Vision From Feeling

[Akhenaten]

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?

I was originally using the trademark symbol™ to indicate words for which VfF had her own peculiar definition. I like the idea of VfFisms though, and humbly suggest that they could be represented as follows:


Vibrational Algebra^VfF
Perceptions^VfF
Etcetera^VfF

 

[nathan]

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.

oo! I know -- it must be an artifact of DCT compression. All we need to do us take the original high resolution image, jpeg and unjpeg it, and then subtract that from the original. Hey presto! We've extracted the Vibrational Algebra^TM.

On second thoughts, I may have extracted something else ...

 

[EHocking]

...
So you were conforming to the test condition that you had to view the subjects from the back by... viewing the subject from the front and side?
Your answers are losing even the vaguest sense of coherence.

Why have you decided on viewing from the back? If you get much better readings from the front, fine, view from the front. If at any point you ever told us what you could do to what degree of confidence under what circumstances we might actualy be able to understand what test protocol you are proposing and why.
If you could describe your absolute optimum viewing requirements then do so. ...

I'll keep trying to remind vff that she has already stated this on her website. These posts of mine seem to be the ones she particularly wishes to ignore.

From Page2 of her website:
Images are three-dimensional and often perceived from many angles at once, from the front, behind, up, down, left and right at the same time. So images are not constructed from the sides that I am facing only.

Yet she repeatedly contradicts these absolute claims when trying to rationalise any of her "test" results.

 

[Old man]

In the Wayne reading, Anita made 13 observations.

1) “"heart" is "nice and orange pink"”
Not verified.

2) “heart is "not red and inflamed"”
Not verified.

3) "Liver fine”
Not verified.

4) (liver) “slightly smaller than average”
Not verified.

5) (liver) "good chemistry"
Not verified.

6) “slight discomfort at the throat”
Miss.

7) “I was fully convinced that what I was feeling was his adam's apple.” “It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat.”
Miss.

8) “I write that his "elbows" are "fine"”
Weak hit, I suppose.

9) "intestines fine (tissue and color etc.)"
Not verified.

10) "brain fine"
Not verified.

11) "left shoulder tired"
Miss.

12) "Lungs fine”
Not verified.

13) (Lungs) “slightly smaller than average, not due to lack of exercise"
Not verified.

So, 13 guesses, 9 of which were unverifiable, 3 were clear misses, and 1 was a ‘hit’ if we allow her to just list all of the body parts she can think of and say ‘fine’ for each.

Really, Anita, you’d have a lot more ‘hits’ (206) if you’d list all of the bones in a person’s body and say ‘fine’ for each. But, that would be too risky, wouldn’t it?

You'll be a better cold reader if you say things like "You might be at risk for a brain aneurysm, I'm getting some blood vessel weakness there," or "Watch out for a spontaneous pneumothorax, some of your alveoli are distended". If you're gonna make a career out of this, you need to get better at it.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

I'll keep trying to remind vff that she has already stated this on her website. These posts of mine seem to be the ones she particularly wishes to ignore.

From Page2 of her website:
Images are three-dimensional and often perceived from many angles at once, from the front, behind, up, down, left and right at the same time. So images are not constructed from the sides that I am facing only.

Yet she repeatedly contradicts these absolute claims when trying to rationalise any of her "test" results.

The 3D images only happen when the images occur spontaneously. When she has to concentrate, the images are only 1 dimensional. Or something like that.

 

[Ashles]

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?

What I was trying to say was that she is claiming she has never been incorrect. This even includes when she has identified chemicals in non-opaque containers.
Presumably this must mean that, although she describes it as harder, she has successfully done so enough times to be convincing to her that she can do so. That's in non-opaque containers.
Surely then opaque containers should be a do-able test.

And she can ignore any instance where she cannot get a 'reading'. Even one correct and 19 passes would (although not overwhelming) be indicative towards her claim. It would at least be consistent with what she claims.
Yet she won't do it. It's somehow too weak to test.

I cannot then fathom how she performed well enough in the first place to convince herself she could do this... with none incorrect.

 

[Ashles]

In the Wayne reading, Anita made 13 observations.

Actually as far as I can tell we don't know what observations, or how many Anita made.

We don't know what actually was written down and what was said afterwards.

Anita, could you either scan in or write down what you actually wrote down as Wayne's medical status.

 

[Old man]

Actually as far as I can tell we don't know what observations, or how many Anita made.

We don't know what actually was written down and what was said afterwards.

Anita, could you either scan in or write down what you actually wrote down as Wayne's medical status.

My bad. On her webpage, Anita has listed 13 observations for the subject 'Wayne'.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Regarding how Anita is trying to view people from different angles, I think this stems from a conversation about trying to detect breast implants. If her ability worked from behind, it would make the test a whole lot easier. Of course, it turns out she can't detect breast implants unless they are filled with peanut oil, so that's off the table. Still, I think this is her way of looking like she's "exploring" the nature of her ability so as to devise a more properly blinded test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you haven't read the moderated interview thread with Anita, now would be a good time to go check it out. The stuff she says there is just wild.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4292683#post4292683

On one occasion I chose to do the head-to-toe reading of a person I know, who was not in the same room as me at that time, and was able to form the images and derive health information I had not detected in him before.

When it comes to perceptions that come to me on their own, while I see the person, I can not block the images. When I look away, close my eyes, or no longer see the person if one of us leaves, I no longer have the perception.

When it comes to perceptions that form due to my choice of looking for information, such perceptions are easily stopped as soon as I take my mind's attention away from them. However, such perceptions can also be formed while looking away, with my eyes closed, or even being in a different room and no longer seeing the person, because these perceptions are made in a different way.

So for the strong perceptions that form on their own, they cease as soon as I no longer see the person. And perceptions that are formed from my choice of searching for information and choosing to pay attention, they cease when I take my attention away from them, whether I still see the person or not. I hope this answers your question more thoroughly, if not, again, let me know.

 

[Ashles]

My bad. On her webpage, Anita has listed 13 observations for the subject 'Wayne'.

That is again the problem. It is so horrendously unscientific.

Instead of presenting the raw data of what was actually written down and then seperately subsequently interpreting and analysing the information, Anita only presents the post analysis results (post her own analysis). She is presenting the conclusions already drawn rather than the actual data from which to draw conclusions.
And she has not even presented all of what was written down. You have to try and guess based on the very vague way the information is presented.

For example from the following description:

I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment". Besides I was fully convinced that what I was feeling was his adam's apple. I drew a picture of the exact size and location of this sensation, which correlates with the adam's apple so that's probably what it was. It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat. However this was not significant in any way.

We have no way of knowing what was actually written down, and how much of this is post results interpretation.
All that is stated as written down is "it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment"."
But we don't know exactly what "it" refers to here. We are not provided with the actual written statements.

Her page is, ironically, called 'Observations' when it should really strictly be called 'Interpretations'.

 

[Ashles]

I notice there is a second draft of the study, but again I cannot see anything on that page.
I don't know if it's my security settings.

The Study - Preliminary Draft - Version 2

I assume The Scale is still playing a central role?

 

[Uncayimmy]

That is again the problem. It is so horrendously unscientific.

Instead of presenting the raw data of what was actually written down and then seperately subsequently interpreting and analysing the information,

I tried very hard to explain to her in a private chat that she cannot be the subject and the scientist at the same time. This is when she get all worked up about not getting the Nobel prize - she doesn't want someone else to get it. I guess she figures if she shares the credit with myself and others, that will make it better. Somehow.

 

[desertgal]

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.

Thank you.

Those googly eyeballs in your avatar made my day.

I hope she does get help. It's scary to face that something is not working right, in your body or your mind, but it's much better to live an honest life than a delusional one.

 

[Ashles]

I tried very hard to explain to her in a private chat that she cannot be the subject and the scientist at the same time.

Absolutely. But even if you choose to break this fairly simple rule, at the very least she could have presented what was actually written down by her.
Jim has said he will ask to have a copy of her written comments if the study goes ahead.

This is when she get all worked up about not getting the Nobel prize - she doesn't want someone else to get it.

That really gets more staggering the more I think about it.
Never mind counting your chickens before they've hatched - this is like counting your chickens before you have eggs, or before you have ever heard of eggs or before you have even moved to a planet capable of sustaining life at some point in the distant future. And you can't count.

 

[Old man]

That is again the problem. It is so horrendously unscientific.

Instead of presenting the raw data of what was actually written down and then seperately subsequently interpreting and analysing the information, Anita only presents the post analysis results (post her own analysis). She is presenting the conclusions already drawn rather than the actual data from which to draw conclusions.
And she has not even presented all of what was written down. You have to try and guess based on the very vague way the information is presented.

For example from the following description:

We have no way of knowing what was actually written down, and how much of this is post results interpretation.
All that is stated as written down is "it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment"."
But we don't know exactly what "it" refers to here. We are not provided with the actual written statements.

Her page is, ironically, called 'Observations' when it should really strictly be called 'Interpretations'.

Oh, I agree, I agree. I'm looking forward to her retraction of her "and I've never been wrong" claim, though, now that she has three clear misses.

I notice there is a second draft of the study, but again I cannot see anything on that page.
I don't know if it's my security settings.

The Study - Preliminary Draft - Version 2

I assume The Scale is still playing a central role?

I didn't see any mention of The Scale in that document, but it's so poorly written that I just can't force myself to read it.

Maybe The Scale is included in the 'forms' that she alludes to?

 

[Nursefoxfire]

I notice there is a second draft of the study, but again I cannot see anything on that page.
I don't know if it's my security settings.

The Study - Preliminary Draft - Version 2

I assume The Scale is still playing a central role?

I read through it and had to make a diagram to figure out how she moves all the volunteers (and skeptic volunteers) around. If you're interested, I made notes about how everyone pirouettes through this farcical ballet of a "study".

No mention of The Scale, and in fact she doesn't touch much on the details of the survey form itself, or how anything is to be graded / marked down. Or maybe I overlooked it in the Wall-O-text that makes up the study.

 

[Old man]

I read through it and had to make a diagram to figure out how she moves all the volunteers (and skeptic volunteers) around. If you're interested, I made notes about how everyone pirouettes through this farcical ballet of a "study".

No mention of The Scale, and in fact she doesn't touch much on the details of the survey form itself, or how anything is to be graded / marked down. Or maybe I overlooked it in the Wall-O-text that makes up the study.

Beat ya by a minute!

ETA: (But, I didn't waste much time reading it, either. I'm glad that you took the time to confirm my quick skim through.)

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Beat ya by a minute!

yeah, but you admitted to not even reading the thing, ya cheat!

Btw, I used to live in Upstate NY (Massena, Potsdam, and other places you couldn't even find on a map!)

 

[Uncayimmy]

I notice there is a second draft of the study, but again I cannot see anything on that page.
I don't know if it's my security settings.

The Study - Preliminary Draft - Version 2

I assume The Scale is still playing a central role?

First off, the mall told her "no way", so now she's not going to ask any other commercial establishments for permission. She is, however, contacting the city of Charlotte, NC, to see what laws she has to follow to do it in a public place. Apparently she thinks you need permission to talk to people on the street. So much for her study this weekend, eh?

She may, at her option, advertise for volunteers if the city says it's okay. Still no mention of actually doing it at the skeptics meeting.

She says that six members of the Skeptics group are interested in participating in the study, but she doesn't make clear if they are to be assistants or victims subjects.

If she can't find four skeptics as volunteer assistants, she can use anybody she chooses. She reserves the right to determine who does what job in the study. She reserves the right to determine who is allowed to observe.

Her "notes" will not be given to a volunteer but instead typed up and posted on her website.

"The results cannot be calculated on a point system and is not quantitative."

She wants to tabulate and publish the results and let a skeptic volunteer, who may not even be a skeptic, verify her results.

The study cannot necessarily conclude against ESP "if unfavorable circumstances take place during the study." She reiterates this point based on her notes that nobody else sees.

Got that? She tabulates the results, and *only* she sees her "recorded" excuses as to why it might not have worked.

Only at the very end under "Goals" does she mention the scale. "The perceived extent of the ailment is asked for" so the claimant and the subject can "deduce what kind of correlation" there is.

I did not see the form she expects to use.