The VFF Test is On!

[pakeha]

... I, Miss Kitty, and Ravenwood have offered solid, factual evidence that your experiences of the ghost of Ben Franklin and Revolutionary War ghosts were not reality based, and you refuse to admit that. It follows that you are saying what you believe sounds good, in order to appear virtuous, without any real intention of following through. ...

A great post, desertgal. I read through the material linked to and was strongly reminded of miss Josephine Tey's The Franchise Affair^WP, where the unmasking of a cold readeris done very much along the lines of the debunking of VfF 'Benjamin Franklin', etc., tales.
It's really difficult to believe in the sincerity of someone who posts up stuff like that and I can understand why some posters go postal at the idea of this person's claim being taken seriously.
Still.
Wait on events. November 21 will come and go, but those Revolutionary War 'ghosts' will be around for sometime.

 

[volatile]

You're losing me, volatile. The test does, in fact, test her ability to see kidneys. On what basis do you say it does not? The outcome is binary: pass or fail.

Yes. But if you look at her recent responses to me, what I spotted as an implication upthread has become rather more explicit. As you can see, the binary VFF perceives in this test is not "powers vs no-powers", but between "consistently effective powers vs powers that mysteriously fail under test conditions". She's said as much herself. When she's asserting "So there!", and explains that even if she fails, it will not dissuade her of her belief in her powers, it hardly belies a dispassionate approach to the test, does it?

This test is being undertaken with the presumption that the powers exist, to test their efficacy. That's one step too far down the line, in my opinion.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I think the 'att. trreatment's the lady wishes to latch onto the Californian excursion point to the lady's possible motivations. It isn't the first time I've seen a similar schtick sincere perception inquiry play out this way.

Nor, I daresay, is it the first time for the IIG.

You people are too suspicious for your own good, it is clouding your judgement! You are making all these accusations against me that are based on prejudice against paranormal claimants and that are all entirely inaccurate in my case! The migraine healing claim is not a claim made by me, and I remain its greatest skeptic. The claim comes from the man whom I gave an attempted migraine treatment, and he claims immediate and dramatic improvement that is way off the charts if you would consider it as a possible statistical anomaly. I am going ahead and trying again but this time with a Skeptic. Now why would I do that, unless I were interested in a more credible accounts of any effect. I am quite willing to falsify this claim. You are all certainly entitled to suspect otherwise, based on your expectations that are based on how other claimants have acted, but the way you conclude on and believe in things that are entirely not true with me, takes something away from you as Skeptics.

Skeptics are supposed to remain objective and close to the truth. But what I see here so very often, is people who call themselves Skeptics, only to voice what in the end are their own, personal opinions! Just like woos do! Please remain open-minded and objective. It just might be true, that I did attempt a migraine treatment with a man, and that he claims incredible improvement, and that the claim is made by him, not me, and that I am entirely willing to falsify that claim, and that the reason I do so is to provide with documented examples of falsified woo. I think for a "woo" to falsify her own woo could make a very important contribution to Skepticism.

 

[volatile]

Skeptics are supposed to remain objective and close to the truth. But what I see here so very often, is people who call themselves Skeptics, only to voice what in the end are their own, personal opinions! Just like woos do! Please remain open-minded and objective. It just might be true, that I did attempt a migraine treatment with a man, and that he claims incredible improvement, and that the claim is made by him, not me, and that I am entirely willing to falsify that claim, and that the reason I do so is to provide with documented examples of falsified woo. I think for a "woo" to falsify her own woo could make a very important contribution to Skepticism.

Except by "falsify", you don't mean "falsify", do you?

Sceptics are supposed to remain objective to the truth. Asserting that you "really, really" did see Dr Carlson's kidney, and that you "really, really" can detect vibrational signatures, and then steadfastly refusing either to test these claims or to examine them in any dispassionate detail, does not show you to be either objective or sceptical.

You need to be open to the possibility that no, you did not "really, really" see Dr. Carlson's kidney, and that this IIG test, if it fails, will show your powers to be non-existent, not just ineffective. In fact, this is what you should be testing in the first place.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Yes. But if you look at her recent responses to me, what I spotted as an implication upthread has become rather more explicit. As you can see, the binary VFF perceives in this test is not "powers vs no-powers", but between "consistently effective powers vs powers that mysteriously fail under test conditions". She's said as much herself. When she's asserting "So there!", and explains that even if she fails, it will not dissuade her of her belief in her powers, it hardly belies a dispassionate approach to the test, does it?

This test is being undertaken with the presumption that the powers exist, to test their efficacy. That's one step too far down the line, in my opinion.

I think you are entirely confused about what my claim is and how it will be dealt with.

 

[volatile]

I think you are entirely confused about what my claim is and how it will be dealt with.

Not at all, Anita.

You have yourself, in this very thread, asserted (without evidence) that you "really really" saw Dr Carlson's kidney, and that the result of the IIG test would not dissuade you of that notion. You have also refused even to consider, let alone attempt to test, the possibility that you were mistaken.

As I have read your posts, you see the IIG test as an investigation of the efficacy of your powers, not their existence or indeed veracity. In other words, if you fail, as you yourself said " It means that the medical perceptions are not consistently accurate", and not that they don't exist in any sense other than the imaginary. Do I have that right?

 

[volatile]

If you fail, it means that the medical perceptions are nothing more than delusions, imaginations, false-memories, confirmation bias and wishful thinking. That's what it means. You need to accept that. In fact, IIG needs to have designed the test such that a failure would allow this conclusion, else, as Joe says, it's rather pointless.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Except by "falsify", you don't mean "falsify", do you?

Sceptics are supposed to remain objective to the truth. Asserting that you "really, really" did see Dr Carlson's kidney, and that you "really, really" can detect vibrational signatures, and then steadfastly refusing either to test these claims or to examine them in any dispassionate detail, does not show you to be either objective or sceptical.

You need to be open to the possibility that no, you did not "really, really" see Dr. Carlson's kidney, and that this IIG test, if it fails, will show your powers to be non-existent, not just ineffective. In fact, this is what you should be testing in the first place.

I think you are confused about what the claim is. Many paranormal claims that are made by people involve the claim of some special "talent" that they choose to do at will. Like choosing to do a psychic reading, to use a dowsing rod, etc. But my claim is an experience that occurs on its own, every day. Regardless of whether I fail or pass the Preliminary or a test, I will continue to experience the perceptions in exactly the same way as before. I think that is one source of your confusion. It is not like I am "choosing" to "continue practicing the claim".

Just so happens, I really did detect the missing kidney in Dr. Carlson. It was not a false memory. And that's why this is a paranormal claim.

Another source of confusion is that many of the perceptions are accurate. But then, those might be based on unintentionally reading external symptoms that automatically translate into images and feeling, and other non-paranormal sources.

But the Preliminary and test would test for whether the perceptions are accurate in cases where a person should not be able to know that information as well as to an extent that exceeds what is possible from guessing and from use of normal sources of information. Look, this is not some claim I have "made up", it is a real experience of perceptions of internal organs and health, so it is not as uncomplicated as the other claims you often see are.

 

[volatile]

I think you are confused about what the claim is. Many paranormal claims that are made by people involve the claim of some special "talent" that they choose to do at will. Like choosing to do a psychic reading, to use a dowsing rod, etc. But my claim is an experience that occurs on its own, every day. Regardless of whether I fail or pass the Preliminary or a test, I will continue to experience the perceptions in exactly the same as before. I think that is one source of your confusion. It is not like I am "choosing" to "continue practicing the claim".

I am not confused. I understand your claim very well. What you should be testing is whether or not these "perceptions" have any relation to the real world at all, whether or not they are all in your imagination, and whether or not they are purely psychological. This is what you should be testing, but you're not. You're happy, as your following sentence shows, to simply assume that your perceptions reflect an external truth and then to examine how effective they are, rather than test the truth of your perceptions in the first place.

Just so happens, I really did detect the missing kidney in Dr. Carlson. It was not a false memory.

How do you know? This is what you should be testing. A negative result in the IIG test will strognly suggest that you did not, in fact, detect a kidney. Maybe you thought you did, or (more likely) have convinced yourself after the fact that you did.

If you fail, thisis the claim that will suffer the most, and you simply don't seem to want to accept that. You need to if this test is to have any utility at all. The claim you are testing - should be tetsing - is whether or not you really can see kidneys in the first place, not simply how regularly this feat can be achieved.

Another source of confusion is that many of the perceptions are accurate.

I have read every single post you've made on this forum. You have never even once provided any evidence even of a lucky guess. You have been consistently wrong. Over and over again.

Look, this is not some claim I have "made up", it is a real experience of perceptions of internal organs and health, so it is not as uncomplicated as the other claims you often see are.

It is a real experience which you think perceived internal organs. Whether you actually did or not is what you should be testing. Because it could simply be all in your rather over-active imagination...

Why are you starting the test with the presumption that your perceptions reflect external reality, rather than making this assumption the subject of the test?

Serious question: have you read any of the rather extensive literature on how human memory works? Are you familiar with the dozens of studies which demonstrate quite conclusively that memories that seem vivid and real can be false, or imagined?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Not at all, Anita.

You have yourself, in this very thread, asserted (without evidence) that you "really really" saw Dr Carlson's kidney, and that the result of the IIG test would not dissuade you of that notion. You have also refused even to consider, let alone attempt to test, the possibility that you were mistaken.

As I have read your posts, you see the IIG test as an investigation of the efficacy of your powers, not their existence or indeed veracity. In other words, if you fail, as you yourself said " It means that the medical perceptions are not consistently accurate", and not that they don't exist in any sense other than the imaginary. Do I have that right?

The problem is, that I absolutely did detect the missing left kidney. That is why we are arguing, because, understandably, it should not be possible. But it happened. I wish I could say that there was a possibility that it might involve a false memory, or that it might have been just one vague perception among many and one that happened to get confirmation afterwards, but based on what actually happened, this particular experience is very compelling.

I fully understand that we have to consider the possibility of false memory, or also for instance that I would have made many vague perceptions and that this one happened to get confirmation afterwards so I would have chosen it among many others. But I am so very sorry to say, that this was one of the clearest and most compelling experiences of the perceptions, and I absolutely did detect it during the reading, not after.

If I fail the Preliminary, it proves that the perceptions are not based on a paranormal ability of extrasensory perception. The reason it seems to you that I might be denying that fact, is because even if I fail the Preliminary, the perceptions will continue to occur as always, because they are an automatic experience, and also many of the perceptions will continue to be accurate, because of chance or because they might be based on unintentional reading of external symptoms. However, the paranormal claim will be falsified, and the perceptions will not be a paranormal experience.

 

[pakeha]

Sorry to have been so misleading, VisionFromFeeling.
What sends up alarms to me isn't just the 'att. treatment' denomination in itself, it's the latching it onto the IIG informal demonstration in California. I see this is typical of a budding 'scammer', to cash in on the publicity generated by the IIG informal demonstration to carry on a sideshow parallel activity of att. treatments.
If I've understood the att. treatment correctly, it involves a light massage, 'perceptions' and energy (nameless?).
Do check out the laws about massage in California, just to be on the safe side.

My bolding

You people are too suspicious for your own good, it is clouding your judgement! You are making all these accusations against me that are based on prejudice against paranormal claimants and that are all entirely inaccurate in my case! ...

Well, no. Benjamin Franklin tells me otherwise. And so do those ghosts of the Revolutionary Army.

 

[Moochie]

I looked in the fridge today and detected a missing kidney. It was there on Thursday, and I know I didn't eat it. I think I'll have the fridge tested.


M.

 

[Marcus]

You guys raise some good points, but now that the test is scheduled, I don't see the point in trying to persuade Anita to back out. All paranormal tests are in the end a waste of time, but is that assumption of a tiny but non-zero probability that makes the whole thing interesting. The test won't be conclusive, but I still see two possible outcomes:

A) She passes the test. None of us are convinced, but it makes things interesting, and the way is paved for the MDC.

B) She fails the test and (hopefully) concedes that she doesn't have the claimed power. She participates in a discussion of possible mundane explanations. Come on now, it could happen.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I am not confused. I understand your claim very well. What you should be testing is whether or not these "perceptions" have any relation to the real world at all, whether or not they are all in your imagination, and whether or not they are purely psychological. This is what you should be testing, but you're not. You're happy, as your following sentence shows, to simply assume that your perceptions reflect an external truth and then to examine how effective they are, rather than test the truth of your perceptions in the first place.

The problem is that the perceptions are not that simple. If I fail the Preliminary or test, it proves that the perceptions are not a paranormal ability, because the perceptions can not perceive information that can't be detected by ordinary senses of perception and to do so consistently to an extent that exceeds what can be acchieved by guessing. The problem is, the perceptions continue to occur, and many of them continue to be accurate. Just that they will not be a paranormal ability, and that their accuracy is not reliable.

The perceptions have already proven to have relation to the real world. But that does not mean they are a paranormal ability. A lot of health information could be derived by external symptoms. The thing is, you are asking me to confirm that failing the Preliminary means that the perceptions have no basis in reality, but they already do. The question is instead, are they based on reality in cases of detecting information that could only be detected by paranormal extrasensory means.

You are expecting the perceptions to be either "all inaccurate" or "all accurate", but it is not that simple. Many will continue to be accurate even if I fail the Preliminary.

How do you know? This is what you should be testing. A negative result in the IIG test will strognly suggest that you did not, in fact, detect a kidney. Maybe you thought you did, or (more likely) have convinced yourself after the fact that you did.

No! I did detect the missing kidney in Dr. Carlson! I absolutely know that and that is why nothing can change that! And I have no idea what failing the Preliminary would say about how that happened.

If you fail, thisis the claim that will suffer the most, and you simply don't seem to want to accept that. You need to if this test is to have any utility at all. The claim you are testing - should be tetsing - is whether or not you really can see kidneys in the first place, not simply how regularly this feat can be achieved.

I detected the missing kidney in Dr. Carlson. I am so sorry about that, because it is provocative.

I have read every single post you've made on this forum.

And that is a paranormal claim in itself! Phew!

You have never even once provided any evidence even of a lucky guess. You have been consistently wrong. Over and over again.

With the medical perceptions claim? I don't know about that.

It is a real experience which you think perceived internal organs. Whether you actually did or not is what you should be testing. Because it could simply be all in your rather over-active imagination...

I detected the kidney. Sorry.

Why are you starting the test with the presumption that your perceptions reflect external reality, rather than making this assumption the subject of the test?

I've had one experience of accurately perceiving that a kidney was missing. The test will show whether I can do that consistently or not. I did detect it in Dr. Carlson and it was not a false memory.

Serious question: have you read any of the rather extensive literature on how human memory works? Are you familiar with the dozens of studies which demonstrate quite conclusively that memories that seem vivid and real can be false, or imagined?

The detection of the missing kidney was not a false memory.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sorry to have been so misleading, VisionFromFeeling.
What sends up alarms to me isn't just the 'att. treatment' denomination in itself, it's the latching it onto the IIG informal demonstration in California. I see this is typical of a budding 'scammer', to cash in on the publicity generated by the IIG informal demonstration to carry on a sideshow parallel activity of att. treatments.

Nothing of the sort. I am simply hoping to falsify two paranormal claims in one weekend. I did find a Skeptic who has migraines in North Carolina, but he/she did not want to participate. So I thought, since I am going out of state, whether there might be a Skeptic with migraines in Los Angeles, and what do you know, there is! I'm just wanting to falsify some claims. You are too suspicious and biased. I happen to be a science student and a Skeptic who has these experiences, and I am working to falsify those claims. I guess time will tell and you will see what happens and whether that confirms your suspicions or not. I can only tell you what I am in fact going to do and why I am doing those things, and you can continue disbelieving me all you want, but that does not make you a good Skeptic, because your suspicions are wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

Just like the dowsers you apply critical thinking to, you have no justification to say you detected anything until you demonstrate otherwise under repeatable rigorous tests. For now the most parsimonious explanation is that you took a punt based on a feeling and got lucky.

Actually it was much simpler than that. Dr. Carlson told her he had a missing kidney, and after he told her that she said, "Aha! I knew it!"

 

[desertgal]

Another one for VfF to ignore...

Nothing of the sort. I am simply hoping to falsify two paranormal claims in one weekend. I did find a Skeptic who has migraines in North Carolina, but he/she did not want to participate. So I thought, since I am going out of state, whether there might be a Skeptic with migraines in Los Angeles, and what do you know, there is! I'm just wanting to falsify some claims. You are too suspicious and biased. I happen to be a science student and a Skeptic who has these experiences, and I am working to falsify those claims. I guess time will tell and you will see what happens and whether that confirms your suspicions or not. I can only tell you what I am in fact going to do and why I am doing those things, and you can continue disbelieving me all you want, but that does not make you a good Skeptic, because your suspicions are wrong.

How are you going to falsify the migraine claim in one weekend? In order to falsify it, there needs to be evidence that your 'treatment' didn't reduce or eliminate future migraines. You're not going to be able to produce that data instantly. (Not that you ever have actually produced conclusive data, but there might be a first time.)

 

[GeeMack]

The problem is, that I absolutely did detect the missing left kidney. That is why we are arguing, because, understandably, it should not be possible. But it happened. I wish I could say that there was a possibility that it might involve a false memory, [...]

It doesn't seem likely that your ignoring these questions the few times I've asked and the several times desertgal asked is a simple oversight, but just in case it was an honest mistake, I'll ask again... Yes or no, do you have the professional expertise to make that assessment? Yes or no, have you had an assessment made by a professional who does have the expertise to determine that?

 

[pakeha]

...

I am simply hoping to falsify two paranormal claims in one weekend.

Come, come, VisionFromFeeling. The 'periodic' nature of the migraine condition has been posted up here enough times for everyone to see just how unlikely it is that one weekend's treatment would falsify or verify any sort of treatment, att. or otherwise for migraines.
Who are you trying to fool with such a statement?

I did find a Skeptic who has migraines in North Carolina, but he/she did not want to participate. So I thought, since I am going out of state, whether there might be a Skeptic with migraines in Los Angeles, and what do you know, there is! I'm just wanting to falsify some claims. You are too suspicious and biased. I happen to be a science student and a Skeptic who has these experiences, and I am working to falsify those claims.

Please be cautious with the laws and their applications in California. Since you know migraines to be periodical or cyclic in their manifestations and 'disappearance' do you really think it appropriate to do 'att. treatments' on such a publicised journey?
Do you really not see this takes away seriousness from you and your claim?

I guess time will tell and you will see what happens and whether that confirms your suspicions or not. I can only tell you what I am in fact going to do and why I am doing those things, and you can continue disbelieving me all you want, but that does not make you a good Skeptic, because your suspicions are wrong.

As you say, and so have I, 21 November 2009 will come and go.
And so say the Revolutionary Army ghosts.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I did detect the missing left kidney during the reading and it was not a false memory constructed afterwards. Also, one might argue whether it was one of many vague perceptions that I've latched onto, since it happened to be confirmed afterwards, but that is also not the case. Here it is again:

I was doing a reading with Dr. Carlson as the volunteer. It was part of the study of my claim in which I was trying out new conditions to find out what test conditions my claim could agree to, and also to gain more experience with doing readings and with checking for their accuracy. I was using a questionnaire that listed almost 100 different types of health information. Missing kidney was not listed among those.

I begun with the first ailment that was listed. And what I do, is, I construct in my mind how I know from past experience that that ailment feels like when I feel it in a body. I then look at the person and feel the vibrational landscape that I feel across the body. I need to look at the person with my eyes in order to locate or access the vibrational information, or perhaps that is how I pick up external symptoms who knows. It only takes two seconds for me to feel the vibrational information. I then superimpose the vibrational information of the ailment that I have constructed in my mind, with the vibrational information that I am feeling of the person, and both see and feel how those vibrations interact with each other. If there is no match, the vibration of the ailment is repelled and turned away from the vibration of the person. If there is a match, they blend together.

I feel the vibrational information in my mind as a shape or a landscape, but I also see it. It is visual, but it is also a feeling at the same time. If there is a match, or "resonance", I can then see and feel where on the body that ailment is. I was doing this with one ailment at a time, and it was becoming very tedious and boring. So I chose to do a head-to-toe reading instead and put the questionnaire aside.

In a head-to-toe reading, I am not looking for anything in particular and am not working to match the vibrational aspect of an ailment with the person. Instead I simply feel the vibration of the entire person, starting from the head and working my way down to the feet, which is why I call it a head-to-toe reading. I can construct a perception of the entire body all at once, but it is better to go through one part of the body at a time so that I can focus on an area at a time.

So, I was looking through Dr. Carlson. And the first thing I notice, and I don't think he would mind me sharing that, is that the frontal lobe of his brain in the forehead is very active. But after all, the man is a Quantum Physicist. I actually wrote that down and told him after the reading.

Once I reached his back, I stopped there. It was like looking at a balance scale where one end is heavily tipped to the table and the other is empty, and at the same time like feeling the balance scale and how one side is very heavy and the other is light and empty. Imagine feeling a two-pound weight on one side and nothing on the other. It also forms a vibrational perception. There was a very distinct emptiness on the left side. I had never perceived such a thing in a person before.

On the right side, was this feeling of heavy, dense, and dark, and on the left side this was not there. I made my mind blank and started again to see if I would perceive it again. I did this many times, and every time I did this, it was there again.

It was not some vague or subtle perception. It was very strong and compelling.

I then looked at Dr. Carlson with plain eyesight and applied my logic. I did not have a lot of knowledge about kidney removal. So I looked at him and thought that he looked far too healthy to have a kidney disease. People on television who have kidney problems often don't look healthy, but Dr. Carlson looks very healthy - I don't think he minds if I say that. My logic was telling me that it can't be true, he does not have a kidney disease. I then perceived into the one kidney that I did detect, and confirmed that way that that kidney did not have a disease in it and so the left kidney would have been just as healthy and not have had to been removed.

Kidney donors did not cross my mind. I also did not know that some people are born without a kidney. Logic was telling me it has to be wrong. I thought about all the correct perceptions I had had in the past, and how those were entitled to a test. And if I wrote down that he is missing a left kidney, it would be incorrect, and I would never hear the end of it, and I would not get to have a paranormal test, and my past accurate and unexplainable perceptions would never get the test they are entitled to, and I would have to be left wondering about them for the rest of my life.

But the perception that the left kidney was missing was absolutely compelling. It is just like if you were to hold a two-pound weight in your right hand and not in your left. There was also the dark color of the kidney on the right side, and no such color on the left side. There was also the dense tissue on the right side, and no such dense tissue on the left side. It was the strongest, clearest, most compelling perception of something on the inside of a body I have ever had, because a missing kidney is just that obvious. But my logic was telling me it must be wrong.

My logic and the perceptions are not the same thing. The perceptions often defy logic, but then again they turn out to be accurate in such cases where logic could never let you deduce that information.

I was done with my reading, but I sat there for several more minutes, just looking at him and having the clearest perception that the left kidney is not there. I held the pen against the paper, ready to write in "missing left kidney" on the questionnaire. My logic and my perception were fighting with each other and I was debating for a long time. But logic said that it has to be wrong, because he does not have a kidney disease and he is far too young to have had a kidney removed, and my past accurate perceptions were entitled to a test. I would not write it down, and I would find out that this perception was inaccurate.

So I did not write it down and handed in the paper and Dr. Carlson tells us that he has donated his left kidney. I wanted to kick myself, but I said nothing. No one was going to believe me anyway. But it convinced me then, more than anything, that there is something to the perceptions and that I need to have a paranormal test.

This is not a false memory. And I am sorry that this happened.