Merged Migraine Test, VFF, and LightinDarkness

[fromdownunder]

That is part of the medical perceptions claim, Honey.

Insert "Do not call me Honey" here __________________

I take it that this response is actually supposed to mean something. You really are losing it.

However, since you have been been asked at least three times to confirm the protocol, time and date which you have specifically stated on this thread as having already happened, that you have given for the kidney test, please post this information on this thread.

Otherwise, you appear to be just a liar and a fraud. And an attention whore. I do accept that you have one power - the power to make people who read what you write to want to throw up.

Norm

 

[StevenCalder]

Sorry, I missed this the last time around. Please confirm the time and date of your IIG Kidney test, since you now claim to have given these.

Norm

I would love it if you could stop avoiding this VFF and address it.

Keep in mind there are skeptics working on independent verification, now would be the time to preempt them.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snipped to allow room for birthday greeting>

<Happy Birthday, fromdownunder!>


I do accept that you have one power - the power to make people who read what you write to want to throw up.

Norm

I have evidence to support this claim. Are you interested in proceeding to a Study™ and Test™?


Dave

 

[Akhenaten]

<snipitty>


I have successfully completed what I refer to as the study process and have submitted an acceptable protocol to the IIG.

O rly? Give us a squiz at it then. Please highlight the IIG's acceptance part of your response.

 

[Garrette]

If all there ever were, was the chemical perception, I would not have submitted that for a paranormal test anyway because regardless of any cases of correlation I choose to consider it as an expression of synesthesia.

Probably my only post on these VFF threads, though I have been reading them with amusement at Anita's gyrations to maintain her delusions.

You "choose to consider it as an expression of synesthesia?"

It isn't. You haven't been diagnosed with synesthesia, and you failed the generous online self-diagnosis. Just as importantly, identifying different chemical substances by sight is not part of synesthesia.

Choosing this is like me choosing to consider the fact that I've never won a marathon as proof that I can win marathons because I am color blind.

(And in case you can't follow the comparison: I'm not color blind.)

 

[jhunter1163]

Happy birthday Fromdownunder. You know, you could have your birthday AND your 1,000th JREF post on the same day. An auspicious day indeed.

 

[Drs_Res]

There are no new claims (other than for the migraine healing). The main claim is and always has been medical perceptions and that claim is going to be tested very soon. People here are very often trying to get me to test something else that I either can not do or am not interested in testing, such as remote viewing.

For the second time, no one suggested "remote viewing". Please stop repeating this.

Thank you.

 

[Agatha]

Happy birthday, fromdownunder!

att. treatment.... att. treatment...

Why do you keep typing "att. treatment", VfF? You don't habitually shorten any other words, not even quite complex long ones which you use often (like synaesthesia). Is there a reason why you are shortening this particular word and no other? Are we being led to believe that you are intending one word when in fact you are meaning another one?

Does 'att.' stand for attempted? Attainted? Attentive? Attested? Attractive? Attitudinal? Attributed? Attenuated? Attendant? Attention-seeking?

 

[Femke]

VfF,

You seem to confuse the exhaustion of the regular posters with impatience, please allow me to state what I think is at least partly responsible for that. It is your utter lack of a critical mind, and your refusal to apply the scientific method, a method you should well be aware of, as a student in two scientific fields with for the most part commendable scores.

Let me go back to the basics.
Say a scientist finds a phenomenon that could shake the very foundations of science, the vision of organs through solid tissue and clothing. If it happens the way it seems to happen, most laws of physics should be rewritten.
What would be the more scientific way of proceeding? Saying: This is interesting, let's study it because it is very likely that the laws of physics are wrong, or: This is strange, let's see if any of the known mechanisms that have fooled people before might be responsible.

Well, if the scientist is worth her salt, she would go for the second route. She would first look at the sensory input processing unit, the brain, to check for chemical imbalances or crossed wires. Maybe she would check the sensory input generating units, the eyes. If everything is operating according to standard parameters, then she would look for mechanisms like applying previous knowledge, cold reading, postdicting, confirmation bias, etc and if that is unsuccessful, she would do some tight tests of clear-cut parts of the phenomenon to shed some light on it. If all of these cannot adequately explain the phenomenon, then it might be a good idea to design tests of the more exotic claims, but only after having ruled out the more mundane explanations.

You have gone straight to the least likely explanation, while claiming to be a real scientist. This is what bothers me, and I think more of us.
You do not even consider the fact that you should rule out other, more plausible possibilities first. Why is that? Please ask yourself that.

Just my thoughts,
Femke

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Oh, don't be a friggin' drama queen. You don't have a scientific reputation to put on the line. And one stupid claim one some internet forum is not going to affect your future career.

Ha ha. Thank you. I think so too.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

But the fact is that the chemical perceptions were at the thin end of a wedge of delusion and fantasy that the forum has never before seen played out like this. It's bizarrely compelling.

But it's probably just synesthesia!

Firstly, you aren't testing anything, otherwise we'd be discussing your results. Secondly, the interesting correlation that you mention doesn't exist, and this is likely why you have difficulty denying or explaining it. Same as the IPU™, really.

The kidney test will be held soon. And the correlation does exist, but is not backed up by evidence yet. Oh you Skeptical thing, you.

So you only have two claims, except for all the others.

Only two claims.

Att. to harangue someone into taking part in your bogus att.s at medical treatments is outrageous behaviour. How do think this att. will turn out?

Coincide with incredible improvement in a person's migraine condition again?

Comp. mumb. jumb.

Oh, your humor! What ever would we do without you?

Hissy fit #4,739 noted. I think I see a patt. dev.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It isn't. You haven't been diagnosed with synesthesia, and you failed the generous online self-diagnosis. Just as importantly, identifying different chemical substances by sight is not part of synesthesia.

The online test didn't test for any of the forms of synesthesia that I claim to experience, such as perceiving vibrational landscapes.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

For the second time, no one suggested "remote viewing". Please stop repeating this.

To ask me to detect whether there is or is not a person behind an opaque screen is to ask me to do a remote viewing test and it is not something I can do.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Why do you keep typing "att. treatment", VfF? You don't habitually shorten any other words, not even quite complex long ones which you use often (like synaesthesia). Is there a reason why you are shortening this particular word and no other? Are we being led to believe that you are intending one word when in fact you are meaning another one?

Does 'att.' stand for attempted? Attainted? Attentive? Attested? Attractive? Attitudinal? Attributed? Attenuated? Attendant? Attention-seeking?

It means attempted. I abbreviate it because it is a long word and I type it so often. There is no hidden agenda behind the abbreviation I assure you. I'm just tired of typing. Then why do you guys abbreviate VisionFromFeeling as VFF?

 

[StevenCalder]

The kidney test will be held soon.

I will for the last time ask for the date and time that you claim to have given to the IIG, please.

I will take a lack of an answer as an admission that you have been less than honest about this.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

VfF,

You seem to confuse the exhaustion of the regular posters with impatience, please allow me to state what I think is at least partly responsible for that. It is your utter lack of a critical mind, and your refusal to apply the scientific method, a method you should well be aware of, as a student in two scientific fields with for the most part commendable scores.

Let me go back to the basics.
Say a scientist finds a phenomenon that could shake the very foundations of science, the vision of organs through solid tissue and clothing. If it happens the way it seems to happen, most laws of physics should be rewritten.
What would be the more scientific way of proceeding? Saying: This is interesting, let's study it because it is very likely that the laws of physics are wrong, or: This is strange, let's see if any of the known mechanisms that have fooled people before might be responsible.

Well, if the scientist is worth her salt, she would go for the second route. She would first look at the sensory input processing unit, the brain, to check for chemical imbalances or crossed wires. Maybe she would check the sensory input generating units, the eyes. If everything is operating according to standard parameters, then she would look for mechanisms like applying previous knowledge, cold reading, postdicting, confirmation bias, etc and if that is unsuccessful, she would do some tight tests of clear-cut parts of the phenomenon to shed some light on it. If all of these cannot adequately explain the phenomenon, then it might be a good idea to design tests of the more exotic claims, but only after having ruled out the more mundane explanations.

You have gone straight to the least likely explanation, while claiming to be a real scientist. This is what bothers me, and I think more of us.
You do not even consider the fact that you should rule out other, more plausible possibilities first. Why is that? Please ask yourself that.

Just my thoughts,
Femke

I did detect the missing kidney. So I am having a test to see if I can do that consistently and with accuracy that exceeds what is possible through guessing. That is where I start. If I were a scientist and I would observe an unexpected effect in the laboratory, I would certainly first be interested in repeating the results to see if they are consistent to confirm whether there truly is something to study or whether it was just a single occurrence before commencing with investment of further time and attention.

 

[Garrette]

The online test didn't test for any of the forms of synesthesia that I claim to experience, such as perceiving vibrational landscapes.

I see. So you are claiming to have synaesthesia for the following two reasons:

1. You have never been diagnosed with it
2. You don't exhibit symptoms consistent with it

Have I missed anything?

 

[Garrette]

To ask me to detect whether there is or is not a person behind an opaque screen is to ask me to do a remote viewing test and it is not something I can do.

It is remote viewing to exactly the same extent that detecting a missing kidney through someone's clothing is remote viewing.

ETA: The amusement factor is gone for me. I won't post anymore to the VFF threads; she'll get none of my attention any longer.

 

[GeeMack]

I did detect the missing kidney.

No, you didn't.

So I am having a test [...]

No, you aren't.

[...] to see if I can do that consistently and with accuracy that exceeds what is possible through guessing.

You can't.

That is where I start.

You won't.

If I were a scientist [...]

You most certainly aren't.

[...] and I would observe an unexpected effect in the laboratory, I would certainly first be interested in repeating the results to see if they are consistent to confirm whether there truly is something to study or whether it was just a single occurrence before commencing with investment of further time and attention.

But you invented the experience, fabricated it from scratch after you found out Dr. Carlson was missing a kidney. So if you were a scientist (and of course you aren't), you would start by checking for commonly occurring, mundane explanations for your proclivity to make crap up. If you were even remotely interested in the truth, rather than this ongoing attention whoring folly you've engaged in, the first thing you'd do is get a mental health professional to check you over thoroughly. And after that, and only if you get a clean bill of health, consider other less likely explanations.

So how about it, Anita, have you made any effort whatsoever to eliminate the very common, everyday possibilities that can easily explain all your imaginary experiences as well as your habit of lying? Have you checked with a mental health professional to see if you might be suffering from some sort of mental or psychological problem that manifests itself in lying and believing your fantasies to be true?

 

[pakeha]

I see. So you are claiming to have synaesthesia for the following two reasons:

1. You have never been diagnosed with it
2. You don't exhibit symptoms consistent with it

Have I missed anything?

Snap, Garrette.