Vision From Feeling

[skeen]

Interesting stuff, desertgal. But what triggers my mistrust in her simply being delusional, are her intentions to enter into the woo economy, which she herself has admitted numerous times.

She doesn't simply believe in her abilities. She believes in all things woo. All the standard things, that your standard woo believes in. Crystals. Quantum jargon. Vibrations. Spirits, ghosts, haunting. She is the essence of woo.

You may be right. She may just be delusional. But I think there's something more deceitful to it than that.

 

[desertgal]

Responses in patented Can't-nest-o-vision.

Ashles, like this (without spaces between letters):


[q u o t e = VisionFromFeeling][q u o t e = Ashles]"In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?"[/ q u o t e]No, Ashles, seeing the volunteer from the side wasn't going to help the perceptions at all. I was simply conforming to another test condition. On a test it is better if I see the volunteers from behind and not front, since eye contact definitely needs to be disallowed. That is what I was doing.[/ q u o t e]

Now, your post is "nested" within VfF's.

 

[Moochie]

Interesting stuff, desertgal. But what triggers my mistrust in her simply being delusional, are her intentions to enter into the woo economy, which she herself has admitted numerous times.

She doesn't simply believe in her abilities. She believes in all things woo. All the standard things, that your standard woo believes in. Crystals. Quantum jargon. Vibrations. Spirits, ghosts, haunting. She is the essence of woo.

You may be right. She may just be delusional. But I think there's something more deceitful to it than that.

That's the direction I'm leaning in, too. If she's "crazy," it's "crazy" like a fox (vixen).


But if you're correct, desertgal, then I would think having a definitive test is the last thing she wants.


M.

 

[desertgal]

Interesting stuff, desertgal. But what triggers my mistrust in her simply being delusional, are her intentions to enter into the woo economy, which she herself has admitted numerous times.

She doesn't simply believe in her abilities. She believes in all things woo. All the standard things, that your standard woo believes in. Crystals. Quantum jargon. Vibrations. Spirits, ghosts, haunting. She is the essence of woo.

You may be right. She may just be delusional. But I think there's something more deceitful to it than that.

I agree with you. Woo is her reality. Cold calculation can exist in a delusional reality. In fact, I feel it can be a predominant trait, since morals, ethics, and honesty are shoved into that closet and don't interfere. Which, as I stated some posts ago, is why I think someone like Anita would be inherently more dangerous in the woo economy than, say, Sylvia Browne. Anita believes her delusions-gullible and vulnerable people are more likely to buy into that and trust her unreasonably.

I don't doubt that she is using us as a testing ground to see how far she can take her "abilities" with us. After all, skeptics are the hardest audience for any woo. I just don't think that is all there is to it. Her motivations for coming here are complex: attention seeking, mercenary, woo beliefs, and probably even more, and all part of her delusional reality.

ETA: Look at this way:

Anita, at fifteen, begins creating a delusional reality for herself, and forms the belief that she can identify crystals through Vibrational Information.

As she gets older, the delusions begin to escalate. Now, it's not just crystals, but ghosts, and all things woo. It's fair to say that, if you are in a delusional state, and you embrace one, you'll probably embrace all.

Then, she decides that she is capable of psychic medical diagnosis, and, once she forms the delusion of her "perceptions" in her mind, she runs with it...begins to define it, creates anecdotes of "correct" perceptions, and starts seeking attention for her 'extraordinary' ability to confirm it to herself and maintain the delusion.

A little older, and she sees folks like Sylvia Browne, Ghost Hunters, et al, capitalizing on similar "abilities". Why wouldn't she pursue doing the same, since she believes that she has this unique ability? She may not go about it logically, since she isn't capable of that, but she would still see no reason not to attempt it.

 

[Moochie]

Ashles, like this (without spaces between letters):


[q u o t e = VisionFromFeeling][q u o t e = Ashles]"In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?"[/ q u o t e]No, Ashles, seeing the volunteer from the side wasn't going to help the perceptions at all. I was simply conforming to another test condition. On a test it is better if I see the volunteers from behind and not front, since eye contact definitely needs to be disallowed. That is what I was doing.[/ q u o t e]

Now, your post is "nested" within VfF's.

Never let it be said that a good delusion isn't better than sex.

Oh, I don't know about that. A good delusion and sex might be closer to the mark.

Wow, it worked! Thanks DG!

ETA: I apologize in advance for using another member's name in vain.



M.

 

[Ashles]

Responses in patented Can't-nest-o-vision.

Ashles, like this (without spaces between letters):

Did it work did it work?

ETA - Yay!

 

[Uncayimmy]

There's nothing "smart" about a delusional state of mind. That's part of the problem, because nothing in that state of mind holds up to reality. Which leaves the person scrambling, back pedaling, and exhibiting ever more ludicrous, illogical, and irrational behavior, in order to protect the delusional reality they have created for themselves. I have no idea how intelligent Anita actually is, but her intelligence is beside the point here, because irrationality has taken over. She is beyond logic.

I think this is the crux of the matter - at least it is for me. I recently re-read the thread with The Professor. It was pretty clear to me from very early on that he was playing the skeptics for all it was worth. He "won" in the sense that he got lots of attention and got the kinds of reactions he could use to his advantage. I don't condone what he did, but I certainly acknowledge that he exhibited masterful techniques (offering $25K to skeptics who helped him win his claim was a gem).

It's hard to point to any one thing that The Professor did, but overall there was a sense of a master plan. His claim was merely a tool. He managed to improve his standing among believers, who are his bread and butter. If you look at it from that angle, everything he did makes sense.

With Anita things are very different but still similar. The only way I can see to tie things together is what you describe. When you look at it from that perspective, you can explain pretty much everything she does.

Likewise, if you propose other theories such as setting herself up to be the next great psychic, she's making numerous choices that just don't make any sense. For example, she shows up at a skeptics meeting and her "friend" mentions Anita seeing ghosts. She doesn't like that kind of derail from her main claim, but she defends it anyway (and in a silly manner). The reason her friend was there? She doesn't drive and needs a lift. A scam artist would say she's intending to go to the meeting, but use the lack of transportation as an excuse as to why she didn't show.

You really have to look at the totality of what she has said and done to see it. Sure, some things might lead you to think a deliberate, profit-seeking deception. But when you go back through the posts and see the Nobel aspirations, cures for cancer, chemical identifications, communicating with insects, Vibrational Algebra™, diagnosing celebrities, ghost stories, Arcturian origins and crystals, it's pretty clear there's a huge fantasy here.

Examine any of these fantasy field trips and ask yourself this: How would a delusional person who truly believes these stories and is protecting her delusion have handled it? The answer is almost always, "Pretty much like this." Is there any other question you could ask yourself that gives such a consistent answer? If there is, I haven't seen it yet. Of course, I'm open to the possibility.

 

[desertgal]

Likewise, if you propose other theories such as setting herself up to be the next great psychic, she's making numerous choices that just don't make any sense. For example, she shows up at a skeptics meeting and her "friend" mentions Anita seeing ghosts. She doesn't like that kind of derail from her main claim, but she defends it anyway (and in a silly manner). The reason her friend was there? She doesn't drive and needs a lift. A scam artist would say she's intending to go to the meeting, but use the lack of transportation as an excuse as to why she didn't show.

Exactly. I think it's fair to say that, definitely, one of her delusional fantasies is seeing herself as the next great psychic, curing illnesses in one and all, or hunting historical ghosts, with her own television show, and being lauded far and wide, etc. It's on par with her Nobel fantasy. But, to me, after reading this thread several times, it's obvious that Anita's primary goal is preserving her delusional reality-that she is the most extraordinary person alive. She's got to keep believing that, otherwise, all her related fantasies of fame, wealth, and humanitarism will dissolve into nothing, as well.

It's like juggling a bunch of bubbles within a bubble. Intentionally manipulating people is all part of it. If she can make you believe, then she can continue to believe. All it takes is explaining everything with so many words, the recipient eventually just gives in to stop the onslaught.

ETA: Sorry, didn't mean to be so "wall o'texty". I always tend to overexplain the complexities of delusional behavior.

 

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by RevisionFromFeeling

Originally Posted by Moochie
Never let it be said that a good delusion isn't better than sex.

Oh, I don't know about that. A good delusion and sex might be closer to the mark.

I never fantasize and tell, BUT a good delusion about great sex during great sex will land you square in the bullseye.

 

[Ashles]

I have decided as a fun little project to revisit some of the earlier posts in this thread to see how some things have changed since those halcyon days of yore when we were all a little younger, a little more wide eyed and optimistic, and anything in the dreams of youth seemed possible.

First post from the past:
Post #08 - Whatever happened to Chemicals?

In terms of the other forms of information I obtain besides health, I am always curious to check my conclusions against known facts, by looking it up in a book or on the internet. All on my own and independently by using this ability I have obtained information about chemistry, materials, plants, animals, bacteria, foods and medicines that I did not know prior and that could not have been guessed to such detail. What compels me is also that I am so certain of the information when I perceive it. I do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect.

This seems to indicate she has never been incorrect with chemicals.
Why did that change so radically later on?
When did that get relegated to 'I'm not interested in that ability as it is not my strongest'.

I am very interested in having a test done by an impartial party and that is something I am working on right now.

Being a Chemistry major I would have access to chemical elements and other compounds for a test on chemical identification, however I am reluctant to involve my university in this in case they want no involvement in things of this nature.

This post seems to actively invite a chemical test.

These days Anita almost laughs at the thought of one. Chemical test? I've already said I won't do one of those...

Next:
Post #10 - Ice Cream and Telepathy - More lost arts

... It seems that I need to look at the objects that I am viewing, even if only for a quick glance, possibly in order to know where their location is.

Unless they are crushed tablets in which case several months and a University research lab seem to be rquired

In terms of the ice-cream test, let me begin by telling you about a fun game I like to do. A friend will be eating ice-cream and I only look at part of his body and do not see his face. He takes a scoop of ice-cream, and based on how I feel the taste and texture that he experiences, I tell him whether there was just plain ice-cream, ice-cream with pineapple, or with chokolate, or no ice-cream at all on his spoon. If I try to close my eyes or turn away completely so that I can not see the person at all I become unable to do this. I do not think I could do any kind of test on my ability without looking at the subject at least partially, possibly to know where it is and to locate the source of the information.

So if this were suggested as a test now, who would like to play VfF Excuse Bingo to see what the reason could be that this would no longer be able to be tested? It would be so simple.
My money's on the 'It's not my main claim' mantra. We have heard it so many times that it sort of even seems like a real answer by now, even though it isn't really one.

I would definitely want to try a test in detecting which out of a group of people is color blind or deaf.

What happened to this one?
What happened to all these lovely clear tests she suggested?

Unfortunately I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs, so I might or might not detect it. However if I do detect it I will say so, and then that could be checked for accuracy. This limitation of my ability, in my opinion, does not discredit a possible ability. Its accuracy is good, even though it does not detect something everytime when it is considered that there is something to be detected since each case occurs to a different extent.

Ah, I miss the days when the ability was simply measured in hits and misses. This was a golden time. We didn't even know how good we had it did we?
I think of it this time as BS (Before the Scale)

I have not tried telepathy with the person in another room. I expect that true telepathy would be more difficult with increasing distance, and, again, I would not be seeing the person and it seems that I need to see the objects in order to use my ability. I can definitely try this out and see whether I can develop this ability further to reach this kind of standard, however I am not interested in testing my ability on telepathy unless strongly insisted by others.

Oh I somehow don't think strong instistence would have any affect. It hasn't with any other aspect of anything.

Remember, on her website this telepathy ability with the friend is described thus:

we are almost always correct.

I don't suppose we would be able to test thi... nah. I'm just kidding. Telepathy? How could we possibly ever think about generating a test around telepathy that is almost always correct. I doubt even a scientist could do it.

Atomic and molecular vibrational patterns may be the very same thing as what quantum physics describes as wave functions. These vibrational patterns are detectable by many scientific instruments, including the spectrometer, and offer a means of identification of the chemical species, composition, and structure.

Huh, weird. I spent ages trying to get Anita to provide an example of what sort of instruments she was referring to which were connected with her Vibrational Whatsit. She kept saying it was secret.
Yet all she had to do was say 'spectrometer'. She had already mentioned one in this post.
Of course that would have lead to a specific conversation about what a spectrometer actually measures and how it realated to her 'ability' so I guess that wouldn't had got very far before we hit the Wall of Secrecy^TM surrounding Vibrational Madeupmaths.

On the contrary I do not believe for or against actually passing a test. I am merely curious to find out. As I've said, I would not take it personally if I fail a test.

Little did we suspect that was because Anita would simply refuse to accept the results of a failed test.
Like I said, we were young, we were naive, we were foolish.

I am more concerned with truth than deception

Ashles would like to apologise for those of you who may have been drinking coffee at that moment.
VFF Vibrational Screen Wipes with delightful Internal Organ Patterns are available now at all good Holistic Healing Centres. $5 a wipe.

and have no personal preference for having either synesthesia or actual verifiable extrasensory perception. In either case, it is a tremendous source of inspiration and ideas that I will definitely benefit from as a scientist.

And so will the 1/3/4 Professors she told about it who ignored it completely.

 

[Ashles]

Post #16

UncaYimmy:
Sometimes I sense things in photos, but not to the great detail as I do in real life and I would prefer not to have a test based on photographies.

Anita 3 pages ago:

She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.

I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.

I was saying she claimed to have been able to identify things in pictures. I said she had tried it on this thread and failed.
She responded with an excuse she had "never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet"
Oh look - a hair split into 17 different pieces.
Who would have known that the internet does something to pictures that renders them immune to Anita's ability.
I guess we have found another restriction to the 'Ability' - it doesn't work at 72dpi.

It seems that I need to see where the object is in order to locate the source of the information. Most of the time I only take a quick glance to "download the information" and then look away to concentrate on the information and analyze it further in my thoughts.

Unless it is crushed pills or guys called Wayne.

I would be less successful if the object was behind a screen or a door such that I could not see its outline or exact placement. I have tested myself on identifying materials that are concealed in non-opaque containers, but it can take me longer and it is harder to obtain the information.

That's right, Anita has tested herself with chemicals in non opaque containers and, although it is harder, she has still never been incorrect?

 

[skeen]

There's a lot of gems. I remember when she said she had medical information about celebrities, but in her usual concern, concern for the celebrities' privacy (aw, so ethical) she would not divulge that information.

And yet, she completely failed the photo test. So where does her celebrity claim stand now? Oh, I know. She'll defend it, as it's not falsifiable. She has not dismissed not having this ability, therefore there is the possibility she has it.

What a crazy, crazy person.

 

[desertgal]

There's a lot of gems. I remember when she said she had medical information about celebrities, but in her usual concern, concern for the celebrities' privacy (aw, so ethical) she would not divulge that information.

I loved that one.

Are there any celebrities you feel are dangerously ill at the moment?

Yes.

Predicting that would be very convincing to us all.

Privacy and integrity wouldn't be an issue here - if you are wrong it wouldn't matter, if you are right and they haven't had it diagnosed it could help them and if you are right and they have had it diagnosed it wouldn't matter because they would be revealing it themselves soon anyway.
I can not discuss the personal health condition of persons here or in other ways in public. Surely celebrities have chosen a public life but surely there are things that rightly belong to their personal life. Now if a celebrity contacts me and wants to know what I sense I will tell them in person. None of us are going to rush to the celebrities and tell them that some psychic said this or that.

You would have to convince me otherwise before I invade in someone's privacy and integrity in this way.

I also loved this one:

Why is it necessary to meet? Just diagnose me.

If someone can diagnose another person by psychic means, very specifically and detailed, that is a claimed ability. Let's cut the crap here.

If the ability is so convincing, why do other people have to pay the way for the psychic? That sounds eerily like someone is just out to get other people to pay for a nice trip.

Where is my diagnosis?

Well, since I am not making this up, I couldn't possibly perform under all conditions. If I were making this up I would invent something much nicer. At least send me a picture or let me see you over the webcam. Don't make assumptions that I can diagnose from just by reading some text you wrote, I never made such a specific claim.

And this one:

The other case occurred yesterday as a matter of fact, involving a potentially serious and fatal heart problem. This was on a friend and I chose to describe the problem as specificly as I perceived it. I told him that I had never been incorrect yet, but that of course I may be incorrect this time, and that I felt obliged to share this information with him, especially since I detect that there is a way around the problem.

I detected that the cause is the consumption of deep-fried peanut oil and that a simple change in the type of fat and oil consumed would be all that can be done and would be sufficient to hault the advancement of the problem.

She not only diagnosed a "potentially serious and fatal heart problem" (of peanut oil around the heart), she advised a treatment plan. But, she is ALWAYS responsible about her "perceptions".

So, cut out that peanut oil, you guys! She has no idea what it is, but it's BAD.

My especial favorites, though, where when she said that her anecdotes were never meant to be taken as "evidence", only "examples"; that she has no belief in her "perceptions"; and that people in Sweden don't look at or talk to strangers (which means you are SOL if you ever get lost in Stockholm.).

 

[skeen]

LMAO at the "treatment plan". She pulled out all the stops there, huh? At least this thread has provided some great entertainment. What should we call these? VFFisms?

 

[Belz...]

When I look at people I perceive visual and felt perceptions of their health.

No you don't.

'sides, how do you know what you feel isn't just indigestion ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but, I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability.

You never will.

One of my first replies way back in December. Seems to have been right.

 

[skeen]

That kind of sums up her kooky line of thinking. "I have not dismissed no ESP ability." My mind cannot even wrap around the double negatives in a phrase like that. One thing is for sure, it doesn't lend any credence to said claims, beyond probably not being true.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

I would be less successful if the object was behind a screen or a door such that I could not see its outline or exact placement. I have tested myself on identifying materials that are concealed in non-opaque containers, but it can take me longer and it is harder to obtain the information.

That's right, Anita has tested herself with chemicals in non opaque containers and, although it is harder, she has still never been incorrect?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't she saying that things are harder to detect in see through containers than they are in non-see through containers? A non-opaque container is a transparent container, which should be easier to detect things in, I would have thought. Is there some sort of double negative thing happening here again that I am getting confused about?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

ETA: Sorry, didn't mean to be so "wall o'texty". I always tend to overexplain the complexities of delusional behavior.

Please don't be sorry and please don't stop. You're educating people here, and that's the name of the game.

I should like to also take this opportunity to offer my support for having contacted Anita's university and ensuring that the appropriate people are apprised of the situation.

This might well be the most positive thing to come out of the entire VfFiasco™, and could well be the first step towards Anita one day being in a position to offer the same advice, from the same perspective, as you do now. I have little doubt that this is the outcome most hoped for by the members of the forum.


Sidenote: The tutorials in using all the formatting tools have been a notable bonus in this thread, and it was nice to see you make Ashle's day with the nested quotes. Apart from anything else, this should end up being the best formatted thread ever.

 

[Akhenaten]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't she saying that things are harder to detect in see through containers than they are in non-see through containers? A non-opaque container is a transparent container, which should be easier to detect things in, I would have thought. Is there some sort of double negative thing happening here again that I am getting confused about?

With a VfF Decoder Ring™ * all of your misunderstandings, including Upcoming™ ones, will be cleared up. Eventually™.




* Send $2.95 to Quantum Vibrational Products, PO Box 1, Arcturus, Constellation Bootes. Telepathic orders accepted.