Vision from Feeling said:
godofpie:
Thank you Jim for posting here. I know that many of our JREF Forum members are curious about how our meetings went, since you are one of those few who have met with me in person. I feel that I need to explain as well as correct on some of your comments regarding our meeting,
You feel the need to paraphrase an eyewitness account so it makes your own account of the proceedings seem more credible. I predict it won't work, based on my ability to read future posts. Isn't that nifty?
godofpie said:
Anita decided where she wanted to "view" Wayne and she chose a table about 10 feet from the area where the rest of us were sitting.
Vision from Feeling said:
I am concerned that this might sound as if I was willingly avoiding to be near the other skeptics for my reading since that is not true. When it was time for me to view Wayne, everybody at the meeting started talking and it was very noisy in the location and that is the main reason why we had to find another table. At the same time I wanted the other skeptics to see how I work, so I compromised at a table somewhere in between "far away" and "too close to hear myself think". Had I wanted to avoid the other skeptics, I could have chosen a table farther away, or even arranged it so that I would be more out of view from the others. Not to be rude, but the other skeptics at the meeting were not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill, it was very noisy, and also no one seemed to pay attention or be interested in seeing how it would go. I would have invited another skeptic to sit with us at the table to see how it goes.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
"not respectful of the fact that a paranormal claimant was about to attempt her skill" is a joke, isn't it? Good one. Ha Ha!
godofpie said:
She sat facing Wayne at the table.
Vision from Feeling said:
True. I am working on taking what my everyday experience has been with the perceptions, and step by step conforming the experiences to a test setting. Every scientist knows that when you are changing the parameters of an experiment, you only change one parameter at a time so that a difference in results can be ascribed to the single changed condition. That is the approach I am taking as I am changing the conditions from everyday setting to test setting, so each time when I have the chance to view a new person I am changing one thing at a time. With viewing Wayne I was able to change two parameters, one at a time, by writing down my answers and giving them to him in full at the end of the viewing rather than speaking out what I see as I see it which has been how it goes in everyday experience in the past. I wanted to ask that he is facing me to not change that parameter since I had already changed a parameter by writing down my answers. But halfway into the viewing I asked him to turn around 90 degrees so that I am facing his left side and I experienced no decline in my perceptions and can now implement this as well in all future viewings. I treated my viewing with Wayne as an opportunity to proceed with the study, so I was testing out more conditions and parameters. I very consciously and most intentionally chose not to view Wayne according to a test procedure. It was intentional to begin viewing him facing him since this was part of the study that serves to let me gradually learn more about how the perceptions work or don't work.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
The bolded text is not in accord with this, from Post #1611:
Vision from Feeling said:
No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire and neither did he.
godofpie said:
They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.
Vision from Feeling said:
Unfortunately this statement requires some additional information. When it was finally time for me to view Wayne, several or all of the other skeptics commenced into very loud conversation. The noise level was very bad and I had to move further away from them to even hear myself think. Everyone started talking and ignored the fact that I was going to attempt my paranormal claim and for the first time in the presence of other people. I didn't want to be rude by asking everyone to be quiet, so I chose a location further away for me and Wayne.
Yes I did speak to Wayne. I did not speak with him during the meeting itself. Once he announced that he wanted to volunteer to let me view him I told him that I would love to. He told me that he had written down his health conditions on a piece of paper and that this paper was with another member of the skeptics group. I was thinking out loud about where we should sit and I chose a table and told him where I would like him to sit.
I told him that the location was very loud and noisy, that it was cold, and that these distractions would not take place during the study that I am planning or a test, but I said that I would do my best anyway.
I then spoke to him to explain what is going to happen, while Wayne did not say anything to me. I told him that all I do is look at him and that we will not be speaking at all during the viewing. I told him that this is the first time I am writing down my perceptions rather than to tell the person right away as I see the perceptions. I told him that he will not be able to see my notes.
About halfway into the viewing, I spoke to Wayne and I said, "notice how when I am viewing you I do not look directly at the part of the body I am forming images of, but I tend to look away to your side, or to look away to not see you at all, or I close my eyes, to form the images" - Wayne said nothing about that. I told him this since I thought that as a skeptic he was interested in how I do this. I then told Wayne that him looking at me was distracting my work and I asked him to turn around so that I was facing his left side, he again said nothing and turned around.
Once I decided that I was done viewing, I made sure that I would not be writing any more on my pages and I asked him if he would like me to read the results to him, so I read it to him and explained one thing after the other. So at that point we were discussing the results, but all of my answers were already written down and from how it was written down I was not able to use any of what was said to help "shape" my answers, nor would I have wanted to do such a thing. I told him that I find absolutely nothing wrong with his health, and that that was my conclusion. He said that he had written down one thing on the paper. I then asked him to write it down in my notebook along with other, similarly difficult to identify, ailments that he doesn't have, so that I could see if I could detect it once it was on a list, but I told him that if I got it right it would not be evidence of anything but I was curious. I treated this like a learning experience more so than a test, even though I was open to welcoming inaccurate perceptions as evidence giving reason to terminate this investigation. I did not detect him as having any of the ailments he wrote down. I then asked him which one it was, he told me and I said that I still couldn't detect it once I knew what was there for me to find. At one point I also told him that his jacket was thicker material than what I am used to, he said he could take it off, I said that he didn't have to.
After the viewing I told him that I was pleased that even though my logical mind was expecting a long list of health problems, my mind had not invented any medical perceptions that he does not have and that my description of him as very healthy correlated with his description of himself as very healthy, but I said that this was not evidence toward anything, only that I had once again failed to falsify the paranormal claim.
Before Wayne left I made sure to ask him whether he had any lasting discomforts or sensation after the diaphragm injury, and he said that he didn't. I asked if he could feel any lasting sensation after the injury what so ever, and he said no, that it had healed perfectly. And before he left I thanked him for volunteering.
That is all that I can remember having been said between me and Wayne before, during, and after the viewing. Of course I spoke to him, but Wayne behaved as a very good skeptic by not speaking with me more than necessary. What I meant by "not speaking", was "not speaking during the viewing". The upcoming study will ensure that no speaking at all takes place between me and volunteers, it is designed that way.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
You said there was no talking. There was. The witness was correct. You were not.
godofpie said:
After about 15 minutes Anita came over to where I was sitting and declared success.
Vision from Feeling said:
I'm glad it took only 15 minutes. Once I had begun viewing Wayne I realized that I had not recorded the time (I did not have a watch on me), but I thought that it was ok for now but I would be sure not to forget in the future. I am curious to find out how long it takes for me to view a person. Once I had finished, Dr. Carlson came to our table and asked how it had went. I said that I had detected no health problems. The only noteworthy things had been something in the throat, which I had figured out was the adam's apple and had written down that it was a "2" on a scale of 1-5, Dr. Carlson confirmed with me that 5 was the biggest and it was. I said that it was insignificantly minor and that I would not have reported it as an answer. Also that the left shoulder was slightly tired, but that again it was insignificant and was not an answer. I said that I detected not a single health problem, and that Wayne had reported that he has no health problems. I told Dr. Carlson about the past diaphragm injury, and that I had not detected this. I said that I had once again failed to dismiss the hypothesis and that I could still proceed toward the study.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
Apart from having "15 minutes" in it, your response up to this point has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you're responding to. Nothing.
Vision from Feeling said:
I then walked over to the table and told Jim that I was successful, meaning that I had not failed. I think the way I told this was that I had not made any incorrect perceptions and that therefore I could proceed toward the study.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
godofpie said:
She jokingly asked for her million dollars. I think I asked if she would take it in pizza.
Vision from Feeling said:
I jokingly said to Jim, "Can I have my million dollars now?", I then jokingly said, "I'll just take my prize in free pizza".
Thank you. This vital correction puts the entire proposition of Vision from Feeling™ in a new light.
godofpie said:
What struck me at the time was that Anita was talking to Wayne which opens up the door for cold reading and that there was no mention of his diaphragm surgery.
Vision from Feeling said:
Speaking between me and the volunteers will not be available at the upcoming study. This was not quite on the level of the upcoming study in refinement, and you can see above what was actually said between me and Wayne. I apologize that I spoke with him, in case it "ruins" some of this particular experience from skeptics' point of view, but from my point of view I did good since I learned new things: 1) I can write down instead of speak my answers, 2) The volunteer can turn away instead of be facing me, 3) I once again noticed for myself that I do not look at the part of the body that I am forming images of, 4) My perceptions are not based on my logical expectations, 5) I did not make any incorrect perceptions and again failed to dismiss the paranormal claim and can proceed toward a study.
The statement you're attempting to "explain and correct on" requires neither explanation or correction. It was a simple observation as reported by a witness and is undisputed. Your addition of strawmen, obfuscation and
post hoc conjecture achieves nothing.
I struck out the word you accidentally typed into your 5th point.
Vision from Feeling said:
I have never claimed to detect everything or in every case. When I do make claimed perceptions, then those are open to be checked for accuracy. Had I for instance said that he has a heart problem, or that he doesn't exercise, I would have received two incorrect points right there. This man happened to be in excellent health, and his only ailment is a past injury that has healed perfectly. Let's just see what happens when I view persons with health problems, alright?
Count hits, dismiss misses. We know already. You've been doing it since the cereal tests, since Sweden and since Arcturus for all I know.
godofpie said:
It does seem odd to me that she claims to be able to see internal organs but cannot detect scars or past surgeries but I guess that is what this process is about.
@ Jim.
Welcome to the trip.
Vision from Feeling said:
Vision from Feeling, Jim. There was nothing for me to feel with respect to the past diaphragm injury. In the case of the heart bypass surgery, I was allowed to see the scar after I had announced my perception and it was a very large and wide scar, and I detected it by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue where cartilagenous tissue should not be. Maybe this particular diaphragm scar was different? Let's just see what happens next time when I do claim to perceive a scar.
Jim's guess sounds more reasonable than your
post hoc explanation. I would have left it alone if I were you.
godofpie said:
She mentioned that when she was young and experimenting with crystals, she could tell which crystal she was holding by its Vibrational™ information and that she got so good that she didn't even need to be holding the crystal to tell which one was nearby.
@ Jim.
It gets better, trust me.
Vision from Feeling said:
One of the new members asked me when I had my first perceptions, and that is why I brought up the story about the crystals being the first.
OK. How is that not more-or-less what Jim said?
godofpie said:
I pointed out that this would be much easier to test for
Vision from Feeling said:
Then I said that I brought my crystals with me from Sweden and I haven't seen them in three years and that I think it's time to take them out and see if I could put together a simpler test with them.
Do you think you're going to get away with claiming that this just occured to you? Simpler tests, including tests with your crystals, have been suggested throughout this thread. The ones you attempted early either demonstrated failure of any ability or were abandoned by you as soon as failures became apparent. Since then any suggestions of a simpler test have brought on a hissy fit, where you squawk loudly that "It's not my main claim!"
The notable exception is Pup's Test, which you have now also failed, owing to the time which has elapsed since you received the samples. You were warned that a significant delay would cast doubts on any result.
godofpie said:
she started back pedaling.
Vision from Feeling said:
I did no such thing. I said that I should take the crystals out and check it out. What on earth.
Where two people make subjective statements that contradict each other, the credibility of the people concerned becomes important. How do you think you'll go?
godofpie said:
Anita, if you are to maintain any level of credibility with skeptics you must refrain from making claims like that and then backing away from them.
Vision from Feeling said:
First of all, the crystals are not my claim. I was merely answering a question about how these perceptions first started. And I was the one who suggested to try such a test on my own to see whether I could form a claim based on that. And I wasn't even backing away from anything. I really wasn't.
Here we go again. To be fair, you don't always back out of things; sometimes you go sideways.
godofpie said:
Another odd thing was her friend Chris (?) asked Dr. Carlson (...)
Vision from Feeling said:
I do not have a drivers licence or a car and the only reason I brought someone with me was because I needed someone to take me there. I apologize if another person who does not represent me as a person nor my thoughts said some inappropriate things at the meeting. Personally I would not discuss ghosts with Dr. Carlson. He is a physicist and I can think of plenty other interesting topics to speak about when I have the chance to speak with him. Quantum physics for instance. When I had the chance to speak with Dr. Carlson at the meeting what I asked him about was what classes he teaches and I wanted to know more about them. Please judge me based on what I say. I will take the bus next time. That's not safe so late in the evenings.
Apparently this waffle is the result of you not understanding that "Chris (?)" simply indicates that Jim was unsure of the name. Are these degrees you're doing taught in English, or in a language that you understand?
godofpie said:
At our last meeting Chris(?) mentioned that he drove Anita through Old Salem here in Winston and Anita claimed to see an old woman (a spirit) in period clothes that told her that Salem College is an all girls school. Her friend was very excited by this and says that there is no other way she could have known this information because she has never been to Winston and knows nothing about this area.
Vision from Feeling said:
I did perceive these things when we drove through Old Salem. I spoke to Mrs. Carpenter from the 1700s, I think she was a teacher at the bible college, and I spoke to a woman who studied the bible at that school in the 1770s.
You didn't perceive anything. It appears that you met and spoke with an actor, as Jim states:
godofpie said:
For the record, there are lots of old women walking around old salem in 1700/1800 century clothing. It's their job.
Vision from Feeling said:
There was no such thing there when we drove by. Maybe next time there will be, I would like that so that I can see if these actors got the clothes right based on what I saw that the women actually wore back then.
This is irrational. You are irrational.
godofpie said:
They also mentioned at that first meeting they attended that they were considering putting together some kind of paranormal TV show.
Vision from Feeling said:
True. We are going to visit allegedly haunted sites and video record our visits. My role will of course be the psychic and I will see what comes up when I communicate with my perceptions of these people of the past. Our investigations will be made available over the internet. It is just for fun and entertainment and does not represent any kind of scientific investigation. I do have a life besides my studies and work or even this paranormal investigation into my medical perceptions, and this happens to be one of the things I do. I also go to the gym and like the old episodes of Star Trek. I like frogs and insects and I collect CareBearsTM. What does that do to my credibility, I wonder?
As I mentioned in an earlier post:
Former Credibility/Current Credibility
Error: Divide by Zero. Please Reboot.
godofpie said:
For the record, I am not opposed to FACT being involved with Anita and her activities but it must be known that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We presuppose nothing. I personally do not believe in ghosts, paranormal entities (evil, scratching, or otherwise) the lochness monster, or bigfoot, but I am willing to look at evidence and be proven wrong.
Vision from Feeling said:
Jim, I am only involved with the FACT group regarding my investigation into the medical perceptions that I have. I will not involve any other unconventional discussions into our group. I did mention my experience with the women at the Old Salem bible school to one of the FACT members who is a retired Anthropologist, because I described how I perceived that the lifestyle back then in Old Salem was based on extreme discipline and prudeness and I asked him what from an anthropological point of view would be the practical reasons for such a way of life?
Jim has actually moved on from Salem, and is passing on a POV to members of this forum, as an aid to further communication between us. You, however, continue to flog a dead unicorn.
godofpie said:
As far as Anita's study at the mall is concerned-
Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.
Vision from Feeling said:
Yes Dr. Carlson suggested this. I said that I am preparing forms for the study that are better than UncaYimmy's since mine will include additional ailments as well as a means of reporting on the extent of ailments and not just what they are. I said that the skeptics will be very valuable as volunteers (since they are skeptics) and that I would rather wait until my forms are ready so that we can take the most advantage of them being volunteers. I was pleased with viewing Wayne though, to at least get started right away. But I wanted to save the other skeptics for later. I apologize if some don't agree with my choice of wanting to make the most out of the skeptics as volunteers, as my forms are not ready. I said that I would love to view the skeptics and some of their acquaintances. I also said that I will have the study at the mall as well. I want to do both, guys!
I think you have a Perception that the Sceptic Volunteers from FACT are willing to become your personal entourage, performing whatever hare-brained tasks you assign to them.
I also think you'll be disappointed when this doesn't happen, and that FACT will be blamed, by you alone, for delaying your ridiculous study.
Vision from Feeling said:
There are now 6 skeptics from the FACT group who have expressed definite interest in participating in the study on the weekend of January 31 and February 1. And yes I am making the arrangements.
I suspect that "definite interest" may become something else when the details of the study are made known to the volunteers.
The paragraph quoted above was directed at us anyway, wasn't it? So why is it tucked away in an alleged response to Jim.
godofpie said:
Of course her study materials and protocol will have to be approved by the volunteers before hand.
Vision from Feeling said:
In fact I insisted that Dr. Carlson look over the paperwork of the study before they are put to use. I trust his judgement and I value his opinions.
Are you so desperate to drop names that you're incapable of a straight answer. The bolded bits above would match if this were an honest response.
In any case, either scenario is likely to have the same result, which you apparently can't predict as well as I think I can. "No study just yet" is my most polite and optimistic spin on it.
godofpie said:
I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.
Vision from Feeling said:
My forms will be much better. The FACT skeptics will be the most valuable volunteers that I can ever find, and that is why I want to save them for when my own forms are available, since my forms will contain more information and that way we can learn more from it then. However I was happy to make a compromise by viewing Wayne.
I forget, and can't be bothered checking the chronology here, but this is either a dummy-spit because UncaYimmy was a meanie or a deliberate evasion because you knew that UncaYimmy's test would expose your fakery. Or both?
Why wouldn't UncaYimmy's test have served as a compromise when viewing Wayne?
Vision from Feeling said:
I chose not to use UncaYimmy's forms with Wayne since Wayne had already written down in text what his ailments were, so I thought I might as well do it my way too by writing down all that I see. Since we would not be matching forms between claimant and volunteer, my own notes would be better than my answers on a form.
Well, that was a quick answer. It's complete rubbish and totally unbelievable, but it was quick.
Vision from Feeling said:
Thank you Jim and the other skeptics of FACT for your assistance in my investigation. I assure you that I am not trying to be a complicated paranormal claimant, although my claim itself is not as straightforward yet as we would like. I conducted my viewing with Wayne perfectly according to the manner in which I had carefully intended in order to advance in what I call the StudyTM. I made progress and learned from my experience with Wayne, and have again failed to falsify my paranormal hypothesis.
I apologize for commenting on your post in such a way but I had to clarify on things. After all we want to avoid misunderstandings.
Avoid misunderstandings? I'm glad it's not my place to respond to this bit, but I hope Jim does.
