Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

Oh I so hope that now will be the time that the "black out" comes into effect :)
 
Last edited:
VfF, why didn't you just take longer to do the readings properly then? Tell someone at the time you needed more time. Otherwise this is just post-hoc rationalisation (i.e. making up excuses).

Also, if any physician failed to diagnose a condition accurately, anyone would surely say "he got that diagnosis wrong". And so did you for exactly that reason. So don't try to weasel-word your way out of your failures, please.
 
Well at least he has fascinating intestines. That would indicate that they were "out of the ordinary". Can that be verified?
 
Amazing. Diabetes effects many things in the body, not just blood sugar regulation. The resulting problems impact the kidneys, blood vessels in the eyes, blood pressure, and even the nervous system. Of all the diseases to claim, "It wasn't apparent" she certainly picked an unlikely one!

Anita seems to be retreating further and further with her goalposts. I'm disappointed; there was a time when I thought she honestly wanted to see what was going on with her 'perceptions' but it's now clear she will only accept one explanation, and will explain away anything else.

Sigh.

MK
 
Mark Edward has an excellent blog that invites controversial conversations about psychics. In his Sex in the Seance Room he discusses the close relationship researchers and mediums share throughout history. In this article VFF "outted" herself as the person he was writing about and admitted having a relationship with a prominent skeptic. She said, "I did begin dating a Skeptic. Not because I am a woo trying to infiltrate the skeptical community and plant chaos, but because beside all the other things that I am, I am also just a woman."

I have since come to learn that this skeptic Anita is now dating is Spencer Marks of the IIG. Some of you may recall this post from the discussion of Anita's IIG test:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5346616#post5346616
Only one member of the IIG was involved in the recruiting/organizing of test subjects, Spencer Marks. This was so that only one person would know who did, or did not, have a missing kidney.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

The only mention of Marks by Anita in the immediate aftermath of the test was the following:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5341064#post5341064
If I remember correctly, no one else at the IIG received a hug from me. But Spencer gave me a hug. Spencer wore a shirt with the text Wrangler written on it.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge there was no relationship before the test, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anything inappropriate was done during the test. As a skeptic, though, I have to confess that I roll my eyes even more now when I think about the one "correct" answer she got. Not only was she aware of that person's existence before the test, but that person is a friend of a member here (Bookitty) who also participated in the IIG test. Bookitty says she did not reveal any information to Anita, and there's no evidence to indicate she's not being truthful.

Now we learn that Anita is in a long distance relationship with the only person who knew the targets and decoys for the test. Apparently she flew to California this past weekend and attended the IIG meeting with Spencer Marks, so while not publicized it's not a secret either. They are both certainly allowed whatever personal relationships they want.

However, I'm sure some skeptics other than myself find it all a bit curious. I have been assured that the IIG is aware of their relationship, and they are comfortable that the relationship began after the test was completed. There is no evidence that Marks and VFF had met or communicated prior to the test.

I have to say I'm not entirely comfortable with the situation, but there is no evidence that any leakage occurred. I think it's only fair to bring it up for the purposes of evaluating the results and the subsequent discussion about the test by Marks. Anita's love life is not a topic for discussion beyond its immediate potential impact in these limited areas. It seemed appropriate for this thread considering Mark Edward's blog entry.
 
Replies...

likelystory said:
After watching her on the opening video I think Anita does have some connection with the paranormal. Yet she can't really explain it. From her body language she's seen something out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Where did you lose your skepticism? Even if your assertion were correct, and I agree, it is entirely irrelevant for the investigation of my claim, whose outcome will be based solely on facts and evidence and any outward impressions or body language of the claimant is simply irrelevant.

likelystory said:
I think Anita is beautiful.So what else is there to discuss.;)
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Join Senex.

Robo Sapien said:
I call it attention seeking, a clear case of daddy issues.
Click to expand...
Not attention seeking. From what I thought it was going to be just an informal dinner with friends and a quick investigation of my claim with a skeptic, until one of them pulled the camera out and started taking pictures. :boggled:

Zep said:
VfF, why didn't you just take longer to do the readings properly then?
Click to expand...
Because it was right after a late evening dinner and after a long fun-filled day of skepticism and right before some of us were about to run out to make it to the movie.

Zep said:
Tell someone at the time you needed more time. Otherwise this is just post-hoc rationalisation (i.e. making up excuses).
Click to expand...
No. It is not post-hoc. Because I gave this explanation before sharing my impressions, that I had not taken the time to do a complete reading. And I would rather just check what little I had gathered so far for accuracy and still make it to the movie than to sit there all night and until the lights are turned off and everybody else goes home.

Zep said:
Also, if any physician failed to diagnose a condition accurately, anyone would surely say "he got that diagnosis wrong". And so did you for exactly that reason. So don't try to weasel-word your way out of your failures, please.
Click to expand...
None of the "diagnoses" I made were confirmed inaccurate, although some perhaps not possible to check the accuracy of. Meanwhile there was information considered there that I did not present neither as there or as not there but that is not inaccuracy. A physician who does not run a particular and specific test has not done accuracy or inaccuracy in terms of that particular health information. They have simply not looked into it nor presented a conclusion regarding it. Please try to see how it is not a failure to say absolutely nothing, for or against, regarding a particular health information that is not checked for. Or I will explain it again. :D
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
Because it was right after a late evening dinner and after a long fun-filled day of skepticism and right before some of us were about to run out to make it to the movie.
Click to expand...
You should have deferred the test then.

VisionFromFeeling said:
No. It is not post-hoc. Because I gave this explanation before sharing my impressions, that I had not taken the time to do a complete reading. And I would rather just check what little I had gathered so far for accuracy and still make it to the movie than to sit there all night and until the lights are turned off and everybody else goes home.
Click to expand...
Well, there you go. You were simply fishing for confirmation from the subject and not doing diagnosis at all. It is a classic form of cold-reading. Excuses aside...

VisionFromFeeling said:
None of the "diagnoses" I made were confirmed inaccurate, although some perhaps not possible to check the accuracy of. Meanwhile there was information considered there that I did not present neither as there or not there but that is not inaccuracy. A physician who does not run a particular and specific test has not done accuracy or inaccuracy in terms of that particular health information. Please try to see how it is not a failure to say absolutely nothing, for or against, regarding a particular health information that is not checked for. Or I will explain it again. :D
Click to expand...
No, you gave enough explanation. And sorry, but that is no excuse whatever. FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE is a failure, regardless of the reasons.

Again, if any doctor did not run a test that would have determined an accurate diagnosis, that would be a failure. If a doctor ran a test and failed to take notice of the findings or lack of findings*, that would be a failure. If a doctor diagnosed something but failed to tell anyone (or act), that would be a failure. Is that not clear to you?


*Pertinent example: An X-ray would probably make it clear if a patient has only one kidney instead of two, i.e. one missing. This would probably be deemed particularly relevant in cases of renal failure, nephritis, etc.
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
No. It is not post-hoc. Because I gave this explanation before sharing my impressions, that I had not taken the time to do a complete reading. And I would rather just check what little I had gathered so far for accuracy and still make it to the movie than to sit there all night and until the lights are turned off and everybody else goes home.
Click to expand...
I quoted you elsewhere where you say the perceptions come to you almost instantly and at most a minute or two. You shared a story where you allegedly detected a diaphragm in a woman who merely walked by a classroom door. At the IIG test you were able to verify the control subject was missing a kidney in just a matter of seconds. For the test you only required 4.5 minutes per subject. We could see a glimpse of your worksheet on the video, and it was quite clear that you were making multiple readings per subject in that 4.5 minutes. Clearly you are just making excuses about time.

You also state on your website that you are able to detect "common precursors" to diabetes, yet you missed it here. You've been around Mark far longer than the time you took to do a reading. You have told us before that serious health problems come to you "immediately."

When you first came here, you claimed you could detect ailments via photographs and video. When we tested you here (twice), you failed and withdrew the claim without bothering to explain how you could differentiate "real" perceptions from the ridiculously inaccurate ones you described.


The F-A-C-T group dismissed your readings on their members as meaningless and unimpressive. In your so-called "study" two of the three controls scored better than you. Your "survey" results contained factually inaccurate perceptions. You failed to complete the crushed pill study. You failed the IIG challenge.

And now we see yet another failure. You're not special. You're an ordinary human, not a 350 year old star person. Every claim we've been able to independently examine has demonstrated that there's nothing to be seen, and this includes your ridiculous ghost stories that are factually inaccurate and purely a figment of your imagination.

It's time to call it quits. Your claims have been given far more attention than they deserve. The skeptical part of the investigation is over whether you care to admit it or not.
 
Last edited:
Why does anyone bother to engage her whatsoever?





And on that note .... my 2500th post was in a Mayday thread, and my 2501st post was in this one :(
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Nonsense! Where did you lose your skepticism? Even if your assertion were correct, and I agree, it is entirely irrelevant for the investigation of my claim, whose outcome will be based solely on facts and evidence and any outward impressions or body language of the claimant is simply irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So you have self experienced a very small amount of paranormal tendencies which come and go without you having the power to control at will.So the 64 million dollar question is,how is your ability relevant to the helping of people in general?
 
likelystory said:
So you have self experienced a very small amount of paranormal tendencies which come and go without you having the power to control at will.So the 64 million dollar question is,how is your ability relevant to the helping of people in general?
Click to expand...
Others have told you to do some homework on her species' abilities (yes the irony is obvious). I think you'll find even a cursory examination of her attempts to be bogus .... now if you want to understand her psyche, this might help some:

The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). When you ask them which one they mean, they'll deny ever saying the first one, though it may literally have been only seconds since they said it -- really, how could you think they'd ever have said that? You need to have your head examined! They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they'll say you're lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you're like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it's a reality check ("who's the crazy one here?"); that you're confused by the narcissist's contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist]. NOTE: Normal people can behave irrationally under emotional stress -- be confused, deny things they know, get sort of paranoid, want to be babied when they're in pain. But normal people recover pretty much within an hour or two or a day or two, and, with normal people, your expressions of love and concern for their welfare will be taken to heart. They will be stabilized by your emotional and moral support. Not so with narcissists -- the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever. ^
If you're like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.
Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very intelligent, narcissists can't reason well. One I've worked with closely does something I characterize as "analysis by eggbeater." They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't grasp the meaning of the written word either -- because so much of the meaning of anything we say depends on context and affect, narcissists (lacking empathy and thus lacking both context and affect) hear only the words. (Discussions with narcissists can be really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of the same words means that they are following a line of conversation or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies, apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others are talking about.) And, frankly, they don't hear all the words, either. They can pay attention only to stuff that has them in it. This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency. Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really pissed off by being lied to or lied about. ^
Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though, again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others think of them may be way out of touch with reality [see remarks on John Cheever elsewhere on this page]. Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless they're afraid of you). ^
Click to expand...
Just so you know incase you want to compliment her again :)
 
likelystory said:
So you have self experienced a very small amount of paranormal tendencies which come and go without you having the power to control at will.
Click to expand...
I have experienced interesting cases of accurately describing health information that one should not have known during the circumstances at hand and I have failed to reasonably deny or to find explanations to this experience, therefore I formed a paranormal claim around this experience.

I investigate to determine two things: does the accuracy of my perceptions occur to a significant extent, and is the information I am describing such that should not be accessible to normal sensory reach ie. is there a possible extrasensory occurrence.

I currently do not have the answer to my claim and my favorite hypothesis is that I visually gather externally detectable information that is normally too subtle for one to notice consciously, and that I do so unintentionally and unknowing, and that it then synesthetically translates into corresponding health images and significance. With that said, there is no reason to consider the investigation I am doing as anything "paranormal", unless proven so, and until so happens or if not, we must consider other normal, and mundane explanations the basis of which we already have within our knowledge of the world.

Paranormal claim, yes, but nothing paranormal until/unless proven so. And currently not proven so.

likelystory said:
So the 64 million dollar question is,how is your ability relevant to the helping of people in general?
Click to expand...
No ability has been confirmed. We can only talk about a "claim" but not of an "ability". My claim and its investigation I intend to be helpful as a contribution to skepticism and to provide a carefully disclosed and well-documented insight into some of the ideas within the otherwise evasive world of woo. But even if it were confirmed as a real ability of vision into the human body, I would never "use" it, since any medical diagnose that I would make with such a verified ability would still need to be made in the presence of a qualified practitioner of conventional medicine and each case of diagnosis always be confirmed by conventional means of diagnose before any actions be made based on what my perceptions saw.

So, no, the only use of my claim, whether concluded on as a real ability or not, would only come to serve useful in educational purposes and within the realm of skepticism only.
 
Last edited:
Trent Wray said:
Others have told you to do some homework on her species' abilities (yes the irony is obvious). I think you'll find even a cursory examination of her attempts to be bogus .... now if you want to understand her psyche, this might help some:

Just so you know incase you want to compliment her again :)
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced she should be labelled as a narcissist as you are portraying.

It's a definitive NO from me.
 
I have been called many things by internet Skeptics in intent to disqualify my credibility and reliability to present a paranormal claim for investigation. When there is lack of criticism against the claim itself, or when such critique has proven unfruitful in dismaying me from further investigation, attack is targeted at me personally instead.

I must insist that my claim and investigation are not for me to gain attention to myself. It should even be obvious from these most recent videos how shy I am in situations dealing with this claim, and you can imagine how awkward this subject matter is to me considering that my real life involves being just a science student and future research scientist in conventional physics. I present my claim in an impersonal manner, hoping that it be considered for what it is or is not, with no regard to who I am as a person presenting my claim.

Any remarks against me on the personal level that are obviously intended negatively, such as calling me liar, fraud, delusional, or narcissistic, do not accurately depict the nature of this particular claim and from this particular claimant. I consider such remarks to be irrelevant, and any insulting or hurtful effect of these remarks on me, I must also hold as equally irrelevant to the real topic of discussion, that is a true and genuine paranormal claim, which still in spite of your best wishes that it be over, has not reached a final conclusion yet.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I did fnd the body language in the videos interesting.

Perhaps it is coincidence, but the body language of Anita at the start of each of the eight videos displayed at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9AA7A6B43293DF73 provides an intereting story itself. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm talking about her body language in the opening of the first video.

I've been among people who have used similar body language,and they have paranormal abilities.
 
likelystory said:
I'm not convinced she should be labelled as a narcissist as you are portraying.

It's a definitive NO from me.
Click to expand...
She's only a half a narcissist ;)

The other half is unknown ... waiting to be reinvented. It's the reason behind the "investigations". Are you going to reinvent Anita for her? :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom