Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 16:

Ashles:

If Anita can see through clothing what about a test where people sit under a sheet and Anita simply identifies their gender? Would that work? From reading previous posts it seems Anita is okay with identifying conditions if the material is in contact with the person

These are conditions I would need to try in order to find out if the perceptions occur under these conditions.

What about a large screen in which a small square (say 1.5 inches on a side) is cut, to which the underside of the forearm is pressed? (...) Or what about forehead? Palm of hand?

I would need to have had the specific experience in order to know if it works. I am planning a study to find out more what the perceptions can and can not do.

Hokulele:

No problem. I would still recommend having one or more other people who do not claim to have her ability take the matching quiz as well in order to act as controls. It may be that certain ailments are noticeable to anyone, even if they do not have any special type of vision. These controls will demonstrate that any person could detect certain ailments (such as the color-blind example noted earlier in this thread), so it is unlikely that her ability is anything abnormal.

I agree that it would be a good idea to have others taking the test with me, however these should be persons with experience in diagnose, such as physicians, to reduce or eliminate the concern that my conclusions would be based on knowledge of reading external symptoms. However it would probably be best to work with ailments that are agreed to have no known external signs and control persons would not be as necessary since control persons seem to make a test more complicated to arrange.

Ashles:

I have had another thought - what about base of feet? A small square of foot soles - how would you identify gender from that?

I would need to try this and have the specific experience before it can be used on a test. Until I try it I don't know whether it will work or not.

UncaYimmy:
I am sure we can establish plenty of other medical information besides sex, that are not considered to be externally detectable. I am not considering a psychic sex identification test since there should be plenty of other information that would be easier to plan a test around.

Ashles:

What about if the section of skin has cloth over it? I thought part of the claim was that Anita can see through clothing.

According to my experience I need to see some part of exposed skin in order to access the information of the entire body. I will be trying different things in a study I am planning so that I can answer some of these questions.

Old man:

Like the man said, "the only thing worse than bad press is no press at all".

Please accept that I am not here for personal attention, but to discuss medical perceptions that may or may not be due to ESP. You can believe what you want, but I am just trying to guide you toward the truth. And I should know, because I am me.

UncaYimmy:

I keep saying that you have not done enough homework to justify asking other people to develop rigorous tests on your behalf. Your most recent anecdotes clearly indicate that you are not taking the rigorous approach expected of a self-proclaimed scientist.

There is no guide for psychic claimants as to how to approach a paranormal challenge. I have been patiently waiting for the testing organizations to work on my claim, but from last week's meeting with the local skeptics group I realize that I have to do most of the work. I am the principal investigator in my own claim. I am now arranging a study to better clarify what the perceptions can and can't do. I was just under the assumption that normally that which is being tested is not doing the testing itself. But in the world of skeptics and psychics I am that being tested and that testing it. I apologize if that was not obvious to me at first.

Note: Please do NOT answer these questions now. It's too late - the test is over. Please answer only the questions at the very end. My questions about this *specific* reading are rhetorical in nature and are only meant to show to you your lack of a scientific approach.

Hm, let me answer anyway. I can't resist. The observations page lists anecdotal experiences and is not the case of tests. I simply write down what I've seen and some of the details around those experiences. You can not criticize the observations page as evidence because it is not presented as evidence. It just says what my experiences have been. It describes some of what I perceive, and why I am proceeding toward further tests.

Seriously. Do not quote and respond to my analysis of this specific reading. It will only get us sidetracked. Use the information for future tests, but please don't explain or defend the reading I have analyzed.

Sorry Jimmy, I defend myself.

1) When did you first meet this person?
2) Did you speak with him at all before making any claims?
3) How much time did you spend with him before making any claims?
4) How did you know this person?
5) How old was this person?
6) What were the circumstances? Was it during conversation? Did you tell him it was a test?
7) Did you include an false positives to eliminate him just humoring you? What were they?

This information will be included with future anecdotes when possible. I agree that this information is relevant.

Your anecdote is USELESS without including that information up front.

I have consistently said that my anecdotal experiences are useless to you skeptics in terms of evidence one way or the other. They are just what my experiences have been, and why I am proceeding toward further testing.

2) Losing track of time: How does this dovetail with your claims of detecting illnesses in the structure of the body? This is more of a personality trait, and it is not unusual. A person's demeanor in your presence could easily lead to making this guess.

I detect not only physical structures in the body but also how a person feels and what their perceptions of themselves are. I'd think it is unusual, most people would not agree to experiencing losing track of what day and month it is. Don't make me start a poll.

3) Sinus drainage. Was the guy a smoker (easy to tell even if he didn't say so)? Most smokers have sinus issues. Allergies are common enough to make sinus drainage not unusual. Hell, how many different ways can the sinuses drain? Congestion is easy to detect through normal means.

The person is not a smoker and has no allergies. It is the case of significant sinus drainage and I have never detected it in another person with whom I have attempted psychic medical diagnose, so I did not consider it to be general information or applicable to most people.

5) Various aches and pains. If you have seen someone move, it is easy to guess what joints ache and do not ache.

Well believe it or not there are pains and discomforts that do not seem to have external symptoms, such as pain that is not current. Don't get too excited here, remember that the observations page only lists my experiences. Not evidence.

6) He needed to pee. Most people urinate once every three to five hours, so odds are pretty good that if you've spent a little time around someone, they will need to pee. Was he drinking at the time? Was he fidgeting?

And once again a skeptic assumes something that was never implied and that is absolutely incorrect. He did not need to pee at the moment I was reading him.

7) Large intestine blockage. Worthless to even mention. Of *course* it does if he has issues of stress.

Actually not caused by stress but by the texture of food. Or so I say.

Now, how about your attempts at confirmation? Once again, confirmation comes after the fact. Did you visually inspect his teeth?

I did not inspect his teeth but took his word for it. This was not a test. It was anecdotal experiences because I was asked to write them down. I'm criticized for not writing down my perceptions, and I'm criticized for writing down my perceptions. I agree with your suggestion that I need to write down what I sense rather than to speak it, and to have the person write down a health description rather than answering as to the accuracy of my reading. These are conditions that will be implemented in my upcoming study.

I put the ball in your court. Why do you deserve Randi's time, the IIG's time, or the skeptic group's time in testing your claim(s) when you have not taken the rudimentary steps outlined above to provide anecdotes that at least have *some* meaning?

Or to put it another way, what attempts have you made to eliminate the ordinary to justify testing the extraordinary?

I think you will be happy with the study I am planning, the details of which will be available as soon as I type it out. I have already had plenty of experiences with the perceptions that convince me that it is worthwhile to proceed toward tests. These are not among the experiences listed on the observations page. You can not analyze my entire claim based on just a few out of many experiences.

Diogenes:
My claim is to detect health information that is not considered to be detectable through ordinary senses of perception. Such a test has not been made available to me by skeptics or paranormal investigators yet and I didn't realize that that was my fault, because now I think there is more I have to do as the claimant myself.

Ashles:

Unca Yimmy is right - it seems you are concentrating on doing tests which are entirely unscientific, unblinded, not methodical and open to huge interpretation.

Not at all. The experiences on the observations page are not tests. They are experiences. I am arranging tests that are according to the scientific method and would not want it otherwise.

And of course we have no way of knowing what other people you have asked about medical conditions but been incorrect about. You may even have done so but rationalised their responses as somehow not a real test.
we just don't know.

I know, so that's all I need. Just allow that I have reason to proceed toward proper testing.

The point is these reports are of no use.

And that is exactly what I have consistently stated. It's fun when you guys reach the same conclusions as I said in the very beginning, but it takes you a while to get there. Good job.

This may be why, after a year of contact with IIG, you are no nearer to testing.

I would assume that if there were complications with the test protocol the IIG would contact me about them, instead our correspondence is very quiet.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 16:

Locknar:

"People" includes men, women, young, old, etc. Science is exact, the claim needs to be as well.

If I say I detect vasectomies in people, of course I mean that I detect them in men. As a skeptic you can make this assumption and correct me on that, rather than embark on a journey to include women in a vasectomy detection test. If you took "people" literally, it is your job as a skeptic to criticize that point and tell me that women can not be included in a vasectomy detection test, at which I would agree with you and present a more specific claim.

Diogenes:

Can you please explain what would be the benefit of detecting these things [vasectomies, appendectomies, circumcisions], at all ?

Well it would be a paranormal test into the claim of psychic medical diagnose. To find out if I can detect them or not.

Ocelot:

I have to disagree. She has made one clear primary claim for which a protocol has been proposed by the IIG and agreed by Anita. She is by far the most coherrent and willing to participate claimant I've seen on these boards. She has relayed further subjective experiences and been invited to speculate further about other areas where she is not so certain, and has done so. Where you see waffle I see her trying to accomodate every single request for more information being made by the numerous skeptics, debunkers and jeering boo boys on this board.

Thank you Ocelot. It doesn't have any effect when I explain things.

ammonl:

This would be great. I would love to hear from VfF: do you feel confident that you can detect appendectomies, tonsilectomies, and/or vasectomies? I know you've mentioned that you detected a vasectomy at least once. Imagine that you just performed the above test, succeeded in getting readings, gave your impressions, and you were wrong (equal to or less than chance). Would you simply decide that you can't successfully detect vasectomies and exclude it from the rest of your claim, or are you truly confident that this is a part of your ability?

I tested myself on whether I can detect tonsillectomies on a person and found out from that one experience that I could not. Perhaps with more practice later on I could. I do not have a single experience of detecting appendectomies, but if I had a person who has had an appendectomy I could find out. I have detected vasectomy once. I am preparing to have a study that will give me more experience to better know exactly what I can and can not do on a test.

I am confident that if I claim to detect that a man (Locknar: note, a man, not a person) has had a vasectomy then I would allow for that to be checked for accuracy and would allow an incorrect reading to count as evidence against a possible ESP ability. I am able to state the confidence level I have in my perceptions and can make medical descriptions that can be checked for accuracy, whose outcome counts as evidence for or against a possible ESP ability. I can not claim to detect all cases of any specific ailment since I do not detect every case in which an ailment occurs, due to varied extent of ailments in different cases. I still believe it is a testable claim as I make descriptions that I state confidence in.

By the way -- I've been lurking on this thread for a month now, and amidst all the tomfoolery and monkey business, I am really amazed that VfF has stayed around, continued to post, and remained calm. Bravo!

Thank you! I try to get along with my skeptics, after all these discussions are to the benefit of my investigation.

Anna Karenina:

You say that your ability works best on detecting health information and that is what you want to test your ability on instead of chemical identification...I find this statement puzzling. The human body is made up completely of organic (and some non-organic) chemicals. Every disease can be quantified at a molecular, chemical level. You should know this if you are a science student. I'm not saying you are lying but your understanding of molecular science seems a little iffy for someone claiming to be a science student.

Of course I know that the human body is composed of molecules. I am just saying that the "vibrational signature" that I detect is stronger in human tissue than it is in other things that are composed of molecules. That's my experience.

you don't do two bachelor of sciences at the same time, one in chem and one in physics, no university allows this and it doesn't make any sense. You do a Bachelor of Science and within that you pick two majors or you do a double major. And it takes 3 years, not 5. And there is no research - that happens in post-grad..either honours, or masters, or PhD.

Oh Honey you are completely mistaken. I see that you are from Australia, so there are obviously major differences in the school system. At my university here in the United States a Bachelor of Science is a four-year program. I am studying a complete B.S. Chemistry, and also a complete B.S. Physics Optical Science. Some of the courses required by each degree are the same for both degrees and overlap, but even at that and with the electives I have added I expect to finish my undergraduate studies after a total of five, not four years. To me it makes perfect sense to study two degrees, each makes the other stronger, and only adds one extra year for an additional B.S. degree. My university not only allows two B.S. studies at the same time, it encourages students with these ambitions to do so. Research is a mandatory part of earning the B.S. Chemistry degree. And research is almost entirely necessary to continue with Physics on the postgraduate level.

Also, you don't know much about stats so that tells me you must be in your first year or first semester...yet in a chemistry lab you were allowed to use an NMR machine to determine compound structure? I have never, ever heard of a first year student, or a second year student, being allowed to use an NMR machine. Even in third year you might get to use it once, and that would be heavily supervised and you would need training. What kind of NMR was it? It just..doesn't..add up.

Our schools are simply different, that's all. Statistics is a math elective, and I have chosen Calculus and Differential Equations instead. I am in my third year. We do not use statistics with the NMR instruments. The NMR instrument was used in my second year of Chemistry. In participation in research projects I have access to be trained to use many instruments in addition to the ones we already learn in our courses. Once trained, I can use these without supervision. I will even be using a SEM which is my favorite of them all. It seems that in contrast to your university mine is very science and research oriented, and that makes me feel even better about my choice of school.

I know this might sound like nit-picking but it is really bugging me and I think it detracts from the validity of your claims. Every single person has billions of commensual (i.e harmless or beneficial) bacteria living in their gut...so I don't know what you mean by 'since the stomach detects many types of bacteria and responds with discomfort' or 'it was doing no harm or even intending to do harm, which is unusual for bacteria'.

Don't make false conclusions about my educational background or about what I meant with the bacteria, and then say that it takes away from my credibility here as a paranormal claimant. You are doing what many of the skeptics here do, you are making false assumptions that lead to incorrect conclusions that you then turn against me, and that takes away from your credibility as a reliable skeptic. I am not being upset with you, I just ask that all you skeptics present your comments in an objective and open manner, giving me the opportunity to respond before you turn things into something negative.

I detected a higher than usual level of Lactobacillus casei in a person's stomach. And in the other case I referred to other harmful bacteria normally not present or not present in such high quantities, that the stomach can detect and respond negatively to, such as Helicobacter pylori. There is nothing wrong with any of what I have said, but thank you for bringing up your concerns so that I can address them.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 17:

Pixel42:

Whilst I don't think it's necessary for a meaningful test, it would give the opportunity for very clear false positives. How would you react if you looked at, say, the bare back of a person whose gender you did not know, detected that they'd had a vasectomy, and were then told it was a woman? Would you agree that this would be harder for you to explain away, even to yourself, than a false positive on a man?

I agree fully that this kind of a test could be used to give a non-ability opportunity to be detected as such, however women on a vasectomy detection test might not be good enough for a test that can conclude that I do have an ESP ability.

Clarification:
This type of test is good for tests that can only conclude "no ESP ability" or "proceed to further proper testing".
This type of test is not good for tests that can conclude "no ESP ability" or "ESP ability".

Belz:

Why not, really ? If you don't know that they're women, are you worried that you might identify wrongly ?

I think about test design both from my perspective as a claimant and from the perspective of designing a test that is reliable and controls for the use of ordinary senses or cold reading for instance. From the perspective of the test, as soon as anything indicates that it is a woman, such as specific details of the skin, the test design has failed. That's all.

Dear Locknar:

True; the 100% was derived from the "I'm never wrong" claim from her website/other claims and should not have been introduced.

Please provide me with a quote and its source where I state that "I am never wrong" so that I can go and change it. What I state is that "I have not been incorrect so far". I do not want to claim that "I am never wrong" since I may in fact come across incorrect perceptions in the future and want to remain open for that.

Belz, Old man, Locknar:
You might all make excellent lawyers.

Moochie:

Since the very first post by this poster I have had a very strong sense that there is a heck of a lot about the poster and the posts that "doesn't add up," so I'm gratified that somebody else senses this also.

A few pages ago I said that the entire fandango is a hoax. We shall see what we shall see. So far, though, I haven't believed anything in this poster's output. He/she is either a severely deluded person, or a very gifted prankster.

Please don't make a fool out of yourself. All that I have said about non-paranormal things such as educational background for instance have been true, so the fact that you guys argue against trivial things that I know to be true makes me question the way some of you skeptics approach things.

Ashles:

Is there a lot of point us debating what might or might not be eligable/testable if Anita isn't involved in helping narrow down the protocol requirements? I'm aware she has spent a good while responding on this hread but this is the stage where we are actually describing viable protocols which surely is the most important part.

From the perspective of constructing a reliable test, I hesitate in allowing women to take part in a vasectomy detection test since there are many external cues that distinguish men from women. If I were a fraud psychic I'd be very happy to include women in a vasectomy test, but you see I am here to obtain reliable results.

At least she could have told us whether she can potentially get a reading from cloth covered skin if viewed through a small hole (let's assume we are using a comparable group of test subjects).

I am planning to conduct a study that will answer some of the questions about what I can and can not do on a test.

So I guess we should simply ask Anita - what is the smallest amount of the person required to be seen for specific ailments?

I can not speculate without trying out the specifics that I am asked about. I intend to find out.

Could, for example, anything (e.g. high cholesterol levels, medication etc.)be detected from a small section of forearm exposed through a hole?

I need to test this before I can tell you.

What if it were covered by cloth?

So far based on my experience I need to see some part of exposed skin, but the study I plan to do might show otherwise.

What if the view were restricted to a person's torso?

I need to find out from specific experience.

Could the vasectomy identification be done by viewing only the (clothed) groin area?

From experience it seems that I do not need to view the affected area itself in order to detect health information in that area. It seems that I download the information of the entire body from for instance seeing the head, neck and shoulders and it constructs images from all over the body. But again, the study might show otherwise.

Without answers to these questions at this point we are just guessing between ourselves.

And I would also be just guessing. Please allow for the study I am planning and I can bring some more answers to you.

Old man:

Finals week, man. Have patience.

http://www.registrar.uncc.edu/calendars/calendar.asp

Quote:
Last day of classes December 9
Final Examinations December 11-18

Stalkers, anyone? Just kidding. You guys sure do your investigations. I expect you will soon be going through my trash and looking in through my windows for what ever evidence there may be. Just kidding. Keep up the good investigations practice.

Senex, Locknar, Drs Res:
Thank you all for volunteering for an attempt of psychic medical diagnose.

Anna Karenina:

No you misunderstood me, if you read my post again I didn't say that you can't do two different bachelors at the same time (in fact I did science and arts at the same time - we call it a dual degree) - but you can't do two bachelor of science at the same time (or two of any exact same degree at the same time). You do one Bachelor of Science, with two different majors (ex: physics, chemistry)...or a double major (ex: psyc, psyc). Maybe she is just confused, and means two majors. And yeah you can do (over here it's optional..not sure about the US) a research project in final year, but it's not really proper research as much as a big literature review and a few experiments that you are baby spooned. As far as not understanding education in the states, fair enough - I'm from the UK and I went to Uni and live in Australia, but I'm fairly sure you can't do two concurrent BSc.

I am studying two B.S. degrees at the same time. One B.S. Chemistry with Chemistry as the major. And one B.S. Physics with Physics as the major and Electrical Engineering as a minor. I did my senior year research project last Summer, early, and will continue with it in Spring as well as take part in a Physics research project. I am only involved on an undergraduate level although good students are allowed to take initiative according to their abilities. I really don't want to discuss these personal matters here, so no more.

JcR:

I wonder that if someone was born blind, and everyday he were to put a salt shaker in his hands.
Then in time, He Grows quite close to this little salt shaker, knowing every inch of it.
He always knew his salt shaker just by the feel of it.
Then suddenly many years later he regains his sight. and were to just see his salt shaker, would he recognized it? ...or would he need to pick it up?
If it was in the same location on his table would he recognize it just because of this fact.
...But he might need to feel the table first to.
Also If i was blind from birth how could you describe the color blue to me ?
and even if i thought that i did imagine the color blue after it was explained to me,
how could i explain what my vision of blue is, to you.
I know when i have had too many coffees. lol

I'm sure there's some kind of beautiful meaning into what you said, but I don't see it. If you are asking how do I know how to describe the perceptions I have from the inside of human bodies, I can relate them to anatomical pictures, photographs and text. In many cases I encounter perceptions that I have not come across in life before to know what they are called, so I can describe what I am seeing even though I do not know the names for it.

Professor Yaffle:

I can't quite see the connection to this thread, but I'll answer anyway - mods can split if it is too much of a derail.

I do not think this topic derails from our conversation. It is interesting since it concerns senses of perception, which is what we are talking about.

wardenclyffe:

Wasn't last night VfF's first meeting with a skeptics group? I, for one, am excited to hear what happened. godofpie? ecarlson? VfF? I'm happy to hear a report from anyone.

Sorry Ward I need to catch up with my correspondence and replies here first before posting new material. I need to keep up with things here too.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 18:

Dr. Carlson:

I brought up the possibility of vasectomies (because of this discussion), and she said that because she has only ONCE detected a vasectomy, she is not prepared, at present, to perform a test based on this. Think about it - if she has looked at thousands of people over time, and only once seen a vasectomy, think of the sample size we would need to get a statistically significant number of vasectomies that she could see.

There is an incorrect assumption here. When I have chosen to do a thorough head-to-toe reading of persons, and so far there has only been a handful of persons available for this, I make a thorough effort to detect anything of any sort that would be out of the ordinary or significant to mention. This is when health information such as vasectomy comes to my attention. Having had a vasectomy is not a health problem and is not associated with disease, pain or discomfort, so it is not among the information that captures my attention on its own, such as several cases of cancers or pain do. Vasectomy is therefore not a piece of information that I will notice in a daily situation when among people. Vasectomy is information that I detect only when I consciously read into a person. And as such it is not unthinkable to use in a test, I just haven't had a lot of experience with this particular bit of medical information. I hope this clarifies the matter.

VfF reaffirmed her belief that she will ultimately be able to come up with a testable claim, but at the moment, I think the ball is squarely in her court as we await her determining what aspects she feels sufficiently confident enough to allow testing.

I would agree to having a test on vasectomy detection for instance, right away, however in consideration for the effort of time and work involved for you and others in arranging a test I intend my next step to be conducting a study into gaining more experience with attempted psychic medical diagnose before approaching you with a more specific suggestion for a test design. My understanding and experience of the claim might already be good enough to proceed with a test, however I think that a study could be done before a test, to benefit your work in this investigation.

skeen:

It's all whittled down to pure cold-reading, and statistical guessing, hasn't it? If a test does ever emerge (which I am highly doubtful it will), it will serve to prove absolutely nothing whatsoever.

I am planning to conduct a study to gain more experience into the perceptions, and to try different test conditions and ultimately try medical perceptions under a proper test setting in which cold reading should not be possible. I hope to videotape some of my readings so that you can see how it takes place, and to provide also other documentation that better explains how this happens. I am a science-minded individual and will work on having a test arranged and conducted. The only reason I would stop fighting for this is if I during this process come across falsifying my claim. And once a test is conducted it can suggest, and hopefully prove (depending on the scientific quality of the test procedure) whether there is the case of an ESP ability or not. Patience, I am working on it, I promise.

I don't even know what VFF is claiming anymore. It was my understanding that she could actually see peoples' tissue, see inside their bodies. In this case, it would be remarkably easy to come up with a test.

My claim is to perceive images and information of the physical health condition of people as well as perceive how a person feels, that these perceptions appear from only looking at the person, and that these perceptions would relate to accurate information about the person, and that the information is not considered detectable through ordinary human perception. Please do suggest some test procedures to test this claim if you have any ideas.

If she sees something in someone, say she can see it, and she can't be wrong if she has the ability. If she doesn't see anything, don't say anything. I don't even believe she has synthaesthesia, I just think she has a childish fantasy.

No I already know that I experience some synesthesia, the question is whether the medical perceptions as well are based on that. And personally I think that if the images I perceive are due to automatic imagination, I wouldn't call it childish imagination. Maybe something like medical imagination?

I have to admit, I have a kind of morbid curiosity with self-deluded people; the way they convince themselves, it's quite astonishing.

I do not think I have deluded myself since I do not claim to have extrasensory perception. What I claim is that I perceive medical images in my mind and that when I describe the information it appears to have good accuracy, and that this is reason to proceed toward further testing to investigate possible extrasensory perception. I perceive images from the inside of people and also feel what people are feeling, and can describe these in detail and with good accuracy, and it is not deluded to turn toward a test of scientific standard to find out more about this.

What's so funny about claimants is, their abilities seem so practical before they're to be tested! But how practical is an ability you can't even prove you have?!

There is ALWAYS work involved when taking a phenomenon from life and then adapting and conforming it to a laboratory or test environment. The problem with testing for something that is my experience or perception is that it is not something others can observe, so in this particular type of paranormal investigation it is I as the claimant who must perform most of the work involved that would otherwise normally be done by other investigators. I have only recently realized this after Thursday's talk with Dr. Carlson and am now taking new initiative towards arranging for a test.

Anna Karenina:

just get one person who was born with one kidney (it's not particularly uncommon) and line them up with a bunch of people who have two kidneys and get her to pick them out.

Well in this case I would prefer a person who has had a kidney removed, since this would be the case of information that originates from a health problem and as such may be associated with additional information that I can detect, although your suggestion should also work. It is a very good idea, but unfortunately before arranging for such a test I must conduct a study into exactly what ailments I can detect with a reliable frequency, to not waste the efforts of those who arrange for a test. I am planning to conduct a study soon to learn more about the medical perceptions, and this will be beneficial for test arrangement purposes. Although I would not say no to having a removed kidney test right away.

Old man:

"Sometimes I guess about peoples health/medical conditions, and I only remember the hits."

Nonsense!! I never guess! The information I give is based on a perception of an image or a feeling that I have, so I am basing my information on something I've seen or experienced. That, I believe, is not defined as being a guess. I only remember hits, because I really, really believe there have only been hits. Just accept that for now, although remain with your skepticism because that's what you are (a skeptic), and wait for documented demonstrations of me "in action" where any incorrect information will be made very available and very obvious for everyone to see. And I am all for it.

 

[Yubi]

My claim is to perceive images and information of the physical health condition of people as well as perceive how a person feels, that these perceptions appear from only looking at the person, and that these perceptions would relate to accurate information about the person, and that the information is not considered detectable through ordinary human perception. Please do suggest some test procedures to test this claim if you have any ideas.

Would you need to see the face of a person you are detecting health information from? That is, if a test is made up of people having a certain problem and people not having it, it seems a common risk would be that especially facial expressions or other signs of agony could be detected by vision alone. If a person has, say, a tooth ache, would you still have to see the face of the person, or could he/she be hooded?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 18:

Hokulele:

I have a question for VfF.

In your opinion, if I were to watch you making your observations, how could I differentiate between your method of determining a medical condition and cold reading?

Finally! A productive question! I knew there would be one eventually! I think your question is an excellent one. I am arranging to have a study, which in essence will be like a test that begins under the same conditions as how I have experienced the perceptions, and one condition at a time will be changed toward what a proper test setting is. In this study I will gain experience and clarity into the claim. I intend to have one or two of my local skeptics attend the study so that they can write down their observations and comments on what they see, and hopefully they will have some insight into the question you asked!

I think the best way to answer your question is by having skeptics see under what conditions the medical perceptions come about. I would answer that I have perceived information that should not be detectable by ordinary perception. In other cases we can not rule out cold reading no matter what I believe I am doing or not. I hope to be able to provide some material further ahead that can better answer your question.

JcR:

Yes... and they can run a series of these tests to rule out lucky guessing.

From my own experiences I can conclude that it is very unlikely that it is the case of voluntary or involuntary guessing. My question is what information am I accessing and translating to corresponding medical information, whether that information is accessed through ordinary senses and skills or through extrasensory perception.

How does a person differentiate between the products of their own imaginations and what they believe is actually some sort of ability to either read minds etc, or be able to see medical conditions in other bodies, other than the conventional way of using medical science. It would be interesting to see a viable test for these abilities.

For one, do the perceptions correspond to accurate information about the real, mutual, world we live in?

skeen:

I feel like people are overlooking a huge element in all of this: medical ailments are inevitable. Statistically, people between certain ages will likely have certain conditions.

There are lots and lots of common conditions that someone could name in their guessing game. You are going to get some of them right.

It is cold reading, just a milder form of it. You're looking at someone, what gender they are, what age they are, how they stand, how they move, how they interact, and already you have tons and tons of information with which to figure out what likely ailments they have, or have had.

Someone with a background in medicine will be able to do this with much more ease.

I hope to bring documented examples of how I work, me "in action", so that we can better discuss what exactly takes place during the medical perceptions. Many of your comments would then be addressed and I do not want to respond with my own anecdotal experiences since I expect it to be attacked if I do. So let's just wait. A test will require a statistically significant amount of correct answers that eliminates the concern of guessing things right. And a test will deal with health information that as far as we can agree is not detectable by ordinary senses or from external clues. And I have also suggested having a physician present at the test for the purpose you have outlined. Good comments, though.

Hokulele:

For example, VfF could fire off a list of potential ailments (as she did with the two photographic readings on here), and notice that the subject's eyes widen, head leans forward, or the subject even slightly nods when one issue is mentioned (such as "heart trouble"). Bingo, VfF knows which ailment to focus on. By including enough options in the shotgunned list, it is almost impossible to not have a hit (and hence, a 100% success rate).

This does not relate to how I do this and is not familiar to me at all, although I understand your need to bring this up for discussion. I wish to present some documented examples of how I work later on so that you can also see that I do not work according to your comment. Also a study I plan to have will involve writing down what I see instead of saying it with risk of observing any reactions that a person has. I still state that I present all results, hits as well as misses, and your comment would suggest that I'd omit the misses which is not true. But rather than speculate against my credibility and about what my actual experiences have been, I hope to bring some documented examples that better and reliably illustrate to you what takes place.

My question was meant to find out how much VfF knows about cold reading, how best to control for it, and what an experienced observer can do to detect such techniques.

I will be conducting a study where I change one condition at a time toward a proper test setting. For instance by writing down what I perceive rather than speaking it as soon as I see it, and presenting this in full at the end of the viewing. And having the person write down a description of their health before we meet and matching my written statement with theirs. Me seeing a person from behind rather than their front, to avoid eyecontact and other unintended communication, and trying various ways of covering my view of the person and even trying a full screen. These are just some of the test conditions I intend to try out.

UncaYimmy:
I like your idea of looking into the claim and finding material that will be useful in determining whether to proceed toward a proper test and as to how to design the test and with what ailments. I am in fact working on arranging a study that does something similar to that.

Ashles:

Every one of these comments she seems to think indicates a hit when in reality none of them did.

Who knows how this instance would have been described if not documented clearly for everyone to see at all stages.

If it was one of the attempts made in Anita's general stories that happen outside this forum it may have been that the subject and Anita herself remembered the hits (as interpreted) and forgot the misses.
Both might have afterwards described the reading as successful.
Anita is obviously quite forceful in pushing descriptions in the directions she wants.

This is all part of cold reading.

In the picture test with UncaYimmy I was most certain of a problem with the neck vertebrae, although seriously medical information from pictures was never the claim I am here to discuss or have tested. And I have definitely listed all hits and misses regarding the anecdotal experiences listed on the observations page of my website (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) and always ensure that I do. I am very forceful in pushing my description of my experiences into the direction that best agrees with how they took place. You can all be skeptics, fine, but don't forget that I actually witnessed and observed the experiences that I've described here, and some degree of skepticism is acceptable but when you guys make incorrect criticism against me I may get tired after a while. I seriously have not observed any cold reading although I realize that it may have taken place but still does not explain all the accurate health descriptions I've made. End of discussion. Just accept that I've had compelling experiences that lead me to arrange further tests. That's all we conclude based on that and stop arguing against that. Although I know you will post a reply to this and we'll never see the end of it and we'll be talking about it for two pages ahead. So here we go.

desertgal:

Yes. Still, I maintain that Anita is delusional, and self deceptive, so I have to ask myself:

Is she is deliberately cold reading to convince others that she has an ability that she does not?

Or is it part of the self deception, and she is unknowingly using cold reading techniques while believing that it is her "ability"?

If you read the descriptions I have given of my past experiences with the perceptions and accept that I am describing the truth of what happened, you will see that I am not delusional or self-deceptive and that there are reasons for proceeding toward further tests.

I am not deliberately cold reading and in fact am planning a study where possible unintended cold reading will be eliminated best I can arrange for. I am not here to convince myself or others that I'd have an ability I do not have. I am here to objectively discuss the possibility of having an ESP ability. I have not concluded one way or the other, I've just concluded that I've had some interesting and compelling experiences that move me toward further and more proper testing.

I've had experiences that can not be explained by cold reading, so there are reasons to proceed toward further testing into this claim.

As well, it does seem that she came here, not to seek attention for attention's sake, but to seek some validation that her "ability" is real, or might be real-the ultimate goal being that, if she received that validation, especially from skeptics, she wouldn't have to let go of the self deception.

I am not here to validate that an ability is real. I am here to discuss a test whose objective is to find out either that it is the case of ESP or that it is not the case of ESP. I am not in favor of either outcome. We've already discussed that earlier in several pages. Your comments are garbage because I have clearly and many times stated where I stand in this investigation and you are completely ignoring that and stating things that are nonsense. I know I have medical perceptions, and I know I will continue to have them no matter what the outcome of a test is. If a test concludes that I have no ESP I will accept that. You skeptics are not the basis for what I allow myself to believe. I try to remain rooted in reality.

Just my $.02 worth.

Worth lot less than that I'm afraid.

JcR:

I agree, especially ones that are close to you, like friends and family
that give any sort of thought or concern for your health. People do share
a lot of common ailments so a hit and miss game wouldn't be too hard to
achieve in my opinion. Anita to me anyways, seems like she is from vague city though. And maybe with some revisionist stories to boot.

The information is not only from friends and family but very often also from persons I do not know prior. I do not understand the last part of your comment so I do not have to offer a reply.

UncaYimmy:

Maybe a better question is to ask Anita specifically what she says and what her subject says. Maybe we should ask her to video tape a reading and post it so we can see.

My thoughts exactly.

Old man:

Anita, I've been meaning to ask you a question, and now seems to be a good time. Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities? You must encounter tens (if not hundreds) of people every day. Your statements in this thread and on your web page led me to think that these reading are 'normal' for you. My belief was that they happened frequently.

Do these "visions from feeling" happen, on average, every hour? Every day? Once a month?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Imagine if you are in a room with walls covered in text. You notice text that stands out from the rest, if it is highlighted, in bold, or larger, and you can't help but to perceive what it says in those cases. That is what health problems are to me, they stand out from the vast amount of other information that a person carries around in themselves, and I can not help but to read it. Then if you want to, you can choose to read the text itself, and you make the choice and the effort and start reading. You can then find out about the less important information that no one bothered highlighting for attention, and that is what information such as vasectomy is. It is not a health problem, it is not associated with pain, disease, or discomfort. So to detect it I have to make the effort of reading for it. I detected it in a case where I choose to do a head-to-toe thorough analysis where I look for anything unusual of any kind. I have had very few opportunities to do this head-to-toe with people so that is probably why to date I only have one example of detecting vasectomy. With regard to other information that is highlighted and comes to me on its own I've experienced it more often. I hope that answers your question.

Hokulele:

To be fair, I think she stated that she only saw one vasectomy that she could confirm. She may have seen hundreds of others, but without asking the owner of the, er, equipment, she can't consider it a confirmed detection.

This does not apply to detection of vasectomy, but does apply to a lot of other types of health information.

Old man:

ETA: She hasn't been exactly shy about other 'unconfirmed' detections, has she?

That's right. I don't mind listing experiences of unconfirmed/unchecked perceptions, and in fact there are several listed on my observations page on my website.

Moochie:

Where is "Anita"?

"Anita" is right here, again. You won't get rid of me until I've either falsified or confirmed ESP.

Diogenes:

Maybe an even better question is why is any discussion at all necessary ?

Because I perceive images of the inside of human bodies and perceptions of how people feel, to an apparent accuracy according to the actual state of persons, and I consider a need for investigation into the perceptions.

Ashles:

To put it another way, as a rough estimate, what proportion of new people you meet do you get a propoer reading from (i.e. that a reading comes to you as you have previously described as being totally accurate)?

If a person has a health problem it is highlighted for my attention and I perceive it whether I intend to or not. With regard to doing an intended head-to-toe reading it is something I do only with the participation of the person, and is very rarely.

To clarify, there is information that is very clear and comes to me on its own. This occurs in perhaps one out of twenty persons in a crowd? That's a very bad estimate though, so don't rely on it. And as to information that I perceive from effort, which is like choosing to actively read a text rather than just seeing it and detecting highlights that stand out, I rarely encounter this possibility. I plan to have a study to experience more reading.

It would be unlikely to add any useful evidence towards Anita having paranormal ability, but it does have the possibility of adding evidence that she doesn't. If she cannot perform in a test that has a certain degree of interpretation allowed then it would indicate strongly against an ability.

Thank you. This is exactly what I am planning and I am glad someone else said it too because no one listens here to what I say.

UncaYimmy:

Anita is one of the people I believe I can influence. I honestly believe there's a chance she'll see the light and learn to address her claims critically. If she does, I'm sure it will expand outwards to her circle of friends. Based on her personality I'm sure she will enjoy challenging others the same way we have done her. What a great victory for critical thinking.

Insult! I am here doing all I can to critically analyze my medical perceptions, and I believe that most of the criticism against how I approach this is based on impatience. I know there is more I should and could do but it is a lot of work and takes time! I think I am doing well in my investigation. And besides I have shown to be much more objective and science-minded many times than many of you skeptics.

I just happen to think some good can come out of this one.

As a scientist myself I intend to research into my claim until I reach a conclusion of ESP or no ESP. I will take on any challenges that I meet in taking what my medical perceptions are and adapting them to a test setting, and I do not expect to conclude that the claim is untestable. A conclusion will be reached.

 

[Tristan Chi]

Anita,

Why did you choose the phrase "vision from feeling"?
Isn't "feeling from vision" a more accurate description of what you claim to experience?

 

[Pup]

I tested myself on whether I can detect tonsillectomies on a person and found out from that one experience that I could not.

Nonsense!! I never guess! The information I give is based on a perception of an image or a feeling that I have, so I am basing my information on something I've seen or experienced. That, I believe, is not defined as being a guess. I only remember hits, because I really, really believe there have only been hits.

What I state is that "I have not been incorrect so far". I do not want to claim that "I am never wrong" since I may in fact come across incorrect perceptions in the future and want to remain open for that.

Just putting the above quotes together.

Apparently, in the kind of face-to-face medical diagnosis that you're claiming is your strength, you actually "saw"--not guessed--that someone either had, or didn't have, his/her tonsils, and in fact the opposite was true.

So now, at least once, you have been inarguably incorrect in a face-to-face medical test. Or is there some other explanation?

 

[Belz...]

When I said "There's so many of you and only one of me.", Belz said "This is usually the case when you suppose fringe claims. It's often a clear indication that something's wrong with your ideas." So because I am the only psychic claimant posting on this thread, and there are so many skeptics here involved in the discussion, that would make my claim less reliable?

No. But think about it. If someone claims to be able to heat up liquids with his mind, and nobody's ever been shown to be able to do this before, what do you think would be the response when he'd post here ?

And as well it should be. There is no known mechanism to allow this man to do this, and he should be aware that not only are other people going to be justifiably skeptical of his claim, but that he should be, as well.

When I said, "A test with skeptics will eliminate this concern." Belz said "From experience, I seriously doubt it." My experience is that when psychic claimants put their claims and alleged abilities to the test with skeptics, it can bring clarity into the claim.

No offense, but those who took Randi's test so far have never succeeded although they always agreed on the protocol. That alone should tell you something.

When I said "I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability", Belz said "You never will. Which is why you need to show that you DO have it, not the other way around." Actually I disagree. Regardless of what my anecdotal experiences would indicate, we can work from the assumption that it is more likely the case of a non-ability (no ESP), and simpler initial tests will bring plenty of opportunity for a non-ability to be revealed as such. Only after I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability will I consider it worthwhile to invest in more elaborate testing.

But will you ? If you test for this ability in controlled conditions under a protocol to which you've agreed, and fail, would that shake your confidence ? Or will you find an excuse as to why you failed but really do have the ability ? I'm not assuming you will, but so many people have that statistics seem to lean in that direction.

 

[Locknar]

In reading through VFFs latest posts, it is clear she has learned nothing of value. This quote, from post 746 sums it up best:

I know I have medical perceptions, and I know I will continue to have them no matter what the outcome of a test is.

Given this, no amount of reasoning or evidence will convince her that she does not have these "amazing powers."

 

[Belz...]

"Sometimes I guess about peoples health/medical conditions, and I only remember the hits."

Nonsense!! I never guess! The information I give is based on a perception of an image or a feeling that I have, so I am basing my information on something I've seen or experienced.

Uh-huh, but without medical training how would you tell what the condition is just by seeing it ? Do you have medical training ?

I only remember hits, because I really, really believe there have only been hits.

Indeed. Example: cloud-busters. Hey, at one point I thought I was one, when I was a tad younger. In short, those people claim they can disperse clouds with their minds. Really. But from personal experience, they only notice the times it "works" (because the clouds would've dispersed anyway), but ignore or explain away those times when it doesn't (e.g.: "I wasn't feeling right" or "I wasn't trying hard enough", kind of the same thing theists do when their prayers aren't answered).

 

[JcR]

As far as my little Saltshaker story goes
Well I feel like that blind person here at times.
Text by itself is not going to give me a true insight
into your visions. They can give me ideas and thoughts
But they would be my thoughts and notions formed by my perceptions.
And to be honest my little stabs at you were unfair on my part.
So beyond all that. Do you believe a real world series of tests
could be of value to your field of study ?
Its funny how things in life develop out of
the most surprising places.

 

[volatile]

Indeed. Example: cloud-busters. Hey, at one point I thought I was one, when I was a tad younger. In short, those people claim they can disperse clouds with their minds. Really. But from personal experience, they only notice the times it "works" (because the clouds would've dispersed anyway), but ignore or explain away those times when it doesn't (e.g.: "I wasn't feeling right" or "I wasn't trying hard enough", kind of the same thing theists do when their prayers aren't answered).

And the same thing Anita's done here -- "I wasn't feeling right", "I saw something but didn't tell you", all the rest.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
In the picture test with UncaYimmy I was most certain of a problem with the neck vertebrae, although seriously medical information from pictures was never the claim I am here to discuss or have tested. And I have definitely listed all hits and misses regarding the anecdotal experiences listed on the observations page of my website (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) and always ensure that I do.

But we only have your word for that. Why is that hard to understand?
Adding "I promise, no I really honestly promise" to a claim does not give it any greater credence.

I am very forceful in pushing my description of my experiences into the direction that best agrees with how they took place. You can all be skeptics, fine, but don't forget that I actually witnessed and observed the experiences that I've described here, and some degree of skepticism is acceptable but when you guys make incorrect criticism against me I may get tired after a while.

I'm afraid you'll have to get used to that. On this site unverified claims will be continually questioned.

I seriously have not observed any cold reading although I realize that it may have taken place but still does not explain all the accurate health descriptions I've made. End of discussion.

Obviously it is not the end of discussion. Unveridfied claims will continue to be questioned.
Your new study, unless run with independent witnesses will also be questioned.
It's called skepticism.

Just accept that I've had compelling experiences that lead me to arrange further tests.

I'm willing to accept that you believe that,

That's all we conclude based on that and stop arguing against that. Although I know you will post a reply to this and we'll never see the end of it and we'll be talking about it for two pages ahead. So here we go.

Feel free to stop making unverified claims at any point. Until then I (and others) will continue to question in, as I may have mentioned a few times, the continuing complete absence of any independent testing.

Finally! A productive question! I knew there would be one eventually!

What, aside from the many, many trying to assist you to develop a protocol to test your claimed ability by trying to find out what the parameters are of your ability?
Parameters which, it now strangely appears you don't even know as you've never investigated them before? After all these years of experiencing this 'ability'?

It actually feels like we are going backwards now.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
If you read the descriptions I have given of my past experiences with the perceptions and accept that I am describing the truth of what happened, you will see that I am not delusional or self-deceptive and that there are reasons for proceeding toward further tests.

I don't accept anecdotal evidence, especially as fantastic as the claims you are making, when there is a continued lack of proven evidence to back it up. I believe you are delusional and self deceptive. You can proceed towards further tests, but I believe that all they will show is your proven ability to dismiss any findings that don't show your alleged ability with excuses, which is the nature of self deception. As well, I'm not impatient for the results of any of these tests, because I don't believe they will ever happen. I've seen folks here offer you very simple, solid, "yes or no" protocols, which you have dismissed out of hand for protocols of your own making which give you wiggle room. The only thing that baffles me is why you came here at all.

I am not deliberately cold reading and in fact am planning a study where possible unintended cold reading will be eliminated best I can arrange for. I am not here to convince myself or others that I'd have an ability I do not have. I am here to objectively discuss the possibility of having an ESP ability. I have not concluded one way or the other, I've just concluded that I've had some interesting and compelling experiences that move me toward further and more proper testing.

I specifically said that I don't believe you are deliberately cold reading. I said it very clearly. Let me say it again. I don't believe you are deliberately cold reading. I do believe you are unconsciously using cold reading techniques to get the results that you want. Even more specifically, I believe you are unconsciously using cold reading/retained information/common perception techniques to get the results you want. Do you want me to say that again, or did you get it this time?

I've had experiences that can not be explained by cold reading, so there are reasons to proceed toward further testing into this claim.

So you say. So you keep saying. But, no one here has seen any proof to support those claims, so skepticism is a given reaction.

Your comments are garbage because I have clearly and many times stated where I stand in this investigation and you are completely ignoring that and stating things that are nonsense.

Nope. Sorry, but I'm not. I did expect that type of response from you eventually, though. Maybe I'm psychic?

I try to remain rooted in reality.

When? You have recited experiences on this forum, in several different threads, to support claims that, if true, would make you the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind. That is hardly an indication that you are attempting to remain rooted in reality. The skeptics, yes. You, no.

Worth lot less than that I'm afraid.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Since I feel the same about your claims, then we're about even.

In the end, all I can say is that I hope you do get psychiatric help for these continued delusions and the self deception that accompany them. Seriously. Regardless of what "tests" you perform, you've clearly stated that you will continue to believe in your alleged abilities. If so, and you continue to "diagnose" people based on that alleged ability, or offer to help the ghost of Auntie Martha cross to the other side based on THAT alleged ability, then someone, somewhere, is going to get burned when they "nonchalantly" believe what you tell them.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
From experience it seems that I do not need to view the affected area itself in order to detect health information in that area. It seems that I download the information of the entire body from for instance seeing the head, neck and shoulders and it constructs images from all over the body.

Yet you still do not understand why the concerns of cold reading are repeatedly brought up?

The point is these reports are of no use.

And that is exactly what I have consistently stated. It's fun when you guys reach the same conclusions as I said in the very beginning, but it takes you a while to get there. Good job.

Careful, the delightful little science munchkin act is slipping.

Making out that you agree that your own anecdotes are of no use (which is what my post was about) is in strange contradiction to many of your other posts where we are instructed to accept your anecdotes as fact.

Still I'm sure we all look forward to your next series of unverified anecdotes study.

 

[volatile]

Yet you still do not understand why the concerns of cold reading are repeatedly brought up?

I'd skimmed over that bit. This, to my mind, absolutely guarantees that all that is at play here is cold reading. You need to see someone's face to "see" that they have a vasectomy? Really?

My word, Anita - you need to read more about Cold Reading. Try and get your hands on a copy of "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" by Ian Rowland... it will open your eyes.

 

[Old man]

I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them.

Fixed it for you.

Belz:
When I said "There's so many of you and only one of me.", Belz said "This is usually the case when you suppose fringe claims. It's often a clear indication that something's wrong with your ideas." So because I am the only psychic claimant posting on this thread, and there are so many skeptics here involved in the discussion, that would make my claim less reliable? So if we invite some more psychics in here, or ask some of you skeptics to leave, my claim would immediately become more reliable? I don't understand.

It’s a case of the old (Arabic?) proverb – (paraphrasing)
“If one man calls you an ass, pay no attention. If ten men do, go look for a saddle.”

Human Anatomy was on the undergraduate, introductory level, where we are introduced to the organs and tissues of the human body, learn the names of major structures in the body, and also some of the chemistry of the body.

Anita, why did you seem to be denying knowledge of anatomy, earlier in this thread?

I get criticized for what I do, for what I don't do, and for what others do, and for what others don't do. Everything is wrong.

“Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, think I’ll go eat some worms…”

Originally Posted by Old man
Maybe you’re like the rich kid you complains “I never get anything!”

I think you are just being silly.

Yes, I was “just being silly”. We’re making progress on the communication front!

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita (sigh), you just don’t get it, do you? What will be your response if NONE of your readings (under the ‘altered’ protocol) are right?

Well, Old man, you just don't get it either. As I've already said many times before, if the test concludes no ESP ability, I will be happy and will have acchieved the objective of the test, and nothing changes in my world. I will have a label for what my perceptions are, or are not.

And if I were running the test, I’d have to include the possibly that your ESP just wasn’t working at that time, since you do claim that it doesn’t always work. Failing to check that your ‘power’ is ‘on’ is a flaw in your testing procedure.

Everyone:
I think a sex identification test is probably not the main health information to test for that we should be focusing on, since sex definitely has external symptoms. If I had suggested an ailment that as much as may have external symptoms, you would all be chasing me for that. Now that you're all discussing to have one of the most externally detectable types of information about a person on a test surprises me. I'm shocked. Actually, I'm stunned. And frankly, I'm disappointed. Just think about what I just said. It might occur to you as well, and then you'll be as shocked as I am.

I concur, which is why I’ve been arguing all along to keep that out of any test.

Originally Posted by Hokulele
No problem. I would still recommend having one or more other people who do not claim to have her ability take the matching quiz as well in order to act as controls. It may be that certain ailments are noticeable to anyone, even if they do not have any special type of vision. These controls will demonstrate that any person could detect certain ailments (such as the color-blind example noted earlier in this thread), so it is unlikely that her ability is anything abnormal.

I agree that it would be a good idea to have others taking the test with me, however these should be persons with experience in diagnose, such as physicians, to reduce or eliminate the concern that my conclusions would be based on knowledge of reading external symptoms. However it would probably be best to work with ailments that are agreed to have no known external signs and control persons would not be as necessary since control persons seem to make a test more complicated to arrange.

Actually, the control readers should be skilled ‘cold readers’, not physicians, since cold reading (not medical knowledge) is what is likely to be the mechanism, here.

Old man:
Please accept that I am not here for personal attention, but to discuss medical perceptions that may or may not be due to ESP. You can believe what you want, but I am just trying to guide you toward the truth.

And many of us are eagerly, excitedly, yeah, even impatiently, waiting to be led on this journey of discovery! Please, can we get started soon?

Belz, Old man, Locknar:
You might all make excellent lawyers.

Thank you. Science, like law (I know, it isn’t always practiced that way), really should be about getting down to the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted by Old man
Finals week, man. Have patience…

Stalkers, anyone? Just kidding. You guys sure do your investigations. I expect you will soon be going through my trash and looking in through my windows for what ever evidence there may be. Just kidding. Keep up the good investigations practice.

Why Anita, you noticed! Thank you so much! I’m just so… so… flattered!

Originally Posted by Dr. Carlson post #683
I brought up the possibility of vasectomies (because of this discussion), and she said that because she has only ONCE detected a vasectomy, she is not prepared, at present, to perform a test based on this. Think about it - if she has looked at thousands of people over time, and only once seen a vasectomy, think of the sample size we would need to get a statistically significant number of vasectomies that she could see.

There is an incorrect assumption here. When I have chosen to do a thorough head-to-toe reading of persons, and so far there has only been a handful of persons available for this, I make a thorough effort to detect anything of any sort that would be out of the ordinary or significant to mention. This is when health information such as vasectomy comes to my attention. Having had a vasectomy is not a health problem and is not associated with disease, pain or discomfort, so it is not among the information that captures my attention on its own, such as several cases of cancers or pain do. Vasectomy is therefore not a piece of information that I will notice in a daily situation when among people. Vasectomy is information that I detect only when I consciously read into a person. And as such it is not unthinkable to use in a test, I just haven't had a lot of experience with this particular bit of medical information. I hope this clarifies the matter.

Excellent. We need this kind of clarification. However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?

Originally Posted by Hokulele post #692
I have a question for VfF.

In your opinion, if I were to watch you making your observations, how could I differentiate between your method of determining a medical condition and cold reading?

Finally! A productive question! I knew there would be one eventually! I think your question is an excellent one. I am arranging to have a study, which in essence will be like a test that begins under the same conditions as how I have experienced the perceptions,

I’ve suggested that you do this (as a control for any tests), and you rejected the idea. Why is it a good idea now?

… And I have definitely listed all hits and misses regarding the anecdotal experiences listed on the observations page of my website (www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html) and always ensure that I do...

I see that these statements –

“I then detected a very specific small region on his abdomen within which the small intestine has a tendency of becoming rigid…
I defined the very small and specific space in which this occurs: being immediately below the sternum, occupying a rectangle of one and a half centimeters vertical width and four centimeters horizontal width - very specific…
The intestine locking up is definitely "verified correct without any known subtle clues".”

- are still there, even though they can’t all be true. Why haven’t you corrected them?

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, I've been meaning to ask you a question, and now seems to be a good time. Now that you've admitted that detecting vasectomy is a rare (possibly, dare I say it? a once in a lifetime) event for you, how often DO you detect aliments/abnormalities? You must encounter tens (if not hundreds) of people every day. Your statements in this thread and on your web page led me to think that these reading are 'normal' for you. My belief was that they happened frequently.

Do these "visions from feeling" happen, on average, every hour? Every day? Once a month?

Imagine if you are in a room with walls covered in text. You notice text that stands out from the rest, if it is highlighted, in bold, or larger, and you can't help but to perceive what it says in those cases. That is what health problems are to me, they stand out from the vast amount of other information that a person carries around in themselves, and I can not help but to read it. Then if you want to, you can choose to read the text itself, and you make the choice and the effort and start reading. You can then find out about the less important information that no one bothered highlighting for attention, and that is what information such as vasectomy is. It is not a health problem, it is not associated with pain, disease, or discomfort. So to detect it I have to make the effort of reading for it. I detected it in a case where I choose to do a head-to-toe thorough analysis where I look for anything unusual of any kind. I have had very few opportunities to do this head-to-toe with people so that is probably why to date I only have one example of detecting vasectomy. With regard to other information that is highlighted and comes to me on its own I've experienced it more often. I hope that answers your question.

Great info, it really helps me formulate my questions. Thank you. However, it doesn’t answer the question I asked.

Imagine if you are in a room with walls covered in text. You notice text that stands out from the rest, if it is highlighted, in bold, or larger, and you can't help but to perceive what it says in those cases.

Interesting analogy. I’ve been in many situations just like you’re describing. However, I can also just look at any of the text, anytime I want, and read it. So, not that good of an analogy, is it?

Originally Posted by Ashles
To put it another way, as a rough estimate, what proportion of new people you meet do you get a propoer reading from (i.e. that a reading comes to you as you have previously described as being totally accurate)?

If a person has a health problem it is highlighted for my attention and I perceive it whether I intend to or not. With regard to doing an intended head-to-toe reading it is something I do only with the participation of the person, and is very rarely.

To clarify, there is information that is very clear and comes to me on its own. This occurs in perhaps one out of twenty persons in a crowd? That's a very bad estimate though, so don't rely on it. And as to information that I perceive from effort, which is like choosing to actively read a text rather than just seeing it and detecting highlights that stand out, I rarely encounter this possibility. I plan to have a study to experience more reading.

This does answer my question. Thank you.

This occurs in perhaps one out of twenty persons in a crowd?

So, you should be able to go the mall tomorrow, and in an hour or two be able to come back to this thread and tell us whether any or all of the following - circumcision, vasectomy, appendectomy, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, cardiac surgery, dental bridge work - are suitable for testing. I look forward to the coming voyage of discovery that you’ve promised us!

 

[Moochie]

Moochie:
Please don't make a fool out of yourself.

Wouldn't be the first time.

All that I have said about non-paranormal things such as educational background for instance have been true,

and the only things, so far, that stand a chance of verification

so the fact that you guys argue against trivial things that I know to be true makes me question the way some of you skeptics approach things.

Question away! No extraordinary claims being made here!

I stand by my summation: either you're severely deluded, or a (perhaps not so very) gifted prankster.

In any case, I'm going to be 59 next month, so I'm wondering if I'll live long enough to see you submit to a proper test of your claim(s).

I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery.


ETA: I notice you're repeating your site's address every so often. Afraid we'll forget?


M.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Quick summation..

These skills are very precise and accurate, except when they are not ..
Even though Anita successfully uses these skills all the time, when it comes to testing them, they seem to shift to the ' not working ' end of the chart ..

As I've mentioned before .. I believe I have these same abilities; however, so far, I seem to be stuck in the ' not working ' mode ....

I keep getting the feeling someone Googled " psychic abilities " and stumbled into the wrong forum ...