• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

If I make one answer that I say is wrong and another I say is right, and the first is wrong the second right, I only count one right, the other is simply discarded.
.
But it should not be discarded, is the point.

That's cherrypicking data, by definition, and is the kind of thing that torpedoes scientific careers.
.
It is not that easy. I do not simply sweep across the stage and instantly see the kidneys like some x-ray vision.
.
And yet, that was indeed your initial claim.
.
I knew my answer in trial 1 was wrong, therefore it does not represent my claim and I do not count it against my claim.
.
Except for the wee fact that you did not know it, and in fact tried to claim that your other choice demonstrated ability -- except that it was wrong, too.
.
And failing a test does not automatically equal falsifying a claim. Any research scientist would know that.
.
If the claim is, as it was in this case (and continues to be,) that you can do this with 100% accuracy, then yes the claim is falsified.

If you want to make another claim, admit this complete failure first.
.
 
It is not that easy. I do not simply sweep across the stage and instantly see the kidneys like some x-ray vision. It takes paying attention and focusing on the vibrational field that I feel, that then turns into images. I was basing my claim on kidney detection on just one past experience, which happened to be an easy one. I knew my answer in trial 1 was wrong, therefore it does not represent my claim and I do not count it against my claim.
Please stop lying. In the open trial where you knew the person was missing a kidney, you detected it in a matter of seconds. As best as I can tell you seemed to have at least three detections/attempts per location in each trial (more in some cases). That means you were "detecting" things at less than a minute per attempt (30 minutes for 30+ attempts).

In the first trial you "detected" kidneys in 10 locations multiple times. One of those locations did not have a kidney. In two locations you failed to "detect" what was really there. You said before the test that you would quit rather than guess. You did not quit. Upon learning the results, you attempted to use your back-up guess to tell us that you were, in fact, correct. Only your back-up guess was wrong as well.

Why are you continuing with this argument? Who are you attempting to convince? We've been through this dozens of times already. If you don't want to believe you failed, that's your own personal demon. Why do you persist in trying to convince us otherwise?

I can tell you why I persist in corrrecting your lies: There is ample evidence that many people have not followed the entire saga. Every time you lie and mislead, somebody needs to set the record straight. Skepticism demands that these statements are not left uncontested.

What's your excuse?
 
She has admitted that she failed. She just refuses to admit that it falsifies the claim.

In spite of her announcing on her site beforehand:

"and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is falsified."
 
VFF-Nofriends.png
 
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.
Mark! Thank you for volunteering for a reading, and for the napkin trick. Your background is in the showbusiness psychics and in skeptical work. You know that commerciable psychic entertainers need to give a lot of information, to talk reasonably fast, and to make it interesting. And as a Skeptic you want to reach a conclusion in a paranormal investigation fast.

Unfortunately my background is in chemistry and physics research, where research hypotheses require tedious and iterative attention. Where all parameters affecting the outcome need to be carefully identified and investigated, one at a time. Where we deliberately set up experiments in which the hypothesis is expected to fail, just to confirm the cases in which it fails. Where we carefully consider the outcome and do our best to find any alternate experimental setup that will show another angle of the hypothesis.

Perhaps the gravity affected the outcome? The temperature? A fingerprint? Air pressure? Well if there is reason to suspect anything, we go back. We can scratch months of carefully conducted research all because of a new hunch that tells us something differently, all to learn more about the hypothesis that is central to the study, and in reaching closer towards the final conclusion(s) in it.

And it is with the same scientific rigor and stubbornness I approach my claim. Quite willing to falsify the claim once evidence points to that, but not just because "skeptics said so". Skeptics said so even before there was any test.

The napkin trick utilized a testing condition which my study had already shown will block the claim from manifesting. Failing this napkin test does not falsify my claim, in the same way requesting telekinesis by a claimed telepath does not falsify their claim.

And if you want me to identify an illness in you, please come up with something better than well-kept diabetes. I did not even check for diabetes. Give me a checklist that specifically asks for diabetes, and if I check no then that is evidence against the claim.

Only an inaccurate reading can present evidence against this claim. My claim never was, nor does it need to be, that I perceive all health problems that are considered to be there, but that when I do perceive something, it would be accurate.

I regret that I am not entertaining enough for showbusiness psychic woo, yet that was never my intention. I am just a boring science student, and I regret to tell you that real research is very often boring and tedious. I need more exposure in order to gather more experiences with the claim. If I did offer psychic readings to people, this claim would be over, one way or another, pretty quickly.

And please refrain from compliments in this situation. Given this way they are insulting and totally irrelevant. I have a claim and I am studying it. Every time someone sees not my work but other irrelevant characteristics it rages me. Twice I have had to cut my long blonde hair short because of this. I once even shaved my hair off to make a point and to demand eyecontact, not people looking at me, in situations dealing with my study and work. Besides my eyes are green.

But thank you Mark for your assistance.
 
...
I need more exposure

Tadaaaa.....

No, you need less exposure.
The IIG (despite their best intentions) would do well to tell you in no uncertain terms that any entertaining of your exposure seeking will be stopped.

You need some tough love.

Or crash completely. It's up to you.
 
Last edited:
This text seems to no longer appear on her site.

It appeared on the page:
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html (the IIG preliminary)
under the heading "Test Protocol", which no longer appears on that current page.

The full (no longer appearing) paragraph in which that statement appeared reads:
"I feel really good about the test I am about to have, but most importantly of all, I know that it is the best type of test design for my claim of medical
perceptions and I can never expect to be able to design a test that would be any easier for me to pass. Therefore the results of the paranormal test
will conclude on the claim, and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is
falsified. I can't wait to have the test. I am ready.
"
 
Last edited:
The saga and all the players therein go on and on and on and on and on. Doomed, metaphorically speaking, to forever circle the toilet bowl. A tangible pile of ***** that won't go away and has now sullied our toilet brush, feculent chunks of it sticking in some places.

Or to put it another way. Lets not put a fork in out, how about a sock?
 
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.
I will say it again. I have several cases of synesthesia. When I look at numbers I see colors. When I look at people I feel vibrational patterns that become images. In itself not interesting and not reason for stating a paranormal claim, but what is interesting is that the images depict accurate health information. Again, not necessarily interesting, just that there are cases where I find no rational explanation such as prior knowledge, external symptoms, or otherwise. That is why there is a paranormal claim.

I have not produced any inaccurate perceptions yet. Failing a trial when I already said in advance that the results do not represent the claim and are inaccurate, simply is not evidence against the claim. It is the equivalent of accidentally knocking over a chemistry beaker, or suddenly thinking "did I add too much of the ingredient?". Trials containing any insecurity are discarded. Simple as that. Unless the claim is to be able to do this every time, and in every situation.

If the claim is falsified, by inaccurate perceptions, it is not the case of a mental illness. Synesthesia is by definition not a mental illness, and all details surrounding my perceptions of health make it not a mental illness.

And I am not a charlatan. If I were I would be out there charging $2,000 for a psychic reading rather than investigating the claim and being open for falsification.
 
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.
But how come when I look at people I correctly see in my mind that a person is missing a left kidney, missing a uterus, has reproductive cysts, has had their skull crushed in the past, has taken Lactobacillus supplement, and many more, all cases in circumstances where there should have been no outward symptoms? THIS IS PUZZLING ME!

I WANT TO DO A READING AND TO BE INACCURATE.
 
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.
But how did I falsify the claim! What failures! Seriously!

Failures, like what? That I felt a man's adam's apple? That I was unable to do all three trials even though I knew in advance which ones I did and didn't? That I didn't check for Mark's well-maintained diabetes?

What failures, seriously! I don't see them, so if I am blind, please help me see. I would love to falsify this claim and I would not be embarrassed!
 
I WANT TO DO A READING AND TO BE INACCURATE.
No you don't.

If you really did want to be inaccurate, you would see all the inaccuracies that you have already put forth instead of focusing on the "positive" results, and making up stories about how you really were right but you didn't want to say so at the time.
 
It appeared on the page:
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html (the IIG preliminary)
under the heading "Test Protocol", which no longer appears on that current page.

The full (no longer appearing) paragraph in which that statement appeared reads:
"I feel really good about the test I am about to have, but most importantly of all, I know that it is the best type of test design for my claim of medical
perceptions and I can never expect to be able to design a test that would be any easier for me to pass. Therefore the results of the paranormal test
will conclude on the claim, and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is
falsified. I can't wait to have the test. I am ready.
"
I did not expect the results I had. I did too good to falsify the claim, ie. I was right too often, giving a 3.8% odds of guessing to such results, being well below the traditional 5% mark of continued significance, also had I discarded answers I knew beforehand to be wrong I'd had a 100% accuracy.

ETA: Oops, not there! Must have edited it out.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom