Vision From Feeling

[skeen]

Actions, not words, are what we need at this point.

Oh, there will be words. Lots, and lots of words. I think she knows she doesn't have it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What progress, if any, have you made regarding checking to see if you can detect circumcisions and breast implants from behind?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Ooooooohhh--Kay.

I'm outta here. The numerous "accurate" seances /ghost connections / crime site readings have now taken me across the line of Reasonable Doubt.

It's sad, really. I thought we had someone who honestly wanted to see what was going on with an anomalous experience in their life. I've had those; I believed that "something was going on"; I did some limited testing with friends; and BOOM! Game over, no ability. If I didn't have someone in the room that knew the "right" answer, I didn't get it. Some kind of unintentional reading coupled with psychomotor effect (if that's the right term).

It's too bad Anita isn't willing to do the simple and obvious self-test of going to a mall or the student union building and--without trying to verify if they are correct or not--see what kind of non-obvious physical issues ping her radar. As, tonsillectomies (there should be plenty in a college population); appendectomies; broken bones that have healed. She seems to be able to simultaneously claim that she has always been correct when she's been able to verify, AND that she doesn't know what she can see. If she has been infallible to date, then if she sees it she should consider it testable.

Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy that the refusal to continue doing "cereal testing" is an obvious dodge. It would take less than 30 bucks and 3 psych students (no need to involve other students in her program if she's afraid of tainting her rep) to set up a solid test.

Buy a set of those paper-plate-style bowls; put numerals in pencil on the bottom of each one. Measure 3/4 cup of cereal in to each of eight of them.

Have aid #1 put the lactobacillus into one bowl and record the number of that bowl; add a teaspoonful of water to all of the bowls; put a sheet of plain paper on top of each one. (Some form of random selection should be used, such as rolling an eight-sided die for each bowl and putting the lacto into the one with the highest "score" would work.)
A 2nd aid--who did not see the preparation of the bowls or the record sheet--then comes in and re-arranges the bowls randomly, using an 8-sided die to determine where in the line the bowl they are currently moving ends up. This person also straightens up the papers and bowls to be as identical as possible (for instance, aligning the bowls with a yardstick on the table or counter, and the back edge of the paper with the wall behind). This person also leaves.
The 3rd aid and Anita--who have been unable to see or hear the prep so far--enter the room together. Anita scans the bowls from at least a few feet away (to lessen the likelihood of scent being an issue) and indicates which one(s) she thinks contains the lactobacillus. The third aid indicates which bowl Anita has selected, perhaps by setting a quarter directly in front of it. She asks Anita to confirm if that is the correct bowl(s), and when Anita is satisfied it is, she calls the other testers on her cellphone and asks them to come in.
The marked bowl(s) are then turned over, and their number(s) written down in the column beside the original bowl number.

Anita, aid #3, and aid #2 leave the room. Aid #1 pitches the bowl and contents of the bowl(s) that were inverted, and creates two new bowls with 3/4 cup of cereal and the teaspoon of water. Now we're back to 8 functionally identical bowls, with different numbers on the bottom. Put the lactobacillus in one, add a teaspoon of water, and we're ready to start again.

Do this 4 times, and if she pegs the lactobacillus every time, we're looking at some kind of detection of something (or a run of luck that would break the bank at the Rio).

The cereal and bowls might set you back 10 bucks; the 8-sides are, at max, a buck apiece at the local comic shop or gaming store (and a college town will have one). The rest of the expense is for the lactobacillus and the fries and soft drinks for the aids' Thank You gifts.

There, I knocked a non-perfect but reasonable screening test scenario out in less than 10 minutes without consulting a reference. It really isn't that hard...unless you're trying not to come up with a wiggle-proof scenario.

The only question I have left is, is she lying to us or simply herself?

Thanks to the thread participants, and we'll see you someplace else in the Forum. MK

 

[stanfr]

Bravo, Miss Kit--that is the action that is really needed--stop the inquisition--no more words! These lengthy lengthy sets of questions for Anita
are pointless, because it should be quite obvious that she will always have a response, and it will always be unsatisfactory, which will lead to even more questions! You are feeding her delusion by allowing her to feel that she has every base covered--when really the only base that needs to be covered is a simple demonstration. Anita can simply go to a group of skeptics (as she has already apparently done) and demonstrate her ability to them. If they are convinced, which they surely will be if she actually can do what she says she can do, she won't even need to defend herself, cause there will be a group of skeptics who will be her biggest advocates!

 

[Ashles]

Bravo, Miss Kit--that is the action that is really needed--stop the inquisition--no more words! These lengthy lengthy sets of questions for Anita
are pointless, because it should be quite obvious that she will always have a response, and it will always be unsatisfactory, which will lead to even more questions!

Actually that is a really good point. One of the most common traits of applicants is a desire for attention. At the moment I think that is the only purpose this thread is serving.

Anita - I don't have any more questions for you, and, despite your lengthy responses I don't think we are receiving particularly useful information any more.

Until you conduct some independent testing I don't think you have anything further to add on the subject of your claim.

(If you wanted to start a new thread to discuss your theories around optics and how they affect tissue then please do so and I would be interested in that, but the claim discussion is pretty much moribund at the moment)

It is quite ridiculous that a proper test is still not happening. The lactobacillus test, even if imperfect (and not considered a challenge test in itself), might have yielded useful information and would at least be a demonstration that Anita is genuinely acting in good faith and keen to rtesearch the 'ability' in all its aspects.

It does not appear that way any more.

As it stands this claim should be considered pretty much over as it looks like no test will ever happen.

 

[Locknar]

Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy that the refusal to continue doing "cereal testing" is an obvious dodge. It would take less than 30 bucks and 3 psych students (no need to involve other students in her program if she's afraid of tainting her rep) to set up a solid test.

Exactly. Why pursue a fairly easy, conclusive test of a ability already claimed?

Pursuit of (vague and otherwise undefined) "health" issues is allows for all kinds of what I've refereed to as "wiggle" and does nothing but feed her belief she has "powers."

What is most disappointing in all this is folks she has told, such as teachers, friends, etc., have done nothing to dissuade her.

If I had told my Advanced Physics teacher (for example) I had the ability VFF claims (ie. able to "see" things at a atomic level)...assuming he did not die from laughter...it would have been a quick "let's go check it out now", over and done with.

 

[Old man]

Desertgal, I have to disagree (a little) with your position about medical advise from non-MDs. IANAMD, but people often ask my advise about health problems (sometimes I even volunteer my opinion). Am I ‘evil’, too?

I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…

Anita, please, stop exaggerating.

Originally Posted by desertgal
Couldn't care less about your "ghost experiences", Anita. I quoted them to point out how deeply delusional you actually are, even if you are the only one here who can't see that.

Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry. Even in my childhood I was able to accurately describe crime scenes based on how I see them act out when I'm at those sites. Besides due to the complications in actually proving hauntings, me and my group will conduct investigations in the purpose of providing entertainment and some insight into historical sites and into the lives of people from the past.

Anita… you’re shooting yourself in the foot, here!

By the way I just asked my boyfriend whether he feels excited or whether he feels it is normal when I accurately describe his health and how he is feeling, and he said that he feels excited about it. So I may be wrong. I think we just had different definitions of excited. To me, excited would be jumping up and down and being beyond oneself excited.

Finally!

Originally Posted by desertgal
What we have disagreed with is Anita's claim that her friends and family (and a small town in Sweden) apparently believe in her ability 100%, come to her often for psychic medical diagnose...and yet are indifferent to the fact that she has this ability. You must admit, THAT point of view is pretty nonsensical.

Goodness you people try to read between and underneath and above the lines and put all kind of nonsense there that just isn't true and that I don't think I even implied. Of course what you here said is pretty nonsensical, because half of it isn't true! My friends and family are inclined toward believing in the ability because of the fact that I have expressed apparent accuracy. (I say "apparent" to account for the fact that in some cases there is no way for me to conclude that a person was not gullible to end up agreeing with me.) Townspeople have not experienced my ability at all. No one comes to me for psychic medical diagnose, not even friends and family. That has never happened, with the only exception that some people here on the Forum have offered to participate in study and tests.

Anita, I mentioned your use of hyperbole in an earlier post. Maybe DG is trying to get you to TELL THE TRUTH, without all of YOUR exaggerations!

Your false conclusions are sometimes nonsensical, I admit to that.

And, your exaggerated claims are sometimes nonsensical, too.

Everything I have said represents the truth as best as I can account for it.

Maybe we’re making progress. Are you admitting that it’s possible that your anecdotes might be just a little, (oh, how should I put this?) exaggerated?

Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations.

Nope. No progress.

In the upcoming study I intend to try different type of screens that reduce and hopefully eliminate possible cold reading. I do realize the concern of cold reading and I know that a test will not be set up in which cold reading would in any ways be possible, so I have every interest in testing different test conditions in the upcoming study. There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example.

Anita, you are really, really determined to drag this fiasco out just as long as you can, aren’t you?

The simplest way to ‘study’ your ability will be to just do what you normally do, using some volunteers and your two ‘skeptic’ witnesses. Then, after you do that, all you’ll have to do is tell us that you now realize you really don’t have this power, and you can move on to ghost hunting!

These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out.

No, just show us that you can do anything at all, even if it’s indistinguishable from cold reading!

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
On your website you describe a problem with the small intestine in a specific location immediately below the sternum. That's not where the small intestine is located. Thus, you are wrong. Period.

I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception. However even from a very skeptics point of view I am unable to completely dismiss this specific perception, nor the possible ESP ability itself, since I have asked the person again, and pressed him for truth. He states that he has had a very significant ailment that is exactly as I described, in that area.

Anita, it’s called GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease). Damn near half of the people in the US suffer symptoms occasionally. You guessed right on ONE coin flip! WOW!

I can not say that the feeling of strain in that region is not somehow connected to the small intestine.

I can. Wanna bet on who’s right?

I don't think this case is very obvious in whether it was accurate or inaccurate, especially since two thirds of the description were definitely accurate and highly unlikely to be concluded from guessing or cold reading.

No, you had a high probability of guessing right.

Here, I’ll save you some time. Just quote this - “I’ve NEVER, EVER, met ANYONE who was suffering from this!11!!” (And - never listened to the radio, never saw a TV commercial, never saw any ads for antacids, blah, blah, blah.)

Originally Posted by Old man
Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11!

So you think I am schizophrenic do you? Why's that? *insulted*

Your claims, Anita, and your postings, are what’s indistinguishable from the posted definition of schizophrenia. That’s what biomorph asked you about, and that’s what I responded to. I don’t know enough about you, or psychiatry, to hold an opinion about you.

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up.

Yup. Set it up for me. The study up ahead will give some experience with this too.

When I get a few minutes, sure, I could right up a protocol.

Originally Posted by Old man
Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?

I meant to spend time with me in person.

You know, my eyes are getting old! When I first read the above, I saw the word ‘prison’. I doubt that that can arranged!

But, you know damned well that I meant in person, don’t you? Stop the ‘silly little airhead girl’ act, OK? You’re ‘brilliant’, remember? You’re a ‘serious scientist’. Act like one.

4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)

No.

Yes.

 

[desertgal]

Desertgal, I have to disagree (a little) with your position about medical advise from non-MDs. IANAMD, but people often ask my advise about health problems (sometimes I even volunteer my opinion). Am I ‘evil’, too?

No, that isn't what I meant, and I don't think you are evil.

I don't think Anita is evil, either. Just irresponsible as hell, and completely bogus.

Actually, I didn't use the term "evil" to describe anyone.

We all volunteer medical advice to other people. The difference, of course, is that we all don't pretend (or believe) to have a super ability to be able to "see" into other people's bodies in order to diagnose medical problems, and we don't claim a 100% accuracy rate on previous conclusions based solely on that "ability".

For example, I was babysitting the three year old child of a friend recently. The girl had an ongoing sore throat, and this single mom needed to work in order to keep her job, so I offered to care for her. I noticed the child's breath had a peculiar, sickly sweet odor that I recalled from the bouts of tonsillitis that my own kids went through when they were little. I told her mom that I thought the child might have tonsillitis, based on my experience as a mom, and she should take her to the pediatrician as soon as possible. I think most of us have done something similar, and I don't think that kind of advice is irresponsible.

If I had said, "I 'see' your child's tonsils, and they are inflamed-trust me, I've never been wrong", that's a different story. That's not suggesting a possible medical diagnosis - it is making a certain one. In my opinion, that IS irresponsible.

As well, if we claim this super ability, and we test it on people with the primary objective of proving it exists, as opposed to the interest of their health being the primary objective, isn't that also irresponsible? Whether the perception is accurate or not, and whether they sign a waiver or not, the person may still have the anxiety and worry over a negative 'diagnosis' until they can get to a doctor and confirm it either way.

In other words, Sylvia Browne doesn't tell people that their child has been abducted into the Oriental slave market because she has the best interests of the child at heart - she does it to "prove" that she is psychic. It's just wrong.

 

[skeen]

Wait, I've been largely ignoring her walls of text, but now she's communicating with spirits?! Oh for **** sake. I'm done with this loon. This thread should be closed. This woman is ******* insane.

 

[desertgal]

Wait, I've been largely ignoring her walls of text, but now she's communicating with spirits?! Oh for **** sake. I'm done with this loon. This thread should be closed. This woman is ******* insane.

She's been communicating with spirits and mythical creatures since she first started posting on this forum. That's what I meant when I said I believe she is delusional based on ALL her claims. Like others here, I was willing to give her "super ability" the benefit of the doubt, but, put in context with her other claims, it's just too much.

 

[skeen]

She's been communicating with spirits and mythical creatures since she first started posting on this forum. That's what I meant when I said I believe she is delusional based on ALL her claims. Like others here, I was willing to give her "super ability" the benefit of the doubt, but, put in context with her other claims, it's just too much.

Geez. At least she was trying to shoehorn her ability into pseudo-science, but you're right, amidst her other claims, it is too much. So much for a science student!

She is literally exactly the same as the other woo's, isn't she? All this talk about vibrations, and quantum mechanics - how can they all be so astonishingly similar? It boggles the mind.

This woman needs help, and I don't think this thread is helping.

 

[Moochie]

If you read "Anita's" entire output as a work of fiction, and put the word "pulp" before "fiction," you may begin to understand the author.


M.

 

[Sasha]

I figured out she was either a chain-yanker or quite deluded after she said she was sincere when she posted:

I

tried to join The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/ but believe it or not they ask "Are you human?" and you have to answer "Yes" in order to register, so I couldn't do that and asked myself where is an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus supposed to go and luckily Randi welcomes the opinions of all forms of life.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Desertgal wrote, "Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy..." Wow. Somebody thinks I am long suffering!

 

[desertgal]

Desertgal wrote, "Also, I'm in agreement with the long-suffering Unca Yimmy..." Wow. Somebody thinks I am long suffering!

Well, I'll agree that you are long suffering-at least, in regards to this thread - and your patience is astounding!-but I didn't say that originally. That was Miss Kitt.

 

[desertgal]

She is literally exactly the same as the other woo's, isn't she? All this talk about vibrations, and quantum mechanics - how can they all be so astonishingly similar? It boggles the mind.

(L. Ron) Hubbard Syndrome.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

What I asked you and what you failed to answer is whether failing at PICTURES makes you rethink your claim that you could sometimes read PICTURES. You said you couldn't always do it, but you never mentioned if you failed while attempting to do it. I took you to mean that sometimes you got no readings.

So, once again, how did this failure affect your belief about PICTURES. Do you still think you can do it?

The picture tests we had here on the Forum lead me to conclude that I can not obtain accurate health information from pictures over the internet to an acceptable extent. I can not conclude based on a test over the internet whether I can or can not perform with pictures in life. Why would it make a difference whether a picture is seen in life or is seen over the internet? I do not know, but I can not conclude one way or the other. If this ability exists, we do not know at this point that the stuff that conveys the information is made of or how it is conveyed. I am not interested in testing with pictures, since I have a far more frequent and interesting claim to test: with live persons. Sorry if I seem like I'm acting evasive on this subject, it's just that there is nothing more for me to conclude based on our internet picture tests.

You are mistaken. Your website reads, "I count each of these as a total of two cases of "unverified as neither correct or incorrect"." Your site also reads, "He said that it is right below the breastbone (sternum) and defined the exact same region as I had. Exactly the same region. " The emphasis is yours. There is no mention whatsoever that the small intestine is nowhere near there.

Will be updated. I have learnt a lot from my time here on the Forum and had a chance to discuss my abilities and my entire website will be updated. And that's why I came here. To gain insight into this claim and experiences.

It's located in the esophagus area and nowhere near the small intestine. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence his ailment is not related to his big toe.

What I'm saying is that I acknowledge that the small intestine is not in the region specified. In this particular perception, I pointed out the area just below the sternum as having significant sensation of rigidness, and with this perception of this area and this feeling I saw the small intestine. I conclude that the small intestine is not in this area, and I conclude that I can not conclude that the small intestine was not somehow linked to this health issue. I realize that there is a very possible inaccuracy involved, but I realize that this can not be confirmed as such. I also acknowledge that if this perception involved three bits of information: 1) the region affected, 2) the sensation experienced by the person, 3) the image of the small intestine, that two thirds of this perception was accurate. I do not count the detail of the small intestine as a hit, nor can I count it as a miss because I do not know that it is not related to the health problem.

It would be below my dignity to try to talk my way out of a miss and try to rationalize a miss, but I seriously can not conclude that the small intestine was not part of the condition. A test will involve ailments where no interpretation is possible and discussions of this sort will not take place. The answers on the test will be clearly a hit or a miss. The test will not involve descriptions where multiple information is involved in one condition. If a test asked (not that it would) where the location of the small intestine is, it would easily be checked as correct or incorrect, and not be involved with other details.

You have repeatedly called yourself a scientist, so we expect you to use precise language. If you had said his tissue absorbed copper, I would not assume that he grew copper cells. I would assume that copper is present in the cells. So when you say the tissue absorbed an oil and make a fuss about which type of oil, I don't assume you meant that it grew fat cells. If you see fatty tissue, say you saw fatty tissue.

Is it too much to ask that you be precise?

I can be very precise. I was just trying to avoid overly technical terminology because then I'll get questions about what the words mean. I'll switch over to overly technical now.

In my mind this disproves your notion of vibrational information because no vibrational information exists for that which is not there. You can certainly detect a lack of vibrational information but only when you know something should be there such as a missing tooth. I can conceive of no possible way to detect that a small piece of the vas deferens is missing unless it was not possible for the two ends to meet.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Of course I detect the absence of vibrational information. Also, there are often other indicators of the presence of a condition. A missing tooth is not only detectable by the absence of the vibrational information of the tooth, but also by the presence of the vibrational information of the difference in the socket and gums.

By observing symmetry, it is often possible to describe health information that I encounter for the first time. Had I never seen teeth before, and there was a perfect row of teeth but suddenly one is missing on one side, then based on the asymmetry I would be tempted to speak out about something being unusual in that part of the body.

Very often, when something has been altered in the body, the tissues do not look or feel "normal" after that. Surgical procedures probably always leave behind an abnormality whether it is observable on a larger tissue level, or the smaller cellular level, or the even smaller fiber or molecular level. Such as scar tissue. Many things that alter the body from how it was meant to be, leave traces that look and feel abnormal and I can in some cases detect those.

In this particular case, the two ends of the vas deferens appeared to not meet end to end and I clearly perceived the image that tissue had been removed. I saw a gap.

Did you detect the cauterization? You didn't mention it. Did you detect whether either was tied off or not? I assume you didn't ask. You should and report the results. You should also ask him how he knows that a piece was removed because it's not something that always happens and probably not something worth mentioning to a patient.

Cauterize: 1. To burn or sear with a cautery. 2. To deaden, as to feelings or moral scruples; callous. I did not perceive that the tissue would have been burned away. Define tied off? I will try to be more extensive in details with future experiences and especially on the upcoming study.

The use of "honey" is at best unscientific and at worst condescending.

It was intended in a positive manner and was not intended to be scientific or condescending.

These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.

My definition of "normal" in this case refers to the perceptions I have made in people and the general average of what I have seen. In this is also weighed in any references that I encounter in for instance literature or television.

Furthermore, you claim that you almost automatically see things that are abnormal and that you need to concentrate to detect things that are healthy. You also claim that you have really only read family and friends.

The perception of health information that is more severe, such as liver worms, certain types of pathogen infections, significant cysts, inflammation, and more, appear automatically yes. Different information and in different cases are associated with a different vibrational signature that I detect, and so are detectable to varying strength, where the strongest are perceived without any effort from me, and the weaker they are, the more time I must spend to locate them and to form the perceptions, and there may be a dividing line beyond which are the very weakest that I do not perceive at all.

To perceive healthy tissue is always done by choice and I make the effort to reach into the information to form the images, yes.

I perceive information from a lot of people, but only with friends and family have I told the person about the perceptions I've had of them. So I have plenty of experience of perceiving, but less experience of telling the person or of making it possible for me to ask about the accuracy. The accuracy of perceptions has in many other cases however been confirmed by other means, where I did not tell the person about the perception, and where I did not ask about it to try to establish the accuracy myself.

Thus it would seem that you would have only seen "normal" kidneys in those people you have focused upon for a detailed reading. This, of course, begs a few questions:

How many abnormal kidneys have you seen?

How many normal kidneys have you seen?

In percentage of people you have read have you even seen kidneys at all?

I regret that I don't keep count of every perception, I will have to estimate. I have seen less than five cases of abnormal kidneys. I have seen perhaps 50 to 100 normal kidneys.

When I do a head-to-toe reading to search for abnormal information, kidneys are typically not among the health problems, so kidneys are actually organs that I have seen less frequently than other organs such as the liver, which is why I've seen kidneys perhaps 100 times but read people perhaps 1000 times (I don't know how accurate these estimated numbers are so do not conclude too much based on them). When I read people, there are a lot of organs and structures that do not show up because to my perception they pass as healthy.

I can choose to look at specific organs even if they do not show up on the head-to-toe reading. Typically to do a quick-scan of a person's health I only focus on what I most often experience health problems in, and only look at liver, heart, lungs and prostate in men, and liver, heart, breast, and internal reproductive system in women, and kidneys are not part of this quick-scan either. I hope to gain more experience with kidneys and all forms of things on the upcoming study. Can't wait to have it.

I never said anything about the whole world. I made the reasonable deduction that if someone is able to determine an enlarged kidney that they must have some form of reference. When that person claims to see inside the bodies of humans, then the natural assumption is that they have seen a large number of kidneys.

And my reference is all the kidneys that I've seen as well as any reference from literature or television.

This is what skeptics do, Anita. We ask questions. The more extraordinary the claim, the tougher the questions. The longer you go without a decent test or study, the less credible you become.

And as the claimant, I answer questions. Please don't blame me for the delay, I spent a year and a half waiting for the IIG West to "do something". And as soon as it was suggested to me I joined a local skeptics group and quickly realized what my next steps are and am now planning a study. I don't think the delay should affect my credibility, since I don't think it is my fault. I have chosen to be somewhat careful in how I approach this investigation, partly because I thought I was supposed to put this in the hands of others, partly because I'm modest and humble about it, and partly because I realize this is a provocative subject and that it might hurt my career if I do not handle this carefully. I'm working on it.

 

[skeen]

You are not working on it. No-one believes that anymore, and you have lost all credibility in your transparent stalling, and copping out of the most basic of things that would immediately dismiss this alleged ability.

You may be able to fool yourself into thinking you're cooperating, but I don't think that even them most patient of us believes that anymore. I think you're a liar.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...It would be below my dignity to try to talk my way out of a miss and try to rationalize a miss...

Is your dignity located beneath your vocabulary, which is below your colon? Or is this an outright confabulation, since we have seen you doing it before?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

In one sentence you say: "I only share this ability with people who know me well.", and in the next instance, someone you just met that very day is a "friend". Someone you just met that day can't "know you well", can they? Stop contradicting yourself, for God's sake.

I have only told friends and family about perceptions that I've seen in them. This also applies to the two persons "I recently met", who were recently met friends and fall under this category. What I meant was that I do not share the perceptions with strangers who I have never met before and will not meet again or who I do not know well enough. If I meet a friend recently it won't take long for them to know me, I'm pretty open when I meet someone I want to keep in my life.

The battle cry of psychic claimants the world over. "It's not me-it's you!"

Well, in my case the misunderstandings and the reading between the lines doesn't always seem to be my fault. I don't think we should be blaming anyone anyway, how about some better communication and none of the hostilities. I believe it should be possible to question a paranormal claimant in a positive or even neutral manner.

You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.

Well let's focus on the claim I want to have tested. Besides I've never said I'm a reincarnated white dwarf star.

I wasn't the one doubting that you are from Sweden. In fact, I never said that at all. What I said was that, for those who might have that doubt, since two posters have met you in person, it would be fairly easy to confirm that you are, in fact, from Sweden simply by asking them.

Alright, I'll show them my Swedish passport. It will be photographed and that will be signed by two witnesses.

Nonsense, that isn't what I said at all. You provide no background information on your subjects at all. There is no way for anyone to decipher whether your conclusions are based on your alleged ability, or retained information, or simple observation. You don't need a team of scientists to collect background information after the diagnosis to help verify the accuracy. The repeated "I came, I saw, I diagnosed" does not render your anecdotes valid examples of your alleged ability.

The documentation of anecdotes will be done much better in the future. The study should supply plenty of examples of what I claim to perceive and their apparent accuracy, and skeptics will be present to document, verify, and to ensure that all material is presented regardless of its accuracy.

A) Unfair of you, since I posted that before you replied, but I apologize for the confusion,

I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things.

and b) you offer no evidence to back up your statements, either, Anita. In fact, you've offered up several contradictions and some wild assertions. I realize you have to arrange testing, and that takes time, but when you contradict yourself, is it wrong to question that?

So far I have explained each of the so called contradictions as merely inaccurate assumptions made by skeptics, or as due to me not being specific enough, so there were no real contradictions. What contradictions?

Throwing me out?

I said that I was not throwing you out, meaning blocking your posts. I would never do that, your comments are as welcome as any other's.

biomorph:

However I have some doubts that this is the way forward timewise.
Surely many of the "sight, sound" type stuff can be bundled together? They are "knowns"
You think of as many thing as you can that to prevent any physical consequences getting through.
In one test.

There are lots of examples of these tests..

With "sight, sound type stuff" are you referring to my perceptions, or to the possible sources of cold reading? Would you give an example of these tests? Thank you.

However any real evidence will show some sort of mechanism.
Even without controls, or tests, you ought to be able to make a simple claim, and have the real physical evidence that there is something happening to start with. Basic observational evidence yeah?

Well I have made the claim that when I look at a person I have perceptions from which I can describe health information that should not be accessible to ordinary perception. If the test will involve health information that we can all agree is not accessible by ordinary perception, such as whether a man (a man, Locknar!!) has had a vasectomy, then there should be less concern with designing a test that prevents any means of cold reading. Cold reading I believe is when you can get some information with your ordinary senses and not a paranormal ability, such as by observing posture, skin color, the movement of a person, or other signs. Some have even suggested that some health information can be concluded based on subliminal scent, or sound. Even if we arrive at a test that involves information such as vasectomy which should eliminate the concern of cold reading, I will still need to conduct the study to establish whether it is a perception that I am confident in to an extent to involve others to arrange and conduct a real, formal test with me. I think you made a very important point, thanks.

So far I find the plan you are devising to be as complicated as you can make it.

biomorph, you are brilliant. I see now that you are absolutely right. Perhaps I should not consider health information that could be cold read and only focus on finding ones that could never be cold read, and to then establish whether I claim to detect these. I think the problem is that I am conducting this investigation because I want to learn more about it, and only secondarily is my objective to actually establish whether it is ESP or not. Whereas the objective of a test made by skeptics would be to determine whether it is ESP or not. I think I need to align my objective with that of the testing organization in order to be on the same page.

I think you are one of the most brilliant posters here. Many other posters are entangled in irrelevant topics that put everyone off course. I've realized a lot from you right away, please don't go anywhere.

Pup:

Anita, if I recall correctly, you're somewhere near Charlotte, NC, right? I just found out I'll have a two-hour layover in Charlotte, in the late evening on a Friday, during a trip in early March (assuming everything's on schedule and goes as planned). I'm a 49-year-old male who wouldn't mind having his health "read" and discussed under these circumstances. I'm a complete stranger to Anita in real life.

Would that be useful?

That would be very useful! How wonderful! Especially since I think we can all agree that your assessment of the accuracy of my readings will be more reliable than those of my friends. Thank you! Please keep in touch with me and send me a friendly reminder when that day approaches, I will write this down in my calendar. Just a thought: in case you consider your health information to be private we do not have to share specific details with others but at the very least you can describe the accuracy and make other comments and conclusions on what you have experienced with me. Thank you!!