• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vision From Feeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just checking in again (see my previous posts in this thread).

So nothing anyone rational could call proof yet. All that arm waving has the potential to trigger a tornado though.

Why am I reminded of:
Owen Glendower:" I can call monsters from the vasty deep"
Hotspur: "Why, so can I and so can any man, but do they come when you do call for them".
(W Shakespeare -- 1 Henry IV) :boggled:
 
No more time wasting

VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!
 
desertgal:
desertgal said:
Not to nitpick the issue to death, but that wasn't, actually, my point. You said you would be attending the meeting, and you "will give everyone a psychic reading", and suggesting that they all bring a friend or two, thus giving the impression that using live subjects had been arranged and confirmed with the society. Yet, it seems that the host has some trepidations about using live subjects, thus giving the impression that that has not been confirmed. Thus, it appears you jumped the gun. Thus, it does not enhance your credibility when it comes to manipulating information.

In any case, we are where we have been since you began posting over a month ago-awaiting some confirmation about your alleged ability, or lack thereof. I await any results you care to post with baited breath.
That's right, I have not heard from the skeptical group about my attendance with them, yet I expect some discussion to arise when I meet with them, also I expect that I will be asked to, or allowed to, try my ability on the participants. It has in no ways been confirmed or arranged, I now see what you meant.

desertgal and Gord in Toronto and everyone else:
No there is no new evidence yet. I am working as fast as I can. There's just a lot of talk and no results yet.:words:

Dubious Dick:
Dubious Dick said:
VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!
I absolutely couldn't agree more! However I am not prevaricating. I am arranging a test with the IIG and I reply immediately to any material that they send me and am always left waiting for months for the next one. I'm working as fast as I can, I guess I could work even faster than that.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Pup:

Yes I knew that I could not perceive a color difference. Yet I gave it a try to go by hunch just to see whether an ability might have materialized in another way than color, and I found out that the ability does not function under these conditions.

True, yet I wanted to give it a try anyway as I do not yet fully understand under what conditions the ability may function. I am pleased to know however that I have defined yet another limitation to the ability and am closer to finding out what exactly it can and can not do. If the end result is that there is no extrasensory perception at all and under any conditions then I will accept it as readily as I have this. Yet chemical identification over webcam was never part of my claim.

Your ability is starting to sound like my ability to predict a coin flip. I can do it with 100% accuracy, but only when my ability is working, and it only works about half the time. Problem is, I can't predict when it'll be working, until I guess wrong, and then I know it didn't work under those conditions. But the other half of the time, I'm always right.
 
Soapy Sam:
Soapy Sam said:
Such cynicism!
Not from me I hope.

Pup:
Pup said:
Your ability is starting to sound like my ability to predict a coin flip. I can do it with 100% accuracy, but only when my ability is working, and it only works about half the time. Problem is, I can't predict when it'll be working, until I guess wrong, and then I know it didn't work under those conditions. But the other half of the time, I'm always right.
:mad:My claim is to detect health information in people that I see and information that is specific and detailed and that should not be detectable by ordinary perception! Everyone: stop making a big deal about cereal, chemicals, and pictures - those are not my claim. And so far when I have had the opportunity to check my medical information against the facts I have not been incorrect a single time. There is every reason to proceed toward properly set-up tests of this claim.:mad:

Hokulele:
Hokulele said:
That is what you are claiming on your website.
Yes, I do receive perceptions on occasion that are not related to medical or health information, but those perceptions occur much less frequently and I have not identified under what conditions nor under what test conditions. The claim I wish to have tested is on medical information.
 
Last edited:
Everyone: stop making a big deal about cereal, chemicals, and pictures - those are not my claim.


That is what you are claiming on your website. :confused:

website said:
On the small scale of atoms and chemicals, things appear in interesting colors that are not the same as the colors we see when we look at chemicals with our eyes. It bothers me that chemistry molecule sets that are used to attach different colored atoms together to make three dimensional physical models of molecules are in different colors than what I see. In my vision, nitrogen is neon green, phosphorus deep blue, potassium light blue, hydrogen red. Carbon is black, argon is a kind of purple-red, calcium is a light blue (different shade of light blue than that of potassium). I have an internal spectroscope in my mind and can distinguish atoms around me by their color and feeling.
 
No more time wasting

VFF. I am RicSuth from the comments. Please may I make a suggestion? Do not waste any more time going to and fro on this forum.

Get the tests set up. Let everyone know when they are taking place, what the protocols are and then what the results are. Then get down to your local newspaper/radio station and get some coverage, then apply for the MDC.

I have scanned this thread and it gives every impression that you are prevaricating. Prove you are not by getting on with it!
 
Anita, you certainly see things differently than I do. I'll address the major points:

It is the vertebrae of the lower part of the neck and not the upper neck vertebrae.
Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. And it's not vertebrae (plural). It's one side of one vertebra where the channel for the nerve is narrowing and has a little spur.

Possibly but not necessarily what I detected. I detected an issue with the bones above and below the elbow cartilage, at least the region is correct.

Is detecting the "region" significant? What do you mean by region? You said upper and lower arm. It's only upper. You said bone when it is in fact soft tissue. From the photos you know I am middle aged, right-handed, play bass and have two young children. Guessing that my right arm has an issue is nothing extraordinary. That fact that you got the specific region and type of tissue wrong makes all of this a complete miss.

Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards, I did detect an issue with the right wrist but failed to mention it. This does not count but for my purposes I am interested.

Correction. It's the left wrist. I originally typed it as "wright wrist" and removed the "w" and failed to notice that I got the wrist wrong. I apologize for the mistake.

Note: If you're thinking to yourself, "what a load of bull" then you know how people feel about what you wrote. However, like you, I am sincere.

The first thing I detected was knee problems but I failed to mention this. It does not count but is interesting for my own record.

You do your credibility harm by evening mentioning this and the above about the right wrist. History is full of charlatans who claim knowledge after the fact.

As I said nothing wrong with hip bone.

This is not a hit. How can you even think it might be? I listed a number of ailments that may make me look like I'm in bad shape, but in reality just about everything about my body works just fine. Should you get points for saying my liver, pancreas, appendix, heart, thyroid, etc, are all working fine?

As I said the elbow joint is unaffected.
The left elbow functions perfectly.

See the above.

I would not assume so, I meet plenty of 40-year olds in whom I sense no pain.

That's a meaningless statement. It's your ability to detect these things that is in question, so you're proving nothing. You made a general statement about pain that just about everybody my age would agree is "accurate" in a general sense. I also stated that in advance that I have several specific ailments, which probably means I have pain somewhere.

And then just look at me. I'm a big guy, which indicates that I was probably an athlete at some point (I was). Every athlete suffers aches and pains as they age. I am carrying extra weight (obviously), which adds stress to the body which manifests itself in pain. I play in a band, which means that I have to wear an instrument across my shoulders, put my arms in unnatural positions, and stand on stage for hours. That causes aches. Plus I have two young children, which means lots of bending and lifting (more stress on the body).

No offense, but any idiot looking at me would guess that I have aches and pains.

For the record I say that you missed every ailment that I actually have and reported ailments that I do not have. You get zero points for this. If you disagree, then that calls into question your claims of accuracy.

I think in the interest of fairness you should post links to my photos, your assessment, and our subsequent responses on your Observations page on your website.
 
Everyone loves to talk about how I fail on tests that have been done under conditions that were never part of my claim.

Let's discuss the aspects of what my claim is that I wish to have tested. Why did I detect reproductive cysts? Vasectomy? The specifics of vasectomy? That a person had ingested a specific type of bacteria? A problem with the esophageal sphincter? The specific small region of small intestine under the sternum that on occasion experience rigidity? The exact shape, size and color of a brown patch in the field of vision? Back problems that are not detectable with eyesight? Pains? Discomforts? Pregnancy and the gender of the baby? Tinnitus? And many more. Why don't we discuss these? You guys are only trying to find flaws in things that are not even the claim that I want tested. The other aspects of my perceptions are not significant enough for me to proceed with a test, at least not at this point. I want to discuss the medical information aspect of the perceptions.
 
UncaYimmy:
Thank you for participating and for being reliable in your account. I have never made the claim of being able to consistently produce information from a picture, even though I have experienced it before. And I now know thanks to you that I will not have a test on medical information with pictures (or webcam).

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

My claim is to detect information from people in life. That has to be tested and then conclusions can be made. See my comment above about tests on things that are not the main part of my claim. Thank you and we now know that my ability does not function with pictures or webcam, which in itself is helpful to know to proceed toward a test.

UncaYimmy said:
Note: If you're thinking to yourself, "what a load of bull" then you know how people feel about what you wrote. However, like you, I am sincere.
Not at all, I have faith in your credibility.
UncaYimmy said:
You do your credibility harm by evening mentioning this and the above about the right wrist. History is full of charlatans who claim knowledge after the fact.
And I also mentioned that:
VisionFromFeeling said:
Although it is not permissible to make claims afterwards, I did detect an issue with the right wrist but failed to mention it. This does not count but for my purposes I am interested.
UncaYimmy said:
This is not a hit. How can you even think it might be? I listed a number of ailments that may make me look like I'm in bad shape, but in reality just about everything about my body works just fine. Should you get points for saying my liver, pancreas, appendix, heart, thyroid, etc, are all working fine?
And nowhere did I say it was a hit.
UncaYimmy said:
No offense, but any idiot looking at me would guess that I have aches and pains.

For the record I say that you missed every ailment that I actually have and reported ailments that I do not have. You get zero points for this. If you disagree, then that calls into question your claims of accuracy.
I encounter plenty of people who you would assume to have pain, but I do not sense pain. And plenty of people who you would assume to not have pain, but I sense pain. I make no assumptions on pain based on looks, but, that is yet to be shown on a test. I think we can all agree that it is only once we have a formal test and can see what information I list that any claims made by you or me as to this become valid.
 
Last edited:
Let's discuss the aspects of what my claim is that I wish to have tested.
Agreed.

Why did I detect reproductive cysts?
Proof?

Vasectomy?
Proof?

The specifics of vasectomy?
Proof?

That a person had ingested a specific type of bacteria?
Proof?

A problem with the esophageal sphincter? The specific small region of small intestine under the sternum that on occasion experience rigidity? The exact shape, size and color of a brown patch in the field of vision? Back problems that are not detectable with eyesight? Pains? Discomforts? Pregnancy and the gender of the baby? Tinnitus?
Proof for any of these claims?

Why don't we discuss these?
Because you offer no proof, just baseless claims.

I want to discuss the medical information aspect of the perceptions.
Without any proof, what exactly do you want to discuss - your claims? A rather boring converstion without, you guessed it - proof.
 
Last edited:
Locknar:
Agreed. I can not bring some of the persons who were involved in these confirmed perceptions here to verify, since you don't know that I am not signing in as a different user. Since the IIG West is taking forever with the arrangements, and if any of you are growing as impatient as I am, I think the next step is for me to contact a local skeptics group and ask that they set up a simple medical information test and that they publish the results here.

Those of my readings that have been with family and friends, have been to detect new conditions that were not mentioned to me. Their accounts on my accuracy can not be used as formal evidence since we can never rule out bias in my favor no matter what things appear to be. The accuracy of perceptions are most interesting when done on someone I've just met, such as the most recent entries on the observations page http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html. I have been reluctant to discuss openly this ability and also not known how to have access to strangers who would volunteer, but the next natural step here is to begin arranging for tests.

If a local skeptics group can arrange to bring volunteers together, which of course can (and should) include themselves, we could get started. Even if such preliminary and very primitive tests may contain flaws that have not been worked out or identified yet, if I make incorrect information it would at least give reasons to suspect no ability.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy:
we now know that my ability does not function with pictures or webcam,

But, you stated in a previous post that:

I have had experiences of detecting information from photos, although not often. I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct. I do detect information about the health of people on television, although this occurs more often than with photos, and has also been confirmed as accurate many times.

So, which is it? Your ability does function through pictures, or it doesn't?
 
Last edited:
That is what you are claiming on your website. :confused:
This is the part that I thought would be easiest to test. Is that not true? Do those chemicals appear as colors to you or not? That is what it says on your website. This particular skill that you claim to have is what I have talked about with Eric and he believes he can devise a test to prove or disprove your claim. I am not saying we can't come up some kind of medical diagnostics test, but the ability to distinguish between different chemicals by site would be so much easier to test.
 
desertgal:
desertgal said:
But, you stated in previous posts that you diagnosed celebrities via television (how accurately, you did not say) and that you also made an accurate diagnosis through a picture.

So, which is it? Your ability does function through pictures, or it doesn't?
I have done so and later had confirmed that I was accurate, and do not recall a single case of having been incorrect (and of course that could be confirmation bias that I am unaware of). My answer would be that I have been able to, and that these forms of perceptions do not occur always. And I have shown that they do not occur at will. Therefore I will not bother to test an ability on this aspect of the many types of perceptions that I have had. If all I claimed to be capable of were medical information through pictures or video, I would at least by now have concluded that there is no point in proceeding with tests of that particular nature.

I would say that the ability may or may not function through pictures. The times I have made perceptions that I've believed in have not all been checked for accuracy and we can not conclude whether there lies such an ability or not. I do conclude that this here is not an ability that I will have tested.

godofpie:
godofpie said:
This is the part that I thought would be easiest to test. Is that not true? Do those chemicals appear as colors to you or not? That is what it says on your website. This particular skill that you claim to have is what I have talked about with Eric and he believes he can devise a test to prove or disprove your claim. I am not saying we can't come up some kind of medical diagnostics test, but the ability to distinguish between different chemicals by site would be so much easier to test.
Chemical identification would definitely be the easiest to test, but as I have consistently explained these perceptions occur far less frequently than does medical information. I would find myself in chemical identification tests where I am forced to guess when the ability fails to kick in. I do not always sense colors from chemicals, but when I do it has been accurate. When it comes to medical information the information appears to a higher frequency, and to a frequency that is reliable for a test.

When I make the effort to detect chemical information it gives me a serious headache and nausea. When I make an effort to detect medical information there is no such problem. I have consistently outlined several reasons why I will have a test on medical information and not chemical identification.
 
I agree that a chemical identification test would be easier for test purposes, but it would be harder from my perspective. It is also not my claim and is not what I have approached skeptics groups about having tested.
 
desertgal:
desertgal said:
VisionFromFeeling said:
I do recall one incident where a mother showed me a picture of her daughter and asked me to describe her health problems. I did so without any prior knowledge and according to the mother I was fully correct.
Is that not at will?
In that particular case it was not at will, the information was automatic and I made no effort. I know this sounds like excuses, yet that is another reason why I will not have a test on pictures. I rarely detect information from pictures, and not to a reliably high frequency to enable a test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom