Vision From Feeling

[Professor Yaffle]

Professor Yaffle:
Post #1228. Perceptions that come to me on their own either depict serious health information, or, as you've reminded me, something unusual. Most ailments can occur to varying extents, and if severe will catch my attention and form images and perception on their own, whereas the very same type of ailment and in another milder case might remain undetected by me unless I've chosen to do the "head-to-toe" reading to look closer for anything out of the ordinary. I suspect that there is a dividing line beyond which an ailment is too weak to be detectable by me even when I make the effort. This concern with "I don't claim to detect an ailment in each case in which it is considered to occur" is the reason why I insist on being allowed to pass on subjects and ailments that I do not detect on a test.

So then my concerns about the peanut oil still stand. Why is peanut oil something that you have to use effort for (as you stated earlier)? Surely because you believed it to be rare, it would stand out to you (as things which are unusual stand out for you, as you just confirmed).

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

You didn't provide an example, and you didn't answer the question "long ago". Would you please pull your extraterrestrial mind back from your distant star and down to Earth before you falsely accuse someone of falsely accusing you again?

How absolutely ridiculous of you. Again. Please read the lower half of my post #1267 and what I would like to say to you at this point should become absolutely clear on its own. I did provide examples throughout this thread. And I did answer the question long ago, in post #12 in this thread as a matter of fact. Not falsely accusing. One of our skeptics was wrong. Again.

 

[Akhenaten]

of course I fully understand that test conditions will be implemented that disable the possibility of cold reading. What I was saying is that when I form a paranormal claim, it describes what specificly I claim to be able to do. If I have not had experience with a person behind a screen, then I can not agree to a paranormal test where a person is behind a screen until I have tried out that particular test condition so that I know whether it can be part of my claim or not. If the perceptions cease when cold reading is disabled then I can not present a claim that is in accordance with the required test conditions. Which of course would lead me to withdrawing the paranormal claim and concluding that nothing paranormal is taking place, or that something paranormal might take place but only takes place while non-paranormal means are also available therefore making it a non-testable claim and a paranormal ability can not be established. I know this statement will be misunderstood again, but I've tried.

It will be misunderstood mainly because it's a convoluted mess that says the same thing three or four times in one sentence. What's really hard to understand though, is that you've allegedly been investigating this ability since 2007 and yet haven't done even the simplest of tests to eliminate cold reading. It would take considerably less time to do than it takes to type out indignant responses here, and might also be considered a more scientific approach.

Of course not. However as a claimant I am required to make the initial suggestion on the test protocol, at which claimant and testing organization commence protocol negotiations to reach a protocol that both parties can agree to. Before I can agree to for instance a screen, I need to find out whether I can claim for the perceptions to occur with a screen. If it is decided that the claim can not be tested without a screen, and I can not perform with a screen, then I will withdraw my paranormal claim from investigation and conclude that a paranormal phenomenon has already been falsified.

Claimant to what? Required by whom? Test protocol?

In any case, your logic seems a little askew. If your own testing revealed that you couldn't read people through a screen then what, and with whom, would you be subsequently discussing further investigation? Why would you be making any claims at all?

Really. Even after I've explained that I am in process of arranging a test with an organization that specializes in testing for paranormal claims, a professor should in your mind want to take over. And I've already stated that I don't think that any of these three professors "believed that I have a paranormal ability" because I don't have any formal evidence. All I've said is that I've described to them my experience and my arranging for tests.

I think you might be missing the point here. You told your three favourite professors about your alleged ability and they didn't believe you. You, being a scientist, must have known this would be the case because you have no evidence, so why did you do it?

The truth is, however, that I think most of us are having a hard time believing that you could tell three of your professors the things you've told us and not have them take any interest at all, regardless of evidence.

I did speak to them but I won't let my school be dragged into this mess of a skeptical conversation on this thread, so don't try to trick me into bringing some kind of evidence that we spoke.

My Bold.

The fact that I confided in professors is irrelevant to the investigation since they will have no involvement and so the credibility of this is also irrelevant.

You don't get to set your own credibility level, I'm afraid. Nor the criteria by which other people ascribe you one.

Also I think you've (again) been tricked into "bringing some kind of evidence that we spoke". That was easy.

You guys don't even believe that I'm from Sweden.

I think Arcturus raised more eyebrows than Sweden. You don't talk about it much though, do you?

I already made a post on this thread where I explained the response of these professors. Please find it yourself.

Yeah, they didn't believe you. Imagine that.

They have agreed to no such thing. Stop lying and making false assumptions or trying to drag my university into this.

How could anyone here do that and why do you think anyone here would want to?

That's right. I'm already involved in letting the IIG West test my claim.

That is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Nobody, anywhere, is testing any of your claims.

So what more I can do is to get to know more about my experience and about paranormal investigations and that is why I've consulted skeptics who spend quite a bit of time in this very matter. There is a compliment in here somewhere for you guys, but, you find it yourself. If you read between the lines like you all love to do (and this time accurately), you'll see it.

Damned with the faint praise of a backhanded compliment. I, for one, am shattered.

My theories behind how this might work, unless it is something ordinary taking place like cold reading that I am not aware of, are not required in order for me to explain my experiences and for test design. Besides it was already agreed on this thread that theories will not be discussed.

This is not the MDC forum. There are no requirements here other than our membership agreement. Your theories, if they're presented here, are fair game for discussion.

When did we vote on this agreement not to discuss certain things?

My refusal to discuss unrelevant topics that do nothing to progress the investigation does not in my mind take away from my credibility as a paranormal claimant.

What goes on in your mind is unrelevant. As I mentioned, you don't get to decide your own credibility.

After meeting with the local skeptics group I realized that it is beneficial if I conduct a study into the perceptions to learn more about my claim, so that it will be easier to form a test.

They told you to go away unless you had some kind of testable claim.

To take an everyday experience and place it into a laboratory type test requires some extra insight into the experienced phenomena. After the study, and if the claim has not been falsified by the study, then of course anyone whether a university or a skeptical testing organization is welcome to test the better formulated claim.

Is this thread a synonym contest or something? Have we conducted a survey of evidence to investigate the study for a test to make a claim of anything yet, or is that still upcoming?

I will not mix my personal investigation of an unconventional topic that usually has negative connotation, with my professional life and career.

You're a student. You don't have a professional life and career, which may be somewhat in your favour at this stage. You don't actually have an investigation either, so I believe by the rules of Vibrational Algebra™ that lot all cancels out anyway.

The headache and nausea during chemical identification tests is something that I experienced only after I was forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a short period of time when I was testing an infrequent experience. My initial descriptions of experience with chemical identification perceptions regarded perceptions that come on their own and are not forced, so there was no way to include these discomforts then as they had not taken place.

It's the post hoc nature of your explanations that make them suspect, not the substance of them.

That's exactly what you are supposed to be asking. It is better for me to do very few trials and spaced across time. I do not know what my comfort-zone would be. I need to try it, but my main priority now is on the upcoming study and on the main claim.

So you agree that it would be a good idea to find this out, but you're not going to. How do you know that it won't affect the upcoming study?

No, what I say is, "trust that I believe that the anecdotes happened and that that is why I am compelled to further investigation", and I also say that "I know the anecdotes are not formal evidence, but they are evidence to me".

We most certainly do trust that you believe the things you say. We also have very strong reasons to trust in reality, which tells us that the things you believe are cause for concern. You SHOULD feel compelled to further investigation, by qualified people, as to the source of your delusions.

No, I was specificly advised to learn more about the perceptions in order to become better able to suggest a clear-cut test protocol.

In other words, they saw nothing to test. Nobody does. Are you not at least a little worried about that?

The study will definitely happen since it is the next step in this investigation. If you carefully read my list of objectives for the study at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html it clearly states that the study can not conclude in favor of a paranormal ability no matter how "accurate" the results may appear to be, since cold reading is available on the study and thus the study can only lead to what I call apparent accuracy, which is not real or actual accuracy. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the perceptions so that it will be easier to devise a test. Another objective is that it provides a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such. Please read the study.html page.

I have, and commented on it. You'll catch up tomorrow, most likely.

Anyway, it says nothing that we aren't familiar with here, since it's basically a long reference back to this very thread.

You need to stop this "apparent accuracy" nonsense too. Google "oxymoron".

<snipped 3 hectares of non-explanations of Vibrational Algebra™>


So rather than you looking up the examples of what I mean by vibrational algebra in its everyday use, I have now spent a long time preparing this carefully composed answer, with quotes and all. I hope that shows that your post,
is yet another example of when a skeptic gets it all wrong (is delusional) but doesn't see it (because when you are delusional you don't see that you're delusional). As you can clearly see now I did in fact give examples of vibrational algebra as I had claimed to have done earlier in the thread. Next time before you jump to accuse me of lying please check out what I actually said. If I say that I've already answered something, then please take your time to a) check whether I've actually answered it before like I said that I have, or b) ask me to refer you to the quotes but without calling me a liar when I was telling the truth, because it takes away from the credibility of your conclusions.

The purple was nice, but if you want to have a really good rant you might want to consider a larger font. It also helps your case if you happen to be in the right, which you aren't, as an upcoming study will reveal.

I spent over two hours on this very reply to you Ashles. That's how much I dislike
misunderstandings and being unjustly criticized. You insist/demand these answers
out of me, and all this time I could have been working on preparing the study.​

Your need for attention is what insists/demands that you make these posts. Don't bleat so much, because at least it's working.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
Post #1241. As a courtesy I would have hoped that you would have understood that for me to choose to send something to you in PM means that I have a personal reason not to want to share the information publicly on the thread. I would have preferred you not sharing this information on the thread. I do not want to involve my university in my paranormal investigation, and you are denying my rights to choose so. I only sent you this information to further explain why I choose not to share details about my ideas of vibrational information publicly on the thread, since you have expressed continuous urgency to understand the reasons behind that choice, but you have (unwillingly I'm sure) misused my intentions.

Also this other student has been using the ideas in experiments.

Incorrect assumption again, Ashles, as this is not the case.

and another student, who has also told Professors and is actually using these ideas in experiments

No, Ashles. Not so.

These ideas are, according to Anita herself, already in the public domain and being used!

Please Ashles stop doing what mostly seems like lying! "According to myself"? Not the least, since they are not being used. Why do you do this?

I think we can now safely say though that 'Vibrational Algebra' does not in any way involve algebra, or any maths at all.

Yes it does. In my perception I add or subtract vibrational aspects of things to obtain a resulting vibration. Simply by doing so I would consider it fair to lend the word algebra to describe what I do. But this refers to my perception and not to established mathematics.

Again I cannot state more clearly that you have done no such thing [provided examples of vibrational algebra]. You state now you have provide 'examples' - plural? Link to one. Provide the post number. Demonstrate this isn't a lie.

Post #1267. Next time you accuse me of lying and I then recommend you to see my earlier posts in this thread, why don't you spend the two hours to come up with the answer to your own question instead of bothering me with your disbelief and misconception that are not reality based. Suspecting or even expecting me to be lying is ok, but stop concluding and believing that I'm lying when there is no evidence of that.

You also claim you have given examples of it. But can't provide details of where.

Post #1267.

You also claim that you joined a project into which you introduced your ideas.

I have never claimed this.

Even if we took your unconvincing stories at face value, it appears Professors at your University find other students more convincing than you at presenting your own ideas.

Not so.

The more you write, the more contradictions and just plain illogical claims appear. That's why this thread is so fun!

No Ashles, all we see are more and new examples of your misunderstandings. I'm glad you're having fun with your delusions, though.

 

[Akhenaten]

@ VfF


Your selective and unacknowledged editing of other peoples quoted posts before inserting your responses is dishonest and misleading.

Desist.

 

[JWideman]

No Ashles, all we see are more and new examples of your misunderstandings.

"we"? Do you mean the royal "we", or are you referring to the voices in your head?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

I mean, if *we* can't get her to dismiss her paranormal claims and look to the known and ordinary world, do you think your average mope could do it, especially one who is friend or family? I'm sure they humor her rather than engage her because it's a fruitless endeavor. Who's gonna tell her she's wrong about a reading and risk getting a "wall of words" about how she's never wrong?

I resent this paragraph, because I do acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions may be the result of cold reading for instance, and the possibility that my "apparent" accuracy may not be accuracy at all. These are things that can not be revealed in my everyday experience of the perceptions, and that is why I am looking forward to the study and the tests. And don't forget that I claim to have had experiences where the (apparent!) accuracy was established by means other than me speaking about what I had claimed to have perceived. But all these are reasons for me to look for a real test that will not allow cold reading, will only account for real and actual accuracy and where no one's intentions of me being correct would have any say in things one way or the other. And most of the perceptions I've had that were confirmed accurate were such that can be proven with a scar or other physical evidence. I resent having my evaluation of my awareness of the claim and my intentions with the claim trashed like this. Bless your heart.

Like I said, this is just my opinion, but it certainly explains a lot of things. I don't think she's being majorly deceptive to anyone but herself. Minor stuff? Sure, we're all guilty of that. But overall she wants to believe and finds way to make things fit. When they don't fit, she gets sick, backs off, and heads in a direction where she's less likely to hear what she doesn't want to hear.

Again I resent that. I've experienced plenty situations of confirmed apparent accuracy where the sense of accuracy was not due to my interpretation or intentions. And really, the headache and nausea came first and inaccuracy in the cereal tests came after. I have never backed off when brought towards progress in testing my main claim of medical perceptions in live people. What I don't want to hear? Ahem.

desertgal:

One minute, we will be reading about her theories in scientific publications, and the next, someone stole them and they are already in the public domain. I'm lost.

I've expressed some of my ideas of applying my perceptions of vibrations into conventional science, yet I decline elaborating much deeper when asked to. That is why I've presented some, yet I will not present more. I've expressed the amount that I am comfortable with.

Is she concerned that Chillzero would snatch her theories, delete the thread to cover her tracks, and disappear cackling into the night?

Not to mention baffling that she has continually claimed that she 'forbids' involving her university, but, yet, has told three Professors already.

I realize and admit that this is confusing and contradictory. I confided in three professors who I trust and told them more on a personal level than professional. To not involve, means to not make it publicly known to all and to not engage in tests etc at my school.

Ashles:
I am disappointed that you would post content from a private message publicly here on the thread. I am very disappointed with you and unhappy with your decision to do so.

Nothing in the PM was of a personal nature and I have explained to Anita that I will reproduce any sections of PMs I feel are relevant to claims.

That is for me to decide what content I consider to be personal nature to me. I have already asked that we not involve my university in our discussions and you are continuing to disregard my feelings. Don't you realize that your actions here might be harmful to my career or my life in general? What about coming here and posting as a paranormal claimant makes my personal life available for your attack? I must ask you to stop posting further comment about my intentions of science applications from my perceptions and any content regarding my professors or university. This discussions thread by how it is represented by yourself and certain others is hardly an example of excellent scientific thought nor objective critical inquiry into unexplainable phenomena, and I refuse to allow any of this to reach over to my professional life or university both of which I hold in very high regard.

I totally understand if she chooses not to PM me in future - in fact I would prefer it if communication remained in the thread, especially if, like this, it involves matters directly relevant to issues discussed on the thread.

Of course I will not trust you with a private message again. It means that some of your questions will remain unanswered. So when you ask something and I tell you that I have chosen not to elaborate, please stop asking time and time again and trying to turn that into something negative against me. Certain topics remain personal as well as irrelevant to our topic of my paranormal experience.

Anita, in my opinion, has used a lot of tricks on this thread to try and force people to accept her opinions,

That is correct. I have asked that you skeptics allow that I have belief in my anecdotes and that is my opinion. However I have consistently stated that I do not expect any of you to take my anecdotes as evidence for yourselves.

and she simply refuses to be wrong about anything.

I defend my experiences since they can not be washed away just because they are not proven for you. They remain having happened to me which is why I defend my choice to keep them.

And refuses to accept that some people just do not believe some of her claims and stories.

I have absolutely never refused to accept that some of you don't believe my claims and stories. I've consistently stated that I understand that my anecdotes are not formal evidence that you guys could take part of. Please Ashles don't make me spend two hours again composing another post of my quotes! This time, why don't you go back a few pages and start reading before you accuse me of having beliefs and opinions that I just don't have.

Which is why she almost obsessively can leave no comment without response.

If I want to correct misunderstandings that you guys posted in ways that were offensive and aimed as personal attack, then of course that makes me want to clear out the confusion. And if this is what I do, then since almost every post on this thread posted by you guys contains misunderstandings and false accusations... I am a very busy girl.

I don't know where she is getting the time to study at the moment.

Winter Break. Once school starts (Monday), I will devote only a few hours a week to this. So if you guys post questions and comments to me, they'd better be good ones or they won't be answered!

When I have some time I may read through the entire thread again from the start. It's pretty interesting.

! That is exactly what I want you to do, Ashles!

Locknar and Ashles:

Because "one on one" VFF hopes she can sway you, without others interjecting into the conversation.

Not sway, Locknar. But I do appreciate the no interjections.

sleepy lioness:

Similarly, she said that a good school like hers will encourage its undergrads to have spectacular ideas and go and research them (she cited a fellow-student who's working on a hovercar).

Nonsense, what I said was that a good school doesn't discourage creative thinking in science and allows students to carry on with their education until they become equipped to themselves discredit ideas that at first hadn't seemed unplausible. No one is working on a hovercar. Except Ashles.

To look at it another way, VFF's friend could quite happily do undergrad projects about hovercars, and he might learn something from it.

Read carefully. No one I know is building hovercars. It was all from Ashles' head.

VFF, it may be news to you, but as an undergrad nobody cares about your ideas. You're at the stage where you're still learning how things work. Later you may become a great scientist, but right now you need to learn the absolute basics before you have your grand ideas.

As if I didn't know that.

Oh, and just to add- I'm serious too when I urge you to see a doctor. This is not something I'd joke about.

Well I won't take advice from you until you show more credibility in your posts. You're starting to post misunderstandings too, you're catching on to the ways of the bigger skeptic posters here.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Post #1200, ...(words)

Do a test, don't do a test. Whatever. Perform an independent test and the results can be.

Of course not. However as a claimant I am required to make the initial suggestion on the test protocol, at which claimant and testing organization commence protocol negotiations to reach a protocol that both parties can agree to. Before I can agree to for instance a screen, I need to find out whether I can claim for the perceptions to occur with a screen. If it is decided that the claim can not be tested without a screen, and I can not perform with a screen, then I will withdraw my paranormal claim from investigation and conclude that a paranormal phenomenon has already been falsified.

Yes, but if you say you cannot perform with a screen how do we control for cold reading?
Have you responded to my question as to whether you actually talk to the subjects or vice versa? ETA - I see you have and don't speak that's good.
I don't understand why blood disorders are unsuiatble for your investigations.

Really. Even after I've explained that I am in process of arranging a test with an organization that specializes in testing for paranormal claims, a professor should in your mind want to take over. And I've already stated that I don't think that any of these three professors "believed that I have a paranormal ability" because I don't have any formal evidence. All I've said is that I've described to them my experience and my arranging for tests. I did speak to them but I won't let my school be dragged into this mess of a skeptical conversation on this thread,

That has become a bit of a mantra for you now.
It's simply unbelievable that you wouldn't yourself involve your University in this research (apart from the fact you have three times, plus an actual study involving the ideas!).
So the 'don't drag my school into this' plea is rather disengenuous.

so don't try to trick me into bringing some kind of evidence that we spoke. The fact that I confided in professors is irrelevant to the investigation since they will have no involvement and so the credibility of this is also irrelevant.

No it isn't. It shows contradictions, it questions credibility and it questions motivation.
You don't want it discussed, don't bring it up.

You guys don't even believe that I'm from Sweden.

I haven't questioned that.

I already made a post on this thread where I explained the response of these professors. Please find it yourself.

Desertgal located it for me.
I notice one of them "expressed tremendous interest and curiosity in knowing more" but never took it any further themselves.
Another thought it was "thermal information". What? He encounters a girl who can see thermal information, who apparently has receptors that operate outside of the visible EM spectrum and... also does nothing about it?

Please Anita, don't worry about us dragging anyone at your University into this. It appears wild horses couldn't manage it. They are the most incurious people on the planet.

They have agreed to no such thing. Stop lying and making false assumptions or trying to drag my university into this.

Hmm, I was sure I remembered one of the Professors agreeing to it conceptually. Maybe I got that confused with the "thermal imagery" guy.
I guess memory isn't perfect in humans. Who'd have thought that.

That's right. I'm already involved in letting the IIG West test my claim. So what more I can do is to get to know more about my experience and about paranormal investigations and that is why I've consulted skeptics who spend quite a bit of time in this very matter. There is a compliment in here somewhere for you guys, but, you find it yourself. If you read between the lines like you all love to do (and this time accurately), you'll see it.

My question wan't, why are you contacting skeptic but why aren't you contacting Universities? But we get to that below.

My theories behind how this might work, unless it is something ordinary taking place like cold reading that I am not aware of, are not required in order for me to explain my experiences and for test design. Besides it was already agreed on this thread that theories will not be discussed.

No such agreement was made. You decided to stop discussing them after we asked you about the scienctific details. And yu coldn't provise them. So declared thm secret.
I do not personally believe you have any such theories.

My refusal to discuss unrelevant topics that do nothing to progress the investigation does not in my mind take away from my credibility as a paranormal claimant.

In the eyes of many here, including myself, it actually does.
But an independent test would render that irrelevent.

After meeting with the local skeptics group I realized that it is beneficial if I conduct a study into the perceptions to learn more about my claim, so that it will be easier to form a test.

Did they also insist you delay any such study for months in order to respond to every comment on the internet?
The test isn't happening. Now it seems like even the 'study' isn't happening. Not that it is likely to add much anyway.

To take an everyday experience and place it into a laboratory type test requires some extra insight into the experienced phenomena.

Yes because scientists have never been able to conduct tests studying everyday experiences.
Where do you get this nonsense?

After the study, and if the claim has not been falsified by the study, then of course anyone whether a university or a skeptical testing organization is welcome to test the better formulated claim.
I will not mix my personal investigation of an unconventional topic that usually has negative connotation, with my professional life and career.

Well, except for the three Professors at your own University you contacted and the study you used it in and the fact you intend to make this 'abilty' central in the future to, er, your professional life and career. These are your own claims!
And why is it okay if another University contacts you? But not okay if you contact them? Why does that suddenly make it conceptually completely different?

Makes no sense whatsoever.

The headache and nausea during chemical identification tests is something that I experienced only after I was forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a short period of time when I was testing an infrequent experience.

Oh so maybe ten in a row would be okay?
Well then we could formulate a test around... oh never mind. We know you won't.

My initial descriptions of experience with chemical identification perceptions regarded perceptions that come on their own and are not forced, so there was no way to include these discomforts then as they had not taken place.

And having caught the incurious disease from your Professors you had no actual interest in investigating further.

That's exactly what you are supposed to be asking.

That's exactly what you should be offering and have been requested to do on many occasions.
Why do we have to wring out every single quantifiable detail from you when you are supposed to be the one who is studying this scientifically?

It is better for me to do very few trials and spaced across time. I do not know what my comfort-zone would be. I need to try it, but my main priority now is on the upcoming study and on the main claim.

Which it really shouldn't be. Your priority should be to find out if any of your claimed abilities that don't involve human test subjects could be tested.
That would be far preferable.
You have unilaterally decided to focus on the one aspect of your 'ability' that is the hardest to test in a controlled way.
Maybe one of the other 'abilities' is equaly strong. We'll never know because you ignore them.

No, what I say is, "trust that I believe that the anecdotes happened and that that is why I am compelled to further investigation", and I also say that "I know the anecdotes are not formal evidence, but they are evidence to me".

We can't necessarily even trust that. For all we know you may be lying.
I don't think you are (about most of the perceptions at least), but we have no reason to accept even this as stated.
That's another reason we need testing.

No, I was specificly advised to learn more about the perceptions in order to become better able to suggest a clear-cut test protocol.
The study will definitely happen since it is the next step in this investigation. If you carefully read my list of objectives for the study at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html it clearly states that the study can not conclude in favor of a paranormal ability no matter how "accurate" the results may appear to be, since cold reading is available on the study and thus the study can only lead to what I call apparent accuracy, which is not real or actual accuracy. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the perceptions so that it will be easier to devise a test. Another objective is that it provides a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such. Please read the study.html page.

I will.

On the first page of this thread and before you even appeared,
Post #34 which was even titled Vibrational algebra, and my 12th post ever, gives examples such as

(Posts)
​

Then on page 25 you ask me in your post #993 to give examples of vibrational algebra, and you asked again on page 26 in your post #1003. I assumed that since I had already answered regarding vibrational algebra in my everyday meaning, that this was not satisfactory to you and that you were asking about how I intend to try to introduce it to conventional mathematics, science and instruments, and I said in post #1030 that I did not intend to reveal those ideas of their science application here in this Forum.

You are kidding me! Those are your examples? Repetitions of yur claims and putting plus and minus signs between words?

You think HEALTHY - ILLNESS = CURE is some form of scientific analysis? Some form of useful concept? Something liable to appear as the central concept of a groundbreaking research paper.

Watch this.
CAR + GRAVITY = STANDARD PARADIGM
CAR - GRAVITY = HOVERCAR

Wow I just invented Gravitational Algebra.

This is a ludicrous level of non-detail. That's why we requested a worked example. Which you have said you can't provide. Because it's secret. And you have never done one.

VIBRATIONAL ALGEBRA = YOUR CLAIM
YOUR CLAIM = HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
Ergo
VIBRATIONA ALGEBRA = NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

So rather than you looking up the examples of what I mean by vibrational algebra in its everyday use, I have now spent a long time preparing this carefully composed answer, with quotes and all. I hope that shows that your post,
is yet another example of when a skeptic gets it all wrong (is delusional) but doesn't see it (because when you are delusional you don't see that you're delusional).

No you have simply confirmed to us that 'Vibrational Algebra has absolutely no meaning as a concept other than a layman might say they could do magic and had labelled it 'Vibrational Algebra', becuse the magic was the bit that was different between normality and the application of the magic.
I think it is reasonable that none of us talk any more of 'Vibrational Algebra' as it doesn't have any meaning.

As you can clearly see now I did in fact give examples of vibrational algebra as I had claimed to have done earlier in the thread. Next time before you jump to accuse me of lying please check out what I actually said. If I say that I've already answered something, then please take your time to a) check whether I've actually answered it before like I said that I have, or b) ask me to refer you to the quotes but without calling me a liar when I was telling the truth, because it takes away from the credibility of your conclusions.

Okay you weren't lying.
You appear to actually believe you had described what Vibrational Algebra was.
But not realised it was not a useful concept and was adding nothing to the discussion.

I spent over two hours on this very reply to you Ashles. That's how much I dislike

misunderstandings and being unjustly criticized. You insist/demand these answers

out of me, and all this time I could have been working on preparing the study.​

Er well don't then.
No one is forcing you to except your own compusion to do so. I don't finish my posts moaning that it took me a while to write them. I either want to resond or I don't. I don't try and blame the other person for my own behaviour.​

Attempts to control the posting behaviour of others will not meet with any success here.​

And if you want to get on with your study, do so.
I don't think Einstein delayed his research into the photoelectric effect because he just had to write long letters explaining everything to anyone who questioned his work.
Either do both or prioritise your time to get what you want done, done.​

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Anita - you say that you accept that your experiences may in fact be nothing more than coldreading. Do you entertain similar alternative explanations for your other experiences (like seeing/talking to ghosts, reading animal thoughts, seeing dinosaur ghosts, being, or coming from some star or another or whatever they were)? Or are you absolutely convinced that those experiences are exactly what they appear to be? If you entertain rival hypotheses, what might these be?

ETA: You seem to be spending a huge amount of time replying to this thread. I think I speak for most people here when I say I would be a lot more impressed with you if you replied to nothing I have said, didn't post for a week, and came back with an account of you spending the time doing a set of controlled experiments where you vary the parameters systematically and record the effects these parameters have on your ability. Its what the vast majority of scientifically minded people would have done as soon as they suspected they had such an ability and all the words in the world doesn't explain the fact that you haven't.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Post #1241. As a courtesy I would have hoped that you would have understood that for me to choose to send something to you in PM means that I have a personal reason not to want to share the information publicly on the thread. I would have preferred you not sharing this information on the thread. I do not want to involve my university in my paranormal investigation, and you are denying my rights to choose so. I only sent you this information to further explain why I choose not to share details about my ideas of vibrational information publicly on the thread, since you have expressed continuous urgency to understand the reasons behind that choice, but you have (unwillingly I'm sure) misused my intentions.

Well I responded to the rather snotty follow up PM you sent me on the subject via a return PM. It seems you would rather have that debate here.
As I said there - do not assume PMs are in any way protected or sacrosanct. I will exercise my own discretion as to what I reproduce on the thread.
And all your comments regarding the other student (not all of which I have copied across) were of direct relevance to what we were discussing.

What, did you expect me to just accept your new stories in a PM, then not refer to them on the main thread and also to then stop questioning your strange requirements for secrecy?
Maybe you'd like me to stop questioning you completely? Maybe you'd like everyone to just accept everything you say at face value.
Sorry Anita - this is a site for skeptics for a reason.

I will respond to the rest of your post later on. I have to go out now.

 

[Pup]

Pup:

Of course I have no such intention, and can easily acquire at least most of these pills that you are sending me if I wanted to, I was just thinking it would be easier for you to do so. You can choose to not include original samples if you wish.
Actually I was hoping to try the chemical identification approach but can also attempt the medicinal effects approach. In this case I have two options available to try. Thank you for arranging this.

I don't mean you'd deliberately try to guess through appearance, odor, etc. I think that using those clues subconsciously is what's happening, and asking for examples of the pills is a way of helping yourself, subconsciously, tip the odds a little more in your favor.

Feel free to use whatever method you wish to identify them, except of course mundane ones like chemical analysis. The chemicals as made into commercial drugs are not pure by any means, so I was thinking that sensing the effect on the human body would be the most straightforward. But whatever works for you. And no pressure to guess or force an answer. There's only five, so heck, you can do one a day if that's all you want. Only post the identity of the ones you know you'll get right. If you don't sense some or all, just skip them.

Coincidentally, one of them is a calcium carbonate-based antacid, a substance you should be pretty familiar with, as calcium carbonate is what you mentioned comparing unknown medicines with in post 1280. I tried to pick very common medicines that most people have either taken or know someone who has taken, so unfamiliarity wouldn't be a problem.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:

Why haven't we heard of these ground breaking discoveries? Does Anita even know she's lying? And, is it just me, or has Anita said nothing that would convince anyone that she has even a basic understanding of any scientific subject?

I am not lying. Wait a few years and we'll see if my ideas of scientific application lead anywhere.

desertgal:

And I'll agree that her friends and family have probably just elected to humor her

Not so. Many cases of accuracy were confirmed with evidence. Or established in ways where anyone's (including mine) intentions of desired accuracy would have had no say. However these are still not formal evidence to you guys that they took place. Hopefully the study will bring some up. Some documented cases.

Via various posts:
Does not believe in her alleged ability.
Will not continue to believe in her alleged ability whatever the outcome of a test.
Will continue to have perceptions whatever the outcome of a test.
Does believe in her ability, has taken it for granted, and does not need confirmation of its authenticity.

I have not concluded that the perceptions would be reality based and that is how I hold no belief in them. As far as I am concerned they are nothing but impressions unless proven otherwise. The outcome of a test will let me know where to place my belief. I do believe in that I experience perceptions. Yes I take it for granted because it is no big deal to me (and I'm here not because I'm making a big deal out of it but because I'm going to have an investigation into them). I do need confirmation and verification to establish actual accuracy.

Don't pull fragments of quotes out of context like that. Besides, the "main" ability is medical perceptions from live people. I have never considered any of the other aspects to be part of the claim that I want to have tested.

Can detect chemicals without ill effect.
Can only detect chemicals sometimes.
Can only detect chemicals sometimes with apparent ill effects of nausea and headache.

I detect chemicals without ill effect when the perceptions appear on their own. When it comes to having to search for perceptions or doing forced perceptions it can lead to discomfort. Do not take things out of context. With ill effects and without ill effects refer to two very different cases of chemical perceptions. That's like if I said that the sky is blue in the daytime and the sky is black at night, you would pull out quotes and claim that I've said that "the sky is blue" and then "the sky is black" and claim that I'm making contradictions. Stop being silly. You're just ridiculous.

Would like to have a radio show.

That was a joke. I never meant that.

She has shared examples of this algebra here which no one can find.

See the lower half of post #1267.

Does not objectively chronicle her diagnoses, but she is always accurate.

Apparent accuracy was established for all past experiences of medical perceptions, and for many perceptions no accuracy was obtainable. The small intestine being associated to the condition of strain below the sternum is the so far only suspicious detail, yet has not been confirmed accurate or inaccurate.

Does not eliminate variables, but she is always accurate.

I am not "always accurate". I have been accurate with apparent accuracy in the past and always, yet I do not conclude that study and tests wouldn't reveal inaccuracy. And I welcome that, even it would be progress in my claim.

Does not eliminate variables, but her ability is not a result of cold reading or retained knowledge.

I've consistently stated that cold reading can be available and is a possible source of perceptions. Yet I've experienced perceptions that compel me to investigate that.

Or it might be a result of subconscious cold reading and/or retained knowledge.

I acknowledge the possibility.

Shares her abilities with a man she met that day whom she knew would be a lifelong friend. Shares her abilities with two skeptics forums, a skeptics group, IIG, her existing website, three Professors, a "ghostly" website currently in development, a local paranormal society, and a future paranormal society.

You bet.

She's sharing her claims with more and more people, and having to constantly manipulate her claims to fit the questions that arise.

My claim is medical perceptions from live people. Is and has been.

Anita is on the road to disaster, and a whole lot of hurt and sorrow for herself and others.

Not at all.

 

[Pup]

Thing is, I actually take the time to reason out why I have such an impression. You, by contrast, form imagery in your mind and ascribe it to the supernatural.

I think the whole post that I quoted the snippet from above, is an excellent summary. It's similar to something I wrote to Anita in a PM, when she asked my opinion. It's okay to post my own outgoing PMs, right? I wrote:

Honestly, I think you have an extremely vivid imagination, so you actually do feel like you're seeing and experiencing these things, and it must be very odd and puzzling, and a major part of your life experience. However, like a lot of people who are into the paranormal, you attribute the sensations to exterior causes, rather than interior ones, and that's why people start talking about hallucinations, delusions, etc.

In other words, one person feels a cold chill with that prickly pins and needles sensation. They think, "just my body readjusting its temperature." Or, "that always happens for a few hours after I watch a scary movie." They interpret it as a personal subjective experience. It's real to them, but it's also internal to them. It may be correlated with something external (watching a scary movie) but it's not immediately caused by anything outside them.

Another person experiences the same cold chill and instead feels compelled to look for an exterior cause: "A ghost just passed by." If they notice it only happens after they watch a scary movie, they still look for a cause outside themselves. "I'm only in tune with the supernatural after I watch a scary movie; the rest of the time I don't notice all the ghosts that pass by."

If you carry that to its extreme, both in the sensations and the explanations, I think that's where you are. Not just an occasional cold chill, but a whole host of vivid experiences, and not just a passing ghost, but a whole built-up world of pseudo-scientific explanations, assumptions and investigations to try to find external causes for what will turn out to be internal subjective experiences. The apparent ability to receive knowledge that can't have been gotten by normal means will turn out, after more rigorous tests, to be caused by sensitivity to small mundane clues, logical guesses, support from agreeable subjects, recalling hits more than misses, and so forth.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

She desperately wants to be believed.

All I ask is that you believe, or accept, that I believe that I've experienced good apparent accuracy.

In our Facebook chat Anita made quite a fuss about winning the Nobel prize. At first I thought she might have been teasing, but as she continued I concluded she seemed quite serious about it. I informed her that even if some freak chance her abilities were real, she would not be getting the Nobel. The scientist who studied her would.

I intend to find out for myself. That sounds to me like taking away the prize of the first man who climbs Mt. Everest and giving it to his trainer who is on the ground below. If there is a Nobel prize involved I would of course consider myself entitled to it. If it is that their rules prevent that then I would accept the facts of the matter and get to know my beloved fellow investigators real well and make a careful choice in who I decide to make the recipient of the award.

I also explained that she could not research herself. I tried to make her understand even if everything was real (though it's not), evidence she presents about herself is completely unreliable. A researcher will need to perform the investigations if they are to have any credibility. And, of course, that person will receive a lot of the credit. I teasingly told her that since I was instrumental in her initial testing that I would receive a lot of the credit. She didn't like that but conceded that I have been very helpful.

At this point so far I consider myself the principal investigator into my claim. But I love the idea of finding a favorite scientist and helping him have the award on my behalf. I already have several in mind.

Her mood improved greatly when I told her she could still make the talk show circuit and demonstrate her abilities.

This is incorrect.

Hokulele:

Rather than simply reading and responding to what Cuddles had to say regarding the word "perception", you are shifting the blame to Ashles and the rest of the skeptics? The "innocent me" act is starting to wear a bit thin. Instead of reacting and/or overreacting to posts such as these, you may want to consider why these types of semantic issues seem to prevent any progress on your claims.

It is Ashles' choice for us to use the word "perception", so it is Ashles' fault if someone finds this choice of word disturbing. Don't you dare fight with me more on this, Hokulele!

Really? I haven't seen this demonstrated yet in this thread. Rather than accepting and incorporating criticisms of your claims and your methods of investigating your claims, I have only seen examples of evasion, excuses, and misdirection.

Very often at times you guys think you are posting criticism, when in fact you are posting misunderstandings and false assumptions, and of course I do not accept those. I do accept criticism of course. When it is justified and is not based on false conclusions on your parts.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but if you acctually accepted criticism, we might have seen a completed study as well as at least one rigorous test by this point. Several protocols have been offered, and the ones you have describe have been examined, all to no avail.

Keep in mind that my claim is medical perceptions from live people.

Jonquill:

"Her mood improved greatly when I told her she could still make the talk show circuit and demonstrate her abilities." Maybe Anita will be the new Sylvia Browne?

This post of UncaYimmy's is totally inaccurate. My mood might have improved while we were talking but not specificly because of what was being said... My mood also improved when we started talking about animals. What would you conclude on that? That I am the next big zoo keeper? Hm? Something can always be falsely concluded out of how you link together unrelated things.

desertgal:

Oh, would you stop parroting the term "schizotypal disorder"? You clearly have no idea what it means.

It means you.

Your entire post to Cuddles is histrionic and ridiculous. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Tell me something, are we mostly concerned with dealing with the truth, here in this thread? Then why object when I speak up against misconceptions?

Jeez, Anita, the Nobel Committee has a website. You can look up their criteria there before you envision yourself in Stockholm.

I envision myself in Stockholm already next year. I'm from Sweden you know.

UncaYimmy:

Anita, Cuddles is bringing up some very solid points that I have alluded to in my posts as well. Your beliefs about yourself have not changed one iota. You have changed some of the language, but it appears only to be in an effort to placate us.

Don't defend Cuddles' ridiculous post. It was all based on misconceptions. It might drag you into the dirt too.

For example, take your use of the term apparent accuracy. What you really mean by that is, "I seemingly knew things I couldn't have possibly known." This is patently false.

Only I can know what I really mean, and all you can do is speculate on that. What I really mean by apparent accuracy, is that although all I was able to do in an everyday experience with the perceptions is to not encounter a case of confirmed inaccuracy, that this only leads to apparent inaccuracy since people could be lying or mistaken about their health. Nor does it conclude an ESP ability. Stop twisting my words to fit your expectations of a psychic claimant.

You have repeatedly told us that you read only family and close friends. This means that you know quite a lot of information about them. You have seen them moving around, which provides numerous physical clues. You know how they usually look, so it's easy to notice something different. You learn their moods, and mood is an indicator that something is wrong physically. You have talked with them countless times. You have talked about them with other people. You socialize with them in the same area. That's an incredible amount of knowledge.

This includes people I've just met. Who I knew I'd become friends with. As well as co-workers and neighbors. "Friends and family" means people I will continue to have in my life. Not someone off the street who I'll never see again. And the reason for this is not cold reading (since I especially can read someone I just met and know I'd have in my life afterwards), the reason is because I am concerned to dispense medical perceptions even with my hefty disclaimer, and these are people I can check on and I will be able to know that I had no harm on them.

The thing is, I also perceive in strangers. The very same type of perceptions, as clear, as convincing/unconvincing. Let's just wait for the study and see. I already am aware of the possible cold reading. But I've stated that I've had many experiences where I don't see what cold reading would have been available. And all I conclude is to proceed toward a real test.

Therefore, every single one of your anecdotes could be easily explained by cold reading. And by cold reading I mean prior knowledge and observation. I made several accurate readings about you. As I explained to you, some of them were just "feelings" or impressions. Thing is, I actually take the time to reason out why I have such an impression. You, by contrast, form imagery in your mind and ascribe it to the supernatural.

I've had experiences and the way in which they took place that if I can reproduce them then it is something very interesting. Just take my anecdotes as that.

Thus, "couldn't possibly have known" is really "could very easily have learned from cold reading."

Some of my experiences I can not account for cold reading because they have no known or obvious external symptoms, nor memory since I didn't know and hadn't met the person before and then only briefly.

The second issue is that you "seemingly know" because the people tell you so. Right off the bat I will remind you that you have told us repeatedly that you tell people not to take what you're doing seriously. If they follow your advice, then everything they tell you is unreliable.

Yes and that is why I call it APPARENT accuracy. I tell people not to take what I said seriously as in believe in any apparent correlation between their health and my descriptions nor to take any of what I say as advice for their health. I do tell them however to give me an honest account of my accuracy as to the best of their ability to do so. Your paragraph is nonsensically put together since it implies something that strongly contradicts with what I've said.

Beyond that, you are a charming person. You're attractive. You're persistent. And you refuse to accept answers you don't like. It is not in the best interests for people to answer you honestly.

Gee thanks. I don't accept answers that I KNOW to be untrue. Such as that I'm not from Sweden, or that I'm not doing to B.S. degrees at the same time, or that I never gave examples of what I meant by vibrational algebra. And since most of y'alls posts contain inaccurate nonsense then surely it will seem as if I am reluctant to accept things.

What you really have are unreliable confirmations about information you could have easily learned through ordinary means. And it seems the only way for you to convince yourself of this is to ask strangers to run studies so you can ask other strangers to divulge private health information.

I already know what I have and don't have, but thanks for wasting thread-space and pointing that out for us yet again. I was specifically asked by the local skeptics group to conduct a study. It will help me form a stronger and clearer claim.

That is rampant denial at best and an irrational denial of reality at worst.

There is no denial in the above paragraph. You guys however are constantly misunderstanding everything and placing utter belief in what you misunderstood. I do not deny reality.

Of course, you will come back with, "what about the images I see?"

As I've consistently stated, the images in themselves are not why I'm here. The apparent accuracy is. And I will have a study and a test to find out more, even if all that concludes is cold reading, who knows. I am open for all possibilities, yet I defend my stance that I've had compelling experiences that conclude for me to have a study and a test.

Of course, your answer to that is, "Well, how could I possibly know this information to create the images." And thus the circular argument is formed.

Have I ever actually said this? I don't think I have. I don't think I would. Stop accusing me of saying things that I haven't said. Please.

There is a perfectly rational explanation for what you experience. You are acting irrationally by believing your are unique among humans instead of accepting that your experiences can be easily explained.

Of course I acknowledge that there is most likely a rational explanation. I can not confirm an explanation on my own and that is why a test is necessary and the involvement of others. Yet I come from a background of experiences where, even if this were just cold reading and nothing else, it's a pretty darn good case of cold reading I'll tell you that!

Of course, your answer to that is, "That's why I want to get tested." Well, what are we testing? We're testing to see if you are unique among all humans. This confirms that you do not accept the rational explanations. And it proves what you really mean by apparent accuracy.

How on earth do you obtain apparent accuracy of heart bypass surgery scar, vasectomy, description of a permanent "object" in the field of vision, etc? I am curious regardless of what this is. If I am cold reading I am darned good at it.

Anita, just post your hypothesis. You'll get the credit since it will be documented here first. Or you can continue to let people suffer.

I will not elaborate on my ideas. Suffer if you must.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have replaced all instances of that ridiculous blue font with something readable.

Aha, Locknar...
Locknar:

I don't think I agree. What if a patient wants to see a doctor to find out whether he has malaria. He has some symptoms but wants to confirm. The doctor comes out, looks at the patient, and says, "Well, we haven't taken any tests yet to confirm one way or the other, but fortunately there is something called "Locknar's Principle" that we are taught in medical college. In the absence of credible, acceptable proof it is reasonable and scientific to conclude you do not have malaria. So, I am happy to inform you that by "Locknar's Principle" I have just declared you well and you can go home." Locknar, how old are you?

You don't do analogies very well, do you? The personal attacks are coming along though.

Next, Ashles...
Ashles:
Post #1202,
You bet. One refers to my interest in applying my experiences with vibrational aspects and vibrational algebra into science, and the other refers merely to my everyday experiences of vibrational aspects and vibrational algebra. The first is an interest in the possibility of bringing vibrational aspect into conventional science, and the other is the experience of vibrational aspect in the very non-scientific "personal experience". These are two different things. I haven't been clear enough.

These two things are in fact very similar. Both are equally nonsensical and both would be considered delusions, if one were to believe in them. It's perfectly clear.

Ashles again, let's see...
Post #1203,

I am so relieved. Another nonsense topic rightfully so reaches a dead-end. Because I am not able to end topics in this thread, only another skeptic has those superpowers.

Topics tend to determine their own longevity. No conspiracy involved.

... Ashles really seems like an expert. It is actually wonderful watching her talk about her area of expertise and when it is not aimed at me, that post is showing a new aspect to her. It really shows that she has a degree in these things.

You really are special aren't you? Who do you think you are to comment on other posters in this supercilious manner?

What? The same color? ... I used the dropper tool and thought "yeah right" but to my amazement both squares picked up the same color! I then drew a square using each fetched colors and thought "no way" but they painted the same colored squares! That's a little scary. I think I will sleep with the bedlight on and check under my bed. I will never trust my eyes ever again. I am scarred for life.

Despite the childlike over-reaction, which ill-befits someone intending to pursue optics, it appears that you've actually learned something. Or is that just a perception?

Well when I look at a person, that triggers the perceptions. Is stimulus to be considered an actual source of actual information, or is stimulus to be considered as what ever triggers a perception? I think we can clear this out pretty quickly.

It's the source of the stimulus that counts. When we see someone with our normal vision, the stimulus is external (reflected light) and provides actual information. When you use your "ability" to see inside people, the stimulus is internal (delusion) and does not provide actual information.

I recall you being told this repeatedly.

EHocking is back...
EHocking:
Not necessarily a miss. We don't know that the small intestine was not associated to the strain and cramp below the sternum even if the small intestine is not just below the sternum.

You were wrong. You are still wrong.

Old man:
Seems like Old man has had some real life experiences with the subject...

Everything said by the posters here is based on real life experiences.

Except one.

No! I specificly said, "Trial 11 and 12 I was tired with headache and nausea and had to stop." with which I meant to imply that headache and nausea occurred first and not after the inaccuracy.

You constantly "mean to imply" things and this is what causes misunderstandings. We respond to what you type, not what you "mean to imply".

They won't believe me, even though I am telling the truth. It is frustrating being accused of lying after I've had all those cereal tests and done my best to report them accurately and sincerely, and just because I didn't emphasize the point clearly enough in the beginning they will rather accuse me of lying than to realize that I might be telling the truth so to remain objective and open for either possibility. They have no evidence that I'd be lying, nor do I have any evidence that I'd be telling the truth, then why do they have to keep concluding that I'm lying when it is just hurtful and to no use?

As soon as your sincere and accurate reporting of the cereal tests began showing failures, you started making excuses and eventually gave them away altogether.

Anyway, conclusions that are drawn here about your truthfulness are based on our mutual understanding of reality. What you report to us, without evidence, is counter to that understanding, and often enough contrary to your own statements. It has the appearance of lying, although most here acknowledge that you mainly lie to yourself. You need to do something about that, instead of trying to fix us.

BTW. Who are you addressing in the above quoted bit? It seemed strangely detached from the preceding paragraph.

I didn't realize that it was such a common ailment to have a discomfort just below the sternum. I still contend that the point is that I was not confirmed inaccurate, so that the claim was not falsified and I continue with the investigation. I'm not trying to make it sound as if I've been having amazing results with real accuracy in each case, I was just giving examples of the perceptions I experienced just like I was asked to do. And for all I knew I thought that shoulder pain was a common ailment, which is why when I didn't sense it in the person I threw it in anyway just to see if he is always just agreeing with me, I said "you have shoulder pain" trying to make this false claim sound as confident as my actual claims of perception, yet he said no.
I really think they should wait for the study because that will give me opportunity to see lots of people and hopefully some very interesting examples emerge that are not common ailments like this one.
They are so ready to dissect study results and test results that they take every little thing that I've presented and act as if I've already claimed that it is evidence, even when I've clearly stated that that's not what it is, that all it is is examples of perceptions. They ask for examples, then it makes them upset to have examples, because they don't treat them like examples. I think I need to start censoring some of my material so to not stir up some confusion and accusations here. These people are trained for scrutinizing claimed evidence, so do not post any anecdotes or examples here. I've learned something about skeptics.

VfF, you really sound like you're whining to yourself that nobody believes you. It's creepy.

sleepy lioness:
I am sorry about your migraines. The problem is not only to endure the headaches I get from repeated forced perceptions, the problem is also that the discomfort makes it impossible to perceive them. It is not like asking an athlete to perform in spite of a headache, the talent I aim to demonstrate uses the head, so it is like asking an athlete to run with their legs temporarily broken.

The analogies just keep on coming, like pankakes on a bunny.

Ashles:
I hope to involve members of the local Winston Salem skeptics group. One of them I've already asked and received a preliminary yes. There is another one I have in mind and will ask. Yet another one has expressed interest if he can make the time. And I intend to ask the entire group again once I know the exact details of how the study will be carried out. I intend to present the finished study plan again and letting them decide whether they want to participate once they have that information and know exactly what will be involved. I will not give any names until they have given final approval of attending and then only if I have their specific consent to make their names known. The study requires that at least one skeptic make his/her identity known in order to present and verify the results of the study.

Is that it? You "hope" for a lot of things, including that we'll be impressed by all this legal-sounding stuff.

I do not know exactly yet, but I am going along with the hope that some would. If no such ailments are available for a test, then I must be able to agree to a test that fully disables cold reading. The very best scenario that I intend to investigate is having ailments that are normally non-detectable as well as disabling cold reading, now wouldn't that be nice.

It might be nice, but it won't be much help. If the ailments you perceive are normally non-detectable then you'll lack any corroborating evidence that they even exist. Bummer.

The study will answer some of the questions regarding what I can and can not do. Once I come across ailments that I think might be candidates I will of course bring those here and expect them to go through a thorough analysis that should help to conclude whether they are undetectable to cold reading or not.

What? A study to analyse which ailments can be detected by cold reading? That's a completely different subject to your claimed ability.

Some of what I've been thinking are heart bypass surgery, breast implants, vasectomy, missing appendages (although that is yet to be experienced and tried out, I might be able to do it). I know there might be many others.

You might be able to do missing appendages? Stop the presses! Award the million immediately!

Correct, neither me or the subjects speak. And I don't agree with your idea of blood disorders, unless you have some specific ones in mind. A blood disorder such as anemia might be externally detectable, but I am sure there are others that might be better candidates for a test than that.

Missing appendages?

More blue ramblings.

meh

 

[Locknar]

It's all very strange. Cuddles, you've been around here a while. While Anita demonstrates many of the characteristics of typical claimants, she doesn't seem typical in a lot of ways (at least to me). What's your take?

I hate to say, but very typical in all aspects of the other "woo woo's" that have been here....Historian, Corn Dog George, Creekfreak, etc.

All passionately believe their woo woo, has ZERO understanding why others do not, and reject and any all logical arguments counter to their belief.

You don't do analogies very well, do you? The personal attacks are coming along though.

You noticed that too did ya? It is really kind of sad. Making it worse is, with her taunting "skeptics are wrong again" (my paraphrase) comments it is obvious she feels she is making clear, valid, logical arguments.

I hope she gets the mental health help she needs.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele:
It is Ashles' choice for us to use the word "perception", so it is Ashles' fault if someone finds this choice of word disturbing.

It doesn't matter who suggested the term, what matters is your reaction to criticism of that term. Again, deflecting responsibilty doesn't advance the discussion.

Don't you dare fight with me more on this, Hokulele!

I have never told you what you may or may not do. Please extend the same courtesy.

Very often at times you guys think you are posting criticism, when in fact you are posting misunderstandings and false assumptions, and of course I do not accept those. I do accept criticism of course. When it is justified and is not based on false conclusions on your parts.

How exactly are you separating valid criticism from that based on false conclusions? If you provide vague data, how is one supposed to reach the correct conclusion? Other than by cold-reading, of course.

Keep in mind that my claim is medical perceptions from live people.

Not according to several of the posts on the preceding pages, such as your continued insistence that you can detect chemical signatures, as evidenced by your discussion with Pup. If you want this statement to be taken seriously, treat it seriously.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

Parroting again, and, still, has no idea what it [delusional] means.

It means you.

You have no credibility as a paranormal claimant.

You have no credibility as a skeptic or an objective critical thinker.

Sideroxylon:

VisionFromFeeling, I am a big admirer of the Joe Nickell open minded approach to paranormal claims but given all we have to work with are your increasingly contradictory and extraordinary claims I think you have gotten off very lightly in this thread and gained far more attention than you deserve. On what grounds have you the right to lash out at anyone expressing incredulity or ridicule of your claims?

The fact that most of what is posted here is misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what I've actually said.

sleepy lioness:

Oh, and we ALL believe you're Swedish. Someone questioned it earlier but then apologised and backed off. All this shows is that a) when you come to a skeptics' forum, be prepared to have everything questionned; and b) if you make strange and ever-more unlikely claims about yourself don't be surprised if people stop believing the simplest things you say.

Don't misunderstand. I perfectly understand if someone expresses that there is no evidence of my origins, but to state it in a way that they already believe that I am lying about something as ridiculously trivial as being from Sweden, is what disturbs me. Misunderstandings and suspicion are perfectly fine and I embrace that. It's when they are expressed a) with utter belief, b) I am called a liar, and c) it is turned into something negative and hostile and turned against me as what can only be interpreted as a personal attack. That is what I don't like.

UncaYimmy:

Contradictions abound. You said that it was "typical" to feel ill when doing chemical tests. Now you're telling us you felt ill only after taking these tests. I don't see how these two statements mesh.

These two statements refer to the same thing. If I take chemical identification tests where I have to force perceptions, there is a high chance eventually I do not feel well. When and in what context did I say that I felt ill "only after taking these tests?" I would surely never intend to imply that the feeling ill appears after a test is done and over with because that has never happened. Just don't tell me you've misunderstood something again.

Furthermore, by my count you only had two testing sessions with chemicals. Is there a third one I cannot recall? Or are you claiming that after only two sessions you know your limits?

I've had more than two sessions. I've had some other chemical identification tests, with coins for instance. I can't say I've established what my limits are, but I'd know what to expect.

Will you be proceeding with a test with short runs over multiple days to reach a statistically significant number? A true skeptic would.

Probably not. School is starting, and I do have my main claim to test. And everything else that is otherwise known as 'life'. I am really worried about the headache and nausea and it deters me from feeling motivated, especially with another claim in progress.

Professor Yaffle:

ETA: And how come you didn't know GERD or discomfort in that area was so common? Surely you see it in many people as you go about your daily business. And haven't you ever noticed the many types of antacids/indigestive pills on drugstore shelves, or adverts on TV for them? I would find it hard to believe that there is anyone in the western world who doesn't know that indigestion is a common ailment.

GERD, if you refer to the strain below the sternum, is among ailments I will only detect if I make the effort and do the full-body reading. So I've only experienced perceiving it this once. And I'm not entirely sure this was a case of indigestion.

sleepy lioness:

Anita, why are you writing your posts in different coloured inks? Are we supposed to hear them in different voices or something?

The blue text was my thoughts, pure and simple and totally unedited. I thought I would let you guys see what I was thinking and not only what I am writing. If you all collectively don't like that, then it won't happen again.

Professor Yaffle:

And have you been up all night?

You bet. School starts Monday and I won't give myself the chance to come and post here as generously as I have before. I thought I should take the time and clear out some misconceptions, answer some questions, and see if I can be of any progress toward my claim.

 

[volatile]

How on earth do you obtain apparent accuracy of heart bypass surgery scar, vasectomy, description of a permanent "object" in the field of vision, etc? I am curious regardless of what this is. If I am cold reading I am darned good at it.

You don't know what "cold reading" is, do you?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I hate to say, but very typical in all aspects of the other "woo woo's" that have been here....Historian, Corn Dog George, Creekfreak, etc.

All passionately believe their woo woo, has ZERO understanding why others do not, and reject and any all logical arguments counter to their belief.

I haven’t been around long but I think we could add to that list the failure to come up with a single specific testable claim and active avoidance of being pinned down on same.