After a lovely dinner with Mark Edward and several other California-based Skeptics last Saturday, I decided to ask Mark if I could try a "vision from feeling" reading with him as the volunteer. I have a
paranormal claim in which when I look at a person I feel a pattern across them that then in my mind translates into images of internal health information, which in itself is perhaps not interesting, but what makes it a claim that I still investigate is the accuracy in description of internal information that one should not have access to just by looking at a person.
Of course despite multiple tests, studies, investigations etc. you have not demonstrated this ability once.
I asked Mark to turn around and explained that I not only do not need eye contact but that it is distracting to me and for a volunteer to turn around also eliminates a lot of the potential cold reading that we do not want. We did not have a pen and paper at hand so I started collecting my impressions in my mind. I start from the head and work my way downwards, feeling into one part of the body at a time and noting if I feel something out of balance that would indicate a health problem, at which I would then look closer to form a description of what I feel.
Let us compare to your own previous comments:
The perceptions either come to me on their own, usually when it is the case of more serious health information whose "vibrational signature" is more loud than others, or the perceptions come about from a conscious effort I make to detect information....
To do this I need to first look at the person with my eyes. It is often a very brief look....
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...
The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation...
The images include relevant structures that involve the health information, which sometimes means that structures physically distant from one another in their location in the body are perceived in the same image, ...
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
(NB all italics are Anita's)
all of these comments are from just one post. We could fill a page with similar posts.
You description of your own ability quite simply changes all the time.
I use no interaction with the person such as speaking or touching. I also like to write down my impressions as I read the person and to then put my pen away once I am done and that way nothing can be added or removed from my reading when I reveal my conclusions. But we had no paper this time.
As you have been told over and over, these little ad lib tests are utterly pointless for exactly these reasons.
There are hundreds of things to look at and to consider in a person when doing this kind of a reading. Even just the head has so many things to look at. The brain, eyes, ears, etc, and then there is a whole body to look at. It quickly becomes overwhelming and I always end up having to skip parts.
Except this disagrees with many of your previous descriptions.
And again renders such little tests as this as utterly pointless because you can simply say "I didn't miss that, I just didn't check that area".
Oh exactly like you are about to do.
When I do a reading it is not like having a blank sheet of paper with the few interesting bits of information already written on it and ready to pull out. Rather, it is like having to read a whole book with one chapter for each part of the body and searching for a particular keyword in amidst a vast amount of text. You end up not reading the whole book in the matter of minutes available after a dinner occasion and right before several of you are about to be in a hurry to catch the movie afterwards. You end up turning the pages and skimming and skipping parts and gathering what little you come up with, but knowing that you did not do a complete job.
Completely in contrast to your previous descriptions where the ability itself seems to know what you are looking for and jumps out at you.
Let me remind you:
The perceptions either come to me on their own, usually when it is the case of more serious health information...
The images include relevant structures that involve the health information, which sometimes means that structures physically distant from one another in their location in the body are perceived in the same image
So the amazing ability already knows what is relevant and highlights serious health concerns to you.
So absolutely
nothing like skimming through a book.
A full and thorough head-to-toe reading takes from my experience a minimum of half an hour up to an hour or two. Imagine how much time it takes to do an autopsy examination of a person, or even to investigate an MRI. I did not do a complete reading of Mark, nor did I claim to have done. Therefore if I miss information that is there, this should by no means be held against my claim.
Well obviously it absolutely should be held against your claim and is all clearly considered yet more demonstration that you have no unusual ability whatsoever.
Guessing and (now)
failing to guess are hardly paranormal abilities.
What made matters worse was that, in my impressions, Mark had the most fascinating intestines and I found myself gazing at them for the longest time and describing them in great detail to Mark. Even though, as I explained, there was no health problem there. It was just different, that's all it was. In most people, the way I see it, the outer surface along their intestines looks glossy and has a thick layer of the fluid that covers internal organs and reduces friction. Also, the color of the exterior of intestines tends to have darker colors. The outside of his intestines looked lacking in this layer of fluid, looked less inflated with fluid within the intestinal walls themselves, the color was more yellow across the outside, and there was more of the fat covering than I have seen in others. The fat was like soap or lard and I was describing its texture. It just looked so significantly different from "everybody else" that I ended up looking at that and describing it time after another. It also doesn't help that the small intestine is one of my favorite things to see.
Absolutely and entirely irrelevent.
Although it could be taken as more evidence against your claim - your 'visions' ascribe distinction to organs and structures that actually have no distinction.
After some time I decided to stop reading into him
Well, staring at him and detecting nothing.
and to give him the information that I had so far. Before beginning to describe what I had seen or felt, I did tell him that if I don't mention something it does not mean that it is not there.
And you say this as though it doesn't
completely contradict your actual claims up until this point.
I did try to explain, before sharing my impressions, that I had not done a complete reading, and that there may be things that he does have but that I had not seen or searched for.
In accordance with the laws of... guessing.
None of what I described should be of a personal or private nature so I can assume Mark does not mind it if I share it here, besides it is only the impressions of a woo and not an actual medical diagnose.
No. Really?
I said to him that I was highly surprised because I felt that his brain is mostly frontal lobe active and not occipital lobe. Frontal lobe deals with logical thinking and occipital with the more intuitive or visualized.
Had you read about parts of the brain the previous day and were eager to toss that in as though it might make you look like you had the first clue what you were talking about?
Which clearly you don't anyway.
It means nothing to say "his brain is mostly frontal lobe active and not occipital lobe". It's new-agey nonsense.
You use different parts of the brain in many different ways and at different times. Are you implying he isn't using vision?
You might as well have said "you are more knee active than eyelid active".
Meaningless drivel.
I assume this is because you now fancy making random 'brain' observations and think it would be fun now to play with functional MRI scanning.
Guessing? Who would have expected that to be involved with this claim?
since Mark has worked a great deal with giving, although knowingly fraudulent ones, psychic readings of many forms, that his brain would be very intuitive and emotional in its way of analyzing things, but here I was feeling that he rather uses his intellect and logic when forming conclusions. (In the
first picture I am actually pointing to my frontal lobe and describing this!)
And like any astrological reading it gives both sides of a position to cover the bases.
So you were pointing to the logic-related part of the brain when describing how a skeptic might approch things logically?
Amazing. I'm sure no-one else would be capable of such amazing perception.
I said that he is well-nourished, and I rarely get to make that conclusion about a person. In my impressions, most people do not eat healthy enough to come across as what I would feel defines to be well nourished. It takes a lot of eating and not skipping meals and to make wise food choices to get all of the essential nutrients, and most people do not eat well enough.
Of course if you could use your amazing molecular vision to detect what specifically they did not eat enough of, or what they had eaten that day, or the taste of something they were eating which you could not see.
Heh, imagine if you could do that. That would be amazing.
Hang on, you claim you can do
exactly that:
In terms of the ice-cream test, let me begin by telling you about a fun game I like to do. A friend will be eating ice-cream and I only look at part of his body and do not see his face. He takes a scoop of ice-cream, and based on how I feel the taste and texture that he experiences, I tell him whether there was just plain ice-cream, ice-cream with pineapple, or with chokolate, or no ice-cream at all on his spoon.
Wow just think how
much easier that would be to test than all this random booking sklimming, random ailment non-identifiaction.
I wonder why it will never be tested?
I also said that another thing I rarely get to say, is that his spine is perfect. No back ache or issues with his spine. And that the inner lining of his stomach is thicker and better than in anyone I have ever seen before, therefore he has no stomach ulcers or problems with his stomach. I think that is all I said.
So your ability is amazing at declaring everything fine (except when it is actually not fine but that doesn't matter because you weren't looking for that particular ailment).
To hold my claim accountable for missed information is like asking you to quickly read an entire book in a matter of minutes, when you have not the time to read it nor the inclination as it was right after a dinner and before a movie, and to then quiz someone on virtually any part of the content of the book. "Here, have a book right after dinner, and take only a few minutes to read all of it, we don't have all night to let you sit and read it. Now, what was written on page 473, in the second paragraph, about the man's blood sugar regulation?" Could you do it? I am not a speed-reader.
No it is like asking someone to answer detailedquestions on any part of a book they have just skimmed through -
if...
they had already told you they could decribe any part of a book they had just skimmed through.
The ridiculous level of accuracy and detail were all
your own claim.
Or, it is like going to the cardiologist, who runs plenty of tests on your heart and concludes on the health of your heart, and then you criticise their medical competence since they missed that you have skin cancer when they did not even test for it! I did not specifically check his blood sugar, nor pancreas, or other indications of diabetes, so how would I have known? Had I said that Mark does not have diabetes, that would have been evidence against the claim.
And we have already seen how an ability to identify diabetes has also been claimed by you.
Especially as the ability supposedly has the feature of highlighting any
relevant issues, expecially if they are serious and even if they involve multiple areas.
The person really tearing your claim apart at the moment is... you.
I look at a person and describe what I see from what I feel and my claim is then evaluated based on those descriptions. The accuracy or inaccuracy of the impressions that I have is what this claim must be evaluated against. My claim has never been that "I see all health information in a person". My claim is, and always has been since the very start, that, "when I look at people I perceive health information, and that health information would be accurate". I have never claimed to access all health information "that is considered to be there". This was even clearly stated in my very first letters to the IIG where I first described my claim even before joining this Forum several months later.
Except when it is inaccurate. Several of the kidney readings were clearly incorrect.
Oh and remember the guy you said had something wrong with his throat/neck?
And he
didn't?
That was completely incorrect as well.
It's clear why you find it easier now to just declare everyone is healthy - when you say anything is wrong it is incorrect.
Whereas if you miss important stuff you can claim you weren't looking for it.
And of course you can doubly hedge your bets by throwing in some nonsense about "the intestines look beautiful" - so if they are healthy you can say you were just appreciating their beauty but if there is an issue you can say "I knew it - that's why they looked different to me".
We have seen this all before you know.
In future tests do not raise any distinction of any organs, structures etc. unless you are specifically describing an abnormality.
My claim is not falsified if I missed some information. My claim is falsified if the health information that I do describe with confidence and claim to have perceived, is confirmed to be inaccurate. I hope that I have made this distinction clear to those for whom it was not already clear.
The claim is already thoroughly falsified any way you want to define it.
You have exactly the same ability as any other human on earth - the ability to guess and be wrong more than you are right.
