VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Uncayimmy]

No, statistical analysis cannot demonstrate whether Anita has X-ray vision, but it can ultimately all but rule out whether she just got lucky. At this point, that cannot be ruled out, nor can it be ruled out that she benefited from a flawed test. However, to dismiss her results as a dismal failure shows a bias against her.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Her claim has no basis in known science. Proper weight is being given to the likelihood that she is either the first human out of many billions to possess a unique, unknown, unexplainable ability supported only by anecdotes or merely one of many millions of people who have mistakenly believed or deliberately asserted falsely that they have special abilities.

If you want to call that bias, and I'm sure you do, go right ahead. I call it perspective.

 

[GeeMack]

Have you not been paying attention? Have I not made this abundantly clear several times over? It doesn't matter where they fall inside the 99.9% group of failures - a failure is still a failure.

Is that like: If you only almost got over the fence, which side are you on?

 

[Uncayimmy]

No problemo. GeeMack transmitted his answers (not guesses) to me telepathically during the test and I wrote them down.

And he transmitted them to me as a backup. I happened to be working in my home music studio at the time, and on one of the tracks you can clearly (well almost) hear what sounds like those predictions formed out of the background noise in my tube preamp. How much more evidenced do you need, Rodney?

 

[Moochie]

And he transmitted them to me as a backup. I happened to be working in my home music studio at the time, and on one of the tracks you can clearly (well almost) hear what sounds like those predictions formed out of the background noise in my tube preamp. How much more evidenced do you need, Rodney?

Well, I took a dump shortly before the test and you know what the, um, "stuff" spelled out just before I flushed?


M.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What really matters is, was it spelled correctly ?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, I took a dump shortly before the test and you know what the, um, "stuff" spelled out just before I flushed?

I checked mine that day. It was a Magellan (circled the entire bowl). No messages there.

BTW, it's difficult to engage Rodney on these topics because he has a tendency to cling to small statistical variations and assign them undue weight while simultaneously ignoring explanatory evidence. For example, there was an experiment drawing balls from a bag and guessing their number. There was a small effect size, but clearly the bag was not being shuffled very well. On top of that, check out the animated GIF below where you can see the subject looking into the bag. All it takes is catching a glimpse every few draws to create a small effect. Rodney ignored all that and just played up the numbers.

It's the same deal in this thread. Rodney is reaching desperately to find statistical significance by looking at data that wasn't part of the test and ignoring other data that wasn't part of the test. He also ignores the fact that the test was not blinded properly. Remember, she could see all of the subjects for 30 minutes, and the one she guessed right was the same person described on this forum before the test.

So, even if you play into Rodney's game with the numbers allegedly being "close" to a very low threshold for significance, you still have to balance it against these other factors. While I find nothing significant at all, if I did, I would temper my enthusiasm with these other factors as being known to science as capable of improving her chances.

Rodney, it seems, prefers to ignore these things.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

While watching the test, I guessed all three trials completely wrong. And you know what? I KNEW I was wrong! I absolutely felt the wrongness of my guesses, and I was completely, 100%, correct about being wrong! I should be tested! Randi's (JREF's) million dollars is in jeopardy! And I'll win that challenge, just as soon as the US dollar is strong enough to make it worth while.

 

[Akhenaten]

While watching the test, I guessed all three trials completely wrong. And you know what? I KNEW I was wrong! I absolutely felt the wrongness of my guesses, and I was completely, 100%, correct about being wrong! I should be tested! Randi's (JREF's) million dollars is in jeopardy! And I'll win that challenge, just as soon as the US dollar is strong enough to make it worth while.

Hey yeah! I'd forgotten about this. I had two separate lots of three guesses ('cos I'm speshul) and I was wrong all six times, but ZOMG!!!!! - I KNEW I WAS WRONG TOO!!!!

Maybe we should consider a team entry for the MDC to improve our chances of knowing how wrong we are in our guesses visioning.

I'm sure Rodney will be able to calculate the odds for us.


BTW, what's a US dollar?

 

[TSR]

BTW, what's a US dollar?

.
Shuddup and just keep letting them stuff them down your t-back, I'll make change for you later...


Yes, girls -- I'm the manager: he's available for private shows for a select clientèle. No, he doesn't do *that*, but ask about the Cairo Flip Flop once you get him back to the hotel. He books up fast, make your reservations now...


.

 

[Ashles]

Yes, I think it's possible that Anita could have that type of X-Ray vision. Note that her claim is: "When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted." (emphasis added). She does not claim that she is seeing what she would see if she were directly viewing the internal organs, tissues and cells -- only that she sees realistic looking images in her mind.

This is desperate.

What you have described exactly matches a basic definition of 'sight' or 'vision' yet you seem to be drawing some distinction between the vision you describe (Anita Vision) and actual vision.

What we think of as vision is perceived in your mind. You are making absolutely no dictinction between this and Anita's vision other than that you have decided they are different.

Anyway you are completly wrong:

Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately. And in cases where I have to search for information it takes a while longer for the perceptions to form, since the vibrational information is not as strong. Typically it takes from "no time" to a few seconds. Sometimes I spend up to a minute forming images very carefully, if I picked up on a hint of a health problem and want to work on forming the entire perception of it. It really takes very little time. But on a test I want to be allowed more time than it normally takes, just in case.

When it comes to severe health problems, their images are very clear and come to me on their own and can be impossible to ignore.

5) Can you manipulate these images in your mind. For example, can you zoom in/out? Rotate them?

Yes, and I do that most of the time. The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation. However I can go from there and choose to look at structures in the body from any angle that I choose, and from any level of magnification that I want. I find that going deeper into organs, seeing the tissue structure, and individual cells, and molecular level, going into the atoms, that after the atomic level comes what I call the vibrational level of magnification, where all things appear to be vibrational structures, and I believe that this is what I am fundamentally perceiving, that forms the larger scale composite information. I can observe images from several angles and several levels of magnification simultaneously.

Seriously - read that one again. How can that statement possibly gel with how she actually performs in tests?
(Or what you are attampting to claim about her not-vision.)

There is no resemblance with my perceptions to the 2D ultrasound. The quality of the 2D ultrasound seems very poor. 3D ultrasound is very similar to my perceptions in being clear in 3D shapes, however my perceptions also hold information that is felt, and information that is understanding, and reaches into deeper magnifications even down to the sub-atomic level if necessary and if I want to.

The colonoscopy image has the most resemblance among the images provided, to the perceptions I have, although my images are never quite this bright in color. The brightness of this image provided in your question appears to not be authentic and to be accomplished with a bright light source, and is not quite the brightness I perceive in tissues. The perceptions have information about shape, texture, and color in a way that is similar to this picture, although my perceptions also tell me what it is about and gives me perception of feeling what is involved.

I was very happy to see this image of the colonoscopy, it resembles very well the type of images that I see and it feels like a great relief to know that others can see what I see.

There's really lots more of this.

Bottom line - this is what she has described her ability being like.

How does the actual testing results compare to her descriptions?

How does getting right person but wrong side compare to these amazing descriptions?

 

[GeeMack]

[...] How does getting right person but wrong side compare to these amazing descriptions?

Uh, me, me, I know!

It means that where she saw a kidney in that person she was wrong, and where she saw an empty space instead of a kidney, she was wrong again. It means she got two answers incorrect on that person. It means she was even further from correct than if she guessed a missing kidney in a person who had both kidneys.

It means that not only is Rodney wrong in his assessment, but that Nigel Aves was wrong and Jeff Wagg was wrong, and most importantly, it means that Anita was a dismal failure. She got an "F", fully consistent with her general performance in every test/study/demonstration, formal or informal, that she has done to date.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

<snip>

BTW, what's a US dollar?

I was referring to the American dollar, which the MDC would be awarded in. $1,000,000 USD. A while ago, that would have been worth more than that in Canadian dollars, but these days, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar, so I will wait until the conversion rate is more profitable before applying for the MDC.

 

[Akhenaten]

I was referring to the American dollar, which the MDC would be awarded in. $1,000,000 USD. A while ago, that would have been worth more than that in Canadian dollars, but these days, the Canadian dollar is worth more than the US dollar, so I will wait until the conversion rate is more profitable before applying for the MDC.

Hmm, this could explain much, indirectly. It seems the rate for Greenbacks to Krona isn't very favourable at the moment either.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Hmm, this could explain much, indirectly. It seems the rate for Greenbacks to Krona isn't very favourable at the moment either.

Maybe the challenge reward should be in some other stronger currency. Maybe we need the MEC. The Million Euros Challenge. Or the MCDC, the Million Canadian Dollars Challenge.

 

[kittynh]

Yes, I think it's possible that Anita could have that type of X-Ray vision. Note that her claim is: "When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted." (emphasis added). She does not claim that she is seeing what she would see if she were directly viewing the internal organs, tissues and cells -- only that she sees realistic looking images in her mind. In some cases, those images may prove inaccurate, but if it were to be shown that under controlled conditions she can consistently choose 2 of 3 people missing a kidney from 18 candidates, that would offer strong support for that type of X-Ray vision.

No it doesn't. For one thing, why should we waste our time and money on testing such a vague kind of claim. Oh wait, sorry, the CIA already wasted MILLIONS testing such claims. If she has this power, she can work, earn the money and pay for the testing herself (say pay someone else to set it up that is trustworthy). Like say some DOCTORS at a hospital with ofcourse someone like Mark Edward helping keep it from trickery. If it works out, she will MORE than earn back her money. If it's so vague and only works sometimes under certain conditions and isn't very accurate, then she should file it under "interesting weird thing" and keep her mouth shut. Because she could do a lot of harm. Psychics claim that they aren't accurate as it doesn't always work. So they are FORCED to give out claims they aren't sure of because to make a living you have to always have an answer. That or "people just beg me to give them something that sometimes I have to use a bad reading". If it's not 100% forget it. It's a vague something or other. If it's not, then she has a chance by just saving up her money, to have herself set for life. She can set up a test herself. Heck, get enough people to believe in her and they will pay for it. But the skeptics don't need to keep testing and testing and testing her. She needs a good definitive over the top controlled multi test that skeptics agree to, but SHE can set it up and pay for it.

 

[kittynh]

She is also a student? My daughter is a grad student and she said "wow, at my school they would love to set up a test for that. She should talk to some teachers."

There is a free test waiting to happen, and throw in a good skeptic to help oversee stuff, and you have one heck of a news story if it all works out for her.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Rodney:

...but if it were to be shown that under controlled conditions she can consistently choose 2 of 3 people missing a kidney from 18 candidates, that would offer strong support for that type of X-Ray vision.

No it wouldn't ..
That kind of X-Ray vision would be 100% correct all the time, and would include a count of kidney stones..


Psst ! We have X-Ray vision like this .. It never overlooks missing kidneys, or sees them when they're not there ..

Surgeons never get surprised by missing kidneys in the OR...

 

[Rodney]

No it doesn't. For one thing, why should we waste our time and money on testing such a vague kind of claim. Oh wait, sorry, the CIA already wasted MILLIONS testing such claims. If she has this power, she can work, earn the money and pay for the testing herself (say pay someone else to set it up that is trustworthy). Like say some DOCTORS at a hospital with ofcourse someone like Mark Edward helping keep it from trickery. If it works out, she will MORE than earn back her money. If it's so vague and only works sometimes under certain conditions and isn't very accurate, then she should file it under "interesting weird thing" and keep her mouth shut. Because she could do a lot of harm. Psychics claim that they aren't accurate as it doesn't always work. So they are FORCED to give out claims they aren't sure of because to make a living you have to always have an answer. That or "people just beg me to give them something that sometimes I have to use a bad reading". If it's not 100% forget it. It's a vague something or other. If it's not, then she has a chance by just saving up her money, to have herself set for life. She can set up a test herself. Heck, get enough people to believe in her and they will pay for it. But the skeptics don't need to keep testing and testing and testing her. She needs a good definitive over the top controlled multi test that skeptics agree to, but SHE can set it up and pay for it.

I hesitate to disagree with anyone from Keene, NH, but you should be aware that Anita did pay her own expenses for the IIG test, including flying from Charlotte, NC to Los Angeles, CA. Also, while a paranormal ability that "only works sometimes under certain conditions and isn't very accurate" might not be of great benefit to mankind per se, it would be a huge scientific breakthrough to establish that such an ability exists, wouldn't it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...it would be a huge scientific breakthrough to establish that such an ability exists, wouldn't it?

May I ?

No.

 

[GeeMack]

... it would be a huge scientific breakthrough to establish that such an ability exists, wouldn't it?

May I ?

No.

Really, considering it doesn't work any better than guessing, to the extent even where its very existence is indistinguishable from guessing. Not a breakthrough. Nope.