Replies to page 20:
Old man:
Old man post #789 said:
It’s “so clear that they are hard to ignore”, it’s “a daily occurrence”, you “can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time”, but you “only rarely … choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person”? Say what?
When the perceptions come from health information that is more severe, the information is often so strong and clear that it is hard to ignore. I detect
something in persons every day, even though not necessarily a health problem. And other than the information that comes to me on its own, I can choose to make the conscious effort to take a look, to do a head-to-toe reading but only do so rarely.
Old man said:
Don’t worry about ‘checking for accuracy’. ‘Checking for accuracy’ is unnecessary at this point. Do you think you get ‘vibrational info’ with respect to appendectomies, or not?
I have never been under the impression of detecting appendectomy, but I will need to meet a person who has had an appendectomy in order for me to find out if I am able to detect these. This is most likely among the information that I will detect only when I make a conscious effort, or the "head-to-toe" reading, since it is not a health problem that would be bright on its own. An appendectomy involves a medical procedure which does not disturb the body once it has been done. I hope that the study I am planning will answer some of these questions about what I can and can not do.
Old man said:
In my specific case, I’m more skeptical of your perception that others do not find you ‘special’.
Oh well.
Old man said:
Anita, we know that they’re “true to you”, really we do. But you keep insisting that they’re REAL.
They're real in the way that I really perceive them, and they're real in the sense that the accuracy has so far appeared to be good. That does not say that they'd be real ESP, until proven so.
Old man said:
Then you now have another extraordinary power to add to your list – a 100% accurate memory! Congratulations!
Especially when it comes to the "anecdotes" on my observations page, I made sure to document all results of apparent accuracy, whether in favor toward ESP or not, and was not documenting them from memory long ago, but right away shortly after they had taken place.
Old man said:
You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!
What you are suggesting sounds to me more like what I would call a
survey, rather than the
study I am planning. You suggest that I collect information about what types of ailments I detect and how often I detect them relative to the number of people I read, but without the opportunity of checking with the persons in whom I have sensed the health information what the accuracy would be. It is a good idea and would surely be a step in the right direction toward a test, however I intend to go ahead with the study instead, in which the apparent accuracy of the perceptions will
also be noted. A study however requires a little more planning than a survey. For the
study I intend to do, I would first have to find out whether it is legal to involve personal health information of volunteering persons in a study of this form.
Old man said:
No, Anita. If I suddenly thought that I could detect breast implants (in women, Locknar!), for a quick and dirty test I’d just go to the mall, look at a number of women, write down how many I looked at and how many I was sure had had implants, and post that info here tomorrow. If I didn’t ‘see’ any implants, I post that either there were in fact none to be seen, or that I may have been wrong about my ‘power’. Simple, easy, and something that you just refuse to do.
This what I call a
survey is a very good idea, I do not refuse it. However I am planning something beyond a survey: a study, in which an attempt to establish the accuracy of perceptions is included.
Old man said:
And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do!
Working on it, planning it, not intentionally postponing it.
Locknar:
Locknar said:
VFF - I think it fair to say, as Desertgal has excellently pointed you have no idea what you are saying/claiming; to many contradictions. My suggestion is you overhaul your website, state in plain English what your claim is, loose all the anecdotal stories (ie. campfire stories) since they are pure "woo woo", and go from there.
My claim is to detect health information that is considered to be not detectable by ordinary senses of perception which include any combination of vision, hearing, sound, scent, or cold reading of body language etc. I have learnt a lot from participating in this Forum and the website will be updated. I will not remove the anecdotal examples of perceptions, because I was specificly asked by Forum members to document examples and also because I consider the anecdotes to be a contribution in the investigation. I do realize that the anecdotes are not formal evidence, however they are not pure woo since, although so far they are without formal evidence to back it up, they are accurate representations of real life experiences.
roger:
roger said:
edit: and, of course, just about any medical test has false positives and negatives. Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.
The degree to which I
do not detect health information has not been established, but I hope to do so with the upcoming study. I prepare myself and those that will arrange the test with me to a possible wider range of limit than what will actually turn out to be necessary, so that I will not come back with new information and be requesting freer ranges than what I had initially asked for. This way, the better I come to understand how to conform the perceptions to a test setting can only end up simplifying the test procedure, and not the other way around.
desertgal:
I agree that the documentation of the anecdotal experiences of perceptions can be improved on.
desertgal said:
Refine your claim. You say have this ability, then you say you don't. You say that you don't care if it is ESP or not-but you have made other claims that relate to ESP, so the unspoken interpretation is that, regardless of any test results, you do think it is ESP. As well, it doesn't cover this or that medical condition, or it does cover this or that medical condition, or it works with chemicals, or it doesn't work with chemicals, etc, etc, etc...sit down, write it out, edit it, edit it some more, and refine it. Simplify the bejeebers out of it. Right now, nobody is sure what you are claiming.
The claim I want to have tested is the perception of health information from people I look at, in cases where the information should not be accessible by ordinary senses. Regardless of the test results I will still think I have the perceptions since they continue no matter how they come to be described by conclusions of a test. Depending on the test results I might find out whether the source of the perceptions is ESP or something else. I am not entitled to conclude as to whether it in fact is ESP or not and have not labeled it as ESP. Not all things considered to be medical conditions are equivalent in that which makes them what they are.
desertgal said:
Those are my suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Taking them.
Miss Kitt:
Miss Kitt said:
This is the post where Anita learns to hate me
Not at all. Still love you.
Miss Kitt said:
If every person can be read, than why is there all this allowance in the proposed testing protocol for "passes" for not getting any information? Since doing a focussed reading can be done on any person, how can there be anyone who will not show something on a viewing? (Unless somehow someone is in perfect health and has never had a surgical intervention or broken bone.) VFF's ability cannot be able to work, X-ray-like, to show tissues, and then somehow fail to find some surgical incisions/removals and not others.
It is true that I detect
some health related information in
all persons, but that does not necessarily include
all information, or the information that I was supposed to find on a test. All information is different in the "vibrational signature" which I think the perceptions are based on. And each case of the same type of information is different in different cases and different people.
All persons I view will reveal some information, but not necessarily the information I am requested to find on a test. I have not yet established the extent of what I do and do not detect and hopefully the upcoming study will bring insight into this. The ability is not quite like X-ray technology. I believe to be detecting vibrational information, and every fractured bone is different from another, each having a vibrational signature to different extents.
Miss Kitt said:
Anita, can you see why I am puzzled by this? It just does not logically follow that you can always see people's insides, but somehow be wrong for some conditions but not others. You say, for instance, you can see formerly broken bones, would you wish to alter that to say, "I can see a broken fibula, but not a tibia?" or "I can see a once-broken arm, but not a collarbone?" Those kinds of limitations would apply to seeing things that make visible, if minute, changes in the shape or motion of the area of the body, but not to seeing inside.
I have not established a comprehensive list of all health information I do and do not detect. Although all fractured bones go by the same name "fractured bones", they are each unique. I would not say that one bone is easier to detect than another, but each fracture has occurred to a different extent. I haven't established the extent of when the perceptions work and when they don't. I am simply stating that
I might not detect something sometimes just in case I don't on a test. All cases of ailments that are involved in a test will be considered undetectable by ordinary means of perception.
Miss Kitt said:
I see you still fail to include the possibility that there is no ability, just a healthy dollop of imagination and some subconscious processing. This is different from an untestable claim.
No it is definitely among the possible explanations of the medical perceptions. Don't make me search the records and present plenty of quotes where I have stated this.
Miss Kitt said:
You have stated clearly and repeatedly that you know your perceptions exist and are 'real'; you have said that every time you have checked, they are accurate. But at the same time, you say that you have not concluded that the images are formed from actual information??
My perceptions exist and are real in the sense that I experience them. That does not mean to imply that their origin has been established. And yes every time I have checked they have appeared to be accurate. But that is not to say that there can not be inaccurate perceptions in the future. And the origin of the perceptions has not been concluded; whether they are based on information from our real, mutual world, or from my subjective imagination.
VisionFromFeeling said:
And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.
Miss Kitt said:
Once again, the bald declaration of superb imaging -- if this is true, how can there be conditions you don't perceive? Specifically, how can there be some surgical removals (vasectomy) that you perceive, and some that you don't?
When I
do have medical perceptions the quality of them is beyond the capabilities of X-ray imaging. The image involves not only bone but all tissues and in great detail, and with information about texture, temperature, feeling, etc, which an X-ray does not do. Each medical perception is unique. I would love to elaborate but I have been specificly told by Forum members not to present theories about how the ability works.
I will eventually post an elaborate description on my website.
Miss Kitt said:
By the way, I would also like to know--squeamish folks, skip to the signature--if you can detect hemorrhoids? An easy place to test this is on any park playground. Look at the mothers of small (under age 2) children, and see if any of them show one. Statistically, you are tremendously likely to encounter at least one; especially in mothers with one baby and a couple of young kids. Trust me, this is (A) abnormal to the body, (B) intermittantly very painful, and (C)commonplace.
I do not recall having been under the impression of detecting this ailment. It would possibly fall under the type of ailments that do not catch my attention on their own. Such are ailments that I detect only when I search the body in what I call a "head-to-toe" reading to detect anything that is out of the ordinary. I hope to establish in the upcoming study exactly what ailments I do and do not detect.
