Vision From Feeling 2

[tsig]

It's like you read my mind...

I've only registered fairly recently and haven't been a lurker before that long either. So I haven't really had the chance to witness paranormal claim after claim after claim of skeptics trying to patiently and constructively help people in the better understanding of their experiences. But I've read about these tons of claims enough to understand that many forum members have been hardened to the point of not simply having an open mind anymore.

It's only human to give up at some point. Still, it's been quite disappointing to read through some of the recent threads of claimants coming openly to reflect on their supposed paranormal abilities. Some reactions from forum members I find contemptible, and I think that this forum would be of greater use without those kind of remarks (but I am a newb, so maybe I've just understood the function of this forum incorrectly...).

So what to do in order for this thread not to be completely spoiled by a few individuals not capable of letting their fingers rest when there's nothing constructive to type? Here's what I suggest:

- We could choose max 5 forum members (besides Anita) who participate in this thread. These members should be people who we mutually find reliable and civil in a manner that helps Anita to proceed in the designing of her protocol. These would be members who've proved to be of this sort of worth in the VfF #1 thread

- Anita refrains to comment on any other writings than the ones posted by the chosen members

Anita, I (as well as many others) said this in the very beginning of VfF #1, but I'll say it again. Nothing matters more on this forum than evidence. Even if you wrote a book on your supposed ability and published it, but presented zero evidence of your claim, you'd only get ridiculed at here. Your opinions, feelings, thoughts and pondering is worth nothing (in relation to why you say you've signed up in the first place) without evidence.

...and what's counted as evidence to most skeptics here should, by now, be fairly clear. I think you'd do your claim (and your peace of mind) a great big favour if also you would refrain from posting nothing else than stuff related to gathering, evaluating and presenting evidence relative to your claim.

Sorry, don't mean to sound patronizing. Just some thoughts.

Well you do sound patronizing.

You might want to go back and read the threads before you jump in with unasked advice.

 

[tsig]

Well then, I'm glad I could contribute to some light-heartedness around here, instead of the crankiness I generally inspire.

Unwanted moral advice has that effect on some people.

 

[Ocelot]

From her website (Scroll down to "Skeptics Meeting March 2009":


I'm not clear what she means by "heart issue", unless she is referring to an accelerated heartbeat as a result of anxiety. She doesn't clarify her meaning. If she means a more serious heart issue, then it doesn't appear to have been verified by the subject.

I see. Not as conclusive as we might have hoped.

 

[plumjam]

Setting aside derision and ridicule, what is the point of further discussing her claim?

• She has consistently refused to objectively analyze any single one of her past perceptions.
• She has consistently refused to accept any other objective analysis offered about any of the claims she has made on this forum, or the anecdotal examples she has offered.
• She has consistently refused to offer any objective data about her past perceptions, or, in the case of Wayne and her 'survey', gather any objective data that might reveal her claimed abilities to be anything other than paranormal or her version of synesthesia.
• She has consistently refused to accept any suggested protocol that doesn't allow her wiggle room-both here and through IIG West.
• She has consistently refused to clarify her claimed abilities-again, both here and with IIG West, to the point that they stated, in their latest update, that that is the sole reason they have been unable to establish a testing protocol with her.
• She has consistently failed all experiments of her claimed abilities via this forum, and, when confronted with those failures, she consistently refuses to acknowledge them, and simply shift the goalposts to turn every miss into either a hit, or, at least, a "non-miss".
• She consistently refuses to perform any experiments on any other aspects of her alleged abilities-even after she has agreed to. Pup expended personal time, effort, and expense to mail her samples after she agreed to perform an experiment based on claims she made. Now, she refuses to do it. It was suggested that she perform an experiment with crystals, since that was also one of the claims she made, and she agreed - and then refused.
• She has consistently stated that she is basing her investigation on unverified, unsubstantiated anecdotes. She offers no corroborative statements about any of her "correct" perceptions, and she has immediately dismissed, out of hand, a few witness statements that didn't corroborate her point of view.
• She has made every attempt to dodge and delay her proposed 'study', despite willing efforts by skeptics here and with FACT, and avoid controlled testing. When confronted with her delaying tactics, she simply shifts the goalposts and condemns the skeptics as being "impatient". We can't be impatient for something that is never going to happen.
• She has not conclusively ruled out mental illness via examination by a qualified therapist. She has not conclusively ruled out that she has convinced herself to believe in something that isn't true.
• She has offered other unsubstantiated, unverified claims that have demolished her credibility (i.e. her description of an 'encounter' with the ghost of Benjamin Franklin which turned the erudite founding father into the colonial version of Jeff Spiccoli, and which was, when examined against the established facts of Franklin's life, largely discredited by more than one skeptic here.)

Please explain:

• How the above eliminates the possibility that she is delusional, dishonest, or simply attempting to run a scam?
• How the above establishes her as a "reasonable" claimant?
• Why the skeptics here should expect anything different than the above, and waste further time and effort going nowhere?
• How this thread could possibly be of value, considering the above?

I can believe that there are pink fluffy elephants dancing on my roof. I can come here and make that claim. I can 'investigate' my subjective reality that there are pink fluffy elephants dancing on my roof. But, without indisputable proof that a) there are pink fluffy elephants in the world; and b) that a portion of them are doing the Charleston on my shingles, it would not be unreasonable for skeptics here to conclude that my claim was the result of my imagination, a mental instability, or simply a lie. Nor would it be unreasonable for them to conclude that I have convinced myself of something that isn't actually true, and logically, I have no reason to investigate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



This is in keeping with the above points. If she is not willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, then how can she expect to "form a more specific claim in order to proceed with the test protocol formations"? If a perception is inaccurate, would not determining that help her in establishing the "correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of that person."?

As well, if she isn't willing to conduct the study in an honest and forthright manner, what is the point of discussing it further?

She says the problem is that several skeptics "refuse to accept the fact" that she can see into the human body at an atomic level, etc. That isn't true. Where has it been established as fact?

She says that her chances to discuss her claim here are being ruined. That isn't true. She had TWO moderated threads on this forum where she could have discussed her claim until the end of time, with a minimum of "hostilities". She CHOSE not to utilize them.



Perhaps because they know it isn't going to get them anywhere.

I already apologized for my silliness yesterday. I was tired, and it was stupid and thoughtless. I admit that.

If you believe the above to be the case why on Earth do you persist in pursuing her? What a waste of your life.
Quit obsessing about her. If someone hundreds of miles away on the other end of a computer, who you've never met, claims to have some ability which does no actual harm to anyone, then... so what? Surely you have better things to do with your time.

I also realize, of course, PJ, that you have been a driving force in helping Anita authenticate her claims, so perhaps you could tell us exactly what else anyone here can do to further her investigation?

This part is just flat-out wrong.
I have had nothing whatsoever to do with Anita's claims, either pro or con.
In fact, whether or not she has her claimed abilities, is not a matter of great interest to me. I have no dog in that fight.
My motivation in involvement in these threads has stemmed from disgust at the way both (some) forum members have treated her, and the forum management position in failing to defend her from your kind of real world private-life interference.

 

[Vortigern99]

Unwanted moral advice has that effect on some people.

1. It was ethical advice, not moral.

2. I apologized to anyone who might have been hurt by my implications of wrongdoing.

2. You may wish to follow your own advice.

 

[Cuddles]

Since this thread appears to exist for no reason other than to allow people to avoid the moderation on existing threads, I have set it to moderated status. Please avoid all the personal attacks and bickering and stick to discussing actual claims and arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Jonquill]

Has Dr Carlsen or any of the Salem skeptics made any comments about the Study Anita did with them at the March meeting?

Although it was a study and not a test they must have formed some idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Question

Dear Skeptics,
As you all know, I am conducting a Study whose purpose is to gain more experience and insight into my paranormal claim in order to form the test protocol based on what is learned. I have already learned that I will most likely include "missing kidney" on the list of ailments for the test protocol, and that I actually prefer to see the persons from behind, rather than front-view, both of which are good!

I need more experience with the medical perceptions and more opportunity to try out various test conditions one at a time in order to observe their effects on my performance. I am arranging a study with local Skeptics but meanwhile, and also afterwards, I wish to conduct more studies that add to the process.

So I am asking you: Who can I contact about asking them to arrange an additional study with me? I am willing to travel a reasonable distance to get there. All that is required is a location, volunteers who will fill in an anonymous health questionnaire and then be seen by me for about 15 minutes each, and participants who take care of the administrative assignments of the study since me nor anyone acquainted to me are able to do so. The assignments are, to handle the volunteers' questionnaires, two to act as controls who also fill in questionnaires alongside me and look at the volunteer and try any method they wish, besides prior knowledge, to try to acchieve correlation with what the volunteer answered about their health, and someone who handles mine and the controls' questionnaires.

That is all that is required. I would like suggestions about who I could contact and ask whether they would be interested in participating with me in my study and paranormal investigation. Any ideas would be appreciated!

 

[Ocelot]

Here's a suggestion. After filling in your sheet, but before comparing it with the subject's sheet have a quick run down of what you've written. Clearly mark any prediction that you've made that if not found on the subject's sheet, would falsify your theory.

If you're not able to mark any like that then you might want to question the procedure.

 

[Kariboo]

Dear Skeptics,
A I have already learned that I will most likely include "missing kidney" on the list of ailments for the test protocol, and that I actually prefer to see the persons from behind, rather than front-view, both of which are good!

I need more experience with the medical perceptions and more opportunity to try out various test conditions one at a time in order to observe their effects on my performance.

VFf: I believe I have read all your posts concerning your claim. At this point I would like to ask you if you can calculate how many subjects you think you need to see in order to pinpoint your claim.

So far you say you have observed 100s of people and have come up with (from memory) a vasectomy (1x), heart issue/oil (1x), menstruation (1x) full bladder (1x), lactobacillus (1x). In the general population these issues should have been more prevalent so you are saying you only see these things 1 out of ????times.

Extrapolating from that you would have to observe 1000s of people to even define your claim. Do you think that is reasonable? Can you calculate after how many people you will decide what you can do? If you can only see something 1 out of so many times, why is this not indistinguishable from guessing?

 

[desertgal]

Has Dr Carlsen or any of the Salem skeptics made any comments about the Study Anita did with them at the March meeting?

Not so far.

Although it was a study and not a test they must have formed some idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions?

Given the following from her website, which smacks of typical paranormal claimant 'postdicting', I'm sure they have a very clear idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions.

I did detect something very interesting in Dr. Carlson, that I did not put down on the questionnaire because I could not believe it. Why would Dr. Carlson have this, I wondered? It did not match with what my logical assumptions would allow me to believe. Yet I perceived it. Turns out it would have been right. I can not receive any credit or any points for this whatsoever, and it is perfectly allright to suspect me of lying, but I know that I did detect it. So I know to continue and to not cross that particular thing out of my list yet, since I might detect it again next time, or on an actual paranormal test. I did not tell Dr. Carlson that I did in fact detect it, because he won't believe me. So I'll just leave it at that.

When I arrived at the question of removed kidneys, my medical perception saw and felt his right kidney, but not the left one. However logic and thinking took over and I worried about being wrong. I spent a long while considering whether to mark it or not, and decided against it.

Why it would be unbelievable or illogical that Dr. Carlson would have only one kidney is unclear. There are many people with only one kidney. It's unusual, but not unbelievable or illogical. I imagine that good gentleman will not waste any more of his time or energies on Anita's investigation.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Given the following from her website, which smacks of typical paranormal claimant 'postdicting', I'm sure they have a very clear idea about the accuracy of Anita's medical impressions.

Hmm...."I sensed it but didn't say anything. Turns out I was right, and there's no way I could have known. I don't get credit for it, but I did it nonetheless."

Isn't that kind of like when a magician takes an object from your hand, holds up it in front of you and says, "Whatever you do, don't let me touch this, okay?"

We have repeatedly warned Anita about making declarations after the fact. What is the point of having a form with a checkbox for "missing organs" and an option for "kidney" if you're not going to use it? Not only do her protocols stink, she refuses to follow them anyway.

 

[Old man]

...So far you say you have observed 100s of people and have come up with (from memory) a vasectomy (1x), heart issue/oil (1x), menstruation (1x) full bladder (1x), lactobacillus (1x)...

You left out 'larynx composed of bone, rather than cartilage (1x)'.

 

[desertgal]

Hmm...."I sensed it but didn't say anything. Turns out I was right, and there's no way I could have known. I don't get credit for it, but I did it nonetheless."

Isn't that kind of like when a magician takes an object from your hand, holds up it in front of you and says, "Whatever you do, don't let me touch this, okay?"

We have repeatedly warned Anita about making declarations after the fact. What is the point of having a form with a checkbox for "missing organs" and an option for "kidney" if you're not going to use it? Not only do her protocols stink, she refuses to follow them anyway.

For that matter, what is the point of having a study at all if she is going to manipulate the data in her favor?

Another example from the last FACT meeting:

Next I did a reading with another member of the group. I had her sit so that I had view of her back. At first I could not find anything that was listed on the questionnaire. I sensed no pain anywhere. I sensed a tense jaw and a heart issue that was related to a significant anxiety. I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' because I thought it was a nicer way to say it, although I meant it as anxiety and just that.

First, "excitement" is not another way to say "anxiety". There's a considerable difference in the definitions, especially from a medical point of view. Second, if one is doing preliminary readings to establish a protocol for a proper study, who cares about the "nicer way" to say stuff? If you mean "anxiety", then you write down "anxiety".

She goes on to say:

Turns out she also suffers from anxiety, but everyone at the meeting agreed that she shows no external symptoms of this.

Again, this smacks of "postdicting". "Excitement" indicates a temporary condition, and, from this description, "anxiety" indicates a recurring condition of distress or uneasiness.

From an objective point of view, it appears that Anita sensed this woman was excited. Perhaps from being "read", but more likely because the gal was hanging out with fellow skeptics, talking about interesting stuff, and having a good time. There could have easily been outward signs-flushed skin, bright eyes, etc. Anita detected her excitement through external clues, wrote it down, and then changed her data after she learned the woman experiences anxiety.

It makes her "perception" suspect. Again.

 

[Ashles]

It does get ridiculous to watch Anita report that what she wrote down wasn't actually what she meant.

The claims that she was completely correct all along but just chose not to write it down are rather amusing.
She states it doesn't count but she is still going to say that she was correct even though she didn't actually mention the correct things because she worried about being wrong.

It's getting increasingly hard for her to squirm out of incorrect results.

What is also interesting is that she keeps referring to a choice between a paranormal ability of some sort or maybe its just cold reading etc.
Her choices still seem to assume that the results are accurate, even though they actually are simply incorrect.
What it actually looks like is simple 'guessing'.