Vision From Feeling - Results from 'study'

[chillzero]

Thread placed on moderated status. Stay on topic, and stop personalising the discussion. Keep it civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Soapy Sam]

I did wonder how long it would take for a moderator to restrict this thread.

To spare my old brain the trauma of reading the whole thing, could some kind soul give us a precis of the story to date?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And again...

Dearest GeeMack,
You and I have been posting the same stuff back and forth between one another for several thread pages now. Since we are still doing it, I'll just do it here this time to spare everyone else. It will of course be the exact same content, just like your posts on the thread are also always the very same content.

I sincerely experience medical perceptions, and I really have experienced compelling correlation in the past. I already know I have no formal evidence so far, except for a successful reading with Wayne in which I failed to produce any inaccurate medical perceptions in spite of me having full belief and assumption that the man would have a long list of ailments I found none.

I am working toward the study and the test. I now have to wait until Thursday again before I can recruit some participants from the FACT Skeptics group. If I am there unable to find participants I will approach college students who are also a somewhat credible group of people, and then the study will take place.

And after the study the test can be designed based on what was learned in the study. So there.

Skeptics' impatience, or their refusal to acknowledge that I am sincere and doing my best.
Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

Love,
VFF

*You may of course post any or all excerpts of this PM on the thread. In fact I might.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, please stop trying to convince us with words. We've heard it all before - several times, in fact. The repetition is only creating frustration. Quite frankly, I am tired of pointing out the same old contradictions. What do you have that's new?

You have been told repeatedly that your "study" is useless. The FACT group will not work with it. We here have repeatedly said we don't believe it is useful in the least. For whatever reason, you think it is useful to you personally. Fine. What are you going to do for us? What steps are you planning to take to convince us - you know, the people you contacted - that you have some sort of ability worthy of investigation? Please just give us concrete steps. Nothing you have done so far is worthy of consideration, so don't bring it up.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

(snip) I hold great respect for people's integrity. I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information. It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

bolding added


You got enough medical training to be a practical nurse, and you have three years of experience in the field; but you don't think you have enough medical background to have fairly accurate guesses based upon subtle behavioral and appearance symptoms? Oh, and you said you didn't know how vasectomies were done, and didn't know that antibiotics were used to treat stomach ulcers, and...I'm sorry, Anita, but I just don't buy it.

You need to seriously consider the non-mystical, non-supernatural explanations for your "hits". Given your (now mentioned, but not discussed previously) extensive medical background, I think that you can no longer use anyone who has attended multiple skeptic meetings with you as subjects. You've had too much time to observe them--to see sore places being stretched or rubbed, skin color changes, eating or drinking habits, etc. --even if you are not consciously noting these things.

I would expect someone with enough medical background to be able to spot a lot of medical issues that a layman couldn't; in fact, I'd think someone who didn't was a pretty bad nurse.

One vote for self-deception and/or deliberate deception.

MK

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You got enough medical training to be a practical nurse, and you have three years of experience in the field; but you don't think you have enough medical background to have fairly accurate guesses based upon subtle behavioral and appearance symptoms?

Of course I acknowledge cold reading as well as skill in understanding medical symptoms! I have stated even from the very start when I sent off my very first protocol suggestion to the IIG some 20 months ago that we should have two doctors present with me at the test so that they can make note of what ailments they think are obvious at the time of the test to someone with a medical background so that those particular ailments can be disregarded on a test, just in case a paranormal claimant on a test such as this would draw from a knowledge of medical symptoms. I definitely consider this and I include it in all test design.

Oh, and you said you didn't know how vasectomies were done, and didn't know that antibiotics were used to treat stomach ulcers, and...I'm sorry, Anita, but I just don't buy it.

My knowledge of health is not complete. I did not know that vasectomies involved the removal of tissue, I had been under the assumption that they are an incision. To become a practical nurse in Sweden you are not required to have any educational background in health care, but you do learn a lot as you work and are also given continuous training in various related topics. The test I will take will definitely be such that not even a doctor of medicine who specializes in reading external symptoms could get a passing score, one where only the paranormal ability specified would. I understand that you might not trust me, the claimant, but do have faith in those who will design and watch over the test.

You need to seriously consider the non-mystical, non-supernatural explanations for your "hits".

I have, and I do. But I don't know why I detected cysts of the reproductive system, Lactobacillus supplement in the stomach, what people feel from inside their body, and much other supposedly non-detectable health information. You don't have to believe in my anecdotal past experiences. At least accept that I believe that it all took place as described, and so the fact that I am doing this investigation should seem a little easier to tolerate.

Given your (now mentioned, but not discussed previously) extensive medical background,

VisionFromFeeling to Miss_Kitt on 16th December 2008:

I worked at nursing homes for three years, as a practical nurse.

*And check my answers to how I didn't know what specific procedure a vasectomy involved also answered in that post.

I think that you can no longer use anyone who has attended multiple skeptic meetings with you as subjects.

I accept that. I am however working on having them as participants in the test, which involves handling the questionnaires and arranging the volunteers (who I look at and form medical perceptions from) so that I not see them prior to the viewing. I am recruiting skeptics for administrative assignments in the study.

You've had too much time to observe them--to see sore places being stretched or rubbed, skin color changes, eating or drinking habits, etc. --even if you are not consciously noting these things.

And I am aware of that. (... Dr. Carlson always remembers to eat a salad. So he couldn't possibly have Alzheimer's disease...)

I would expect someone with enough medical background to be able to spot a lot of medical issues that a layman couldn't; in fact, I'd think someone who didn't was a pretty bad nurse.

Of course, and I know that. That is why I am implementing this in test design. However I am interested in whether I am detecting health information that is not considered to be detectable by external means. Such as... that a person recently took a very large dose of Lactobacillus and hadn't previously. Or that a person feels a tingle in the top of their bladder before they have to go to the bathroom. I see and feel all kinds of things that I shouldn't. And so far, always with correlation with a person's own description of their health and their body.

One vote for self-deception and/or deliberate deception.

And you receive one vote each for jumping into conclusions, forgetting that this was in fact discussed earlier, and for concluding that your proposed issues have foundation when in fact they don't and before awaiting the response from the accused. (4 points)

 

[Gmonster2]

The weekend is over whats the results of your crystal test?

Have you once a gain failed to deliver?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Of course I acknowledge cold reading as well as skill in understanding medical symptoms! I have stated even from the very start when I sent off my very first protocol suggestion to the IIG some 20 months ago that we should have two doctors present with me at the test so that they can make note of what ailments they think are obvious at the time of the test to someone with a medical background so that those particular ailments can be disregarded on a test, just in case a paranormal claimant on a test such as this would draw from a knowledge of medical symptoms. I definitely consider this and I include it in all test design.

You don't get it. The time to consider visual cues was long before you ever even considered applying for the IIG $50,000 challenge. Including a medical expert in your test protocol, which was never workable anyway, is not proof that you considered this a potential explanation for your imagery. It really says you were confident enough that you could do better than medical professionals.

Even your recent survey notes indicate visual cues. A 50+ year old man might have heart disease? Shocking! A 20-something dressed like a punk rocker might have some ear damage from loud music sounds? An elderly woman with a urination issue? A five year old kid with a runny nose? A 65 year old woman with thinning bones?

If you gave serious consideration to visual cues, you wouldn't be avoiding real tests and embarking on this "study" to "learn more" about how your ability works.

Specifically, what steps are you willing to take to eliminate the obvious?

Of course, and I know that. That is why I am implementing this in test design.

Actually, you have repeatedly stated that it is not a test but a study. Are you now willing to embark on an actual test? Please clarify.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Blah. I've perceived plenty of accurate health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception or by cold reading clues. And that's why I'm doing the investigation. Not because I saw that an older woman had severe osteoporosis. But because I saw in a person's stomach an amount of Lactobacillus corresponding to taking supplements of it. A test will not allow external symptoms to be the cause of acchieved accuracy. You'll just have to see what happens and what the final test design will be like. Descriptions don't suffice around here.

Patience please! I'm_working_on_it^TM.

 

[JPK]

Good morning VisionFromFeeling.

I have been following these threads for a while and wonder why you don't try a test that is a bit more simple. I've read that you claim to be able to
see the differance between CO2 and other gases. Wouldn't this be a pretty easy test to try with some clear vessels containing differant gases?

Perhaps this has been suggested but I missed it somewhere. Maybe there is a reason why this would not work for you.

JPK

 

[Uncayimmy]

Blah. I've perceived plenty of accurate health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception or by cold reading clues. And that's why I'm doing the investigation. Not because I saw that an older woman had severe osteoporosis. But because I saw in a person's stomach an amount of Lactobacillus corresponding to taking supplements of it. A test will not allow external symptoms to be the cause of acchieved accuracy. You'll just have to see what happens and what the final test design will be like. Descriptions don't suffice around here.

Patience please! I'm_working_on_it^TM.

Blah is right. It's the same old song and dance. Once again, please spare us the rationalization and answer the specific questions.

Are you now willing to embark on an actual test that can be used to falsify your claim and bring this to a halt?

 

[Sasha]

What is so unbelievably unacceptable about the claim of perceiving automatic and involuntary images of tissue when looking at a body? Heck, some most guys'll look at a woman and get automatic and involuntary images of what her surface looks like. I just go deeper than that. (Note: It is not the same thing. I'm just joking. Besides, just in case someone is wondering - and I'm sure some of you are - I mostly look at the liver, heart, prostate and lungs in men. And *nothing else*. )

But I can, if I sense a health problem. You know how some people have aluminum hats to keep others from reading their thoughts telepathically. I bet I'll have people wearing aluminum underwear now.

I hold great respect for people's integrity. I do see, feel, and detect plenty of personal health information. It doesn't bother me, and after working three years as a practical nurse I do regard myself as health care staff so it all takes place in a most professional manner and mind-set.

I wonder if you could explain this post a little better - are you saying that if you wanted to you could look at only the surface of someone or that your supposed vision goes automatically to the tissues, organs, etc.?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I wonder if you could explain this post a little better - are you saying that if you wanted to you could look at only the surface of someone or that your supposed vision goes automatically to the tissues, organs, etc.?

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind. Some Skeptics are saying that this sounds like mental illness or delusion, or that I am lying about it or conducting a scam. So I gave an everyday example that many non-paranormal-claimants could relate to, that often when when see a woman it automatically forms images in their mind of what a woman might look like undressed. So I was saying that it shouldn't seem so strange when a person is claiming to form automatic images of a person's body just by looking at the person. Many people experience this all the time.

So that was the point.

However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around".

Alright, so if a person thinks that they can experience forming visual and felt images of other persons' bodies according to my claim, do I use this a lot? When do I choose to do this? And what on earth do I choose to look at? At times when I'm bored I can spend time looking into people's bodies, just like some of us like to just look at the clouds drifting by. It is a good pass-time. Normally on a day-to-day basis my attention is occupied by other things so it is not something that I get to experience at all times. I used it today when a boy came to Calculus class and said to the teacher that he was sick and couldn't take the exam that we were about to have. So I took a quick look and a quick feel to check his honesty.

When I do look at people, I most always go for the liver, heart and lungs and then the digestive system. These are common problem areas for adult males and females. If I have time I check the female internal reproductive parts for inflammation, cysts or other complications, and the male prostate to check its size as well as the extent of dilation of the blood vessels around it and also the temperature. If I have more time I often go for the head. There is a lot to look at.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I wonder if you could explain this post a little better - are you saying that if you wanted to you could look at only the surface of someone or that your supposed vision goes automatically to the tissues, organs, etc.?

VFF has actually answered this in great detail what we used to refer to as the Moderated Thread. It has quite a bit of detailed information regarding her alleged abilities. This post I link to below answers your question specifically.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4309118#post4309118

The strong perceptions that come on their own last as long as I look at the person, and once I no longer look at the person they are gone immediately. So their duration depends on for how long I see the person.

The perceptions that form due to my choice to look closer, last for as long as I choose to keep my attention on them. I can continue to have access to the "downloaded" vibrational information even after the person leaves or I'm looking away or my eyes are closed.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around".

Alright, so if a person thinks that they can experience forming visual and felt images of other persons' bodies according to my claim, do I use this a lot? When do I choose to do this? And what on earth do I choose to look at? At times when I'm bored I can spend time looking into people's bodies, just like some of us like to just look at the clouds drifting by. It is a good pass-time. Normally on a day-to-day basis my attention is occupied by other things so it is not something that I get to experience at all times. I used it today when a boy came to Calculus class and said to the teacher that he was sick and couldn't take the exam that we were about to have. So I took a quick look and a quick feel to check his honesty.

When I do look at people, I most always go for the liver, heart and lungs and then the digestive system. These are common problem areas for adult males and females. If I have time I check the female internal reproductive parts for inflammation, cysts or other complications, and the male prostate to check its size as well as the extent of dilation of the blood vessels around it and also the temperature. If I have more time I often go for the head. There is a lot to look at.

That would be so easy to test. Why not try it?

 

[Kariboo]

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind.

I don't have a hard time believing that you form an image. I have a problem believing that that image would reflect what that person actually looks like, inside or out.

I can imagine all kinds of stuff about someones body, but you claim that you can see things that are really in or on that person (via paranormal means) and you are not just imagining what someone looks like,

So, can you see moles under clothing. Easy enough to put into test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Several Skeptics here have a hard time accepting that the fact that when I see a person it forms images of their body automatically in my mind. Some Skeptics are saying that this sounds like mental illness or delusion, or that I am lying about it or conducting a scam. So I gave an everyday example that many non-paranormal-claimants could relate to, that often when when see a woman it automatically forms images in their mind of what a woman might look like undressed. So I was saying that it shouldn't seem so strange when a person is claiming to form automatic images of a person's body just by looking at the person. Many people experience this all the time.

Evidence? I, for one, have pictured many a woman naked. However, I have never done so involuntarily. No one has ever told me that they see images like that involuntarily.

Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around".

This, of course, assumes that there is a health problem, something which has never been demonstrated by you in a controlled setting or verified independently. I point this out because you speak in certainties when things are far from certain.

Once again, are you prepared to take the steps necessary to falsify your claim?

 

[Jozen-Bo]

This is an interesting read. It would be exciting to find evidence of the claim and I imagine it should be possible to derive a test for for. I think encouragement and insights will be far more fruitful then personal attacks and discouraging statements. We are trying to put together protocols here, isn't that what this place is about? I wish you the best of luck with your Thursday venture.


After following up on this thread I would say that we are not having the same senses active, though they may be functioning by use of some of the same sensing organs. For example, the eyes see, though they do no always see the same way (there is a big difference between low light vision and daytime vision). The tongue tastes, but it has regions devoted to tasting sweets, bitters, etc.


If your relying on senses to do this, which surely is the case given that you have to sense the information some way, then I may be able to provide a means to amplify those senses even more. I gather that it is used by sense of feel, is this correct? So or so, the means I speak of will amplify every sense you have, you will not see the same, smell the same, hear the same, taste the same (though taste is least affected...your appetite might change), and feel the same. All of these senses will be stronger then before, and when they are you find life to be a new and different experience from what it was.


Best Regards,
Jozen-Bo

 

[Sasha]

snip....

However, even though your specific question was not related to the post in question, yes if I wanted I could choose to look at a person only on the surface. I can choose what area of the body and how deep and also what magnification. Medical perceptions that appear on their own are usually at the most relevant place, depth and magnification to best show the health problem. But I can choose, and "look around".

So does this mean that when you examined Wayne for the FACT "study," you didn't choose to look at the surface of his body? Otherwise you would have seen his scar right? And if that is so, when you were involved in a study that could be very important to you, why wouldn't you examine every single facet of his surface and interior?

 

[Sasha]

VFF has actually answered this in great detail what we used to refer to as the Moderated Thread. It has quite a bit of detailed information regarding her alleged abilities. This post I link to below answers your question specifically.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4309118#post4309118

Thanks UY. What I was asking about specifically was her claim to have x-ray vision for the outer layer (skin suface) which I hadn't noticed before. I've been following this thread (and the others) from the beginning and still can't understand how, with all these wonderful powers, Wayne's scar was missed. I know, it's been discussed ad nauseum and VFF doesn't consider it a miss but my point is why, if she was serious about her study, did she choose not to look at his surface?

.....and why am I doing this?