Vision From Feeling

[skeen]

Waffle waffle waffle. Anita, by default, you have no ability. You have to prove you do have it. As it stands now, you have no ability - we call this logic. Don't say, "But we don't know that yet" - you can't be that stupid. You can say that about any made up thing.

For instance, we don't know I'm not a magical dragon who manifests himself as a human being. I would not say to you, who would deny this is true, that you don't know that yet, that you must wait for further testing.

In any event, you have failed all testing miserably. That you can't see you have failed is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

And you are not a Scientist. Stop it. And I have no reason to believe you're a straight-A student, not that it would lend anything to your already destroyed credibility anyway.

 

[desertgal]

However I always remain as friendly and delightful throughout everything...

I know that we are all eager to produce some sort of results to proceed in this investigation...

That would be "I", not "we". We have nothing to gain by your investigation. You do. Do all...ahem...star people have egos the size of Arcturus?

UncaYimmy, it is unscientific of you to state your assumptions as established facts in which you hold belief.

Wow. She's a liar and a hypocrite. Shocker.

Alright UncaYimmy! Send me your mailing address right this instant...

Yeah. Give his address to a wacko. That'll happen.

These are my morals and my principles.

 

[GeeMack]

... and not a single case of inaccuracy.

But that is simply not true. If you know it's not true, you're a liar. If you believe it is true, you're sick. Which do you think it is, Anita?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

In fairness, she may have believed (wholly or partly) that her ability was real, until hard questions and observations here and her mysterious 'survey' showed her it isn't. At that point, she was already 40+ pages into this thread, and had already proposed her 'study' - too late to back down without a significant loss of pride. I've noticed it's mostly the last month, since her 'survey', that Anita really began her dedicated stalling and delaying.

If she was deluded, she ain't going to admit it. Either because she wants to hold onto whatever is left of the delusion, or her ego won't allow her to.

I have to agree with:

1) self adulation or feeding a need for attention

2) some kind of "name recognition" ( which if done properly could help jumpstart a career)

3) Profit (writing the next round of woo books, infomercials and such)

I do think she gathered herself a couple of RSL's with this thread, though.

Heres the reason I say that and dont give her any slack regarding any "belief" on her part indicating she is a willing.knowing and fully engaged scam artist. ( just from my experience as an investigator)

If you read her first post and webpage. She had already contacted IIG ( according to her) and on her page she has "experimented" with her "abilities" so she came here already fully engaged in the scam. This board is mainly for PR purposes.

She did her "test" in Nov and didnt miss anything ( according to her)

I dont accept that she never self tested before. ( assuming she really believed in her ability)

So, she willingly devises "tests" that give her the "proof" she wanted. She is throwing around the term "scientific" in hopes that it will give her credibility and wants to use it.

Now, she has been stood down by those here who know the method.

She came in here hoping to bamboozle just like con men often let a few 'marks" win to give their scam legitimacy.

Also, if she was all about "legitimacy" and science, why not go to the psychology department and get them to help her. No, she goes to a "skeptic" group. ( she needs skeptic buy in)

This is a well thought out scheme complete with an agenda, plan,goal and marketing ploy attached

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy is in a grumpy mood today...

I'm sorry, but is that a diagnosis made with Vibrational Information™? If so, can you please also give the extent? I'm not clear on how you have reached this conclusion. I say I am not grumpy. It looks like you rate me as a 4 on your grumpy scale. That makes it a 20% hit, right?

No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits

What? Selective quoting is a bad thing? Gee, I wonder why nobody ever told you that. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself, though, so I'm not worried. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself, though, so I'm not worried.

Not at all. I said that I read here but when someone's post starts to look like just a bunch of insults without any productive comments or constructive criticism I kind of skip those now.

I fixed it for you. It describes what you've done for the last 2,000 posts.

So, in case I miss an important question, do let me know. No one has to contact me by e-mail. It was just a suggestion. You don't know how busy I am.

Ah, the old repeat your statement routine. It's the routine where you repeat yourself. In it you say the same thing again. By repeating yourself. You know, the old repeat your statement routine. The one where you repeat yourself.

Excuse me? So you expect me to welcome insulting e-mails that are full of personal attacks into my e-mail account and sit and read all of them very carefully? Don't be pathetic, UncaYimmy.

Assimilate a new word, did we?

Here's what you just told us:

"Hi! I take a full course load with the hardest courses and maintain a 4.0 average. Being the perfect student means I am just too busy to actually read everyone's posts. If it looks like you have nothing useful to offer me, the most extraordinary human on the planet, then just e-mail me to request that I give your post a second look. But you had better be nice or I will ignore you there as well."

You're right - that's not insulting. Anybody else care to give me an appropriate adjective?

I am by no means obliged to read some of the type of comments posted here.

Actually, you are. You are not obliged to respond. But you took this thing public. Deal with it. Show some respect to the people whose help you are requesting and rejecting.

My aren't we grumpy today.

Ah, the repeating thing again. Ah, the repeating thing again. Would this count as two hits now? Or just a 0.4 hit?

My forms are excellent. They are just as good as yours but include even more information.

That's like saying my toddler's finger painting of Daddy is more accurate than my neurologist's MRI because, well, look at all the
pretty colors!

The forms are not meant to prove anything

So you keep saying. Except, of course, when you say the opposite. Like when you told FACT, "Let's falsify this - if we can!"

So, how is it UncaYimmy? Are you trying to make excuses? Are you trying to stall the progress? Are you deluded and a liar? And are you afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is?

I am going to invent a VisionFromFeeling™ clock where a mini-Anita pops out to announce what hour it is. The name for those kinds of clocks escapes me now. Anyway, mine will be different. It won't by in synch with the rest of the world. And if you don't agree about what hour it is, it will keep repeating the hour until you agree or drop it.

Could we stop arguing about the less important aspects and realize that I am in fact trying to arrange a location for the study?

Who is arguing? They told you could do it. I even bolded it for you. Do or don't do, there is no try.

Well grumpy man I repeat myself when people ask the same questions and when they didn't seem to understand my answer the first time.

Is that three hits or 0.6? Wow! What apparent accuracy! How many times did you tell the vasectomy guy he had a vasectomy? Is that how you got so many hits?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jonquill:

I thought it was kind of obvious that you couldn't announce on Friday that you are going to do a test in a park on Sunday and expect four helpers to be available at such short notice with the equipment needed (folding chairs and tables, pens etc). Especially since I think she said she doesn't drive and would have to rely on others to transport those things.
But maybe Anita doesn't think of practicalities like that.

Six skeptics had already said that they were available this weekend. I had not received a final confirmation that is correct. Had I been able to reserve a location I would have called each of them and asked whether they will take part in it this weekend with the way that it has been arranged.

I will print and bring the forms, paperwork and all other material. No folding chairs or tables are necessary there is plenty of seating area everywhere and we can use clipboards to write on. There are people who can drive me there. I know that it wasn't all final or set but as soon as a location would have been reserved I would have made it work, one way or the other, even if some compromises would have been made. I want to have the study asap now that I'm ready with the paperwork.

UncaYimmy:

Anita, on your website it says, "For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test."

That's not at all how it would work. I challenge you to find the flaws with that I have quoted, you know, since you're a straight A student and all. Hint: It involves statistics. You don't need the proper formulas, just use words to describe what the formula(s) would tell you.

Alright, UncaYimmy challenged me. Let's see... if I learn that I detect a certain ailment only 1 in 3 times when it exists in people, and the test requires me to find it ten times, then we need at least 30 people with the ailment and I just might be able to find ten claimed perceptions. At least 30 people means a minimum of 30 are required. These 30 people will of course be mixed in among a lot of other people who do not have the ailment, something I did not mention, but the statement I made is true anyway. What is the right answer?

Coveredinbeeees:

Having a large number of sceptics trying alongside you sounds like a good way to find a base against which to compare your own results.

That startled me a little bit, encountering a friendly comment.

The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?

I don't know, I'm sorry. I'm just hoping that if there is no ability in accurately perceiving health information then that would be *obvious enough*. The main objectives of the study remain, to learn more about the paranormal claim. A non-ability might slip through the first study but it would be caught in a second study which I will design to be much more rigorous or the test, which ever would follow next.

Would you accept your "score" falling within the range obtained by a group of sceptics as evidence of no paranormal ability on your part?

Most likely yes. Unless their score somehow comes from them "checking all the boxes" or something silly like that. I am prepared to falsify a non-ability, yes.

How would you incorporate such a control group into your study?

I would like to suggest that when a particular FACT Skeptic is being viewed by me then all the other skeptics who feel willing will also try to fill in a form relating to that person. Then we can see what that brings about.

It is late so I hope you'll excuse me not going back through the thread to check, but I believe you mentioned a special meeting of your sceptic group happening for part of your study. If so you should consider asking some of the members to bring friends who can act as the subjects of the study while you and the group of sceptics act as viewers.

Here and here. No, I want the skeptics to also be volunteers to be seen by me. This time, and not later, since the longer we wait to do that the more cold reading could have been available. Of course each skeptic has the choice whether to participate in being the volunteer. I will send them an e-mail to remind them that if they attend the next meeting it is their choice whether to participate as volunteers to be seen by me, and a reminder that there are ways to ensure that their answers in the forms remain anonymous. Since we will be a smaller group I suggest that the identification numbers in the top margins although printed on the papers are concealed during the time of the study so that no one can *remember* who had what number. Since I print the volunteer's health form, claimant's health form, and skeptic's health forms in threes all with the same identification number and I then staple these threes together, the numbers can at that point be concealed and we can ensure that they are detached and distributed carefully as belonging to one particular volunteer so that papers don't get mixed up. Also I suggest that the question of year of birth or age is not included this time if we want to better ensure anonymity in the questions.

My concern is that using sceptics from the group as subjects would be complicated due to the viewers and subjects having associated in the past. Presumably everyone knows who had flu last month or an operation last year and the like, within the group.

Yes but I don't know them very well. Some cold reading is available for the study I know that, but the point is it is still possible to reveal a non-ability and to learn more. This is not a test.

I am not sure what you mean by higher frequency above. Do you mean to say that you expect to mark down more ailments for a given subject than the average sceptic in a group reading?

Higher frequency as in detecting a particular type of ailment more times total among all the volunteers seen, and the control persons who also fill in forms by looking at volunteers would claim to detect those ailments fewer times than I did. Something like that. *unscientific*

I would expect a sceptic taking part in this would be duty bound to play the odds and mark ailments they would expect the subject to have based on age and gender even if they can't tell for sure that they are present.

You bet. The skeptics who also fill in forms and try to do what I do are encouraged to use any cold reading or other skills that they can think of to try to produce the highest possible correlation! It is highly encouraged! It is not clearly defined but should give some idea.

In any event I expect that the frequency of answers is less of a factor than the accuracy of answers.

Good point.

Akhenaten:

Since we all appear to be connected to the internet, we don't need to create transcripts of emails in order to divulge their contents. There is technology available which allows us to simply forward complete emails to multiple recipients. Perhaps you don't have any skeptics email addresses?

I think paranormal investigations are interesting (when conducted properly and with full intent of following it through) and I am enjoying the exercise of a scientific investigation into an unusual experience that I was unable to falsify on my own. I have decided to make my investigation public access since it might interest others who are interested in science, pseudoscience, and paranormal claims. That is why I wanted to make the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation public. To simply e-mail it to one or a few would not serve that purpose. However, I suspect that perhaps you are hoping to receive forwarded e-mails from Park and Recreation so that you can inspect whether they in fact did come from such a sender. So I will send them to you and you can do your skeptical analysis on them. I'll send you a friendly e-mail.

You seem to be settling into this title, but it sucks. How about "Vibrationalist"?

No in this regard I am a paranormal claimant.

It's "conduct". Conduction is something that physics students might learn about in regard to electricity. Maybe.

Sorry. Not only am I Swedish but I am also a Physics student. It was bound to happen. It is too late to go and change it now. The whole world has seen it. Thank you, Akhenaten, I am very gradient grateful that you detected my magnetism mistake. I had no induction intention of coming across with such interference inaccuracy.

 

[desertgal]

Heres the reason I say that and dont give her any slack regarding any "belief" on her part indicating she is a willing.knowing and fully engaged scam artist. ( just from my experience as an investigator)

If you read her first post and webpage. She had already contacted IIG ( according to her) and on her page she has "experimented" with her "abilities" so she came here already fully engaged in the scam. This board is mainly for PR purposes.

She did her "test" in Nov and didnt miss anything ( according to her)

I dont accept that she never self tested before. ( assuming she really believed in her ability)

So, she willingly devises "tests" that give her the "proof" she wanted. She is throwing around the term "scientific" in hopes that it will give her credibility and wants to use it.

Now, she has been stood down by those here who know the method.

She came in here hoping to bamboozle just like con men often let a few 'marks" win to give their scam legitimacy.

Also, if she was all about "legitimacy" and science, why not go to the psychology department and get them to help her. No, she goes to a "skeptic" group. ( she needs skeptic buy in)

This is a well thought out scheme complete with an agenda, plan,goal and marketing ploy attached

Fair enough.

It's a hard call, I think - delusional vs. intentional scam.

If she's scamming, then she would behave exactly as you say.

If she's in an advanced delusional state, she would also behave the way she has, in order to perpetuate the delusion.

Either way, even if she suddenly developed an ethical streak (or, even, one ethic), her ego wouldn't allow her to admit which it might be.

So, really, this thread has boiled down to entertainment value at Anita's expense, conveniently located over her head.

I want the skeptics to also be volunteers to be seen by me.

Of course she does. She's attended two skeptic meetings already. She's had time to observe things about them that she can 'detect' with cold reading Vibrational Information^TM.

I am going to invent a VisionFromFeeling™ clock where a mini-Anita pops out to announce what hour it is. The name for those kinds of clocks escapes me now. Anyway, mine will be different. It won't by in synch with the rest of the world. And if you don't agree about what hour it is, it will keep repeating the hour until you agree or drop it.

Brilliant!

 

[al_capone_junior]

LOL

Ah, the old repeat your statement routine. It's the routine where you repeat yourself. In it you say the same thing again. By repeating yourself. You know, the old repeat your statement routine. The one where you repeat yourself.

Classic! Hilarious!

I've been watching this thread for a while now, and this is just the kind of stuff that makes 50-something pages of the same old "I have supernatural abilities, look at me" nonsense so entertaining!

BTW

Vision from feeling sounds pretty new-agey, and the pink motif really reels 'em in... you know, the suckers!

However, being a gambler myself, I wouldn't bet on this particular supernatural "test" ever being actually conducted.

al

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Fair enough.

It's a hard call, I think - delusional vs. intentional scam.

her ego wouldn't allow her to admit which is might be.

Its a safe bet its one or the other and right now ( based on the thread and her site) its a coin flip.

Its true a persons education/intellect has no bearing on whether or not they are delusional. That said, in my opinion, looking at the whole of the parts, she is scamming.

I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

>>>certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content.

Her own words and site ( if you believe them) go against anything that could be construed as clinical delusion.

For the above reasons, I dont believe its her "ego" that will prohibit her but the effect on her end goals that will.

 

[GeeMack]

I am prepared to falsify a non-ability, yes.

[...]

... but the point is it is still possible to reveal a non-ability and to learn more.

And these are the kinds of ludicrous things you continue to say which prove to us that you're either a bald faced liar or you're mentally ill. If you have some kind of extra-sensory ability, you'd need to demonstrate that you have that ability, not falsify or reveal a non-ability. You might think you're getting past us with that double talk, Anita, but you're not. No science there. It's called bullcrap. A clear effort to deceive... or... you really think you're being straight-up, in which case you obviously have a serious mental health problem.

So, Anita, which do you think it is?

 

[skeen]

I have to admit, the double-talk is pretty hilarious.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The scale will stay on the health forms.

Of course it will. In the future I think we should tell you what not to do so you will do it. It doesn't matter, though. You can ignore the scale for the purposes of falsifying your claim. That's what Ashles is driving at.

It's obvious to everyone why you insist on this scale. You're not fooling anyone, including yourself.

For scoring the study I will leave it to the discretion of the FACT Skeptics to disregard the when and extent columns entirely if they feel that that is the most appropriate for extracting some results from the study.

Oh, so 2,000 posts later we're all out of the picture?

So at this point I did not have a clear message that would tell me that it

You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

I know that we are all eager to produce some sort of results to proceed in this investigation,

Wrong. We are all eager to end this investigation by proving that you are a fraud, delusional, or simply misguided. You keep getting in the way of that.

I am naturally going to be careful if involving my university in this unconventional paranormal investigation. Maybe those of you who attended college and took it to the Ph.D. level as I will can relate to this. Now that my study is designed and I have spoken about it with persons such as with Park and Recreation and begun to feel that perhaps it is not as bad as it could have been, I feel better about involving people in it. Only now that I feel more confident about this investigation do I consider the involvement of students to be an option. Still I would not involve professors or involve any of the university itself in my investigation.

"Look at me! I'm really trying!"

The above is double-talk.

I was not going to use the local skeptics as volunteers until I was ready with the design of the study

You complained that you wanted to do the study, but they wouldn't let you. You asked people to stay after the meeting, but only one did.

Are you lying or are you delusional?

I have sent an e-mail to the local skeptics group asking for an extra meeting this month of February for me to have the study with the skeptics as volunteers. I suggested Saturday February 7.

You already said that. I pointed out that you are contaminating your study/test pool by getting even more time to do cold reading. You've already spent several hours with these people.

Oh UncaYimmy, stop nagging.

Says the woman who keeps sending IMs to someone who is not responding.

However I always remain as friendly and delightful throughout everything, whereas some of you guys are showing some grumpy attitude.

If this is your idea of apparent accuracy...

I did not receive a clear yes from Park and Recreation.

You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

Six skeptics had said that they were available for the study this weekend.

That is a lie. You said they had expressed interest but had not even replied to receiving the protocol or questionnaire.

You are just being ridiculous. I will not use a facility or space for an event of a controversial and possibly disturbing kind without permission to do so.

You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

Alright UncaYimmy! Send me your mailing address right this instant and I will mail you photocopies of my notes from the survey! Then you can type them up for me will ya! It'll be a lot of work, meanwhile I am focusing on the study. Should keep you busy for a while.

Follow the link in my signature to get my business address and fax number. I prefer a fax because I can post the PDFs. If money is an issue, set up a PayPal account so I can reimburse you. By sending me your notes, you are agreeing that I can publish the results, giving you full credit, of course.

 

[tsig]

Classic! Hilarious!

I've been watching this thread for a while now, and this is just the kind of stuff that makes 50-something pages of the same old "I have supernatural abilities, look at me" nonsense so entertaining!

BTW

Vision from feeling sounds pretty new-agey, and the pink motif really reels 'em in... you know, the suckers!

However, being a gambler myself, I wouldn't bet on this particular supernatural "test" ever being actually conducted.

al

Weather you conduct the test doesn't matter, the fact that you talked about it with skeptics gives you street cred with the woos.

"The psychic that Randi couldn't debunk" has a nice ring,no?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Asm:

Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?

a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy. However I am not convinced that I have paranormal abilities since unintentional cold reading or guessing might be responsible. The study and tests will find out.

And secondly, the possibility that you might be suffering from a mild delusion has been suggested several times. People don't do that to be rude, but to help you. How do you react to those suggestions, do you think:

a) "I know I am not deluded"?
b) "There might be something to it"?

a) I know I am not deluded. The perceptions in themselves are no reason for concern, and the way I handle the perceptions are also no reason for concern. If the perceptions are not based on real world information and are subjective impressions then I would not refer to them as delusions.

If you don't want to answer, that's okay. But if you do, please try to keep it simple, a) or b).

Kept it as simple as can be.

Hugs.

Locknar is the one in the middle.

Ashles:

The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.

The point scale system I suggested is not what I intend to use. It was just a suggestion and is seriously flawed. When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person. Once I make a claimed perception it is open to be checked for accuracy as correct or incorrect. When I do not detect an ailment there is nothing to be checked for or against. The when and extent columns are intended for educational purposes for me to get clearer about the details of the claim. The when and extent columns are used for determination of correlation only if those who determine the correlation choose to include it. I will of course look heavily on the extent columns to learn more about my claim, since part of my claim is to be able to perceive to what extent a person perceives their ailments. Oh well. It is a study, not a test. But trust me (although none of you will) I will be looking heavily to try to find reasons toward falsifying the claimed ability. *no one believes me that I would do that *

Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.

That is correct. If I do not detect an ailment that is not counted against me as a miss. Even though I missed an ailment. Only when I claim to perceive an ailment is it open to be checked for accuracy.

So if you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the Volunteer puts down 2, 3, 4, or 5 we will, for the purposes of this, consider those Hits.
If you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the volunteer puts down a N we will consider this a Miss.

I like that. I like that a lot.

Taking such results I would personally say that a ratio of Misses to Hits of less than 1:5 would be enough to indicate a Non-Ability.

I feel that as the claimant I am not able to determine what ratio would conclude no ability so I will leave it up to the skeptics.

I think that is very fair as, bearing in mind the extraordinary level of accuracy you have so far claimed, and the amazing level of detail and range you claim your 'ability' to have, you should, even on a bad day, be ble to perform far above that.

Yes.

And your scores of 3, 4 or 5 should be considered that you definitely feel you are perceiving something with your ability.

Yes.

Please take that to Dr Carlson.

I will do that.

Now I am convinced your instant reaction on reading that is to reject it.

What? After all I said above?

Already you are thinking of how it can be modified, how can we remove the word 'Miss' from it, how can you generate an argument to disagree with the assumptions made...

I did no such things!

But I would ask you to pause a moment and really think about why you are instantly rejecting it.

But, in all fairness, I see absolutely no reason why you would not accept this method of judging as a fair indicator of no-ability.

As a science student it is genuinely bafling to me that after three years you cannot formulate a falsification scenario from this test.

It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*

ignored undesirable results

I have done no such thing. I have acknowledged that the perception of strain below the sternum as associated with the small intestine might not at all be associated with the small intestine while realizing that in fact it might. I had stated that I found no health problems with Wayne but that I sensed the left shoulder and adam's apple and that neither of those were perceptions of health problems. Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable.

have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientist

Look at the insect analogy again. Why can't a scientist first study the subject before it is to be investigated further.

Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.

No, I was intending to conduct that research properly.

And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..

No contradiction. I started being very hesitant to involve my career with my spare time paranormal investigation. Now that I've communicated with various people about the investigation I feel more encouraged since it wasn't as bad as it could have been. So I am gradually changing my position with regard to this as I learn more about what people in fact do think about this kind of thing.

Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.

If I test the claims of a woo I will have no interest in seeing them pass or fail. Don't make the assumption that my research would be biased.

We always encourage experimentation to look into it.
But the clamant has to take some responsibility and be open to the idea of being incorrect.

And I am doing all that. I am taking responsibility and I am open to the possibility of falsifying my claim.

To be honest, at the moment all the work being done to actually generate a strict protocol and any falsification methodology ought to be going on our CVs not yours.

Both of ours then.

Please, please work on developing a decent and agreed protocol before going off on these flights of fancy about how you will become one of the world's leading paranormal investigators. All that talk simply detracts from your credibility.

The study is not a test. And it is a decent study.

You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.

And I do.

It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.

Paranormal investigations will not be my career. It might become an interesting hobby on the side. I am definitely learning a lot by doing a paranormal investigation, so what ever.

 

[skeen]

It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*

Erm, your analysis would work better if you replaced insect with leprechaun. See, we know that there are insects, I can go get one right now. The same cannot be said for leprechaun's; they're myths, like ESP.

We have not established that your ability even exists, or that it is even possible, let alone that you have it. Where is your basis sense of logic, Anita?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

All those words, so little substance

 

[GeeMack]

Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable.

No, you would simply not consider them at all. You would continue to engage in your willful ignorance and pretend that you've never once been inaccurate. And of course, because we know that isn't true, that would lend more support to the notion that you have some serious mental health issue you should be addressing. Unless you know you're wrong and you're just lying to us.

Which do you think it is, Anita?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content

It depends on which words you accept. She only says that she has no "absolute conviction" when she's backed into a corner. In plenty of other places her conviction is obvious, especially in her actions. Her behavior is entirely consistent with someone who truly believes what she is doing is real.

The problem I have with considering her to be a fraud is that she is absolutely horrible at it. For example, she posted results showing how accurate she was in chemical identification. We pointed out the flaws including her checking herself after each trial and thus teaching herself which was which.

She devised a new test with a number of controls we suggested but NOT the one about checking her answers after each trial. She then started a new test. After a couple of trials and being wrong, she removed a cup. Then another. Then the lids. Then she wet just the one with chemical. Then she took a few more trials and quit because she was tired.

And she told us all about it in great detail!

Is that how a fraud would behave? It makes absolutely no sense. In your experience, is that how a fraud would behave when there's absolutely no way for anybody to check up on them? I would think they would say they did everything we suggested and report results that were clearly better than chance but not utterly and amazingly so.

On her website she links back to the moderated thread where I point out all of her inconsistent behavior including detailed posts about her being unskeptical, unreliable and possibly mentally ill. Why would a fraud do that?

If she's a fraud, why would she post an e-mail exchange where the park officials tell her flat out that she can do what she wants to do in a reserved pavilion or room, yet repeatedly insist that she was refused permission? That's delusional.

Her Skype address in on her website. Initiate an IM chat with her on your own. Interview her yourself. I'd be interested to hear what you think. I've been there and done that. Another perspective would be good.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

It already has been exposed for what it is. A delusion. A lie. A scam. Take your pick.

It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

Everyone:
My my aren't we impatient and trying to turn that into something against me. This paranormal investigation requires people with health problems. I do apologize if I didn't just go out into the public and harass people about their health problems like I was told to do a while back. A study has now been designed that enables the volunteers to remain anonymous, and local skeptics have been involved in participating in the study. It is ready now. Guys, just relax. The study or studies will take place.

I am not mentally ill, deluded, or a liar. I perceive medical perceptions when I look at people and there has been apparent accuracy and cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available. I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.

 

[Uncayimmy]

When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person.

Unless your name is Wayne, in which case she only mentioned it because it wasn't worth mentioning.