• 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.

VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

FACT members are very kind. I've always suspected that most of the Forum Skeptics who dare to be excessively rude would be more polite if we were having the conversation face to face. :)

I suspect she is wrong.

I've invited many upset Forum Skeptics to engage with me in private conversations in a live chat room but all but UncaYimmy have declined and then mysteriously disappeared.

Which is, of course, just another example of the less than honest spin Anita put on things.
 
... I've always suspected that most of the Forum Skeptics who dare to be excessively rude would be more polite if we were having the conversation face to face. :) I've invited many upset Forum Skeptics to engage with me in private conversations in a live chat room but all but UncaYimmy have declined and then mysteriously disappeared.
Chat rooms are not face to face. I don't think I have been rude to you, merely doubting your veracity, which I would do face to face. About that F -didya get it removed this semester?
 
It's true that she kept dropping things from her "main" claim. She now seems to have dropped her '"main" claim' from her "main" claim. She has moved on to easily testable claims. She can mess around all she wants on her own with her current "induced information" idea, but any "study" or "test" she does with F.A.C.T. (or its members) or the IIG will probably yield honest results.

In her eyes she "did not fail a test." But she knows and acknowledges that she failed to do better than the controls in her study. In fact, she knows she came in 3rd out of 4. She continues her fight, but I think this has shaken her beliefs more than she (or we) recognize. Time will tell.

Also, note that she did a reading on someone at the F.A.C.T. meeting again this past week. She forgot to include the results of that reading.

I see a real battle brewing between the part of her brain that knows how science actually works and the part of her brain that wants to believe she has special powers. I think the science part of her brain had a small victory with the recent study. The other part is fighting back, but not very well. She should have gone on to something even more untestable than her vague health diagnosis claim. But she chose something that is easily testable instead---her induced information thing. This is the rational part of her brain pushing the other part toward something that can actually be tested.

I've been wrong before, but again, I remain an optimist.

Ward

I just don't see anything encouraging. She has not budged from her position one iota. Remember, she has failed tests before. She just keeps on going. Look at her website with the new tests. She got 2 out of 10 correct in total darkness, which is obviously a failure. Do you know what her conclusion is?

I hesitate to conclude on only ten and ten trials, but it does seem that my acchievements would be significantly reduced due to darkness. So it would seem that light is necessary for better acchievement. Unfortunately I can't say whether I experienced or felt that it would be more difficult in darkness, I do however think that it felt different.

Light and/or vision is thus part of forming the perceptions.


In the face of complete and total failure, the biggest admission she can make is that her abilities just don't seem to work in the dark. She also did a test with the lights on and failed that one as well. This is the woman who claimed 100% apparent accuracy before actually attempting any tests. She is not making any sense.

Let's really think about this, okay? Sometimes we forget that she's not just guessing. If you or I were doing these tests, we'd be looking for whatever clues we could (sounds, body position, movement). Based on those real perceptions we'd make an educated guess. Without any visual cues, such as in the dark, it would be a pure guess. We would know that was just a guess. Any successes would be attributed to knowingly picking up clues, random chance, or unconsciously picking up clues.

Anita is actually claiming to have perceptions that nobody in the world has. She says she is "sensing weight" somehow. A dowser at least has a real physical response that is being misinterpreted. Her perceptions are all in her mind. She apparently believes what she perceives is real.

Anita very clearly seems to believe that the correct answers are due to her ability. So what is the cause of the perceptions when she is wrong? It would be obvious to any reasonable person that the perceptions are not real. The obvious conclusion is that her correct answers are nothing more than lucky guesses.

If Anita is not lying, then she is unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. She can't tell the difference between her "real ability" on her correct answers and whatever it is she perceives on her wrong answers. She is definitely creating these perceptions in her own mind out of thin air. I could understand a child believing she can "sense" things unseen, but she's 26 years old.

Remember, she's not claiming that she has no perceptions when she is wrong.

She thinks these tests are simply refining an ability she unshakably believes is real. She is trying to find a test she can bring to the IIG to take their paranormal challenge. No, there's nothing encouraging here. It's scary, actually.
 
Ashles post #204:
Think of it more like a chemistry experiment.
Why must you describe every aspect of your 'testing' as analogy?
It should be treated for what it is - a claim about a certain subject.

Your analogies are never apropriate because they do not address what is being discussed.
For example:

Chemical reactions can be very sensitive and you need to investigate effects of temperature, reaction time, amounts of reagents, and processing methods and how they affect the obtained product before deciding on the procedure. I am sure there are many chemical reactions that were discovered only by very careful scientists who paid attention to the details and the allowed ranges of the parameters.
But once an affect had been discovered, it was replicable.

You have claimed strong, replicated effect in a variety of situations, yet when asked to demonstrate in a test situation, suddenly you have no idea in what scenario the effect might be observable.

So the analogy is enterely irrelevant.

And anyway, even such a manner of pre-pre-testing would be conducted in a methodical scientific manner which has been entirely lacking in any study/survey you have conducted or proposed.

I'm afraid this is not as easy as throwing a rock. Now that I'm using induced information I can work much faster.
Yet another change of direction.
Yet another claimed breakthrough in investigation. :rolleyes:
Still no clear claim.
Still no actual testing.
Still no acceptance that performing worse than 2 out of 3 perfectly normal other people should indicate there is nothing worth studying.

Anita, you need to understand that all of this in no way bears any resemblance to a scientific investigation (or, to be honest, even a non-scientific investigation).

It now only resembles a lot of energy and time spent due to a very strong desire by an individual to have some sort of special or unusual ability despite the clear indication by all evidence that there is nothing at all to investigate.

I was having difficulty finding volunteers with medical information for the study. I need to study the experience to know what test conditions it works with.
We are well past any possible pretense that you are working towards running a real study.
That excuse ran out of steam a long time ago.

Until you suggest some possible scenario which could actually indicate to you that there is no ability worth investigating and no further 'experimentation' required, all you are doing is wasting your and other people's time in meaningless studies that can never indicate anything for or against any imagined 'ability'.
Until that point it just comes across as nothing more productive than attention-seeking behaviour.

You have been told this over and over again on this forum. If you genuinely disagreed (or it was not at all true) I do not see why you would keep returning here.
It certainly isn't to get advice as you ignore every single piece of advice we ever give.
 
VfF and others of her ilk that think they are doing "scientific research" into their claims should read this blog post by Dr. Steven Novella: http://tinyurl.com/mfl8hy

It is entitled Occam's Razor and Closed-Mindedness. A well written article by a very articulate gentleman.
 
VfF and others of her ilk that think they are doing "scientific research" into their claims should read this blog post by Dr. Steven Novella: http://tinyurl.com/mfl8hy

It is entitled Occam's Razor and Closed-Mindedness. A well written article by a very articulate gentleman.


I have admittedly only skimmed the article, but I think the point "Jenny" makes:

Jenny said:
"... skeptic’s creed of being open to ANY explanation that is supported by evidence."


isn't addressed by Novella. I could be wrong, though. I saw "Jenny's" question as a bit of a Dorothy Dix-er.


M.
 
Anita has again brought up Brent Atwater, a self-proclaimed psychic. I think the two have quite a few similarities. These questions demonstrate that it's not always easy to differentiate the two.

1. Calls herself a Human MRI - Brent or Anita?

2. Claims abilities superior to an MRI - Brent or Anita?

3. Claims her gifts are from God - Brent or Anita?

4. Claims her gifts are due to being a "star person" (not human) of Arcturian origin - Brent or Anita?

5. Has conducted properly designed studies that demonstrate her ability - Brent or Anita?

Neither! It was a trick question. But both of them have claimed to have engaged in scientific studies.
http://www.brentenergywork.com/BACKGROUND_MED_INT.htm and www.VisionFromFeeling.com

6. Charges for her services - Brent or Anita?

7. Uses the term "psychic" when describing her abilities - Brent or Anita?

Both! Another trick question.
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/bookmeup.html (see dropdown list in the form) and http://www.brentenergywork.com/LINKS.html (see the page title)

8. Claims to have worked with celebrities and have her own radio show - Brent or Anita?

9. Claims to want to work with celebrities on her own radio show - Brent or Anita?

10. Also claims to see ghosts, speak with them, and actually physically be shoved by them - Brent or Anita?
Anita?

Bonus Question: Claims exemplary academic abilities as a student - Brent or Anita?
 
Anita,

In a recent post you made the claim that using "techniques of prana" that you were able to go without water once for 7 days and twice for 8 days. Meanwhile, elsewhere you told us you stopped doing chemical identification testing because:
I was starting to feel tired and also something reminiscent of the beginnings of the headache and nausea I had before when I did tests on identifying Lactobacillus bacteria in cereal samples. I need to be careful and not exhaust myself because it can take several days for me to recover to the point where efforts in doing these studies won't make me feel uncomfortable.

Why can't you use these "prana techniques" to overcome the effects of doing chemical identification testing, which seem like nothing more than a mild hangover? The effects of severe dehydration, which is what you must have suffered considering that you were pushing your body to near the point of death, are quite severe.

Or are you being less than truthful about one or both of these anecdotes? After all, it just doesn't seem plausible that a person who could repeatedly and willingly bring herself close to death in one of the more horrible ways imaginable would need "days" to recover from a dozen trials of looking at cereal in a Dixie cup. I'm sure you can see how a reasonable person would look at these two claims and at least think shenanigans.
 
I have to add, I think anyone who has ever been faced with water deprivation and/or severe dehydration will tell you that it is not something they would volunteer to do a second time-EVER.

Whether she is telling the truth or not - and I vote not - the glibness of Anita's claim that she voluntarily did it three times is repulsive.
 
Does anyone remember when Anita's claim was about being able to look into people's bodies at will and be able to look at them to a molecular level without ever being wrong?

Anyone remember that far back?

The water claim is clearly yet more nonsense designed to distract.

The claim is clearly dead. I assume we aren't still waiting for the results of the study. The results that Anita doesn't have because she let someone run off with half her results and that mysterious person is unable to locate a photocpier in North America within 2 months.
 
I'm still waiting for her to post the results of her study. She promised to post them and even if the results are not what she hoped for, I'd still like to see the data.
 
What I experience seems to be very similar to synesthesia, which, by definition is not a mental illness and typically not even a handicap.
Skipped the umpteen pages of discussion when I realized that you were not talking about the theme of my 8th-grade(US) science project, "Can you detect light with your hands?" Sister dismissed it because, lacking LEDs as they were scarcely invented, I used low-voltage incandescents and she assumed my subjects were feeling the heat from a flashlight beam. That infrared light is pretty much the same as "heat," she had a point, but I will go to my grave believing that humans are more sensitive to light/heat than is generally believed. HARUMPH! :D (Hey, it was '68. Be glad that, at age 13, I wasn't suggesting that people could detect other dimensions while on LSD.)

OTOH, and I realize you've been told this DOZENS of times by now, what you describe in the OP is not synesthesia. You just have a good imagination. It's good to have a good imagination. F'rinstance, in my job drafting it helps me visualize objects in three dimensions. Some people cannot, and they fail in this job. Come back when you taste green.
 
As I'm writing this, VfF's website www.visionfromfeeling.com seems to be down. Hopefully, this means she's working on a major update.

Ward
It's back up again.

Firstly, Anita might want to adjust the image on the front page - it is stretching in a rather unflattering way. :)

Secondly there are some studies where she watches people from the back while they make fists and put their hands in cold water.
Again non-significant results, despite the fact that, by her own test design, she can actually see the person's outline through the screen.

By the sounds of it, after fourteen thousand two hundred and sixty eight more preliminary studies like this, she might be ready to proceed to a real test.

I don't think any skeptic groups need worry about agreeing a protocol anytime soon. It's clear Anita doesn't really want to proceed beyond this stage - the comfort zone of not-real-testing.
 
So, according to http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/, VfF attended the latest meeting of the North Carolina skeptics group. I hope it went well. It looks like there was a fairly small attendance. Hopefully that's just a sign of summer vacation. Any reports from VfF or anyone else who attended? She's had all her paperwork from them for a while, right? She must have some idea of what went wrong during her study by now. Hopefully, we'll hear something soon.

Ward
 
I have all the data returned to me from the study. It will be posted with comments EventuallyTM.
What happened to your orginal agreement that you would initially publish the results without comment?

It would be interesting for once to see the raw data seperate from your comments, opinions, post rationalisation etc.
 

Back
Top Bottom