VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[Femke]

I wish it were that simple. First of all, I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us. And it was the most compelling medical perception I had had. Again, the reason I did not write it down, was because I was logically convinced that it could not be true, which makes the whole thing even more interesting since it was true after all.

<delurking>
Sorry, it's been said before, but you did not address it, and I really would like you to consider this.
If you are doing an experiment, and your observation does not meet your expectation, are you a real scientist if you then discard that observation without even acknowledging it? Or would you be a scientist if you write down the observation, maybe even mark it as remarkable and then set out to see why it is so remarkable?
Your remark about desertgals memory in one of the other threads suggests that you have read the links provided about false memories. Why do you refuse to even consider that you might have been fooled by your own memory, like the many people who were convinced they saw Bugs Bunny in Disneyland?

My logical thinking and my perceptions of health information are two entirely different things. And at the IIG test I was confident in knowing the accuracy of each trial immediately after each trial, being confident that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong and trial 2 correct.
<snip>

And this part of your reactions keeps puzzling me. If you knew that your answer was wrong, then why did you submit it in the first place?
If I claim to be able to see which person is missing which arm, then I will be always confident that I gave the right answer, because I saw a void where an arm should be. Knowing when you were wrong does not make sense to me. Can you please explain why you think it is relevant?

Femke

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

That test would be far too easy for her to pass, as would any similar test, including a new kidney test. All she would have to do is try to fail. She could deliberately answer the ALL trivia questions incorrectly and then predict that she missed them all and she would have 100% accuracy.

With a new kidney test, it would be a little more difficult, because she might be accidentally right (again) in one trial. Still, the odds are much better of her prediction of being wrong 100% of the time, and she could predict as much and would look like she had special predictive powers.

It's a lot like when she chose "left" as the missing kidney in every case at the IIG test. The odds were that left was the most likely answer in each case since a donated kidney is usually the left kidney.

Besides, who's going to set up a test like that for her?

Ward

You are right, that would be too easy to cheat at. I didn't think it through enough. That'll teach me to make off the cuff tests.

On the other hand, if she always knows she is correct or incorrect, then it should be a simple matter for her to guess each kidney of each person is missing, one at a time in sequence, know if she is right or wrong immediately, and then mark each score sheet accordingly. That should allow for 100% accuracy, and a much quicker test than the one she did with IIG West.

 

[Ashles]

I wish it were that simple. First of all, I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us.

First of all we don't believe you.
We have never believed this claim and we will never believe this claim.
Repeating it over and over will not make us believe this claim.
It is entirely irrelevant to keep repeating this claim as it is indistinguishable from a postdiction aka a complete lie.

And it was the most compelling medical perception I had had. Again, the reason I did not write it down, was because I was logically convinced that it could not be true, which makes the whole thing even more interesting since it was true after all. My logical thinking and my perceptions of health information are two entirely different things.

All irrelevant as no-one believes you and no-one will ever believe that claim about Dr Carlson.

And at the IIG test I was confident in knowing the accuracy of each trial immediately after each trial, being confident that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong and trial 2 correct.

You confidence is irrelevant. You are attempting to 'weigh' trials you like with more meaningful results than trials you do not like. That was never part of the test as it is entirely open to abuse by you. As you are doing right now.

It's like guessing ten coin tosses and getting 5 correct, then afterwards saying you felt confident the times you got it correct.

It's absolutely and totally meaningless and just a desperate and painfully transparent to try and claw back something from chance results.

Remember your "Never been wrong" comments from the early days of the claim? We sure are a long way from that now.
Now your best is "Results indistinguishable from guessing, but when I guessed right I was really confident".

My answer in trial 2 of the IIG test was so compelling, that I declared right there and then that if it were incorrect then that would be the time to falsify the claim. From 1 hour 38 minutes into Part 1 of the test I said that the perception for trial 2 was so compelling that if it were incorrect I would know without doubt that the claim is falsified. The claim would have been over with right there and then.

Why do you keep changing test protocols during tests?

It is about how you performed over the trial. Period. That was what was being tested, not how important you suddenly randomly decide certain bits of the trial are compared to other bits.
Have you ever actually read how a single scientific experiment is actually conducted in real life?

I learned that it takes me longer to see through larger persons and that three trials was far too much and I was affected by fatigue and my claim stopped working in trial 3. I did document my fatigue on the draft papers and also told IIG staff about it well before the results were established.

All irrelevant. Another attempt to 'weigh' the trials differently in your own favour. That's not how this works.

Anyway you just said above you were sure trial 1 was wrong too. Surely you were least fatigued then?

I will arrange to have another test, and hopefully it will be able to settle my curiosity more conclusively. Sorry about that if you don't like it.

You actually sent me a PM asking my opinion about your results. You asked if you thought in light of these results it was worth you continuing investigating. I categorically told you there was clearly nothing worth investigating.
Why do you ask people their opinion if you have no intention of taking anything ayone says to you on board?
You clearly want to pursue your fantasy not because of positive results, but in direct contradiction to negative results.

Still it's your time and your life you are wasting. At some point even you will be unable to continue the fantasy - I hope you don't look back and regret this colossal waste of all this time pursuing something that everyone, apart from you, is totally agreed is clearly a fantasy.

Besides. It is better to have another test, because if I make incorrect perceptions that I thought would be correct, that will be able to better falsify the claim.

No it isn't. Anyone with the tiniest interest in following the scientific method already has more than enough information to reach a conclusion on this matter.
Only someone indulging a fantasy would continue at this point.

If your next test yields chance results you will simply then say "It is better to have another test, because ... blah, blah, blah..." (insert unconvincing and unscientific reason here)

I have so many woos contacting me telling me that the IIG tricked the test and all other sorts of nonsense, and if I fail more conclusively, then it should make an even better example to all the woos out there.

What difference would it make? The type of person you describe will no more believe further negative results than, well, you would. Nothing will convince them (or you) otherwise.

My goal is to falsify the claim if there is nothing to it, but, that can not be done yet with the data that is available so far.

Yes it absolutely can.

You simply have no intention of falsifying your claim. There are no set of results you would view as falsification.

If you perform above chance this would be viewed by you as confirmation.
If you perform at chance you say you felt far more confident the times you were correct.
When you perform below chance you say that you actually got the answers right, but your logic made you say a different answer, or people have told you "that the IIG tricked the test", or you were fatigued, or the conditions were wrong, or it was a learning experience and next test you can improve or... excuse after excuse after excuse.

What is the point in running tests?

Another test will be helpful.

No it won't, quite the opposite in fact. Do enough tests and one will randomly yield results that, if taken alone, will appear above chance. This is clearly what you are hoping for.

Do enough trials tossing ten coins and you will have a trial where you guess at least seven correct.

But so what? What does that tell us? Nothing when viewed as a body of data.
But you aren't interested in viewing this scientifically, you only want to keep running trials until one randomly shows results above chance.

And at this point that would be the most damaging result of all because it might encourage you to waste further years on this nonsense.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I don't spread my personal life here, but I do defend myself when others spread hurtful lies about me.

Sorry, but that's plain nonsense. You go around and tell everyone that you are a "star person". You go to great lengths to come up with loads of fantasy claims that you think make you special. You post wall-of-text's on a almost regular basis. And you lie. So, grow up and stop complaining that others don't buy your fantasy stories.

I have been entirely honest about everything. I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us about it. All I have done is be honest, but you people disbelieve it so much you can not even imagine that it may be the truth.

Oh my ... Has anyone told you already that your record seems stuck? Methinks it needs a little nudge. Your constant repeating of that kidney nonsense doesn't make it true.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is possible. And there is even less reason to believe that you are honest about it, given your posting history here and elsewhere.

I will defend myself against lies about me.

You seem to have a huge disconnect to reality. As so many others said already, the only one lying here is you. Repeatedly. You have no credibility left. I really hope that no one else falls for your utter nonsense and puts a lot of effort into testing you again. It would simply be a waste of time. And a dishonest one, for that matter.

What you have done with the IIG test is just disgusting. You wasted a lot of people's time there. In the end you spit them in the face and continue to claim your nonsense. Dishonesty at its purest form. Remember, it was you who told us beforehand that you would admit that a failed test there falsifies your claim. But you have chosen to not stick to your words. You made the whole process nothing more than a pointless charade.

Really, you should be ashamed for that. But to the contrary, you have the guts of coming back here and tell US that WE are the bad people? If anyone, it is you who should apologize and go away. You brought yourself into this situation, now you have to live with the consequences.

You know, at first i was skeptical about UY's website about you. But your actions since the IIG test just strongly confirmed to me that he is on the very right track. There is no honesty in you. You have to be stopped from wasting peoples time and energy. Sad as this is, but it is so.

 

[desertgal]

Is there anyone else (another student in the class) who could verify this, as an eyewitness?

There is a student who publicly shed some light on the conflict between Anita and the Meanie Professor at StopVisionFromFeeling.com, and it was, not surprisingly, quite different than what Anita described.

ALthough this is my first post on the forum, I have been following this site since Jim's first article on Anita. I am also a student at UNCC, and I find it shameful that our science departments will now be associated with Anita and her ludicrous claims. Regarding the statement that a professor at UNCC physically and verbally harassed Anita, it is completely blown out of proportion (as usual). Anita and I were in Organic Chemistry together, and the unfortunate recipient of her claims was Dr. Jim Crosthwaite - he is now a member of the emeritus faculty. Dr. Crosthwaite was giving a review session right before the test, and Anita asked him to provide a list of the interactions we were supposed to look for when analyzing organic compounds. This is a process we had been working on for the past three weeks. Dr. Crosthwaite told her in no uncertain terms that if she needed that list, she was not prepared for the test and should leave to go study instead. Apparently, that was the wrong thing to say to someone who is obsessed with her own perfection. Throughout the semester, Anita continued to do poorly in the class. Rather than going to his office to receive help, she focused her efforts on a character assassination of Dr. Crosthwaite (ironic, isn't it?). By the end of the semester, she started a petition for students to sign stating Dr. Crosthwaite's verbal abuse made it impossible for students to learn in his class. She cornered my husband and I outside the chem lab and tried to get us to sign it because we were among the top students in the class. Would you believe the only people who signed it were the ones who did poorly? She fought very hard to tarnish his reputation and took her false claims to very high levels. Ultimately, she lost. It is very unfortunate she is up to her old antics again causing trouble for a professor who has really done nothing wrong.

While ReasonRox's post was enlightening, I noted that it didn't address Anita's claim that the Meanie Professor had been physically abusive towards herself and other students. I thought that was an important issue to clarify, so I asked ReasonRox about it...

...I'd like to ask you if you ever witnessed any incident where Dr. Crosthwaite was physically violent towards Anita or any other student? Excluding tapping her with papers-equating that with serious physical violence is just stupid on her part. I'm not trying to belabor the issue, but "hits his students" is a pretty serious charge to be spreading around the Internet, and I think Dr. Crosthwaite deserves to be defended on that point if there isn't any truth to it.

...to which ReasonRox replied:

I'm glad you mentioned the paper incident. Dr. Crosthwaite taught 2 sections of Organic Chemistry, but we all took our tests together. He made two separate tests for each section, so he spaced us every other seat. Anita sat at the desk assigned to the wrong section, so he more than likely tapped her on the head with a stack of papers to knock some sense in her when she refused to move (the tests were color coded and the colors were explained on the chalkboard at the front of the classroom). In answer to your question, I never witnessed anything that could constitute physical violence toward Anita or any other student. Dr. Crosthwaite was an amazing professor and did not deserve what Anita put him through.

While I am not aware of ReasonRox's identity and cannot vouch for her personally, her logical explanation, in contrast to Anita's repeated inconsistent ranting about the Meanie Professor, does, in my opinion, give RR credibility. As well, it doesn't appear that she had an axe to grind by relating her version of the episode-other than expressing embarrassment that Anita's behavior reflects poorly on the college they both attend-so there's no reason to doubt her honesty.

We know that Anita twists circumstances of past events in her favor, in order to play the victim. We've seen her do it firsthand, several times. I think it is safe to suspect, in light of RR's posts, that she has done the same here.

Pretty sad, Anita.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Has anyone been reading this thread?:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163935

It's a guy in Australia who claims to hear the thoughts of others. How does that apply here? Well here are a few quotes from him:

(while trying to guess the color of a mug on someone's table) "i think im wrong but im saying white with some writing."

(after his powers gave him a wrong answer) "no cause i know i was wrong, i was trying to go back and find out why i was wrong to be right the next time.."

(when someone tries to convince him that he might not have powers) "so you just trying to have a play with me, make fun of my claims and/or try to convince me otherwise that i cant.. ive already said its not gonna work"

Then there's this whole other thing he wrote on a different website:
http://www.psychic-experiences.com/real-psychic-story.php?story=2266

He says he's been under the care of a mental health professional in the past, but he no longer takes the medication they prescibed.

Does all this sound similar to (but obviously not identical) our friend who claims she is "not a typical woo?"

This other guy speaks English as his first language (I assume), but does not write nearly as well as VfF. I don't think he's in any kind of school, nor do I think he could currently handle being in school. They are not identical, but the similarities surprised me because they were so close in so many ways.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

While I am not aware of ReasonRox's identity and cannot vouch for her personally, her logical explanation, in contrast to Anita's repeated inconsistent ranting about the Meanie Professor, does, in my opinion, give RR credibility. As well, it doesn't appear that she had an axe to grind by relating her version of the episode-other than expressing embarrassment that Anita's behavior reflects poorly on the college they both attend-so there's no reason to doubt her honesty.

I can vouch for ReasonRox with a great degree of certainty. I was actually expecting to hear from someone giving me a first-person version of the story because two people at UNCC advised me it would be forthcoming. I am familiar those two people via Facebook, and I had a long video chat with one of them. These people assure me that ReasonRox was indeed in that class and that she is considered reliable.

I should note that ReasonRox first sent me her version privately. I asked if I could share it publicly, and she decided on her own to make that post. I've mentioned before that I am privy to information that I have not shared publicly. This is another example. Other examples include things Anita has shared privately. I told her last summer that I would not longer consider our private conversations private. For things before that, I don't believe I have revealed anything that I agreed to keep private. Anita tended to send me unsolicited IMs and ramble on without any response from me, so I regard that information not to be in confidence so to speak.

I have revealed some previously "private" details for various reasons such as Anita making claims that I knew to be misleading or contradictory to what she had told me already or to refute accusations she made about me. Considering that she has harassed me by phone, threatened lawsuits, and repeatedly contacted me after I told her not to, I don't feel that I owe her any degree of privacy.

Along these same lines, in the Alenara thread I played coy with Anita regarding how I came to know of her previous identity. Truth is, I received a tip. I do not know for certain who this person is, but I am 80% sure of its identity. I do have a valid e-mail address for the person. I am 100% sure it was not the people Anita accused. Well, I'm only 99% sure it wasn't the person who posted the Alenara videos - it could be a scam. I just can't see why that person would go through so much trouble to impersonate someone else.

There are still several things I am aware of that are not known publicly. Some I have shared privately with a few people, and they have kept quiet. However, there are still some things only known to myself and the person who told me.

Just in case anyone was curious.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The " I was right, because I knew I was wrong . " claim from VFF is just mind bending.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ..

Your example is similar in that regard ..

 

[bookitty]

Ward, I noticed that as well. The Australian fellow is so dissimilar to VFF in nearly every way (except, possibly age) and yet there's a striking similarity in how they perceive their "powers" and excuse their misses. The main difference is that the Australian isn't claiming to go about this scientifically. His only recognition of any scientific method is that it might help him win one of the cash prizes.

 

[desertgal]

The " I was right, because I knew I was wrong . " claim from VFF is just mind bending.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ..

Your example is similar in that regard ..

Whose example?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Whose example?

I was responding to wardenclyffe's post..

Which was the last post at the time..

UncaYimmy's got interposed during the approval process..

 

[wardenclyffe]

rorylee (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163935) continues to channel VfF. Here are a couple of examples:

"if i fail, i fail but im not about to turn my back on what ive already experienced and known to be true and real infront of my eyes."

or

Explaining why he does not want to take his medication: "i dont want to silence it cause i know now, nearly 2 yrs later, its an ability and not a delusion or anything."

As bookitty has said, they have nothing in common (except their age). And yet they seem to have so much in common.

Not your typical woo?

Ward

 

[wardenclyffe]

Once again, our friend, rorylee (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163935) delivers another classic VfF line.

You may remember a from a few posts up, he was trying to psychically determine the color of a mug that someone had sitting on their coffee table. His guess was:

"i think im wrong but im saying white with some writing."

Now, a week later, he is told that the mug was red with no writing. rorylee's response?

"and see i was right i knew it wasnt and i shoulda said red writing at the time, cause now it looks like *ahh his only saying it cause he knows now*. but yea thats what i thought of back then, anyway i was wrong yay "

While rorylee is a fairly cryptic writer, I think this can be translated two ways.

Number 1. "I knew the accuracy of my answers beforehand."

Number 2. "I really, really saw the missing kidney"

Not your typical woo.

Ward

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Correspondence with woo enthusiast

As most of you are for understandable reasons concerned to see that I never become part of the woo economy, here is a letter from a woo enthusiast asking me to offer her medical advice, and my response to her. Here, her letter. I have removed names and other identifying information. I am sure she won't mind me sharing this, there is no way to trace back to who she is, and I consider that her privacy has been maintained:

Hi Anita,

now I'd like to introduce myself a little bit: my name is [name removed], I live in [location removed]. Knowing a lot of great things about you, your unconditional Love and tremendous paranormal, actually *normal for me*, abilities (all from my best friend [name removed, back then of [location removed] - now living in [location removed]), a few days ago I decided to find you. On some, probably spiritual(?), level I know that you can help me. It wasn't even difficult to find you - a good sign for me: )) I have a lot of health problems, and nobody actually can tell me what it is and help me. I tried different natural therapies but the outcome is miserable. It's been 10 years of living in pain and other poor conditions of my body. Despite my bad health I have a lot of night dreams (sometimes veeeeeeeeeeeery strange) and visions. Additionally I'm having an uncertain life situation right now. So as you can see I have lots and lots of problems, but I truly believe, that you can help me somehow. I wish I could chat with you, rather than write emails, because my English is very poor, but it's up to you. Feel free, please, to call me at [number removed], or leave me a message here or on skype - my skype name is [name removed]. I hope we'll contact each other pretty soon.

[name and ending phrase removed]

To post this is not intended as offensive toward the person who wrote this to me.

And here is my reply:

Hi [name removed],

Thank you for writing, and I am sorry to hear about your various problems, with health and otherwise. A lot has changed for me since I did those seminars on living on light in [location removed]. I am today a science student at a university in North Carolina. I am studying both Chemistry and Physics, as a matter of fact I am specializing in the scientific study of light, called optics, or photonics. Today I have taken my love for light and love for what light can do from the strictly spiritual and New Age and into the science laboratory.

I am of course concerned for you, and of course it makes me want to help you somehow, if only I could. Problem is, giving someone specific health advise is regulated by law and requires professional credentials. All this to ensure that "psychics" don't give people false advise, whether knowingly or unknowingly, charge money for useless services, or destroy people's foundation in reality, science, medicine, and in answers and solutions that are proven and established scientifically, and practiced by highly skilled professionals.

This entire paragraph in one sentence: I am not allowed to give out health advice.

I have been contacted by a person before, who asked me for health advise. I then decided, that the only way I could do so, is if I meet with them in person. I would also bring a credible third person who will document what I do and don't do, so that there may be no suspicion of me having done anything that would be considered illegal, harmful, or unethical. And the only way that I could ever dispense health information to someone is that I write it into a letter that I will mail to that person's medical provider.

[Added in JREF post: I did not meet with this person referenced to here!]

That letter to their doctor will then explain that I have attempted to obtain this information through some sort of intuition, and that the doctor may decide whether it provides any helpful hints that they have not thought of before - unlikely - and that may fit with the symptoms of their patient. They would then practice their professional judgement to determine whether what I have written provides any possible clue as to a patient's diagnose or treatment, and whether the symptoms already established by them, and with some possible new lead, would warrant the expense of various testing to verify or dismiss those.

In other words: I can not give medical advice to a person, regardless of whether I would be correct or incorrect in a particular case, because I am not a licensed medical practitioner, and also because if the advice that I give is incorrect and is acted on, it will lead to harm, not recovery.

I would only ever provide this information to the doctor of that person. That is why there would be a third person with me to verify that I have not given any medical information to a person. Of course, what's to say that a psychic would not then send a letter to the person they were attempting to sense information about? I suppose there is no way to prove that that does not happen, although I would know that I would have taken all measures conceivable to ensure that a person does not receive any "intuitively" derived health advice.

[Also added in JREF post: Truth is, there is no way to confirm that someone has not dispensed "intuitive" advice to persons. I could have had a psychic practice for years now and been making tons of money and no one would necessarily know about it. However that is not the case.]

I know this is not what you want to hear. I do not, and do not attempt to, sense health information from a distance, such as over the internet. And I would not give you that information, it would have to be given to your doctor. But even that is something I am very hesitant to doing.

Regardless of any benefit that I may bring about by doing such intuitive readings on a person's health, there are general risks that need to be respected and that apply to all "psychics" as a whole; regardless of whether one might be better than others, with any ounce of sense of responsibility in such a person, they must all abide by the restrictions that are set upon such work. All in the best interest of persons who seek out help from those who claim to have any insight that conventional medicine might not.

In other words, I can not and may not do "psychic readings" over the internet. And if we ever meet, I would certainly write down my impressions, but those would be mailed to your doctor, and your doctor could not tell you what I wrote.

This is all in your best interest. Because there are "psychics" out there who can not perform as advertised or as intended, and no matter how accurate I might be, or how much I would otherwise like to offer advice to someone like you, my commitment to science, conventional medicine (even with its flaws), and morals prevent me from doing so.

All in one sentence: I do not do readings over the internet or the phone, I do not do readings at all, if I would do a reading I would need to meet in person, and there would be a third person there to verify that I do not tell you what I sense, and that information would only be sent to your doctor and you would not be told about it, you would only receive medical advice from your doctor, and if my suggestions would have been useful to the doctor to provide leads in diagnose or treatment plan, it would still be carried out in accordance to conventional medicine.

If I am ever in [location removed], I will let you know. I have taken a big wonderful leap from my interests in New Age and am now applying all of my creativity and ideas within conventional science. It works.

Wishing you only the very best,

Anita Ikonen

I do not expect to participate in any discussion that may follow. I am quite busy with school. However I did want to provide you with this example that hopefully exemplifies what my intentions are, and what they are not, with the claims that I experience. But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science. I would also strongly encourage any of you to take on the role of undercover Skeptics and write to me a fabricated letter asking for medical advice, just to see what my authentic reply would be. In case you question the authenticity of the correspondence posted here, which you rightfully should do, as Skeptics.

Happy New Year everyone,
VisionFromFeeling

 

[Christian Klippel]

But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science.

That's just so wrong. And coming from a person who claims to get an education in science, makes me worry.

Science is not confined. It has no "confines". All it has are certain limitations _at_the_current_time_ that reflect the fact that we do not know everything yet.

And then there are boundaries to what is physically possible. That has nothing to do with science in general having boundaries. Quite the opposite is true: in such cases science extended the knowledge up to a point where it became clear that such and such is a physical limitation. We do not know all of these limitations yet. Others have been changed, according to what new insights came around.

However, we know that eye-sight alone can not penetrate the human skin in a way you describe and claim to be able to do. But we know that we can use certain radiations to do that. However, these are radiations that do not appear naturally in the required intensity. So we know that a human without the help of more or less sophisticated machinery is not able to look inside another human (unless he cuts her/him open to look around). These are just the physical limitations that our eyes have. We simply lack the "sensors" to do otherwise.

If science as such would be confined, we all would still believe that the earth is flat with the sun revolving around it. Oh, and we would not be able to talk about that here anyway, because computers and internet would not exist.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....here is a letter from a woo enthusiast asking me to offer her medical advice,

That letter sounds contrived.

Why should we believe you actually received such a letter ?

 

[bookitty]

I do not expect to participate in any discussion that may follow. I am quite busy with school. However I did want to provide you with this example that hopefully exemplifies what my intentions are, and what they are not, with the claims that I experience. But do keep checking on me, do keep checking on anyone who claims or who suspects any special insight not found within the confines of science. I would also strongly encourage any of you to take on the role of undercover Skeptics and write to me a fabricated letter asking for medical advice, just to see what my authentic reply would be. In case you question the authenticity of the correspondence posted here, which you rightfully should do, as Skeptics.

Happy New Year everyone,
VisionFromFeeling

This is a bit odd. It implies that you thought the letter was fake. So your incredibly adamant response is a bit suspect. A simple, "Thank you but no." would have sufficed.

However, I do applaud the more scientific evaluation of your claims and your determination to put the needs of the patient first. If there is one thing we know from the IIG test, it is that your "vision" is not entirely accurate. Recognizing that a false reading can do harm is very important.

 

[wardenclyffe]

While I'm certain that VfF does indeed receive mail from true believers. I'm also pretty certain that it's rare. It's probably more rare since her test with IIG. Earlier, she published communication that she received from someone saying that the IIG test was rigged and she defended IIG. I believe that that was real, and VfF should be commended for standing up for IIG and not falling into more predictable accusations of wrong-doing (see Connie Sonne).

This latest note is probably also real. It takes all kinds. But her desire to have skeptics write fake letters to her seems a bit odd. I'm certain she has to look at all correspondence from someone new with suspicion. Maybe if she gets us all to write fake letters and get it out of our systems, then she can trust her inbox again in a month or so.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

Your post, VFF, is nothing more than posturing in an effort to keep people seeing the true danger you pose with your antics. Your breatharian site is still up, and it's still promoting factually incorrect nonsense like "Many nutrients are formed from prana, and many of these can combine to form yet other nutrients. But a problem I found is that there is the requirement of an almost electric nutrient in order to form some minerals and all metal nutrients. Such as zinc, magnesium and other. This metal is quite dense and electric in energy. I haven't yet found its sorce. But I can say that it is not found in foods. No foods contain this important metal building block for metals and minerals. Most of the food we eat is cooked and insufficient with this particular nutrient." What a crock!

Your site also spreads nonsense about prana as being some real source of nutrition. In fact you claim to have found prana and say, "Prana is golden yellow, and vibrates in air and matter." You wrote this in 2008, and say on the same page, "I am blessed with what I at least perceive to be extrasensory perception and am able to experience matter, molecules, atoms, and various forms of light on my own without the use of instruments." How many times have you told us that you're just "investigating" experiences and don't conclude that you have ESP?

Sorry, but your post is just a weak attempt to fool a new crop of people who are not familiar with your history of lies, misleading statements, and factually inaccurate claims. People have died from breatharianism, and yet your breatharian site is still up. Even if your exchange is real, you still have thousands of words giving people advice on nutrition that is wholly unfounded scientifically. You're using your claims of ESP and VisionFromFeeling to fool people into thinking you have some special insight that is beyond medical science. You even contacted a migraine sufferers support group to attempt to heal them.

You're dangerous as VisionFromFeeling and even more dangerous as Alenara. I hope my website stops your Alenara the Breatharian and VisionFromFeeling characters from doing any actual harm. I'd say further harm, but that would only be a supposition based on how popular Alenara is to the poor folks who buy into that nonsense.

 

[Ashles]

I'm a bit lost in this thread now. Does Anita have any claims left?

Last I understood she had taken the very, very best ability of all of her myriad claims, tested it and failed.

Isn't this all over now?