I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes alloted, told me point blank that she "felt very positive " about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim [James Underdown] then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused. Luck? Chance? ….or Woo? We were all surprised. My magical mind thought for a moment that the casual aside she had made to me (almost as if to herself) was a little …weird. Just a tad. She never said anything about the first test, so I was piqued. She was tired out and resigned about the third test before the results were in- and made a comment to me expressing the sentiment that she probably had missed that one.
Watching Anita was very entertaining. In the process of observing her I even found a few things to cop for my own act! [...] She was confident, but not over-confident, didn't show any of the usual telltale signs of a woo priestess one might expect and carried on her conversations with a shyness that was disarming. She was well-dressed, attractive, educated and often self effacing. A far cry from a Sylvia Browne copy cat.
One thing I really liked was her intense "psychic" concentration. This was eventually followed by a sort of slight nod to herself, as if some other part of her was agreeing with a voice in her head that was guiding her. [...] This was usually an affirmative nod and I never saw a "no" response from her. [...] As I watched her it was hard to see any signs of outright charlatanism.
It's official, I am now a bad psychic! BadPsychics
I have my name in the proud list among other heavyweights such as Carla Baron, John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and Geller. How did this happen?
I started investigating an experience that is possibly related to my synesthesia that has me perceive health information in people. Interesting cases of accuracy that I could not explain led me to investigate, and I decided to make that a public and open investigation, why not, for educational purposes. Aren't paranormal claimants shrouded in mystery? Rarely allowing insight into the secrets behind their claims, refusing to answer all questions, and avoiding to have real tests with Skeptics. I thought, why not allow some insight into what is going on.
I have never offered psychic readings, I have not made any money off this paranormal claim and have in fact spent quite a bit of money in my skeptical investigation. I refuse to tell people, other than Skeptics, about the perceptions I have of them, carefully designing a study that I had to ensure that none of the participants find out what I perceived of them.
I have never discussed my claim or investigation with other woos, other than when approached by them, to enthuse to them about Skepticism. I turn down requests for psychic readings, explaining that I am not a confirmed psychic, that in a psychic reading my perceptions would not have any guaranteed accuracy and that they are better off seeing their conventional medical provider for their concerns.
I must have done something to earn my place in the list of Bad Psychics, but I sure don't know what that is. Most woos have to work very hard to earn their place on such a prestigeous list. Oh, what a privilege.
The rest of your wall of text is utterly irrelevant. You agreed to a test. You agreed that the test would prove you could not actually do as you claimed if you failed it. You failed. End of story.
I started investigating an experience that is possibly related to my synesthesia that has me perceive health information in people. Interesting cases of accuracy that I could not explain led me to investigate
As we all already know, you do not have synaesthesia, even if you did it could not possibly explain the experiences you claim to have had, and you have never had a single case of accuracy, let alone an interesting one. I'm sure you're upset that your threads are no longer on the first page, but that is not a good reason to yet again post things that everyone, including yourself, know aren't actually true.
I have not made any money off this paranormal claim
And indeed you have. After all, we know you've been promoting the same nonsense since at least 2002. I believe you were 18 then? 8 years of giving talks, writing web pages, trying to scam skeptical organisations, and so on. Sounds like working hard to me. In fact, you've worked so hard at it that you've managed to get on the list before even managing to convince anyone that you're anything other than a fraud and a liar. Which is quite an achievement really. Congratulations. You've gone straight from nobody to exposed, without ever passing the "famous psychic" stage that most woos aim for.
As has been explained to you over and over, your confidence on each stage of the test is and has always been entirely and utterly irrelevent.
It is a very poor science student who cannot understand that.
You make a claim to score X. If you fail to score X you fail the test.
The whole 'confidence' game is a painfully transparent method of weighting results in an attempt to introduce significance where there is none.
Unfortunately for you and your claim, you cannot talk your way into having better results than you in reality have.
And again I find it interesting how controlled tests compare to all your amazing anecdotal stories from last year.
As I wrote right back in the original thread, your claims, behaviour and interpretation of your own results are no different to those we have seen many times before. Amazing abilities that disappear to nothing when actually tested (but oh how many creative excuses we see generated afterwards...)
In November 21 2009 I had a paranormal demonstration ("preliminary test") with the Independent Investigations Group IIG West. The demonstration was to test my paranormal claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney just by looking at their clothed backs. The test had a total of three trials. Each trial had six persons, one of which was missing a kidney. My answer had to state which person is missing a kidney and whether it was the left or the right kidney missing. To pass the test all three of my answers had to be correct.
My answer in trial 1 was incorrect. I chose the wrong person. But I knew in advance (ie. well before the results were in) that it was incorrect and stated this as soon as the six subjects of that trial had left the stage, immediately after that trial.
My answer in trial 2 was correct. I knew in advance that my answer was correct. I was very confident in my answer, or, the perceptions that led me to make that answer were absolutely compelling, to the point where I several times asserted that if I were incorrect in this trial, I would be fully convinced that my claim is falsified, and that my claim would definitely be over. I proceeded to be correct in that trial.
My answer in trial 3 was incorrect. I picked the right person but the wrong side. Again, I knew that it was incorrect in advance. I was very tired by trial 3 and came very close to cancelling that trial early. I wrote on my draft papers that I was tired and those papers are with the IIG.
Here is what I had to say about trial 2__________________
VFF - "This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"
James - "You said this one went better?"
VFF - "I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious, but this one I never saw, either, but this one was more apparent, and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense. So, that's nice."
VFF - "This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and I can't do it."
VFF - "I feel good about this..."
VFF - "I'm excited about the second one, because..."
VFF - "As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all of the kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well. I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me. I'll be darned if it's the other one. Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."
VFF - "The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."
And what I say about all trials_________________________
VFF - "I know I failed, but..."
Mark Edward - "No!"
VFF - "Yes! Yes! I got very tired on the third round, it, I could just, it just stopped working."
Mark - "Really?"
VFF - "I feel myself using the back of the head, which is where images are formed, in the brain. It just shut off, and I was getting headaches, and everything."
Mark - "Well also because you're focusing, your concentration..."
VFF - "It was hard, I had to just pick one. Why? Do you know the answers?"
Mark - "No I don't know anything, I'm just saying..."
VFF - "I feel good about the second round, even though it was between two. First round..."
Mark - "Why do you feel good about it?"
VFF - "Because it was between two, and, it, it, well..."
Mark - "Did it happen when you're focusing?" (I think that's what Mark said)
VFF - "No, but it was confirmed many times. (Can't hear what I say next.) Oh my gosh!"
From UStream Part 2 time 00:06:26 to 00:07:36
__________________________________________________
And like I said at the demonstration, had I been wrong in trial 2, the claim would have definitely been over, and that would have been nice. I hope to receive copies of the draft papers from the IIG soon. IIG's Steve filmed the demonstration and also before and after and promised to make a documentary so I am looking forward to that too, more of what was said in between the trials in the breaks should be on Steve's film whereas the internet UStream video had the sound cut off during breaks. I will be posting additional sequences. I apologize for the poor video quality.
I failed the IIG test. I am not making my fail into a pass. All this means is I am having another test. And if I can not do what I claim, an additional test will only emphasize that. The next test will be much more rigorous in test design, so if I can not do this, that will be more obvious in the next one.
Here is some of what Mark Edward had to say about the test:
Source, heavily excerpted and taken out of context, of course.
This entire thing is incredibly sad. I wish that Anita would just drop it all and get the help she needs.
That being said, I have to admit that I've rarely laughed so hard at anything as I did at the following info from the Wiki page on inedia:
Wiley Brooks is a purported breatharian, and founder of the "Breatharian Institute of America". He was first introduced to the public in 1980, when he appeared on the TV show That's Incredible!.[15] Wiley has stopped teaching in recent years, so he can "devote 100% of his time on solving the problem as to why he needed to eat some type of food to keep his physical body alive and allow his light body to manifest completely."[16] Wiley Brooks believes that he has found "four major deterrents" which prevented him from living without food: "people pollution", "food pollution", "air pollution" and "electro pollution".[16] In 1983 he was allegedly observed leaving a Santa Cruz 7-Eleven with a Slurpee, hot dog and Twinkies.[17]
He told Colors magazine in 2003 that he periodically breaks his fasting with a cheeseburger and a cola, explaining that when he's surrounded by junk culture and junk food, consuming them adds balance.[18] On his website, Brooks explains that his future followers must first prepare by combining the junk food diet with the meditative incantation of five magic "fifth-dimensional" words which appear on his website.[19][20] In the "5D Q&A" section of his website Brooks explains that cows are fifth-dimensional beings or higher that help mankind achieve fifth-dimensional status by converting three-dimensional food to five-dimensional food (beef) while in the "Holy Cows" section of the website a picture of cows with glowing eyes is provided so that the readers can sense the energy of the picture.[21] In the "Question and Answer" section of his website, Brooks explains that the "Double Quarter-Pounder with Cheese" meal from McDonald's possesses a special "base frequency" and that he thus recommends it as occasional food for beginning breatharians.[22] He then goes on to reveal that the secret of Diet Coke is "liquid light".[22] Prospective disciples are asked after some time on this junk food/magic word preparation to revisit his website in order to test if they can feel the magic.[20]
He further mentions that those interested can call him on his fifth-dimensional phone number in order to get the correct pronunciation of the five magic words.[20] In case the line is busy, prospective recruits are asked to meditate on the five magic words for a few minutes, and then try calling again;[20] he does not explain how anyone can meditate with words they cannot yet pronounce. Brooks's "institute", in the past, charged varying fees to prospective clients who wished to learn how to live without food, which ranged from US$15 million to US$25 million. A payment plan was also offered.[23] These charges have historically been presented as limited time offers exclusively for billionaires.[24][25] New lower fees have been set to US$100,000 with an initial deposit of US$10,000.[1]
That's a lie. Your Alenara site is littered with bold claims such as, "I can also 'scan' nutrients - not real proof for others, but helped me find the connection between chakras, nutrients, glands, aging, breatharianism etc. I noticed that iodine, the nutrient which we need to support our thyroid gland, is also a blue flame in its energy! The blue flame of iodine is the same wavelength as the blue flame of our throat chakra!"
You've believed in this stuff for years - long before you contacted the IIG. This "investigation" is a sham.
That's a lie. You were soliciting people on your website to contact regarding psychic readings. You contacted a migraine support group to "treat" them, and part of your "treatment" involves using your VFF abilities to scan their brains.
I have never discussed my claim or investigation with other woos,
That's a lie. Your Alenara site is evidence of that as is your VFF website. You also toured Poland and gave lectures about breatharianism, which includes touting your "special' abilities.
Correct. You failed. And you neglected to make your promised announcement that your failure in the IIG show would put an end to your magical x-ray vision claims. Everyone recalls you stated clearly and unambiguously that when you failed that test you would make such an announcement.
Many dozens of people invested much time and effort over many months trying to help you assemble a reasonable test of your claimed magical powers. By neglecting to carry through as a reasonable scientist, you disappointed every single one of those people when you failed the test and still refused to make that announcement. You destroyed any credibility that you may have been seeking as a skeptic. Even now, months later, you still haven't thanked everyone and you still haven't apologized to anyone. That is not how a reasonable scientist acts.
Given your request that people on this forum make a skeptical assessment of your honesty, and applying that skepticism to how you've handled your failure of the IIG show, many of us continue to take the skeptical position that you're a liar and a fraud.
No. You're not. But I'm sure you've already convinced yourself that you are - without any evidence to back it up. You never do let facts get in the way of a claim.
Hi Regen! I am *the* Anita Ikonen/VisionFromFeeling who had a test with the IIG on November 21st 2009! I wanted to let you know that the IIG are wonderful people, my test was set up and carried out very professionally, they are highly trustworthy, honest, and dependable and I expect the same for your test. I failed my test fair and square and if you do have the telepathic skills you proclaim then the IIG test will be sure to show that.
Best of luck to you and I hope you enjoy your test as I did mine! If you fail, it probably won't be their fault so don't blame the IIG for it or you will break my heart! I will be watching you on the 20th wishing both you and the IIG all the best.
(Gee, I am still about the only paranormal claimant in history who was able to spell. Or write full sentences.)
Hi, vision. I haven't followed your story for quite a while, now. Are you saying that you failing your test convinced you that you have no such ability ?
Vision, could you answer my question ? It was not meant to be insulting or anything. I'd just like to know how your test affected your belief in your abilities, if it did.
Vision, could you answer my question ? It was not meant to be insulting or anything. I'd just like to know how your test affected your belief in your abilities, if it did.
Well certainly, only that I have been warned before when ever discussing my claims in other threads. So, be warned, your posts and this one of mine may be moved all of a sudden to other, more relevant threads. I was just expressing that Regen's thread is perhaps not the one to discuss my claims in, not that I felt offended by your questions, I would actually be happy to answer them.
My paranormal claim is that when I look at people I can feel a vibrational landscape across them, which then translates into corresponding visual and other forms of felt perception in my mind. The images depict the inside of human bodies and can contain a great deal of detail regarding health information. These perceptions are nothing but impressions, similar to when we look at a painting and it evokes a "feeling", so to say these health perceptions are not part of my otherwise normal sensory intake nor do I assume accuracy or reality to these health perceptions. I regard them in the same way I do my other forms of synesthesia, such as seeing colors associated to reading numbers or letters. I know that "e" is not really orange-yellow, even though I live with the perception of this in my mind.
If it weren't for a sometimes uncanny accuracy of my medical perceptions, I would never have had a reason to formulate the paranormal claim around them and to begin to investigate.
Before having the official IIG test, I studied the perceptions to see how various conditions would affect the formation and accuracy of the perceptions. This study process involved doing "readings" on participating Skeptics, and also some non-Skeptics but in ways that ensured that they not find out what I would have perceived about their health, so that no one could be harmed by incorrect information regarding their health. From the study process, I learned among many other things that I prefer to see a person from behind, that it does not work in darkness, and that I do perceive through clothes, and based on what I learned I was then finally able to formulate a test protocol for our IIG test.
When I had the IIG test I was surprised to encounter the diversity in how quickly I would perceive kidneys as present or absent in a particular person. In some, the perception came very quickly, and in others it took much longer. This contributed to my difficulties in trial 1, and involves an additional parameter that affects my performance; one I could not have foreseen and had not encountered during my study of my claim.
By trial 3 I was exhausted and also learned more about what my limits are in attempting to practice my claim.
Interestingly, immediately after trial 1 I knew my answer in trial 1 would be incorrect. I also knew that trial 2 would be correct, and that trial 3 would be incorrect. I correctly "knew" the accuracy or inaccuracy of each trial. I was so confident in my answer from trial 2 to be correct, that I several times announced that would I be incorrect then the claim would "definitely be over", and also that that "would have been nice".
I definitely evaluated my claim during the test. In trial 2 I succeeded to deliver a conclusion in my perceptions that I held to be compelling enough to represent the claim and I fully allowed this trial to be able to falsify the claim were I to be incorrect.
Can I falsify the claim by giving the wrong answer in a trial when I already "knew" that my answer in that trial would be wrong? My claim has never been to always get the answers, but that when I do claim to see something and when it is compelling to me, then it has had uncanny accuracy that I can not deny or explain.
I can not falsify or end the claim just yet, there are still more questions around my experience of "feeling health information when I look at a person" that I need to answer by having another test. My goal is to reach a point where the claim is obviously falsified, even to the point of convincing any woo of such, and to at that point have gathered the relevant data around what conditions finally falsified it and how it was concluded as falsified.
I can not expect to arrive at some verified ability of extrasensory perception. This still provides me with an interesting case study of an unusual experience, and by studying it properly I hope that my work can add a contribution to Skepticism overall, and at the conclusion of my claim I can then focus my attention to the claims made by others and devote the same amount of exhaustive investigation into those in order to also see those investigated into completion in a manner to be satisfactory both to any Skeptic and to any woo. (And it takes a lot to convince a woo that woo isn't real!)
I hold the IIG test that I had to be inconclusive. Yes I failed to meet the criteria for passing the IIG test and for proceeding toward their official test but what did I learn about the claim, and what was revealed about the claim in the test? My goal is not to pass as some psychic, and I do not offer psychic readings. The objective is to learn more about my experience, ultimately reaching at a point of falsifying a claim of extrasensory perception.
I still recognize an interesting experience that needs further study still.
So to answer your question, I entered the IIG test not having arrived at a belief that I truly do possess some ability of accessing health information that by any known means should not be accessible to human sensory perception under the conditions implemented during a test... And I left the test still not having arrived at a final conclusion as to whether I can do this or not. And as for how the IIG test has changed my beliefs regarding my claim, it has further enforced my belief that in this I have something fascinating to look into, as well as all the many things I learned about the claim by being given the opportunity to experience the claim during this test setting.
So, the claim survives for a little bit longer. I have not confirmed some psychic ability, nor do I feel the claim would have falsified itself in its performance during our IIG test. The claim and investigation go on, and I will be happy to put the claim to rest as soon as I form an utterly compelling perception of the presence or absence of a kidney to be able to proclaim that it becomes capable of falsifying the claim, and to find that such a perception would be incorrect. Only an incorrect perception that I was convinced of, can falsify the claim in my opinion, or at least settle my own curiosity in it.
To be unable to detect each case in which an ailment is said to occur, does not in my opinion falsify the claim, as the claim is that when I do claim to perceive something, it would then be accurate. Not that I would be able to perceive all things and always.
Phew. Sorry Regen, let's hope the moderators move this post into where ever it better belongs.
The images depict the inside of human bodies and can contain a great deal of detail regarding health information. These perceptions are nothing but impressions, similar to when we look at a painting and it evokes a "feeling", so to say these health perceptions are not part of my otherwise normal sensory intake nor do I assume accuracy or reality to these health perceptions.
This is something that I've never understood about this particular claim.
Even if you'd scored 100% correct at the IIG demonstration and ascertained where all the kidneys were, how can this be desribed as 'health perceptions'?
Even if someone tells you that they have a missing kidney, you are no closer to 'perceiving health information' about them.
Even a fully trained, competent and experienced renal specialist could not make any diagnose from just that one piece of information.
Hi, vision. I haven't followed your story for quite a while, now. Are you saying that you failing your test convinced you that you have no such ability ?
No. Actually you'll notice from the excuses she just presented in this thread, she failed the test, 100%, and that convinced her all the more that she might have magical x-ray vision.
Also you may recall that a handful of people who never claimed to have any magical powers got the same results on the test as she did. How? Maybe it was just blind luck. Interesting that the non-psychics could get correct answers by guessing, yet the self proclaimed possessor of magical abilities thinks her lucky guesses mean her powers could be real.
As to the follow up, rather than take the high road and be scientific about it, she chose to spit on the dozens and dozens of people who tried to help her, and she hand-waved away the failure. Her rationalization, backpedaling, and excuses can be found in this thread and on her own web site. She rejected her failure even though she had clearly stated before the test that the protocol was perfect, and she unambiguously stated that failure would end her claims of magical abilities. It was a lie.
Her response was predicted by several members of this forum. And it didn't take anyone with psychic powers to make those correct predictions. On the other hand, after having repeatedly proven herself a liar, it was easy. Nobody really expected her to carry through with any honesty or scientific integrity after the test.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
