Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[psilight]

Give Up

Okay Anita, it's time to give up. We have all given you waaaaaaaay more time and energy than anyone half as attractive as you could reasonably expect. Yes, you are beautiful and men do fall all over themselves to get one of your piercing blue-eyed stares, but I suggest you get into modeling and out of the psychic/skeptic schtick. It's just not working for you.

I have worked closely with hundreds of psychics over the years, both as a working "pro" and as a skeptic - so I know what I'm talking about when I smell a rat. Sorry, but both of the readings you gave me Saturaday night were not even an average example of what someone could expect at a psychic fair or at any paid venue. If you had been doing that kind of reading at most places around here in Hollywood, you would be asked to leave. Even the cheapest agent I know wouldn't book you for that kind of stuff. I know you aren't into that sort of "entertainment," but I can't call it anything else at this point. There is nothing there no matter how much you insist and it's time for all of us who have better things to do to close this door once and for all. Oil painting would be a better outlet for your imagination.

There is nothing even remotely paranormal about you. I would have loved it if it was so, but it isn't. Sorry.

As usual, there are only two possible options for what you are " portraying" (a curious word you yourself used on the day of the IIG tests): 1) deluded or having some psychiatric problem that needs attention, or the more likely situation and one that requires less effort and therapy, 2) you are a charlatan. There is no other answer and no other comment. Reality beckons. Embrace it.

 

[Senex]

For the last 18 months or so, a small, dedicated group of folks here at the JREF Forum, sometimes referred to as the Meanies™, have been trying to help people such as yourself come to this realisation.

I think the day has finally arrived when I feel vindicated enough to declare, on behalf of the Meanies:

We told you so.​

I hope you high and mighty "meanies" remember this post when watching "Motel Room Parapsychology" on A&E (or another equally reputable cable channel )

Here's an old, but extremely sensible bit of common wisdom:

Never sleep with someone crazier than you are.

How do you know how crazy I am? Only one way to know for sure. I'm not against travelling in the direction opposite the volcano

 

[Robo Sapien]

Maybe she's just a sociopath and wants to see how long she can keep this circus going? Not likely, but it could happen. I think she rambles on too much for that, does more typing than she does reading.

I used to do what she does, though, so I can relate. I used to think I was an empath who could see emotional activity rendered as color. Of course, I was 16 then, so it turned out I was just a dumb kid. The time comes, however, to put away childish things, and that time has long since passed for Anita.

I've been pretty harsh on her, and I will continue to do so until she turns it around, but that doesn't mean I do not understand. I know exactly what is going on with her, although not specific circumstances, I can relate a lot more than I let on.

I won't elaborate any further in public, just in case I happen to be right, that could hit too close to home. But Anita, if you care to discuss this I encourage you to PM me here on the board. I will be civil. Mostly.

 

[Trent Wray]

Maybe she's just a sociopath and wants to see how long she can keep this circus going? Not likely, but it could happen. I think she rambles on too much for that, does more typing than she does reading.

I used to do what she does, though, so I can relate. I used to think I was an empath who could see emotional activity rendered as color. Of course, I was 16 then, so it turned out I was just a dumb kid. The time comes, however, to put away childish things, and that time has long since passed for Anita.

I've been pretty harsh on her, and I will continue to do so until she turns it around, but that doesn't mean I do not understand. I know exactly what is going on with her, although not specific circumstances, I can relate a lot more than I let on.

I won't elaborate any further in public, just in case I happen to be right, that could hit too close to home. But Anita, if you care to discuss this I encourage you to PM me here on the board. I will be civil. Mostly.

I don't think she's a sociopath, for what it's worth. Kind of but not really I still think there is a slim chance for her person to be "saved" but it's slim. I think the best thing for her, would be for the community to not engage her whatsoever on her claims. They apparently have been tested, debunked, etc ad infinitum. If Jeff Wagg or others want to entertain her parlor tricks, then leave it in their hands while the others retreat and wash their hands clean of the mess. Pleading with her and begging her won't accomplish anything, so long as there are others willing to put her on a stage and entertain her. And there is no shortage of others. Have a website, speak your mind, but don't personally engage her directly. The Anita that exists in deluded vampiric form needs to be starved. It's beyond a win/loss stand-off. It needs to be turned into an intervention or nothing at all, imo.

I think it's turned into an "attack the arguer and the argument", and needs to turn into an "address the arguer and no longer even recognize the argument exists whatsoever." If Kim Jong Il were sitting across from me (and I didn't assassinate him), I wouldn't even bother to discuss his nonsense with him, or even recognize him as a leader of anything. He won't listen to global outcries, so he probably won't listen to me either. And if I'm going to continue to tolerate his existence, for my own benefit if nothing else ... I would steer clear of his b.s. Because even going in that direction validates it on a base level, something which no one needs to do, again imho.

 

[Moochie]

For the last 18 months or so, a small, dedicated group of folks here at the JREF Forum, sometimes referred to as the Meanies™, have been trying to help people such as yourself come to this realisation.

For our trouble we've been accused of character assassination, labelled as obsesssive and infracted for telling it like it is. We've been ignored, ridiculed, sanctioned, insulted, censored and belittled.

Ultimately we found ourselves forced to take the greater part of our activities to another site altogether simply to be able to continue free of the sometimes vehement opposition of our fellow sceptics.

What kind of support have we had from this Forum, whose aims are ostensibly to educate and to further the causes of skepticism and critical thinking?

On top of the slings and arrows that I've mentioned above, the final insult came from no less a source than Jeff Wagg and his cohorts, who, having offered Vision from Feeling a platform from which to promulgate even more of her nonsense, tells us that he finds her claims 'interesting'.

I think the day has finally arrived when I feel vindicated enough to declare, on behalf of the Meanies:

We told you so.​

Ah, one Wagg must be worth at least a dozen of us hoi polloi.


M.

 

[Robo Sapien]

I don't think she's a sociopath, for what it's worth. Kind of but not really I still think there is a slim chance for her person to be "saved" but it's slim. I think the best thing for her, would be for the community to not engage her whatsoever on her claims. They apparently have been tested, debunked, etc ad infinitum. If Jeff Wagg or others want to entertain her parlor tricks, then leave it in their hands while the others retreat and wash their hands clean of the mess. Pleading with her and begging her won't accomplish anything, so long as there are others willing to put her on a stage and entertain her. And there is no shortage of others. Have a website, speak your mind, but don't personally engage her directly. The Anita that exists in deluded vampiric form needs to be starved. It's beyond a win/loss stand-off. It needs to be turned into an intervention or nothing at all, imo.

I think it's turned into an "attack the arguer and the argument", and needs to turn into an "address the arguer and no longer even recognize the argument exists whatsoever." If Kim Jong Il were sitting across from me (and I didn't assassinate him), I wouldn't even bother to discuss his nonsense with him, or even recognize him as a leader of anything. He won't listen to global outcries, so he probably won't listen to me either. And if I'm going to continue to tolerate his existence, for my own benefit if nothing else ... I would steer clear of his b.s. Because even going in that direction validates it on a base level, something which no one needs to do, again imho.

It took a cataclysmic episode of embarassment and shame to turn me around, maybe that is what she needs. Although that is a tall order with her, if she isn't embarassed after racking up such a mountain of failures.

Some people, you just can't reach. She's probably one of them, but who knows. A little closure goes a long way.

 

[sadhatter]

As far as the meanies go i would lump myself in that catagory. To me the jref is not here to indulge charlatans like Anita, they are here to say " put up or shut up.", giving her an interview , is not doing this. Giving her a test is, and seeing as she has failed every test set in front of her i think we have a good lump of proof that we do not have to keep taking her seriously.

I am all about being fair, but being fair does not mean that we have to treat these people as if they are doing anything other than spouting gibberish, until they prove their claim. I mean to even debate that someone has a power, without them providing proof is counterproductive in my opinion, for all the time it takes to talk about how vff can see a kidney, she could have actually just proved herself.

And all this is above and beyond the fact that anita herself, keeps failing. And because of this weird mindset that we cannot just say " put up or shut up. " , she has gotten free publicity at the cost of the time of skeptics. And is continuing to.

I honestly say if someone fails the mdc, ( or for that matter any properly set up test) that we simply ignore them here. They have proven they are full of it, plain and simple, and are no longer deserving of any type of attention other than ridicule. Talking to these people encourages them, and whether that is encouraging a charlatan, or encouraging a deluded individual, i personally am not a huge fan of the idea.

 

[Trent Wray]

It took a cataclysmic episode of embarassment and shame to turn me around, maybe that is what she needs. Although that is a tall order with her, if she isn't embarassed after racking up such a mountain of failures.

Some people, you just can't reach. She's probably one of them, but who knows. A little closure goes a long way.

Ah ... and this is an excellent point. It took a cataclysmic episode of embarassment and shame .... and what did you fall back on after that event? Did you have friends and family and a loving support system which you trusted? Did you have an alternative that you could rely on and utilize? Or were you left completely empty-handed and devoid of anything real ... having to reconstruct your actual identity and life from near scratch, all by yourself?

This is where I think Anita falls into. Con artist or deluded narcissist ... that's only half of it. Let go of all of that and she has nothing she values, or trusts, or can rely upon to fall back on. She doesn't recognize the possible support system she has .... or her intelligence .... or perhaps her social ability ..... or her educational aptitude .... or anything that is really and truly "real". She has the fantasy/game and that's it. Someone will have to offer her an alternative. She will not look for it herself. She has spent too long looking in the wrong direction and has all but lost the ability to effectively create her own reality that actually is a part of reality. It's my theory, that she hasn't been "taught" how ... and those attempts by others to teach her were rejected due to trust issues, etc and so forth. This is the slim hope I think lies for Anita ... someone who will more or less be willing to leave the herd to go and rescue her, since she is essentially wasting away into fantasy. She can't do it herself. She has to be willing to TRY .... and then she can be helped. So whoever helps her can't carry her only. Otherwise, they are merely carrying around a dead weight. That's what the JREF and others are already doing. Carrying around a dead weight. Leave her be, drop her in the dirt, and let the herd carry on. If someone really wants to do Anita a favor, they will be willing to fall behind and "help the weak learn to walk on their own." But, as for right now, imo ... she only looks for those who will carry her along. The slim chance of hope for her, imo, is the possibility that there is still a part of her (a small part) that genuinely desires to have an alternate reality to her cataclysmically failing fantasy one. And that there is perhaps a part of her that has enough courage to attempt to walk if someone helps her who she will trust. But that is a slim chance. She could just as easily be a hopeless cause who will suck others for all they are worth to feed her delusions until her last breath, hoping that if she is a dead weight, at least she'll be paid to be a dead weight. I don't think she's honestly going to be a very successful hack or con-artist. I don't think she'd know what to do with fame/fortune. That would actually entail "success". And success is foreign to her. She hasn't thought that far ahead yet. Failure and letting others cart her around is her niche and comfort zone. All IMO

 

[Trent Wray]

As far as the meanies go i would lump myself in that catagory. To me the jref is not here to indulge charlatans like Anita, they are here to say " put up or shut up.", giving her an interview , is not doing this. Giving her a test is, and seeing as she has failed every test set in front of her i think we have a good lump of proof that we do not have to keep taking her seriously.

I am all about being fair, but being fair does not mean that we have to treat these people as if they are doing anything other than spouting gibberish, until they prove their claim. I mean to even debate that someone has a power, without them providing proof is counterproductive in my opinion, for all the time it takes to talk about how vff can see a kidney, she could have actually just proved herself.

And all this is above and beyond the fact that anita herself, keeps failing. And because of this weird mindset that we cannot just say " put up or shut up. " , she has gotten free publicity at the cost of the time of skeptics. And is continuing to.

I honestly say if someone fails the mdc, ( or for that matter any properly set up test) that we simply ignore them here. They have proven they are full of it, plain and simple, and are no longer deserving of any type of attention other than ridicule. Talking to these people encourages them, and whether that is encouraging a charlatan, or encouraging a deluded individual, i personally am not a huge fan of the idea.

And this is why I liked your initial "black-out" idea. Because people have given her more than enough opportunities to put up or shut up and each time she has failed ... yet she is still given a stage to tout her poorly executed tricks and others continue to address her. I still don't know why, unless it's truly a matter of a need that it meets, or the idea of "drawing back means the defense has failed" and quitters don't want to feel like quitters or something. She needs to leave the JREF behind her or others need to ignore her when she goes into her claims business which is beyond a bait-hook ruse at this point.

 

[sadhatter]

And this is why I liked your initial "black-out" idea. Because people have given her more than enough opportunities to put up or shut up and each time she has failed ... yet she is still given a stage to tout her poorly executed tricks and others continue to address her. I still don't know why, unless it's truly a matter of a need that it meets, or the idea of "drawing back means the defense has failed" and quitters don't want to feel like quitters or something. She needs to leave the JREF behind her or others need to ignore her when she goes into her claims business which is beyond a bait-hook ruse at this point.

I am taking the first step.

I never put people on ignore for any reason other than this one.

Should someone on the boards be shown to fail in a properly controlled test , jref or otherwise, i will, ignore them. Should they pass a properly controlled test at a later time i will not only unignore them, but issue a written apology.

We are not here to debate the paranormal, that is for the likes of Robbie thomas, or the knobs on the ghost hunter shows. We are here to put it to the test, anything else is simply encouraging either a charlatan or a deluded individual by giving them and their baseless claims the time of day.

WAtch how fast she leaves once people simply stop replying.

 

[Trent Wray]

WAtch how fast she leaves once people simply stop replying.

Yes yes yes

But how could we realistically involve those who "don't want to quit"? Just "lead by example"?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles, I have not a single case of inaccurate perceptions that I can recall. I never claimed a problem with Wayne's throat, what I felt was the normal feeling of the adam's apple. As I do not have one myself, the feeling I got from it was unexpected for me so I wrote it down, but then concluded it was the adam's apple before I gave my conclusions to him.

In the IIG test I knew the accuracy and inaccuracy beforehand. Had I been asked to discard answers that I knew beforehand to be wrong I would have had 100% accuracy. I am not making this up and it is not ad hoc.

If you had never perceived it in another person before, how could you have known it was specifically cocaine use? Cocaine isn't the only 'snorted' drug, and all of them burn. So do allergies, for that matter-and it IS allergy season.

I knew because I also saw a vision of it. It was quite obvious. If you see someone using cocaine, even with the added benefit of feeling what their nose is feeling, you would also make that conclusion.

Did I tell you about the time when I was looking at random SEM images on the internet, all of which were close-ups of insect body parts, and gazing closely into one of the images made me feel high? So I was wondering why am I getting high from looking at an insect picture? I scrolled down the page to read the description and behold it was a close-up of cannabis.

*I have never used cannabis in my life so I also did not have the experience stored in my past experiences to draw from. It was brand new. It was interesting though... I was experiencing real changes to my eyes, muscles and sensory experiences.

SEM is Scanning Electron Microscope.

And if you have never perceived this in another person before, and don't know the outward signs of cocaine use, then how would you know that she wasn't displaying them?

I am saying she doesn't come across as the type of person who would. But this also means that if she does have signs, I would not have recognized those as indicative of past cocaine use.

You've now accused a nameless member of the IIG of being an admitted cokehead. Nice. Way to go, Anita. Their continued association with you isn't making the IIG look too good.

Dear sweet desertgal... my perception was accurate so it is not just accusations. Plus, don't you think I feel and see lots of private information about people I interact with? And why are you saying it was an IIG member? Hollywood has lots of people.

Why do you repeatedly interject these unproven anecdotes? They simply validate the theory that you are just fantasizing.

But this one was confirmed! I could ask this person to verify this with you all, but then again it involves personal information. However, my Spencer was with us so he could confirm this if he remembers the details!

As for everyone else: if I do not respond to specific comments and allegations does not mean that I am in agreement with them. I don't want this thread to lose sight of the main topic.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes yes yes

But how could we realistically involve those who "don't want to quit"? Just "lead by example"?

No possible way, but i would rather bite the hand that is crushing me, even if it is wearing a steel gauntlet , than simply do nothing.

One person ignoring her is better than 0, 2 would be better than one, 3 would be better than 2 etc. If people think i made a good point they are free to join me, if not, well then things will continue as they are. But at least i will be taking what i feel is a good step toward not encouraging, or supporting woo.

 

[TSR]

Ashles, I have not a single case of inaccurate perceptions that I can recall.

.
You mean, other than when you saw kidneys where none existed, and failed to detect kidneys that were missing?
.

In the IIG test I knew the accuracy and inaccuracy beforehand.

.
But you *just* said you were never inaccurate.
.

Had I been asked to discard answers that I knew beforehand to be wrong I would have had 100% accuracy. I am not making this up and it is not ad hoc.

.
Because, of course, the whole point of the IIG test was to be both accurate and inaccurate -- it was right there in the protocol: you were allowed to be wrong.

No, wait ....
.

 

[godless dave]

Ashles, I have not a single case of inaccurate perceptions that I can recall.

Do you recall this one?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Were you scanning for this [cocaine use]? Or was it one of the strange and random examples that just jump out at you? Which curiously never ever happen when in the company of one or a group of skeptics.

I was feeling into her head and noticed the strange cold burning feeling at the tip of her nose and then saw the vision of her stroking her nose and it was obviously depicting cocaine use. As obviously so as if you were watching somebody use cocaine, but with the added bonus of feeling the sensations in the nose.

And my goodness there WAS a Skeptic with us! My Spencer Marks was there! Good thing I go nowhere without him while in LA. I wish I had a tag-along Skeptic with me here in North Carolina.

And how do you know it was? Please describe the circumstances that allowed you to confirm this 'reading'.

She told me that yes she has used cocaine.

Very.

Ok. Even if you say cocaine use is very common, had I said to a person that she has used it and she has not, then that would still have been an interesting case of inaccuracy, so I like to mention anything that I feel because any observation opens it up for possible inaccuracy to be revealed. And I am looking for inaccuracy, as that would end this claim. Any sporadic cases of accuracy can not confirm this claim, only a large-scale test could actually end up concluding on the claim as verified. So, inaccuracy is what would lead to a conclusion the easiest in the occasional readings like these.

So you are declaring that whatever outward signs a cocaine user might possibly usually exhibit, this cocaine user was for some reason entirely immune from them? And you know this... how?

Had you asked me to guess based on logic and what I know about this person, whether she has used cocaine, I would have guessed no.

By the way - nice introduction of a new claim that is obviously untestable. I would ask if this claim extended to the ability to detect the presence in a human body of other, legal drugs/chemicals that have no visible effects... but I think we all know what the answer would be...

Well if you say this is untestable, so be it. I was just giving some more anecdotes of my experiences with this claim. I would like to test the claim on detection of who is missing a kidney or the uterus.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In the IIG test I knew the accuracy and inaccuracy beforehand. Had I been asked to discard answers that I knew beforehand to be wrong I would have had 100% accuracy. I am not making this up and it is not ad hoc.

That is a lie. As best as I can recall from the glimpses of your worksheets, you had two potential targets in each trial where you did not sense a kidney. And let's not forget that it was impossible for somebody to be missing two kidneys, so you already knew each person had to have at least one.

Upon revealing the results of the first trial, you were very excited to tell the audience that your other guess was actually the target. You were holding up the worksheet to show everyone when somebody in the audience pointed out that your back-up guess was not the target either. In the second trial, where you had one lucky guess, you also had a back-up guess.

It is a blatant lie and deliberate spin to make these claims about "knowing" and "not knowing" about your accuracy.

Stop speaking for the evidence. We're skeptics. The evidence will speak to us on its own. We don't need you to interpret it for us. We don't want you to interpret it for us. When you have results that are self-evident, come share them. Otherwise, do everyone and yourself a favor and stop yapping about the results. It's boring. We've heard it all before. It's not going to change our minds, so stop trying.

Your continued persistence comes across as nothing more than self-aggrandizement whether you think it is or not. You have been told this multiple times, yet you continue. This is just further evidence of a vested self-interest.

Continue your journey, but please stop sending us postcards. When you arrive at your destination, send us a letter. In the meantime, we don't need or want to hear about every truck stop diner you visit.

 

[sadhatter]

That is a lie. As best as I can recall from the glimpses of your worksheets, you had two potential targets in each trial where you did not sense a kidney. And let's not forget that it was impossible for somebody to be missing two kidneys, so you already knew each person had to have at least one.

Upon revealing the results of the first trial, you were very excited to tell the audience that your other guess was actually the target. You were holding up the worksheet to show everyone when somebody in the audience pointed out that your back-up guess was not the target either. In the second trial, where you had one lucky guess, you also had a back-up guess.

It is a blatant lie and deliberate spin to make these claims about "knowing" and "not knowing" about your accuracy.

Stop speaking for the evidence. We're skeptics. The evidence will speak to us on its own. We don't need you to interpret it for us. We don't want you to interpret it for us. When you have results that are self-evident, come share them. Otherwise, do everyone and yourself a favor and stop yapping about the results. It's boring. We've heard it all before. It's not going to change our minds, so stop trying.

Your continued persistence comes across as nothing more than self-aggrandizement whether you think it is or not. You have been told this multiple times, yet you continue. This is just further evidence of a vested self-interest.

Continue your journey, but please stop sending us postcards. When you arrive at your destination, send us a letter. In the meantime, we don't need or want to hear about every truck stop diner you visit.

You know, the chances of you putting her on ignore are bigger than the chances of her shutting up. One less person for her to use as a springboard to ramble about her beliefs, and slightly less material for the movie/book she is working on.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Robo Sapien]

Ah ... and this is an excellent point. It took a cataclysmic episode of embarassment and shame .... and what did you fall back on after that event? Did you have friends and family and a loving support system which you trusted? Did you have an alternative that you could rely on and utilize? Or were you left completely empty-handed and devoid of anything real ... having to reconstruct your actual identity and life from near scratch, all by yourself?

There really is nothing that one can fall back on, in these circumstances. That kind of fantasy world is built up for exactly that reason, that everything else in their life is unsatisfactory. I had lots of family that would have supported me, but there is no way I would have shared my shame with them.

I think it all boils down to alienation. In my case, it was the fact that I was adopted by my grandparents, so all of my brothers were really uncles, and I was just the black sheep. I felt different and excluded, and it shone. Because of that, I never made a single friend in elementary school, I just kept to myself and read books.

Human nature has an inclination to seek providence, so we imagine patterns where none exist (Michael Shermer writes about this a lot). A person who grows up feeling alienated ends up believing they are somehow different from everybody else, so they seek justification for that and will end up creating one if nothing legitimate exists. In creative people, this usually manifests itself in the form of some elaborately constructed fantasy existance where they have unique abilities or states of being. I see this in people who pretend to be vampires, they will commune with each other but never accept a status quo, each one of them always trying to out-vampire the others.

That fantasy existance cannot hold up against reality forever, and will eventually come crashing down. Waking up to reality is a slow process, and a very painful experience, leading to a long period of introspection. It takes a while to re-learn how to exist in the real world.

I don't expect Anita to come around any time soon, and the "black out" idea isn't going to work, even if you somehow got the everyone here on the same page (not f'king likely). And the more everyone tears down her statements, the more alienated she becomes and thus the nonsense ensues. Every time somebody calls her out on X fallacy or Y inconsistency, she just comes right back with more rationalizations because we are adding to the shame she will eventually have to face.

I am less concerned with Anita's claims of perception, and more about her perception of herself. She just needs people to talk to her, and not about all this "ability" rubbish. Just normal topics that normal people talk about. If she realizes that she's not different-in-a-bad-way, she won't need to justify it the way she does.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

oh dear. I really wanted to believe that Anita really was interested in exploring this ability, rather than just hanging with a bunch of skeptics getting attention. She seems articulate, has been a chemistry major, is rather pretty... she's got a lot going for her. [unskeptical promotion of woo snipped out]

I was very disappointed with your previous post as it sounded like something only a true woo could say, and it was even more woo than all my years of woo put together. Please join us on the skeptical side.