Wow, this is so utterly dishonest that words fail me. You stated clearly that if you would fail the IIG test, you claim would be falsified. You said it here, in this forum. Now you try to change the rules, after the test procedure was finally worked out, simply to increase you chance to 50/50. Again, _you_ said here, before the test, that failing the test will falsify your claim. Now you are wiggling and twisting, just to make the negative result a positive one. This is a truly disgusting dishonesty. By doing so you betrayed each end everyone who invested even a minute of his/her time to help you with the protocol and test.
Watch your language! If you are attempting to demonstrate something and the part of you that is used to attempt that skill stops working then how are you supposed to be able to show what you are capable of doing while you are working properly? If I get exhausted by trial 3 and the perceptions which are the center of the claim under study, stops working, then how is anything produced testing that claim when that claim is not producing?
As for unexpected effects from test conditions that affect the performance of the claim what is wrong with correcting for that new discovered parameter and setting up another test to then confirm or reject the suggestion that such a parameter reduced the performance of the claim? If it takes me longer to see into larger persons and I had not had that experience of reading into larger persons before then how does that falsify a claim? It
refines the claim, by now saying that with larger subjects the claim requires more time to work.
If it were a true ability and it truly does take longer with larger persons then that would still be a very interesting ability which deserves to be discovered.
The only consequence of my rejection of falsification at this point is that another test will be arranged. Not to challenge the results of the IIG test, but to add to those. Besides, the next test will be even more rigorous. Less cold reading and visual information will be available, and I do expect that a better test procedure is to not reveal to me the predetermined number of targets among a group of subjects.
I am quite willing to falsify the claim, but,
"not because Skeptics said so". The claim is truly not falsified, but then again, nor is it verified. Your dismissal and discouragement of independent investigations into paranormal claims is what is disgusting, dear. As Skeptics you are supposed to be supporters of science, and science is based on experimental data and observations, which, of course, does require repeated trials and under consequent adjustments of test parameters to acchieve a clearer conclusion of a presented claim or hypothesis.
Don't you know that woos are emailing me telling me that the IIG cheated? And about believing that I am a true psychic, or asking me for psychic readings? I am trying to show with my website that I do have a claim but that it is not verified, and I want to acchieve a proper falsification that convinces everyone, whether a Skeptic or a woo.
And why are you arguing at me? How many people make paranormal claims about being psychic, having healing abilities, receiving messages, etc, and they
do not even want to submit their claims to testing. At least I am testing my claim. Most woos won't ever collaborate with Skeptics, and I am only collaborating with Skeptics, not with any woos. How many claimants talk about having a test and never do? How many would avoid having a Skeptically designed test at every cost? I was thrilled to have a test with the IIG, and I am actually one of the very few claimants who followed through with having a test! And out of those few that do follow through with having a Skeptical test, how many turn around and accuse the Skeptics of cheating, or of having influenced their results with bad energy? I have taken full responsibility for my results and for failing the two out of three trials and I am constantly having to tell woos that the IIG didn't cheat and that I failed fair and square!
How many other woos can you count who have done what I have? Please, give me a list. I would like to read it. I would like to think that I have done more than most woos would and that my work is in alignment with what skepticism would ask of a woo.
Meanwhile there is
Brent Atwater, just an hour or so away from here, performing intuitive medical readings quite similar to what my claim entails and at a whopping price of $1,580.00. Meanwhile I
only read Skeptics and at no cost at all.
So why are you always attacking me? I am actually taking the effort to work with Skeptics. Why am I always under attack? Please focus your frustrations on those other woos who are comfortable with making unverified claims and charging people high amounts of money for sharing those without giving any consideration to verification or rational skeptical inquiry into their claims.
Sometimes I wonder if I am under attack as some sort of symbol for all of woo, but then you should rather seek out those that frustrate you the most, because surely it can't be me. Which kind of woo is doing more harm? Surely it can't be me.
You _did_ have a test to detect kidneys. You _did_ fail that test. The claim _is_ over. I repeat myself here, but acting the way do is dishonest.
The claim is not over. I said immediately after each of trial 1 and 3 that something went wrong and that I knew that my answers in those trials were not representative of my claim and that those answers would be incorrect. Meanwhile I felt highly confident in my performance in trial 2 to the point of putting my entire claim on the line,
clearly stating that the claim is falsified if I am to be incorrect in that trial.
Scientific research does not insist on forming final conclusions quickly or within only a few repeated trials. Scientific research depends on repeated trials and under continuously tweaked test procedures. A scientist doesn't simply hurry up and make one short series of tests to either acchieve the indication of falsification or of verification and then to hurry along and publish those as a final conclusion. Such work would likely not be published unless it specifically focuses on the study of a phenomenon during those specific sets of conditions. But to work to either verify or to falsify a hypothesis, in which the surrounding test conditions that best enable it to manifest have not been fully established, it does take repeated trials and under continuously improved testing conditions, so to approach and to narrow down toward a reliable final conclusion.
I approach my investigation in a scientific manner.
Add to that the fact that you originally claimed that such "visions" would be immediate. However, for the test, and now afterwards, you insist that it takes quite some time for these "visions" to form. This is nothing more than a crude and blatant attempt to give you even more excuses for your failure. Like "uhh, it took so long, so i wasn't really fit anymore at the third test."
Unfortunately what you say here is entirely unfounded and biased. In the past when I walk by a person and a medical perception appears on its own, such a perception appears immediately. Most of my experience with the claimed perceptions occur during an everyday situation, in which such perceptions occur spontaneously, and I do not perceive information from every person and at every time in such spontaneous situations. But when it comes to sitting down and making the effort to see something on demand, it is entirely different, and that is when individual differences appear that make certain perceptions easier to form on demand and others to be harder to form.
My experience of my claim is mostly based on everyday experience. It is not like I am doing psychic readings and experiencing what it is like to do this on demand or what it is like to do this often. Perceptions that appear on their own do so spontaneously and immediately. If I choose to search for the information it may take longer.
Luckily I took very elaborate and careful notes on my fatigue in trial 3 on the draft papers, that are signed by myself and James Underdown and are stapled to the back of the answer sheet of that trial. These papers are still with the IIG. Once copies are posted you will see that my excuse of fatigue is not something given after the fact but done well in advance at the very early beginning of trial 3. Meanwhile you should learn to state your suspicions as
suggestions rather than as
definite fact. It is better to say that "I think you might be making this up" rather than to say that "I know you are making this up". A good Skeptic is supposed to represent science, and even a scientist can not be full of bias and prejudice like what you have shown here. You are so certain of your negative accusations against my conduct in my investigation that you are blindly convinced of those to be true, when in fact I am showing you that several of them are easily proven to be incorrect. Objectivity and openness are very crucial parts of Skepticism. Don't make a woo teach you how to be a Skeptic, now.
I can only hope that whoever thinks about doing a test with you, will find this thread an UY's website, so they can avoid wasting a huge amount of resources and time for someone who treats the people involved with such dishonesty.
How dare you? I am one of the very few woos who actually goes ahead and
has a test. My communication with the IIG was very pleasant and polite. I was quite grateful and appreciative of their work. I have not said a single mean thing about the IIG and meanwhile I am complimenting them for their beautiful work. If I was a bad woo I would be out there giving psychic readings. And did you know I have a woo book written that is highly coveted in certain parts of the woo community and I could potentially make millions from the woo products that I could offer and that many have been asking me to complete and to make available. But instead I have chosen to step back from woo, and to investigate all woo, and I would rather be poor than make that easy but highly unscientific immoral money from woo.
You are sincerely targeting your frustrations of woo on the wrong person. I hope that one day you can see that.
*off-topic*
