VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[desertgal]

Anyway. There is little point discussing that extensively, as what's done is done and you long ago closed your mind to opposing points of view...

Oh, thank you so much for making me aware of how I really feel and think. How did I ever get along without you?

...but I would suggest the following, especially in light of her 12:14PM post: encourage her to take the MDC, now that she has formulated a claim.

If you read her subsequent post, you'll see that her 12:14 post was misleading: she isn't ready to take a test. She's just ready to, yet again, discuss a protocol with the IIG. She's been doing that for over two years.

That means stop pestering her and attacking her about the details of "how" (so she can't claim any distractions), and focus all effort on getting her application in and protocol specified.

No one here has ever stopped her from doing that. Many, many people have encouraged her, time and again, to clarify and simplify her 'main claim'. If she had spent less time introducing unrelated, self laudatory claims so she could gain more attention protesting that they weren't her "main claim", she might well have been done with formal testing long ago.

The available influence from a failed MDC preliminary test is far more significant than anything that has gone before.

I agree. Which would explain why Anita avoids it.

C'mon. She found out, after 'studying' Dr. Carlson, that he was missing one kidney from information he provided, so she fudged her 'data' to claim that she had perceived it, but 'didn't write it down because she was scared to'. Fact is, she didn't detect it because her 'ability' is non existent. That was just one of MANY examples of Anita manipulating her data to avoid the truth and produce the result SHE wanted.

Do you honestly believe, at this point, that she is going to undergo formal testing to produce unequivocal results that she can't manipulate? She isn't. She's simply going to ditz around preparing this protocol and that protocol ad nauseum.

The only testing Anita needs is that offered by a mental health professional.

Anyone here who believes dodging and obfuscating would be true to form for Anita, please raise your hands.

 

[desertgal]

I am someone who experiences woo, but I have not chosen woo nor am I a fraud or a liar. I am describing real experiences and wanting to have them scientifically tested. I do not tell people about the medical perceptions I have of them other than to loved ones or to Skeptics (not that I don't love Skeptics!) just because it could be harmful in some cases even if the information were accurate. And I have not attempted to heal people other than in cases with loved ones helplessly in unbearable pain and in this one case where someone was in need of help. I appreciate UncaYimmy's website and I do encourage Skeptics to keep track of me just to make sure that no one comes to harm. And even if some of it becomes false accusations, those hurt me less than the possible harm that I could cause unintentionally to persons if I express my wooish experiences. So, thanks guys. Even desertgal. You skeptics are valuable and so is UncaYimmy's site and I don't fail to see that. .

Would you kindly stop repeating these ridiculous explanations and statements? I doubt there is a single person here who believes them. And none of the conclusions on UY's site are false. They just don't jibe with your delusional reality.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I had a very unusual childhood and came across the concept of Star People in my teens and found that I could relate to it. Star People is a personality characteristic and is not necessarily stated as evidence. I had the personality and self-reflection before I came across Dr. Boylan and his questionnaire in my mid-20's, so your assumption that the questionnaire inspired me is wrong. Also I linked to the questionnaire so that I would not have to write up the characteristics myself, but I can if you want.

Just because you can "relate" to a concept that makes you feel special does not mean you are a Star Child. Star Children do not exist. It is in essence a made up concept, a way for people to feel like they are unique and powerful.

These tests are a classic case of confirmation bias, especially for people who are deluded into believing they have powers.

Furthermore to be a Star Person involves characteristics and life experiences that not everyone shares. But I will not discuss those as it would agitate you even more. Just leave it be.

No, they do not, because they do not exist. You are no different from anyone else, except that you have delusions of grandeur and all signs point to them getting worse. Its true that not everyone has this, but your other Star Children are likely to be suffering from variations of the same thing.

It was a study not a test, designed by me to try out various test conditions. Just like when I study for a test at college, I try out various problem solving methods and some fail yet it is the test that matters not the study.

It was a study that tested your claimed powers. You failed. As you have failed all of them. What this should say to you is that you do not have paranormal powers.

To be a Star Person is not a mental problem. We just relate to outer space and the other related topics on a very personal and identity level. I do admit that it could be a cultural artifact for children who grow up exposed to space and such in the media since we haven't really seen this in our historical past.

To believe you are a Star Child is indeed delusional. Astronomers relate to outer space on a level different than the rest of us, they study the stars for a living - and none of them claim to have alien induced special powers.

Ahem. I do not claim that I could heal. The persons whom I have healed think that I have healed them. And this is why things are getting pretty interesting now.

You are in dangerous territory. I suffer from migraines and find your recent experiences in claiming you have healing powers very scary. I know what this person went through. I have terrible migraines that no amount of medication will ever cure, and I know how desperate migraine sufferers can be. When the pain is that bad, you will believe in anything.

You took advantage of this poor man's state and are now in continued communications with him to reinforce your placebo. Migraines do not occur in definitive patterns - he could be feeling fine for months before he has one.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And that's why as soon as they have one good week in a long while they're going to go out and do some of the fun things that they have been longing to do!

Actually, the most prudent course of action would be to contact a doctor. A sudden change in a 50 year old condition is cause for concern. But, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, for many people migraines come and go. You even reported that he has had temporary success with various treatments. A week of no migraines would likely not be a major event.

Well I have provided you with the phone numbers and both of them are expecting your call.

Tell them I will not be calling. Do not tell them to call me. Don't call me yourself.

I am someone who experiences woo, but I have not chosen woo nor am I a fraud or a liar.

Again with the repetition. Again with the repetition. You have been proven to be a liar. You lied about having a 4.0. When called on it, you offered a fanciful story about dropping the class and getting an F, so in your mind you still had the 4.0. Then you told us in February to check back at the end of the semester. We did. No 4.0. Now you're telling us to check back after the summer session.

I do not tell people about the medical perceptions I have of them other than to loved ones or to Skeptics

This is another lie. You have told people you "just met that day" about your perceptions. You also posted on the Migraine Meetup board, "“Recently I seemed to have greatly improved the condition of a migraine sufferer and would love to meet you all at the next meeting and attempt to do the same with any of you who will let me.”

We could place one person with a missing kidney among several persons that have both kidneys and I need to detect which is that person, and to repeat this in a number of trials with new people. Perhaps it shouldn't be impossible to arrange.

It's conceivable, but there's a lot more to it. And your requirement of being able to "pass" on people you can't read won't fly.

If the claim is falsified

Too late. Your study already did that. Your failed test with Pup's pills did that. Your failed readings of photos did that. Your failed readings at the F-A-C-T meetings showed that.

It would take me a while to explain each of these things. The ghost experiences most always agree with what other people have experienced in those same places or with historical events.

No, they don't. Desertgal soundly debunked your Ben Franklin claim and your Revolutionary War claim. Follow the links to read her excellent work.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita has informed that I was incorrect about the migraine sufferer being her boyfriend's neighbor. Apparently it is a close friend of a neighbor of her boyfriend. I apologize for the mistake. Of course, had I realized this, I would have asked to confirm all parties, which would include the neighbor. It's moot at this point.

 

[remirol]

Before you can apply to take the MDC test you have to have had and passed a previous test and have credible people verify your claim and also media presence. In other words you have to have had a test before you can have the test.

I do not believe the first part of this statement is true; a number of people who have never been tested before for _anything_ were permitted to apply for the MDC.

The latter part is correct, however, as the JREF may require affidavits, and does also require a media presence -- but it sounds as though the affidavits, at least, will be trivial for you to procure. I would recommend applying for the MDC also at this stage with whatever media presence you may have; the JREF, from what I have seen, is not in the habit of closing applications forever simply because everything is not 100% perfect upon initial receipt of the application. I think you will find that they are willing to work with you, and if what you have provided is inadequate, let you know exactly what else would be necessary to get your application formally accepted and protocol negotiations underway.

 

[Cuddles]

To be a Star Person is not a mental problem. We just relate to outer space and the other related topics on a very personal and identity level. I do admit that it could be a cultural artifact for children who grow up exposed to space and such in the media since we haven't really seen this in our historical past.

There are so many things wrong with this I hardly know where to start. Beginning at the end, the idea that this is the first generation to be exposed to space is utterly ridiculous. Practically every advanced culture that has existed has been fascinated by space. The Sun, Moon and stars were some of the earliest gods. We still use the names given to stars and constellations by the ancient Greeks and Romans, among others. Some of the oldest man-made constructions known, such as Stonehenge, are astronomical devices. Astrology and generally studying the stars goes back pretty much as far as written records, and are still a major influence in some cultures today. They have been considered important enough at times to determine the leaders of major empires and the outcome of wars. Even ignoring all that and looking at only modern times, space has been a major interest for well over a century, with the advent of sci-fi such as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. And the space program and Moon landings are hardly a minor point. We certainly know more about space than we used to, but imagining that we are the first generation to be exposed to it is just utter nonsense.

And then there's the question of how much you have actually been exposed. What exactly have you done involving space that makes you any different from anyone else? I can safely say I've had far more exposure than the vast majority of people. My father is an amateur astronomer who has built his own telescope (an 8" Dosonian if anyone's interested, and currently working on a 12" and CCD to go with it). I've been reading Astronomy Now pretty much since I could read, and looking at the pretty pictures before that, and we had every Yearbook of Astronomy (by Patrick Moore) since well before I was born. One of the first books I remember reading was the Atlas of the Solar System (quite an old edition, I think from the '70s. It was quite amusing looking back at it more recently and realising just how out of date a lot of it is.). My main focuses in my physics degree were particle physics and cosmology. No doubt there's plenty more that I've forgotten to mention.

And yet I don't pretend to be an alien from another star. Because that's a load of bollocks that has absolutely nothing to do with an interest in space. It's simply yet another incarnation of new age nonsense that is based entirely on a desire to be special and a complete lack of connection with reality.

Your other claims aren't really that unusual. Lot's of people think they've seen ghosts, or that people can be healed with the power of their mind, and all the rest. Sure, they believe this due to a lack of critical thinking and misunderstanding the nature of personal experience and anecdotes compared to rigorous scientific study, but it's an understandable failing due largely to our evolved reliance on instinct and quick decisions. However, this "star person" nonsense is a bit different, since it has no connection to reality at all. Nothing you have seen, nothing that has ever happened in the real world, in any way suggests that you are a hundreds of years old alien from another world. That doesn't come from pareidolia, optical illusion, badly controlled studies or anything like that, it's made up entirely inside your own head.

 

[Pixel42]

Alright I need to go work on designing a test protocol for this more specific claim that I can submit to the IIG. I will publish it here and I would love plenty of constructive criticism.

I have a nephew who only has one kidney. It is a result of a syndrome with which he was born, which also has other symptoms some of which are visible (e.g. he also has no neck). There are probably such visible clues in most cases where a kidney is missing, so your protocol needs to be one which doesn't require you to see the subjects, i.e. they need to be behind a screen or curtain. Are your confident that your ability works through such a barrier? If so then I think you have a testable claim. As you will never see the volunteers you only need one person with only one kidney, and nine other volunteer with two. You will need to correctly pick out the individual with a single kidney from the group of ten volunteers three times to reach the required 1:1000 odds.

The problematic aspects of the protocol will be establishing the number of kidneys of the volunteers ahead of time, and confirming that the volunteer you choose is or is not the correct individual to the satisfaction of both you and the observers. I can see opportunities for shenanigans on both sides which will need to be carefully and methodically removed in whatever detailed protocol is agreed.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I do not believe the first part of this statement is true; a number of people who have never been tested before for _anything_ were permitted to apply for the MDC.

The latter part is correct, however, as the JREF may require affidavits, and does also require a media presence -- but it sounds as though the affidavits, at least, will be trivial for you to procure. I would recommend applying for the MDC also at this stage with whatever media presence you may have; the JREF, from what I have seen, is not in the habit of closing applications forever simply because everything is not 100% perfect upon initial receipt of the application. I think you will find that they are willing to work with you, and if what you have provided is inadequate, let you know exactly what else would be necessary to get your application formally accepted and protocol negotiations underway.

I have the impression of the JREF Challenge process that it would be best if I performed a preliminary test or demonstration successfully and in the presence of credible academics to witness it and provide affidavits before applying to have the test with them. I also hesitate to contact the media before I have some form of official evidence of my claim. I would like to apply to the JREF well prepared with all that they require and would like for our Challenge process to go smoothly for both their sake and mine.

You also have to understand that I am not an applicant who is simply trying to "make something up" to have a chance at the million, nor do I want to apply simply because I would have been mistaken about a claimed ability. I will apply if I and also others are convinced that there is a claim. I guess I am not your average claimant that way. I am communicating with the IIG West about arranging a test but might end up having an official test closer to North Carolina, or even having the test with the JREF in North Carolina or in Florida to avoid the travel expense to California. We will see which is most convenient for all purposes.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I have a nephew who only has one kidney. It is a result of a syndrome with which he was born, which also has other symptoms some of which are visible (e.g. he also has no neck). There are probably such visible clues in most cases where a kidney is missing, so your protocol needs to be one which doesn't require you to see the subjects, i.e. they need to be behind a screen or curtain. Are your confident that your ability works through such a barrier? If so then I think you have a testable claim.

Oh my goodness, I was intending to have a test with people who have had a kidney removed either because of kidney failure or an accident, or because they have chosen to be a kidney donor! These people should not have any symptoms associated with it. I do not know the limits of using screens and to find out would put me into another study and we all know we don't want that. I was hoping to have the test without a screen, but I await the IIG's decision on that.

As you will never see the volunteers you only need one person with only one kidney, and nine other volunteer with two. You will need to correctly pick out the individual with a single kidney from the group of ten volunteers three times to reach the required 1:1000 odds.

That is wonderful, I was hoping someone could give me some idea of the statistics of the test! Based on this for three trials we only need three persons who are missing a kidney and then 27 persons who have both kidneys. Or if we have a shortage of persons with missing kidneys we can increase the number of persons who have both kidneys. Another way of getting a 1:1000 odds is to have one person who is missing a kidney in a room with 1000 other persons who have both kidneys! I will suggest that to the IIG right away.

The problematic aspects of the protocol will be establishing the number of kidneys of the volunteers ahead of time, and confirming that the volunteer you choose is or is not the correct individual to the satisfaction of both you and the observers. I can see opportunities for shenanigans on both sides which will need to be carefully and methodically removed in whatever detailed protocol is agreed.

I suggest that those that are missing a kidney provide medical documentation to verify this. If the claimant and the testing party are not entitled to review a person's medical documents then we could have a doctor sign that he or she has seen that documentation and will verify that the persons are missing a kidney. We can then match a photo ID with the medical documentation that verifies that a person is missing a kidney. Or, we can just ask me.

As for the problem of how to verify that the remainder of the volunteers do in fact have both kidneys, well, most people have both kidneys, and I certainly have no reason to suspect that the IIG could cheat by placing more than one person with one kidney for a trial as that would work in my favor.

 

[remirol]

All topics that Anita introduced. Funny, I don't see you including that in your list.

It doesn't matter who introduced them. Why is everyone talking to her about them and then complaining that she's talking about other things rather than taking the test?

Why the sudden interest in getting Anita to a test? This has been going on for eight months, numerous threads, and countless posts.

I opened this thread again recently because I wondered why it was still going around in circles, when Connie has applied and been tested. And now I see part of why it's still going on: people are spending all their time attempting to get her to admit something she never will, instead of trying to get her to an actual test.

Semi-related, I see you again avoided responding to the actual suggestions I've made to instead focus on side issues, including what appears to be a random misquote from someone else's post entirely. Good job, there. Think perhaps your method's a teensy part of the problem?

So, I restate: If we're serious about getting her to take a test, hey, I've got an idea: let's not give her anything to talk about but the test itself, rather than trying to get her to admit something she's never going to. And yes, she may in fact never attempt to take a test, but guess what: all the side issues currently under discussion don't move it forward either.

 

[remirol]

I have the impression of the JREF Challenge process that it would be best if I performed a preliminary test or demonstration successfully and in the presence of credible academics to witness it and provide affidavits before applying to have the test with them.

This is not necessarily true. Many claimants are recommended to do such a thing because they have never verified their own powers, or have only ever demonstrated to another person once, and it was one of their relatives. It does not seem that you fall into this category, however, and it seems you would not even need to perform any further demonstrations to get the affidavits in question.

I also hesitate to contact the media before I have some form of official evidence of my claim. I would like to apply to the JREF well prepared with all that they require and would like for our Challenge process to go smoothly for both their sake and mine.

No Challenge ever goes "smoothly" that I have seen, though some do have fewer bumps than others. I suggest applying now, and finding out from the JREF precisely what they will require. Keep in mind that this forum and its denizens cannot speak for the JREF, so while people are making a number of requests of you here, those requests should not be considered to be mandatory prerequisites for an MDC application.

Again, in my experience the JREF is not in the habit of closing applications for people who are sincerely attempting to be tested; if you are lacking in something, it would be best to find out earlier from the JREF rather than later. Also, the JREF is based in Florida, as you yourself note later, so it would be significantly easier to arrange things with them rather than with a group in California.

I will apply if I and also others are convinced that there is a claim.

Others being convinced is really not that relevant. As far as yourself, it appears from recent posts that you indeed do have a claim -- so seriously, go ahead and apply with the claim about being able to detect missing kidneys. Sooner is always better than later for this sort of thing; and the sooner you get the process started, the sooner you can know for _sure_ what will be required from the JREF.

 

[Pixel42]

I was intending to have a test with people who have had a kidney removed either because of kidney failure or an accident, or because they have chosen to be a kidney donor! These people should not have any symptoms associated with it.

Not being a doctor I have no idea if that's true.

I was hoping to have the test without a screen, but I await the IIG's decision on that.

A screen would be better, if only to ensure that the volunteers (who of course know how many kidneys they have) don't - either intentionally or unintentionally - give you some kind of hint. I'm not sure the test would be considered fully blinded if there is no screen.

If a screen is used it will make it more difficult for you to be sure that the person you indicated and the person you are later told you indicated are one and the same person. That's the bit of the protocol that will probably be the hardest to design in a way that eliminates any possibility of shenanigans.

 

[Pixel42]

I've looked again at the protocol for Patricia Putt in the challenge subforum and I think something similiar would be adequate to ensure no communication, either deliberate or accidental, between VfF and the volunteers without the necessity for a screen. Assuming VfF is happy to look at the volunteers from the back only (which I would imagine would be fine as it's kidneys she's looking for) many of the precautions listed in the Putt protocol would not be necessary. A protocol something like the following might be suitable:

1. The volunteers all wear football jerseys or similiar with a different number on the back. The volunteers are monitored and filmed from the moment they put them on until the end of the test to ensure they have no opportunity to swap shirts.

2. VfF enters a screened off section of the room and sits facing a curtain, on the other side of which is a stool.

3. The first volunteer sits on the stool with their back to the curtain. When he/she is settled, the curtain is drawn back. VfF should not be able to see anything except the stool and its occupant from where she is sitting. The volunteer sits as still as he/she can manage whilst VfF examines him/her. VfF indicates when she has seen enough and the curtain is drawn. The volunteer then returns to the waiting area and the next volunteer takes their place.

4. Repeat for each volunteer. VfF is free to make whatever notes she wishes about the volunteers.

5. When all volunteers have been examined VfF decides which one she thinks has only one kidney and writes the appropriate number on a card which she seals inside an envelope. She then joins the volunteers, adjudicator and observers and places the envelope on a table in clear view.

6. The adjudicator calls for the volunteer with only one kidney to step forward. He/she produces the previously agreed documentary evidence which is examined by VfF and the adjudicator. When both are satisfied the volunteer turns around to show the number on his/her back. The adjudicator then opens VfF's envelope to see if the number she has written is the same.

Repeat as many times as necessary to beat the previously agreed odds of chance success.

 

[Pup]

If a screen is used it will make it more difficult for you to be sure that the person you indicated and the person you are later told you indicated are one and the same person. That's the bit of the protocol that will probably be the hardest to design in a way that eliminates any possibility of shenanigans.

Or if the screen is used, and the screen is a flat one (rather than one which totally surrounds the person) maybe a video camera located at the edge of it, showing both the person and Anita on either sides of the screen at the same time?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Assuming VfF is happy to look at the volunteers from the back only (which I would imagine would be fine as it's kidneys she's looking for)

I will definitely be looking at the volunteers from behind!

1. The volunteers all wear football jerseys or similiar with a different number on the back. The volunteers are monitored and filmed from the moment they put them on until the end of the test to ensure they have no opportunity to swap shirts.

You are right that it would be preferable to use bulky clothing to cover the figure of the volunteers. However I might prefer a thinner fabric in case I see through it better. Geez, I have to study this... All I need to do is have some people I know wear various things and see if I can still claim to see their kidneys. Should be done in a snap.

I do like your suggested test protocol. However: I might prefer to see ten people at a time, one of which is missing a kidney. I will see whether the IIG prefer to have ten people, one person, or any other number of people to be seen at a time. I don't know, we'll see. I'd agree to either one.

The IIG could be accused of cheating by having more than the said number of persons who are missing a kidney! If the person I select as having one kidney is not the target person who has documentation to verify that they are missing a kidney, how do we verify that the person I selected does indeed have both kidneys? I have asked the IIG to suggest what we do. Isn't it fun to forward all the problems to the IIG? I bet they are having a fun time today discussing all these things!

 

[Uncayimmy]

A screen would be better, if only to ensure that the volunteers (who of course know how many kidneys they have) don't - either intentionally or unintentionally - give you some kind of hint. I'm not sure the test would be considered fully blinded if there is no screen.

Dr. Carlson (the one whom she fantasizes about detecting a missing kidney) and Anita see each other monthly at the local skeptics meeting. They could very easily do a test with a screen to see if she can still make the detection. She did it through his clothes! She can see through somebody's skull and detect dark areas on the brain and "treat them" with light, but a dark cloth will render her super powers useless? What nonsense.

We've been down this path before with her. She made all sorts of noises about screens and just exactly how much skin she needs to see (if any) in order to make a reading. Months and months later she still doesn't know. She doesn't want to know.

 

[Locknar]

Even in moderated status, this thread seems to have drifted WELL off-topic and into personal issues/discussions. As such, I am closing this thread.

The Mod Team will go through and see if there is anything worth salvaging...then, and only then, will it be reopened - again in moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Locknar]

I have gone through this thread and culled those posts there were off-topic, derails, bickering, etc.

Posts must be on topic and treat other members in a civil & polite manner. If this can not be managed the thread will be closed permanently - the choice is yours.

Thank you for cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[John Jones]

I had a very unusual childhood and came across the concept of Star People in my teens and found that I could relate to it. Star People is a personality characteristic and is not necessarily stated as evidence. I had the personality and self-reflection before I came across Dr. Boylan and his questionnaire in my mid-20's,

I came late to this discussion, so forgive me if this has been asked before. Are you referring to Dr Richard "Hot tub" Boylan?