Vision From Feeling

[Kuko 4000]

VFF, I think it's best if you arrange a good test with your local skeptics group while you wait for the IIG test. Make sure they test your strongest ability.

It seems to me that you just see colors. We have a way of connecting unrelated things.

All the best to your tests, keep us posted!

Kuko

 

[Locknar]

I would find myself in chemical identification tests where I am forced to guess when the ability fails to kick in. I do not always sense colors from chemicals, but when I do it has been accurate.

In other words, you claim to be accurate except when your "power" fails to "kick in" and you are wrong.....typical "woo woo" cop-out. Words fail me at this point.

 

[desertgal]

My claim is to detect health information in people that I see and information that is specific and detailed and that should not be detectable by ordinary perception! Everyone: stop making a big deal about cereal, chemicals, and pictures - those are not my claim....The claim I wish to have tested is on medical information.

Fine. And when that is tested, we trust you will post the results.

But, you have freely discussed "cereal, chemicals, and pictures" in this thread. You participated for several pages. You gave yourself a self test with the cereal. You were informally tested on the chemicals via webcam, and responded to a another informal test with pictures.

Now, suddenly, after actively participating in discussing those subjects at some length, you want discussions on those subjects to immediately cease, and you are getting mad because other people are still discussing them? If you didn't want to discuss those subjects because they weren't a part of the claim you want tested - why did you?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I know this sounds like excuses, yet that is another reason why I will not have a test on pictures. I rarely detect information from pictures, and not to a reliably high frequency to enable a test.

If you knew that looking at pictures was not reliable - why bring it up and start asking for pictures...

Do you understand that there is no way a photograph, ( or any other video/film image ) much less an electronic reproduction, can contain any information whatsoever about the atomic structure of the objects and subjects in the image ?

If you believe you are detecting such information, it is purely your imagination.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I will not post this on my observations page. If I'd met you in person and had made perceptions that I felt confident in, I would add it to my observations.

Well, Anita, I call party foul. You posted the observation that some guy had to pee. Before that time did you have complete confidence in your ability to detect a full bladder? Besides, we have no idea if the incident really happened as claimed (or at all).

Our little test is the very best you have in terms of reliable data.

You claim to have done observations before via photos. You claim to detect ailments on TV. You solicited volunteers. I volunteered. You did not claim that you could see nothing - you actually gave your observations, which were not guesses (you say you won't guess).

You have no basis whatsoever to not includes this in your observations. Granted, it's your website, but if you don't post links to this test, you will lose a lot of respect from me and probably others reading this.

My claim is to detect information from people in life.

That's just one of your claims. You repeatedly made the claims about pictures and TV. You solicited volunteers.

And I also mentioned that...Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards...

Like I said, this is a common tactic of charlatans. You say that it is not permissible, but then you proceed to go ahead and do it anyway. It is NOT permissible, so don't do it. It makes it seem like you were more accurate than you were. That's why charlatans do it.

Why would you even mention that you sensed it but chose not to mention it? To those who are critical thinkers it indicates one or more of the following:

* You're not being forthright in giving your observations and are therefore unreliable as a test subect.
* You're making up stuff to take the sting out of being wrong.
* You're stupid.

And nowhere did I say it was a hit.

Maybe it's a language/culture thing. You wrote, "As I said the elbow joint is unaffected." Why would you point this out if not in an attempt to claim some sort of credit?

Please try to remember who you are dealing with here. Most of us have seen numerous people try and fail with various claims as extraordinary as yours (and some ever more so). We've dissected the tricks employed by psychics to fool people into believing.

You are exhibiting many of those same tactics.

Uri Geller had a limited set of tricks he could perform. He claimed to have psychic powers that could bend metal. Of course, he was doing it by sleight of hand and needed the right metal and the right circumstances to do the trick.

Of course, sometimes he got the wrong type of metal and couldn't bend it without attracting attention. You know what he did? He claimed that his powers were unreliable, which he offered as proof that they were, in fact, real. After all, if it was a trick, he should always be able to do it, right?

Psychics who do cold readings often say vague things, then later try to turn them into hits:
"I'm sensing flowers. Maybe somebody handing you flowers..."
"Is it my husband?"
"Yes, yes! Your husband is giving you flowers. They seem white or maybe red."
"Roses! My husband loves to give me roses!"
"See? My vision of your husband giving you roses proves my ability!"

Please don't behave like these people.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
In that particular case it was not at will, the information was automatic and I made no effort.

"at will": as one chooses.

Of course it was at will. The woman handed you a picture, asked you about the health of her daughter, you took the picture, looked at it, and reached your conclusion.

You chose to do that. It certainly wasn't involuntary.

Look, at this point, like as UncaYimmy said earlier, I don't believe you are being deliberately deceptive here, although I do believe you are self-deceptive. If you manage to put together a test, I wish you luck. I'll be interested to see the results.

 

[Uncayimmy]

"at will": as one chooses.

Of course it was at will. The woman handed you a picture, asked you about the health of her daughter, you took the picture, looked at it, and reached your conclusion.

You chose to do that. It certainly wasn't involuntary.

For me, reading a sign is involuntary. Recognizing someone's voice is involuntary. But it has to be easily accomplished. By that I mean if the sign is far away or the voice is not one I immediately recognize, then I have to expend effort to do it or it won't happen. And sometimes I fail.

I think that's what she's driving at. Of course, you are correct that I choose to look at the sign or hear a voice in the sense that I could avoid it. But the recognition happens automatically without conscious effort.

I think she looked at the photo and BAM! recognized something as opposed to mulling it over and trying to recognize something.

Look, at this point, like as UncaYimmy said earlier, I don't believe you are being deliberately deceptive here, although I do believe you are self-deceptive.

We all pick and choose our battles. In this case I think Anita (VFF) has the window cracked just enough to allow herself to be shown that her abilities are not what they think they are. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.

I just wish she would recognize (or admit) just how extraordinary her claims are and how her behavior is looking more and more like she's unwilling to approach it dispassionately.

 

[Normal Dude]

I quit this thread at page four. Has there been a proper test yet? I'm guessing no.

 

[volatile]

Confirmation bias, and some bad cold reading.

Same old, same old.

 

[nathan]

My predictions

* Anita's tests to date have systematic errors

* Anita will be just as good at predicting medical predictions of a person by examining photographs of a different person of similar age and gender as she is by examining a photograph of the person in question.

* Anita will not conduct a properly blinded experiment before May 1st 2009.

 

[Skeptic]

Because I was interested in finding out whether I could do this under those conditions or not, and now I know that I can not.

Well, THAT is certainly a first from a self-proclaimed psychic, to realize that he doesn't have as much "powers" as they think they've had.

 

[Ocelot]

Looking forward to the results of yopur next test. I assume that'll be another lactobacillus cereal test. When should I expect to see something?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I would be interested in hearing whether VFF sees anything unusual about this little girl (other than the naso-gastric feeding tube you can just see in the picture). If you don't see anything unusual or you are not confident, don't make a guess. But if you do see something, be specific as to what you see.

 

[desertgal]

I think that's what she's driving at. Of course, you are correct that I choose to look at the sign or hear a voice in the sense that I could avoid it. But the recognition happens automatically without conscious effort.

Point taken. I'm sorry, VfF, if I misunderstood what you meant.

I just wish she would recognize (or admit) just how extraordinary her claims are and how her behavior is looking more and more like she's unwilling to approach it dispassionately.

However, if she is practicing self deception, it might not be possible for her to do that.

Believe me, I'm not intending to "attack" her, even if it does seem that way. I am just mystified as to the purpose of this thread. To come to a skeptic's Internet forum and make fantastic claims without any evidence to back them up is, to me, not the way to find accurate critical analysis. The alleged ability cannot be tested over the Internet with true accuracy, and, in the end, you have what you have here - talking in circles. It makes far more sense, to me, to either do as she is proposing and address a skeptic's society in person and stand up to a real life test, or complete a thorough test and then present the alleged ability and the findings to skeptics.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to thread "Another 'psychic' giving medical advice -Mary Occhino":

From thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130245
Locknar:

Because that is how the ability works. Meet with me and see what I say about your health, and then you can decide first of all whether I was correct or incorrect, and secondly you can decide whether the information should have been available to ordinary perception. I detect plenty of information that is not supposed to be available to ordinary perception and is verified as being accurate, including information such as having reproductive cysts, having had a vasectomy, having ingested a specific brand of bacterial supplement, or that of having a diagnosed problem with the gastric sphincter not closing properly.

Oddly enough that is exactly the way cold reading works; I'm shocked!

Not necessarily cold reading, we don't know that yet. How does cold reading lead to detecting reproductive cysts? Vasectomy? Bacteria? We can only rightfully speculate and conclude on the source of the accurate information after we have some test results at hand. I am hoping to arrange for some simpler and therefore sooner tests with a local skeptics group, who can verify the results and offer evidence for how I performed.

For someone who has "not concluded one way or the other yet" interesting that you state your claims as established fact.

I did not intend to state my claim as established fact one way or the other. Let's allow for a test to suggest whether it is the case of a paranormal or a normal ability that leads to the accurate information. I am open for either possibility and I hope you are too.

Questioninggeller:

The point here is you haven't proved it. You made a bunch of claims and now narrowed what you say you can do. It's not impressive. You have to understand that many psychics come to this forum with claims. They all promise to be the "one" to prove a paranormal ability. They all have failed or ran away from being tested. Now you come here and made a claim. Three people called you on it. The question is: If you are tested and fail, will you admit that you don't have the powers?

True, I have not been involved with other persons who could set up a test with me and offer evidence to support the accuracy of my readings. In the wait for a test with the Independent Investigations Group I have only been able to test myself by reading persons and asking them what my accuracy was (as seen on the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html). I have consistently stated that these accurate observations are not formal evidence, but that they are the reason why I have personally "failed to dismiss the possibility of having an extrasensory ability". Those tests of my own can not prove an ability, but had I failed them they would have indicated or even proven that there is no ability. I have now contacted local skeptics groups and am hoping to arrange some tests, whose results can be verified and posted as evidence for or against an ability. I am working on it!

I have found out that most of the non-medical aspects of the ability do not occur reliably often and are not suitable for a test. Including chemical detection, and medical diagnose through pictures and webcam. I have never expressed interest in testing these other aspects, but agreed to test them anyway and the results were as I expected: these other aspects do not perform under a test setting. And honestly even from a scientific standpoint, tests have not shown whether those other aspects of the perceptions do not exist or whether it is the case of they do not perform often enough to appear on a test. I have wanted to test an ability of medical diagnose with live people and that has not been done in a test setting yet. Hopefully a test of this soon with a local skeptics group will give one of two results: this ability is proven to not exist, or we again fail to dismiss the possibility of having an ability. The test need not be set up rigorously in order to have the test soon, so a positive result can not be taken as verification that there is an ability. But if there is no ability that could be established very easily.

I have never promised to be the one to prove a paranormal ability. I have consistently stated that I am here to find out, and that I am open for either possibility.

I have not yet failed a test that tests what my claim is: medical information from live persons. I have not run away from any such test nor will I. I would have it today if only I could.

Yes and absolutely. If I have a test and fail I admit that there is no ability. I have done so already on some of the other aspects of the perceptions. I have already admitted that I am unable to detect medical information to the required extent from pictures. Nor was that ever my claim. If a test shows that I do not have ESP for medical information in live persons I will admit it. The objective of the test is to find out, and I am open for either possibility.


don't need the million

have no real proof

(Creation by Paulhoff)

CFLarsen:

I'm confused.

If plenty of information that is not supposed to be available to ordinary perception can be perceived by psychic means, why is a physical meeting - or even a jerky web cam - needed?

This sounds eerily like how Natasha Demkina operates.

The gastric sphincter is not a valve.

I am still waiting for my diagnosis. What is wrong with me?

Well, perhaps the information that translates into medical information surrounds a person. Perhaps that information is vibrational in nature and its motion is not captured by a photography, nor is the quality of video good enough to transfer this delicate information in detail. We'll find out I'm sure! One professor suggested to me that I might be reading thermal information, which is heat patterns, which is vibrational information. This would have to be detected in person, and this would be the case of an extrasensory ability.

Your diagnose: What's wrong with you is that you can not accept that I have to meet you in person in order to attempt a psychic medical diagnose.
How far away are you from Charlotte, NC?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Perhaps that information is vibrational in nature and its motion is not captured by a photography, nor is the quality of video good enough to transfer this delicate information in detail.

Perhaps..

Then why do you claim you can interpret information from such sources ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

P.S.
What constitutes ' quality ' in regard to video ?

 

[Locknar]

Not necessarily cold reading, we don't know that yet. How does cold reading lead to detecting reproductive cysts? Vasectomy? Bacteria?

And you have done this...detected reproductive cysts, vasectomies, bacteria?

Oh wait...of course, there is the vast amount of proof you've provided us already, such as this:


The above is a quote is empty, just as the proof you've provided...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Kuko 4000:

VFF, I think it's best if you arrange a good test with your local skeptics group while you wait for the IIG test. Make sure they test your strongest ability.

In progress.

Locknar:

In other words, you claim to be accurate except when your "power" fails to "kick in" and you are wrong.....typical "woo woo" cop-out. Words fail me at this point.

The other aspects of my perceptions, such as colors from atoms, are perceptions that come on their own and I do not choose when. They do not occur frequently, and I have never expected them to be reliable enough to perform on a test. My claim is to detect medical information in live persons. Test results should be in eventually, I'm working on it. Luckily, medical information from live persons is very reliable, I always detect information, without effort, and best of all I always feel confident in the information so I can claim to believe in what I see, so that if the information is shown to be inaccurate I have shown that the ability is false and is not the case of ESP. It is a very testable claim, and I look forward to the tests.

desertgal:

Fine. And when that is tested, we trust you will post the results.

But, you have freely discussed "cereal, chemicals, and pictures" in this thread. You participated for several pages. You gave yourself a self test with the cereal. You were informally tested on the chemicals via webcam, and responded to a another informal test with pictures.

Now, suddenly, after actively participating in discussing those subjects at some length, you want discussions on those subjects to immediately cease, and you are getting mad because other people are still discussing them? If you didn't want to discuss those subjects because they weren't a part of the claim you want tested - why did you?

You can't have it both ways.

The results will be posted by myself, and also by the other persons who were involved in the test.

I have wanted to test these other aspects also, although they are not what my claim is. The other aspects such as chemical identification requires effort and I get headaches. I have no interest in testing the weaker aspects of the perceptions when there is one that I am comfortable with that doesn't fail me.

The cereal tests so far have had very good results, although nothing can be concluded yet.
To distinguish chemicals in beakers over webcam was never my specific claim or specific experience, I tested it and failed and so what.
I rarely detect anything from pictures and have only one experience of doing so. And thanks to UncaYimmy I've concluded that as I expected I can not perform on a test of medical information from pictures since the ability either does not work on that or the ability does work but does not perform reliably often so that its perceptions could be checked for accuracy.

I'm here to discuss my claim of possible ESP in medical diagnose from live persons.

Diogenes:

If you knew that looking at pictures was not reliable - why bring it up and start asking for pictures...

Just to have a try and to find out. And now we've found out. My claim never was and now won't be to detect medical information from pictures.

UncaYimmy:

Well, Anita, I call party foul. You posted the observation that some guy had to pee. Before that time did you have complete confidence in your ability to detect a full bladder? Besides, we have no idea if the incident really happened as claimed (or at all). Our little test is the very best you have in terms of reliable data. You claim to have done observations before via photos. You claim to detect ailments on TV. You solicited volunteers. I volunteered. You did not claim that you could see nothing - you actually gave your observations, which were not guesses (you say you won't guess). You have no basis whatsoever to not includes this in your observations. Granted, it's your website, but if you don't post links to this test, you will lose a lot of respect from me and probably others reading this.

Yes one of my "specialties" is to know when people have to pee. It is associated with such a strong and distinct feeling that the person perceives, and I am under the impression of perceiving what people are feeling. The incident happened as claimed, however I have no evidence for you. My past experiences however are evidence for me, since I was there, that have me fail to dismiss the possibility of extrasensory ability, and are the reason I continue. Seriously: if I found out from my own experiences that I don't have this ability, I'd not be here and I'd not be proceeding with this! I will stop as soon as evidence has me stop.

True, our test with the pictures is good evidence that I can not perform on request with pictures, and thank you for that. We have not determined that perceptions that appear on their own from pictures are incorrect, though. In our test I had to make the effort. This sounds like nonsense but let's leave it at that.

Together with my answer I stated that my confidence level was not what it is in real life experience. At least I know and conclude to still proceed toward a medical diagnose test with live subjects. I will definitely push myself and even guess on tests whose objective is to find out if I can perform. On a formal test I may not guess and must state that I am confident in my answers, and incorrect information will be evidence against an ESP ability.

I will not include this in my observations. I am working to test my claim on live persons and this was not such an experience. Also this was not automatic information but information obtained from effort that I was not confident in. All information on the observations page (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) was such that I was confident in, therefore their accuracy counts toward or against the credibility of the ability. Our test with the pictures will probably appear on a separate page on my website that explains the other aspects of the ability. Had I met with you in person the results would appear on the observations page.

That's just one of your claims. You repeatedly made the claims about pictures and TV. You solicited volunteers.

I have consistently stated that my perceptions are the strongest and most frequent from real life persons, and that pictures and TV are not as often or as clear. I have never wanted to test myself with pictures or TV.

Why would you even mention that you sensed it but chose not to mention it? To those who are critical thinkers it indicates one or more of the following:

* You're not being forthright in giving your observations and are therefore unreliable as a test subect.
* You're making up stuff to take the sting out of being wrong.
* You're stupid.

Well,

Disclaimer: Normally I only describe health information when it comes to me on its own, and most always from seeing the person in real life. In this case, it involves a forced attempt of detecting health information, as well as being through pictures. If I am incorrect, I will accept that I have made a false observation, but I will continue with the same motivation toward having a test on medical information which involves persons in real life.

I am not fully confident in this perception. If it is correct it can not provide evidence toward an ability, and if I am incorrect it can not disprove an ability. An official test will be done with persons seen in real life.

Maybe it's a language/culture thing. You wrote, "As I said the elbow joint is unaffected." Why would you point this out if not in an attempt to claim some sort of credit?

Because you made it sound as if I had stated that there was a problem with the elbow itself which was not what I had stated.

Please try to remember who you are dealing with here. Most of us have seen numerous people try and fail with various claims as extraordinary as yours (and some ever more so). We've dissected the tricks employed by psychics to fool people into believing.

My claim is medical diagnose from live persons. This was a test with pictures, I have not claimed to perform on demand with pictures, and it was shown that I do not perform on demand with pictures. All we found out from the picture test is what I have already said, and none of what my claims were have been trashed. Let's proceed toward tests with live persons.

You are exhibiting many of those same tactics.

Uri Geller had a limited set of tricks he could perform. He claimed to have psychic powers that could bend metal. Of course, he was doing it by sleight of hand and needed the right metal and the right circumstances to do the trick.

I claim to perceive accurate health information from live persons, and that was not tested for here.

Of course, sometimes he got the wrong type of metal and couldn't bend it without attracting attention. You know what he did? He claimed that his powers were unreliable, which he offered as proof that they were, in fact, real. After all, if it was a trick, he should always be able to do it, right?

My medical information from live persons is very reliable and always reliable. I do not fit this category. Pictures was never the claim I made or wanted tested. I have consistently stated that pictures is not reliably frequent to have on a test.

Psychics who do cold readings often say vague things, then later try to turn them into hits:

Nope. My information from live persons is incredibly specific and never vague. Vasectomy. Not "you've had some sort of operation in your pelvic region, or is it maybe the abdomen?". Reproductive cysts. Not "there's something wrong with your reproductive system, is it perhaps that there is a pain, or that there might be cancer?" Cramp of the small intestine in a very specific region below the sternum, 1.5 x 4 cm. Not "it's like you have a cramp in your stomach sometimes, perhaps it is one of the intestines?"

Veeeery specific!

 

[desertgal]

Kuko 4000:

desertgal:

I have wanted to test these other aspects also, although they are not what my claim is. The other aspects such as chemical identification requires effort and I get headaches. I have no interest in testing the weaker aspects of the perceptions when there is one that I am comfortable with that doesn't fail me.
The cereal tests so far have had very good results, although nothing can be concluded yet.
To distinguish chemicals in beakers over webcam was never my specific claim or specific experience, I tested it and failed and so what.

I don't care what your specific claims were in regards to pictures or chemicals or cereals or whatever. YOU participated willingly in discussion here about those things (until it was shown that your abilities might be questionable there), so you have no cause to get and chastise people when they continue to discuss them. If you are only here to discuss your alleged ESP in medical diagnoses from live persons, then that is what you should have stuck to. Get it?

I have not claimed to perform on demand with pictures, and it was shown that I do not perform on demand with pictures.

Wow, you can twist your own statements around. You specifically said:

I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct.

Is that not performing on demand? Please post and tell me how it wasn't what it appears to be.

Nope. My information from live persons is incredibly specific and never vague. Vasectomy. Not "you've had some sort of operation in your pelvic region, or is it maybe the abdomen?". Reproductive cysts. Not "there's something wrong with your reproductive system, is it perhaps that there is a pain, or that there might be cancer?" Cramp of the small intestine in a very specific region below the sternum, 1.5 x 4 cm. Not "it's like you have a cramp in your stomach sometimes, perhaps it is one of the intestines?"

Veeeery specific!

Allegedly.