Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

Okay there are now officially far too many different claims Anita is making to address them all.

At this stage Anita's attempts to 'explain' the ability (by use of incredibly vague and scientifically useless references to 'vibrational information' and throwing in the words 'Quantum Mechanics') are entirely redundant.

While I would love to ask Anita more about this strange Professor of Physics who encounters a girl who can 'see' elements and see inside people's bodies and, by her own description, make perfect medical diagnoses with no medical knowledge, yet chooses not to investigate in any way, I don't feel it will be productive.
While I would love to find out what Anita actually feels she knows about Quantum Mechanics and how it relates to her ability (as though wave function and vibrational information can just be interchanged and there we go that's a theory), I also don't feel it will be productive. (If she hasn't so far even studied statistics I rather doubt she has ventured far enough into QM to forward a theory on the subject.)

This thread seems fairly far derailed already.

There is no point in attempting to 'explain' the ability until it is independently shown to be present in the first place.

So, hopeless as it will probably be, can I suggest we try to keep any comments, as far as possible, focused on the upcoming tests as all current assumptions about Anita either way are hardly likely to be changed between now and the test.

Is there a final agreed protocol? Has anyone from IIG been posting here regarding the test (I may have missed it in the melee).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Some women have tetrachromatic vision that means that they can differentiate colours better than other humans (it has been estimated that 2-3% of all women have this mutation). If VFF has tetrachromatic vision she may well be able to notice things that other people might not be able to see.

Could be, but do you think it would include internal organs and glowing gas inside of cylinders ?

 

[Ocelot]

From her website
"X-Ray Vision" (to paraphrase) is exactly what VFF is claiming on her website and here, but on a atomic level.

No that's one interpetations from a fraction of the information given.

Only if you miss out the bit about her mind constructing the images and if you miss out the fact that she's said she needs visible skin for it to work does it fit x ray vision.

What you're doing is extrapolating from a subset of the information she's given without regard for the rest of the information.

Why does the pool have to contain just men? Why can't the pool contain women, or "nobody"? If she can see inside the human body, as she claims, she'd know it was a woman, a child, or nobody at all.

There's a hole in the screen to see their back. By having all men within a relatively narrow age range you reduce the possibility that she's making her judgement by detecting factors other than the vasectomy. Skin tone, hair etc give clues as to age and gender. Children and women don't have vasectomies. I don't believe you had to ask why there couldn't be no boyd at all visible through the hole.

What I've outlined fits exactly what she is claiming.

Only if you ignore the fact that she stated that she needs visible skin for it to work reliably. She's trying to find out the conditions in which it does work. She already knows and has stated that it won't work under the conditions you specified. As such your protocol tells us nothing she hasn't already told us herself.

My suggestion tells us whether visible skin is enough or if in fact she needs a few more visual cues as you'd expect from some form of cold reading.

 

[volatile]

Only if you miss out the bit about her mind constructing the images and if you miss out the fact that she's said she needs visible skin for it to work does it fit x ray vision.

She has said on this thread, repeatedly, that she can sense ovarian cysts and vasectomies. The cysts, in particular, were detected in a co-worker.

Unless she works in a brothel, her ability as claimed works through clothing, and therefore should work through a blindfold.

 

[Locknar]

There's a hole in the screen to see their back. By having all men within a relatively narrow age range you reduce the possibility that she's making her judgement by detecting factors other than the vasectomy. Skin tone, hair etc give clues as to age and gender. Children and women don't have vasectomies. I don't believe you had to ask why there couldn't be no boyd at all visible through the hole.

By having all men, that in my opinion greatly enhances her odds of a correct guess. The test pool should be open to any gender, any age, any marital status.

Only if you ignore the fact that she stated that she needs visible skin for it to work reliably. She's trying to find out the conditions in which it does work. She already knows and has stated that it won't work under the conditions you specified. As such your protocol tells us nothing she hasn't already told us herself.

My suggestion tells us whether visible skin is enough or if in fact she needs a few more visual cues as you'd expect from some form of cold reading.

To be clear, she said a blindfold would not work (but claims to be able to see through clothing material) and has yet to respond to other options (ie. hood, curtain, etc); but a moot point.

Do the test in a room with no light, she wears a blindfold, the test subject enters, she removes the blindfold and can look to her hearts content for a pre-determined period of time. The blindfold goes on, the subject leaves; repeat.

This meets her criteria for looking at the individual, as well as bare skin...yet keeps it a "blind" test in terms of cold reading information.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yeah, I got that. It's been explained to me several times already in this very thread.

Consider yourself very, very, very lucky -- you are probably the ONLY PERSON TO HAVE ACTUALLY LEARNED AN ACTUAL FACT from this thread.

I wish I was as lucky.

 

[Ocelot]

She has said on this thread, repeatedly, that she can sense ovarian cysts and vasectomies. The cysts, in particular, were detected in a co-worker.

Unless she works in a brothel, her ability as claimed works through clothing, and therefore should work through a blindfold.

You're assuming a mechanism. I'm not. Light and x-rays travel in straight lines. For light or x-rays to be the vector by which this information is carried then indeed, the information must pass directly through the clothing. If her ability does work in the way that you imagine then yes it would work through a blindfold. However nobody else is claiming that it does work in the way you're suggesting. She hasn't said that she needs the affected area to be uncovered only some area of the body. She's explicitly said that she needs to see some part of the body. This precludes a blindfold.

So instead if we must speculate how the ability works (a little premature before we've even verified that it does work but what the hey) we must consider alterntive mechanisms. Perhaps some sort of signal permeates the body and is carried away only through the skin - so the information doesn't travel in a straight line. Perhaps the signal takes some hours to permeate through solid material so clothing that has been worn since morning is not a problem but a cover placed over a cup of cereal a minute ago won't have had time to incorporate the supernatural "vibrations" Either way a blindfold would stop the ability working. Such speculation is silly and pointless at this stage.

I feel it as unwise for her to make such speculation as it is for you to speculate that such an ability must work through a blindfold. Especially as what she has said strongly indicates that it wouldn't.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

When you make stuff up, you can make up the rules about how it works...

 

[Uncayimmy]

She has said on this thread, repeatedly, that she can sense ovarian cysts and vasectomies. The cysts, in particular, were detected in a co-worker.

Unless she works in a brothel, her ability as claimed works through clothing, and therefore should work through a blindfold.

Too bad you don't get to tell her how her ability should and should not work. It's not up to any of us to do that. We can help construct tests that meet her claimed methodology and meet our requirements of excluding other means of gathering information. We can say that given her conditions there's no way to rule out other means of detecting the same information, and therefore there is no reliable way to test her. But it's obnoxious and counterproductive to tell people how their claims "should" work.

She claims that she needs to see the person she is reading. She looks at that person and "downloads" information. She will then (often, not always) shut her eyes and turn away to concentrate on this information. Images and impressions then appear in her mind. The person needs to remain where they are because she believes she continues to receive information. The "normal vision" part of what she does seems to be for orientation purposes.

Since no one else here experiences things that way, we can't say in what other ways it should work. What she describes is what we need to work with.

And quite frankly there's plenty of room to demonstrate to Anita that she's really not sensing information generated from within a person's body. Once she is convinced of that (if ever), then perhaps she will be more open to other more likely explanations.

Then, and only then, will she understand why you (and just about all of us here) think that a blindfold should have no effect if clothes have no effect.

 

[Ocelot]

By having all men, that in my opinion greatly enhances her odds of a correct guess.

No it doesn't. If all she's doing is guessing she's got a 50% chance of being correct. Whatever guess she makes there's a 50% chance that the coin toss picked someone from the vasectomy pool and a 50% chance that the coin toss picked someone from the no vasectomy pool.

The test pool should be open to any gender, any age, any marital status.

Are we still talking about the vasectomy test here? You do realise that the vasectomy pool cannot be open to any gender or age. I'm not too bothered about marital status as there's less likely to be clues as to that from looking at somebody's back. By limiting the non-vasectomy pool to those whose outward appearance is most similar to those in the vasectomy pool you eliminate the posibility that Anita would get a passing mark from the slightly less than supernatural ability to distinguish a prepubescent girl's back from that of a 45 year old man.

To be clear, she said a blindfold would not work (but claims to be able to see through clothing material) and has yet to respond to other options (ie. hood, curtain, etc); but a moot point.

What part of her statement that she needs to be able to see bare skin for her ability to be reliable do you fail to understand? Can you see bare skin through a curtain? No, then she's not claiming her ability will be relaible. Can you see bare skin through a hood? No, then she's not claiming her ability will be reliable.

Perhaps you don't understand how being able to see bare skin on one part of the body means she can detect an abnormality in another part of the body. Frankly niether do I. I certianly don't assume that it means she's actually seeing through layers of clothes and tissue. I don't see why you should either.

Do the test in a room with no light, she wears a blindfold, the test subject enters, she removes the blindfold and can look to her hearts content for a pre-determined period of time. The blindfold goes on, the subject leaves; repeat.

This meets her criteria for looking at the individual, as well as bare skin...yet keeps it a "blind" test in terms of cold reading information.

Well I believe that my suggestion also severly limits cold reading opportunites but at least yours is a suggestion that she hasn't already said wouldn't work.

 

[Locknar]

Are we still talking about the vasectomy test here? You do realise that the vasectomy pool cannot be open to any gender or age.

Of course it can. Her claim is she can see reproductive organs, etc. not just vasectomies in men. In that context certainly she can tell if a woman has or has not had a vasectomy...or if a room with no light if anyone is there at all.

What part of her statement that she needs to be able to see bare skin for her ability to be reliable do you fail to understand?

She has made multiple claims, being able to see through clothes and boxes, etc. between her threads here, her website, Skeptic Groups, protocols....

Rather then summarily dismiss a hood, or a curtian...I'd rather she explain why these options won't work.

I certianly don't assume that it means she's actually seeing through layers of clothes and tissue. I don't see why you should either.

But that is, in part, exactly what she is claiming...here, on her website, with the Skeptic Groups she is "working" with, etc.

Well I believe that my suggestion also severly limits cold reading opportunites but at least yours is a suggestion that she hasn't already said wouldn't work.

Depending on the size of the hole/screen and the test group.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Of course it can. Her claim is she can see reproductive organs, etc. not just vasectomies in men. In that context certainly she can tell if a woman has or has not had a vasectomy...or if a room with no light if anyone is there at all.

Sorry to be rude, but you're not paying attention. She has never claimed to have some sort eyesight that can penetrate barriers. She calls it Vision From Feeling and has made synesthesia references. Never once has she claimed it is some x-ray vision.

Just today I gave an accurate description of what she says a reading entails. Suffice it to say her eyesight plays a role in what she claims. It always has. Our goal should be to reduce or eliminate the information she can gather from her eyesight.

She has made multiple claims, being able to see through clothes and boxes, etc. between her threads here, her website, Skeptic Groups, protocols....

No, that's your spin on it because you want to translate it into something you know and understand (ordinary vision). I know you're all hot and bothered with trying to come up with some sort of "gotcha," but really it's just so much noise at this point.

She claims to need her ordinary eyesight to begin a process that ultimately involves impressions and images in her mind which, as she has described to me, are not the same as eyesight nor quite the same as imagination.

So leave it at that.

Rather then summarily dismiss a hood, or a curtian...I'd rather she explain why these options won't work.

What's she gonna say besides, "it just doesn't work that way" or "I've never done it that way before, so I can't agree to any judgment based on the results."

Regardless, about a thousand posts ago this was already discussed. So how about we work with what she has actually told us and go from there?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry to be rude, but you're not paying attention. She has never claimed to have some sort eyesight that can penetrate barriers. She calls it Vision From Feeling and has made synesthesia references. Never once has she claimed it is some x-ray vision.

Mea culpa, to a certain extent. I've referred to VfF's X-ray vision myself, but only because it's easier to type than "ability to download vibrational information" and doesn't sound quite as silly. The apparently preferred term "vision from feeling" sounds too much like a crude description of synesthesia, and we're way beyond that possibility.

I still think "X-ray" vision is reasonable shorthand for this unevidenced ability, since the net result of it would be pretty much the same picture an X-ray or MRI might produce.


<snip't>

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

There's so many of you and only one of me.

UncaYimmy:

I said before that it's premature to get others involved before you have done your due diligence to eliminate the ordinary and mundane. Look at the difficulty coming up with a protocol. Why do you think that is? It's because you don't have a specific, reliable claim.

I have done what I can to check the accuracy of the perceptions, and given plenty of opportunity for a no-ability to be detected as such. Please allow that I have failed to dismiss a possible ability and therefore I proceed with the next step. The claim is specific and performs reliably enough to be put to a test.

You were skilled to defend me on the anecdote of the cysts and the coworker, then why don't you do the same with the peanut oil? Why can't we all accept that in my background no one I know used peanut oil. I was being fully sincere with that. Let's just move on...

And that's the problem I'm driving at. You're jumping from your lack of experience and knowledge of the world to wanting to be tested for ESP. That's like me as a kid winning a foot race with my friends and then asking to go to the Olympic trials.

No Hon, I've had some amazing experiences that I can't explain. Please accept that there are reasons to proceed toward further testing. A test is not as exhaustive as that, I have not claimed to be psychic yet.

If you spent less time discussing your ability and more time testing it objectively, you'd catch a lot less grief.

Likewise.

I guess we come from different backgrounds. I would never dream of asking people to spend their valuable time testing me when I haven't done the due diligence on my part to assure them that I'm not gonna waste their time.

I have done all I can to test myself and have concluded that the next step is to involve skeptics in my investigation.

If these people are willing to help you, that's great. But you don't deserve to be tested.

Well, wait until you see video taped examples of me "in action". And you'll see why I've chosen to proceed toward testing. Patience Jimmy, alright?

You have been given numerous suggestions on how to self-test, but we haven't seen you do them. However, you are jumping at the chance to be video taped in front of a captive audience. What do you think that says about you?

I can not test myself any more than I have without the involvement of skeptics, I have arrived at that stage now. The "captive audience" is fewer than 10 skeptics, if I wanted attention I could do better than that. Besides we need this captive audience to document what happens. You should be encouraging me for wanting to put my perceptions to the test! If I were saying that I don't want to involve skeptics, you'd argue about that as well.
Everything I do and everything I don't do is wrong.

We discussed circumcision and breast implants yesterday. What did you do today about this?

What I did? I dropped everything I was doing, didn't even waste time putting my shoes on, and ran straight to a busy street, and within minutes I stood up on a soapbox, and yelled out, "Alright, this is an emergency, everyone stop right there and go nowhere, I am going to look at each and every one of you very carefully, write some things down, after which all men take your pants down and all the women take your tops off - you will be inspected! This is a scientific investigation and your participation is mandatory!" That's what I did UncaYimmy. My research assistants are processing the data and should have the results with you shortly.

You said you can see private parts, so did you check for circumcision? You told me you know what a cut and uncut penises look like. So, is this a viable test or not? How about implants?

I hate to disappoint everyone but I do not recall the specific experience of detecting circumcision, but all we need is one man who'se had it and another who hasn't and I will be able to find out if it is among the things I detect. Breast implants I do detect and it is testable.

Miss Kitt:

My question is this: In what capacity were you working, that you had nurses as coworkers? (For several months at least, per your anecdotes on this perception of cysts...)

I worked at nursing homes for three years, as a practical nurse.

You have repeatedly claimed ignorance of medical affairs, to the point of not knowing that tissue is removed during a vasectomy. Yet apparently you worked with nurses for several months??

A practical nurse is not required to have any prior knowledge of anatomy or health. We deal with simpler tasks such as feeding, bathing and clothing persons. Let me bring this up again: If I were on Who Wants To Be A Millionare? and it is the last, million dollar question, I have done 50/50, and all that remains is: "Vasectomy involves... an incision, or the removal of tissue?" I use all my knowledge and all my might, and I answer "incision", and lose the million dollars. I assure you I was under the assumption that a vasectomy involves an incision. Why are we arguing about this? I have told you the truth.

There is a documented phenomenon called (if I recall correctly) "unconscious learning" where a person stores information without actually realizing that they are doing it. It has been discovered in people who, for example, show some fluency in a language they have not to their knowledge ever studied. And it's true that they didn't study it. But they did have access to enough information and/or exposure to the language to have acquired some understanding, even though they do not remember doing so.

True, but on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire I would have answered "incision".

PS One other question: In your list of ailments, you specify that skin cancer is NOT readable, but list many others that are. Why would skin cancer not show? Have you experienced not seeing skin cancer in someone whom you knew had it??

Honey, once again a skeptic speaks too soon and says something that isn't true. I never said that skin cancer is not readable. I said that it should not be involved in the test, assuming that it is not appropriate for a test since it affects the surface of a person.

Pixel42:

So you're OK with using the standard protocol for eliminating subjective validation in your test on Thursday, i.e. write down the health information you see for each person, get someone to check them and Tippex out any information you've included that is obvious to anyone (e.g. hair colour) and then give each subject copies of everyone's health information and ask them to pick out the one that fits them best?

It really is the only way to determine if you are getting a hit rate that is better than chance.

Yes and I love your suggestion. If I am given the opportunity to try psychic medical diagnose on Thursday something like this will be applied.

Baron Samedi:

The discussion on peanut oil had me curious about how often it is used for cooking.

Well to be fair you would really have to quiz the people that I've known, to know what my background is. I am from northern Europe and we do not use peanut oil like you Americans do. We don't even eat peanut butter! Ask our Swedish friends.

nathan:

In what way does QM translate the physical world into vibrational information?

By considering atoms in terms of the movement (vibration) of electrons rather than considering atoms as a particle. I am no expert and have more to learn. It is an interesting subject.

Akhenaten:

This is not a personal attack. You very selectively quoted something I said so as to competely change its intent.

I find this evasive to the point of dishonesty.

Well I take excerpts from your posts to emphasize what part of it I am addressing. I am sorry if we are in disagreement.

Coveredinbeeees:

Ah, but even in the case where your "see" and are confident about medical information in the test which later proves to be false it would not show that you have no extrasensory ability, only that your extrasensory ability, if it exists, did not work during that test. The test can never exactly reproduce the conditions of your previous readings because the conditions of the test must be controlled while your prior readings were not.

Not at all... If I am taking a test, and I claim to actually see some information, I write that down as my answer, and I state that I am confident in the answer. That answer is then checked for accuracy. If I make a statistically significant amount of incorrect answers, the test will conclude that there is no extrasensory ability that would reach accurate health information. The test hypothesis is falsifiable.

The test can definitely reproduce the circumstances of real life experiences. When I am taking the test, I will be asked if I agree with the set up of the test and if my ability is working under those circumstances. Once I answer yes the test can be conducted. All I need is to have persons to look at. It is not like I am requesting an ambient temperature, the specific light-setting, or a certain time of day or Lunar cycle. It'll be easy enough, you'll see.

You should record yourself when you ask these questions. Psychics aren't the only people who pick up on subtle cues. You could give away the fact that a particular question is meant to be answered negatively quite unconsciously.

I know this, that is why I am eager to have a test.

For example, perhaps when someone has a headache you say, "You have a headache don't you?" but when someone does not have a headache and you are simply testing their honesty you ask, "you don't have a headache do you?"

Yes, I know what you are suggesting and the thought crosses my mind too. However at least I am able to not make it this obvious when I ask them.

It could easily be more subtle such as a different expression worn or inflection used when asking your honesty-test question.

By recording yourself during a reading and reviewing the recording you might rule these out.

Yes I know. I fully agree.

Have you ever noticed that people often fail to inform others when their shirts are untucked at the back or when they have been ◊◊◊◊ upon by a bird? People don't like to bear bad news even when that news would be helpful to know.

I know. A test with skeptics will eliminate this concern. Don't forget all my (anecdotal) experiences where my accuracy was confirmed by means other than me asking the person. I seriously have reasons to proceed toward a test, please allow that.

Did you ever discuss a single-ailment test with IIG before designing the multiple-ailment protocol?

That is an excellent idea, although I suggested a multiple-ailment protocol in case a specific ailment would not be detectable enough at the test so that I could "spread the risk". I know what it sounds like, and hopefully with the local skeptics group I can proceed toward establishing what is the best protocol from both my point of view as well as for test purposes.

Me and my skeptics ​

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Locknar:

Vasectomy is pretty straight forward, either a man has had one or not. Ingested bacteria...seems awfully wiggly to me; reproductive cysts, women get them all the time - exactly how would a woman prove she does not have one (if say you diagnose her as having one)? Are you planing on having a Dr right there, ready to examin women on the spot?

Ingested bacteria refers to a person taking a supplement so they would have a significant and unusually high amount of the bacteria. I agree with your concern with the cysts though. I was hoping that we include women who have been diagnosed as having cysts to a significant extent.

I see...assuming when you pick up "vibrational information" these people are not naked...why do you have to see them?

I thought we weren't allowed to speculate as to how or why my ability works? If I try to answer why I have to see the person that would begin a discussion as to my theories of how this works. I have to see the person, but there is hope. I think I can receive the information from looking at a person's neck for instance, which should not hold most of the obvious external symptoms of health.

You've already claimed to be able to see through skin and various (though not all) fabrics...so a man with a vasectomy you can see through say denim jeans & cotton briefs but add the blind fold and BLAM suddenly your "power" is rendered ineffective?

I hope to try different screens with the local skeptics group. I have to see the person to know where they are. That's just the way it works. And from seeing a person I can see and feel their entire body including internally.

So what about a blacked-out room, or say through a curtain?

I will definitely try a curtain, since if I can do this with a curtain it would simplify test arrangements. I think I could do this with dimmed lights, which would also be good for test purposes, however then we would enter a discussion about whether I have super eyesight instead and am still picking up on external clues!

desertgal:

I smell a setup...

I don't.

Pixel42:

If, say, 20% of men have had a vasectomy, then there is a 20% chance that each individual man you ask will say he's had one. Assuming that, just because there are only two possibilities, there's a 50% chance of getting each every time is an elementary schoolboy error. It's only true if both possibilities are equally likely, e.g. when flipping a coin.

I was right then. And desertgal shouldn't have been upset at me in the first place.

volatile:

"Well I have to see the people I am reading, that's just the way it happens to be."

Cold reading. Clear, blatant cold reading. Vision - Locknar's question is strikingly perceptive... if your information is not being received through the conventional senses, why do you need to see the targets? If this really is vision "from feeling", what need do you have for your retinas?

I don't know why I have to see the persons! I just do! What on earth am I cold reading to detect that someone has a tingling sensation on the top of their bladder everytime they have to relieve themselves? (This is my most recent perception, let me tell you all about it in an upcoming post!) I've had plenty of accurate perceptions that I just don't see how they could have been attributable to cold reading! Let's just wait until I provide with some videos of me "in action" and then we can speculate on whether cold reading is involved. I need to look at the person to locate the source of the information perhaps. I thought I was not allowed to theorize about how the ability works.

desertgal:

I apologize, Anita. Unlike you, I never claimed to be brilliant or all knowing.

You clear away one misconception, only to bring about another one. When did I claim to be brilliant or all knowing.

Locknar:

She has also said she can see through clothing materials and skin; unless her eye lids are made of lead I don't see a problem yet she has already summarily ruled a blindfold out.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, her own skin is impervious to her "special power". A dark/black room, or a curtain made of material she can see through would work equally well.

In these scenarios, she can use her eyes all she wants.

Yes I appear to see through clothing and skin. A blindfold would not let me locate the person. I need to see the person to "download" the vibrational information, at least that is how it appears to be. I will try a room with dimmed lights to different extents, until also trying a dark room. I will also try using screens, to try to establish the best circumstances from a test perspective under which my ability can perform well.

- Nobody she has ever met before (within reasonable certainty), thus eliminating her local Skeptics group. Why, because after meeting them she would gather a certain amount of cold reading information about the potential test pool (ie. gender, age, marital status).

The local skeptics group are excellent volunteers for a psychic medical diagnose reading by me on our first meeting this Thursday. They would offer reliable documentation as to the accuracy of my readings.

curtain would eliminate any interference from her own eye lids.

Pardon me for laughing, but what? My eyelids don't interfere.

I predict this type of protocol, where she can not do any type of cold reading (though she claims she does not cold read), is something she will never agree to.

I predict that I am very interested in testing these conditions with the local skeptics group. I also predict that if I am able to perform under these conditions then it will greatly benefit the arrangements of a paranormal test, and I predict that I have interest in making a test happen.

volatile:

No, she didn't. All of her medical claims involve seeing internal organs or whatever through clothing. A blindfold is just clothing nearer her face. and has the benefit, as Locknar pointed out, of eliminating cold reading clues.

I doubt that the perceptions would perform with a blindfold, however I will test it. I need to see where the person is in order to access the information.

Old man:

Anita, come on. You’re actually trying to convince us that nobody you’ve ever confided in about this ‘ability’ thinks that it’s “anything special”?!!?!! You live in a strange, strange world.

Don't forget that I am from a humble little town in Sweden. People who've known me my entire life don't think anything about me is unusual, they are used to it. If you got to know me too, you'd probably get used to it too. It's just part of the way I perceive and describe the world I see.

The subtle clue could be a slight, sub-conscious nod or shake of your head. I’ve seen a lot of people that do that.

Correct. A test will try to eliminate this concern. And there have been plenty of perceptions where the accuracy was established by other means where this would not have been a concern.

desertgal:

If the perceptions were the result of delusional thinking and/or hallucinations, yes, they would.

No and I refuse to consider my perceptions as something negative. The perceptions of tissue and health do not interfere with my life in any way. If it is the case of synesthesia, synesthesia is defined as not being a psychiatric problem, but rather considered a creative mind with more connections.

That isn't what I said at all. Again. I said, judging from ALL your claims here, I don't believe you can tell the difference between what is real and what is fantasy, whether you proceed with further testing or not.

Well I can only tell you how I know myself, and you can speculate all you want in agreement or disagreement and it will not change anything on my side of the computer screen.

steenkh:

Some women have tetrachromatic vision that means that they can differentiate colours better than other humans (it has been estimated that 2-3% of all women have this mutation). If VFF has tetrachromatic vision she may well be able to notice things that other people might not be able to see.

I don't think there is an "extra color" that writes on the skin what ailments a person has. By the way is peanut oil very common in Denmark?

Locknar:

We are talking specific to vasectomy; unless she is "diagnosing" naked men I do not see where line of sight/bare skin is required.

Persons do not have to be naked in fact it would not even make my perceptions easier. I might have to see some exposed skin so that I can reach into their body's entire vibrational information and begin to construct images in my mind of their tissues.

A hole in a screen still provides for cold reading clues (ie. hairy back, child's back, no back at all, etc.) and would therefore not yield any credible/meaningful results.

I will personally shave every man's back to eliminate the risk of guessing their gender.

I stand by my earlier prediction that VFF will proclaim this will not work under any circumstance and that she must have lighted sight of the test subject - ie. cold reading, nothing more.

I predict that screens and dimmed light and darkness will be tested and that a test protocol will be arrived at which eliminates at least a great deal of the concern of cold reading.

Ocelot:

If someone had the ability to sense what I was feeling by looking at me then it'd be even more appropriate for them to use the word "see" to describe this remote sensation.

Thank you for bringing up this very important point. Don't y'all forget that I not only detect visual information of health, I also feel what people feel.

Now I don't think that what Anita experiences has a paranormal explanation. I think that the fact that she already knows that she needs some sort of visual cues to pick up this feeling is very telling.

Not necessarily. What if I simply need to see the person to access their vibrational information? I detect plenty of health information that just should not have any external clues.

Hokulele:

Just to clarify, I was thinking of male-to-female transvestites (men who dress as women) rather than transgendered individuals. All the, er, equipment would be there and theoretically able to be detected.

I would try this test.

Ocelot:

I don't understand why it's required either. All I know is that she's stipulated that it is required. I'm not second guessing that her power works as x-ray vision, she hasn't claimed that so why should I. Neither am I second guessing that she simply sizes up people, reads their expression and conciously or otherwsie benefits from all those different strands of cold reading. (Though I think it's likely)

As I hope to show with video taped examples of me "in action" cold reading is not necessarily taking place! You guys really need to see how it takes place!

Locknar:

As far as updating, as recently as 11 DEC she is still claiming to have, in effect, "x-ray vision"

My vision is better than what X-ray imaging can offer.

Ashles:

While I would love to ask Anita more about this strange Professor of Physics who encounters a girl who can 'see' elements and see inside people's bodies and, by her own description, make perfect medical diagnoses with no medical knowledge, yet chooses not to investigate in any way, I don't feel it will be productive.

I will not involve my university or the faculty in my paranormal investigation unless they express specific interest in participating. And since I know them you might question their reliability.

While I would love to find out what Anita actually feels she knows about Quantum Mechanics and how it relates to her ability (as though wave function and vibrational information can just be interchanged and there we go that's a theory), I also don't feel it will be productive. (If she hasn't so far even studied statistics I rather doubt she has ventured far enough into QM to forward a theory on the subject.)

Wave functions are very similar to how I am under the impression of detecting this information. I will study much more quantum physics than statistics, that is simply how my degrees are composed. Statistics is a math elective, and I've chosen Calculus 4 in its place.

Is there a final agreed protocol? Has anyone from IIG been posting here regarding the test (I may have missed it in the melee).

No. And no, unless they are operating under cover.

Diogenes:
With regard to steenkh's suggestion about tetrachromatic vision, you said

Could be, but do you think it would include internal organs and glowing gas inside of cylinders ?

and I couldn't agree more.

volatile:

Unless she works in a brothel, her ability as claimed works through clothing, and therefore should work through a blindfold.

Clothing is not the same as a blindfold. Without a blindfold, I can locate where the person is, and see the vibrational information that surrounds a person. This is blocked with a blindfold, but I will try a blindfold just to be sure if it works or not.

Ocelot:

She hasn't said that she needs the affected area to be uncovered only some area of the body. She's explicitly said that she needs to see some part of the body.

Exactly. The affected area is almost always covered by clothing. Not to mention embedded by several layers of different types of tissue.

Perhaps some sort of signal permeates the body and is carried away only through the skin - so the information doesn't travel in a straight line. Perhaps the signal takes some hours to permeate through solid material so clothing that has been worn since morning is not a problem but a cover placed over a cup of cereal a minute ago won't have had time to incorporate the supernatural "vibrations"

I like that. It could be how it is. But I won't speculate at this point.

Diogenes:

When you make stuff up, you can make up the rules about how it works...

Yes, and when you describe things based on how they occur on their own, you describe the rules as they apply. I'm not making this up. You'll see.

UncaYimmy:

But it's obnoxious and counterproductive to tell people how their claims "should" work.

I agree. Not even I can tell my claim how it should work. It just does.

Ocelot:

I'm not too bothered about marital status as there's less likely to be clues as to that from looking at somebody's back.

Married men have more hair on their back.

Akhenaten:

I still think "X-ray" vision is reasonable shorthand for this unevidenced ability, since the net result of it would be pretty much the same picture an X-ray or MRI might produce.

The perceptions are much more informative than X-ray or MRI. Not only do I perceive detailed images of tissue, I also feel information. I feel the texture of tissue, densities, contraction, temperature, pain, discomforts.

​

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

New perceptions:

Last night I attempted psychic medical diagnose on a person. I described many specifics of his body. Several missing teeth in a row in the upper right side of the jaw. Described his sense of loosing track of time, day and month sometimes accompanied by a mild sense of confusion. Described a condition which he told me is exactly what his sinus drainage does. Told him he can not eat under stress and described how the stomach responds. Told him exactly what bones and joints ache and have discomfort, and which ones were fine. Plenty of various information. He confirmed that all was correct. We only had one bit of information that was not confirmed as accurate, nor was it confirmed as inaccurate, we could not determine the accuracy of whether food gets stuck sometimes in the horizontal part of the large intestine as temporary and reccurring constipation. I described that when he needs to pee, there is a very significant tingling tickling sensation in the top of the bladder. He laughed and said that was absolutely correct. I certainly do not have such a sensation, nor have I come across this specific health aspect before.

I then read another person, and among various details about muscle and bone I came across one bit of information that stood out as being very significant and highly unusual. I said that this man has had a very serious trauma to the head. I could not quite describe what would have happened to him, but I would have guessed having been kicked in the top of the head or attacked by a person. I looked at the person and could not see anything with my ordinary senses to confirm my perception, so I hesitated quite a bit but I realized how confident I was in what I was sensing. I could see that his head had been crushed from the top, and the shattering effect on the major nerves was still visible. It looked kind of like when they break a computer or television in a cartoon and it makes visible sparks. I was correct. The man had been at the gym and one of the bars with weights on had fallen on his head and crushed his scull, many years ago.

So I have still failed to dismiss the possibility of an extrasensory ability and I look forward to having some tests under controlled circumstances and in the presence of skeptics.

 

[nathan]

nathan:
By considering atoms in terms of the movement (vibration) of electrons rather than considering atoms as a particle. I am no expert and have more to learn. It is an interesting subject.

thank you for answering.

You are confusing several aspects of QM. Particles can move and vibrate just fine, you don't need a wave function for that. The wave function is not a movement or vibration, it's a probability density.

You can't just consider the wave function in isolation. You have to show that it hasn't collapsed. Avoiding collapse of the wave function of an arbitrary system is difficult. Especially when it's under observation

You'd have more credibility if you stop the QM gobbledegook until you (a) confirm you have the ability you claim to have and (b) learn something about QM (c) prove some connection between the two.

Unless, of course, you want to be indistinguishable from the average woo.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I can often tell when other women are menstruating, and I have successfully diagnosed pregnancy in women well before they've told me. So what? I'm reading slight clues from how they look (puffy-eyed, a bit bloated, etc), behave (fatigued, creased forehead if in pain), etc. Even if I'm not aware I'm doing it. I'm also good at telling when other people are ill.

VfF - many people - perhaps especially women - are quite sensitive to how other people are feeling and behaving, and we can pick up very small signs (perhaps because women are socialised as children to be sensitive to how others are reacting to them ...?), often unconsciously.

 

[JWideman]

Anita, you keep stating that there's no evidence you don't have this ability. That's not how science works and I would assume you know this, given that you claim to be studying science.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

nathan:
Let's not theorize about what the ability would be, or not be. We've already spent pages on that, yielding nothing.

sleepy lioness:
True. I am still interested in finding out what exactly is the extent at which I detect this information, and under what circumstances. For instance I had a test where I could look at the neck of a person and detect what flavors they were eating. There has been a lot of interesting information and I am curious to find out why I detect these things and why the accuracy is so high. I think the natural next step is to demonstrate what I can do in the presence of skeptics, and have their opinions on what they have witnessed.

JWideman:

Anita, you keep stating that there's no evidence you don't have this ability. That's not how science works and I would assume you know this, given that you claim to be studying science.

I know that. I am simply concluding from the lack of evidence against an ability, to proceed toward a test that will reveal more. You see, all I can do at this point is to try to dismiss a possible ability. I am quite capable of finding out that there is no ability, all on my own and without the involvement of skeptics. I can however not conclude that I do have an ability, without a proper test setting and witnesses etc. So, that is what I am doing. I am merely continuously checking whether to proceed toward a test, that's all. I hope you understand what I just said or I will have to explain it again.