Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

Ashles:
I have all intention of defending myself when criticized for things that are not correct, and to clarify and explain when false assumptions are made against me.

Still hasn't change our perceptions though. Doing a test might.

What ever. And I will defend myself when attacked with false assumptions.
But there is so much garbage here that just isn't true! Some say that I would not accept the conclusion of no ESP, when I am quite clear about embracing either outcome of the test.

And I was not not one of those. I asked you that question directly and deliberately and accepted your answer.

Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way. Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special.

But what they are saying is that they believe you are not being truthful when you say you do not see it as special. You say you are being truthful. I don't think anyone is going to alter anyone else's beliefs in that subject at the moment.

There is a lot of attack against me as a person and against how I feel about the perceptions. Criticism about my statements on anecdotal experiences that I have given with all intention of honesty, criticism against my educational background, and what else. I just tell you all how it is. How I really am feeling, and what really is going on. And the point is that some of the criticism concerns topics that are not of importance in the investigation. And I try to steer the conversation toward the discussion about the medical perceptions and their test design, as this thread was intended to be about.

Often with these claims (almost every time in fact) what the claimant is themselves perceiving and how they feel about the claim is very relevant.
A lot can be learnt by the descriptions of the sensations, the feelings, emotional weight attached to abilities etc.

I have a degree in Experimental Psychology and a large section of the degree concerned perception, memory, perceptual processes, mechanisms and systems and how they could malfunction. This is one of the reasons I am always so interested in paranormal claims, and why I have focused on what you perceive and how you describe it (it's not just you - I have asked similar questions of other claimants before).

Well I have to respond when people say things about me that aren't true. I don't want lies circulating on my discussions thread. People would read them and get the wrong idea about me.

We have opinions and can air them. And you can respond to those opinions. But ultimately only independent testing will be convincing either way in the long run.

To test my ability I need volunteers to participate in the attempted psychic medical diagnose. This is the hardest thing to arrange with regard to my tests.
Yes but I am explaining to you that my perceptions are as normal to me as vision and hearing is to you. In that way the analogy I used is quite appropriate.

This is almost cut and pasted from the previous discussions. I genuinely cannot understand why you cannot understand why this is clearly not the case.

And I hope that you understand that I was saying that my perceptions are part of how I perceive the world and as such are normal to me.

See every single response I have made previously.

The perceptions are normal to me, yet I understand that they are not part of other people's experience. That is why I am investigating whether the perceptions are true ESP or formed by my imagination. And in either case they still remain part of what is my perception, like vision and hearing.
Please do not lie about my emotions.
My perceptions are as normal to me as eyesight. At the same time I understand that my perceptions are not as normal to others as their eyesight. That is why I on one part consider my perceptions normal, and on the other hand I made a website and an investigation into my perceptions. What I have said is the truth about what I think about this.
It is not rude to ask that the discussion be steered away from personal attacks against me as a person.
My analogy about eyesight was most appropriate. To me my perceptions are as normal and no big deal as my eyesight is to me or as your eyesight is to you.
The perceptions are normal to me, yet I also understand that they are not normal to others.
Mundane to me, not mundane to certain others.

Yet again and again the same statements. I can only assume your refusal to understand why the analogy does not work is simply deliberate.

Let me be clear. I do not believe you really think such an ability is or would be considered mundane or normal, and your behaviour reinforces my stance.
Repeating the analogy over and over will not change my opinion.

Only independent testing could do that.

I am arguing against when skeptics make incorrect assumptions about what I feel about my perceptions, then I say that I in fact am describing how I feel about my perceptions and you argue against that. Let me feel the way I feel and stop arguing against that.

But I don't believe you are being entirely truthful in your descriptions of how you feel about your claimed ability.
I could be wrong, and I accept that. At the moment only independent testing is going to change my opinion, not requests or instructions to accept your statements as true.
Let's just accept you have your position and I have my opinion (which could of course be incorrect) and in the absence of further testing neither is likely to change at the moment.

I have never demanded belief or acceptance from you skeptics. I was just saying stop assuming that I am lying about every single thing that I say, even the trivial things like my educational background. I am wearing a white shirt today. Let's spend two pages arguing about the credibility of that.

The credibility of claimants is very relevant.
Again you must understand we have had many, many claimants visit these forums claiming abilities beyond science.
A certain amount of research or questions regarding the claimant have been known to quickly call their credibility into question to a degree that it has meant less time was wasted in trying to form protocols that were unlikely to happen.

The fact that it has been verified that you are at the college you say you are, have some training in science, have used machines relevant to the challenge etc. means that we believe you are sincere to the extent we are stilll trying to get you to carry out testing. That should be considered a good thing.
We have had claimants before who have been shown to be lying about themselves very quickly and that is obviously a very useful thing to know when trying to ascertain whether paranormal claims are worth investigating or not.

I was shocked to find that skeptics are not always as open-minded or objective as I expected you to be. And I was shocked about all the personal attacks done against me here, about trivial things like "paranormal ability or no paranormal ability is just a label to me", "I am not trying to be special", or "you can't do two B.S. degrees at the same time". Yes this thread was meant to be about test design. But you guys can not say untrue things about me and expect me to not correct things that are incorrect. I want truth and clarity here.

I think you are shocked that skeptics could turn out to be so... skeptical.
Convincing us that a paranormal claim is real is going to be an uphill struggle - you will have to do the work because the default position is always that the claim is not true untl demonstrated otherwise.
We are open-minded - we are all encouraging you repeatedly to get independent testing carried out and have made several suggestions as to how to create a tight protocol.
Close minded would be to say we don't believe you and you can't convince us otherwise. Please be clear on open vs close minded - many people make the same mistake.
A refusal to instantly accept extraordinary claims is not an example of a closed mind, but a sensible one.

According to Dr. Carlson's lecture about how to test paranormal claimants, the testing groups are not to involve themselves in anything less than a formal test of the claim, excluding things such as demonstrations, studies, and informal tests. That is why I am expecting to conduct the study on my own, however I have asked for two of the local skeptics to participate somewhat. I will post the specifics of the study soon and only then will you be able to discuss its scientific rigour. The study will not be a test but it serves its own purposes that will be of benefit for a test.
Nope. It's hard to arrange for volunteers. I will have to advertise for volunteers for my study, but first I have to find out whether my study is legal.

When we see the specifics of the study we might be able to suggest ways it could be turned into a proper test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I fundamentally have two choices: ESP ability, or no ESP ability. Either case, the perceptions continue in the exact same way as before. Neither outcome of a test has me lose anything, since I have not attached myself to either outcome.

How you are going to disprove ESP while at the same time maintain your belief that you are actually having perceptions? I'm continually amazed that you are not considering that your "perceptions" could be your imagination.

 

[Ashles]

How you are going to disprove ESP while at the same time maintain your belief that you are actually having perceptions? I'm continually amazed that you are not considering that your "perceptions" could be your imagination.

This is sort of a tricky area on this thread. I have pushed for clarity on that several times.

To be fair Anita has said quite clearly she does accept that the perceptions may be entirely imaginary.

But it muddies the water when Anita also posts sentences like that that sort of give the impression that the perceptions are definitely real, but the only question is whether they are ESP or not.

I believe this is just a language issue as Anita has stated she accepts the ability might turn out not to actually be yielding real information.

I think she is saying that, even if she failed the tests, the sensation or perception itself would continue, which she enjoys, and she would understand it wouldn't actually be showing real medical information, just some form of imagined effects.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
I know that the observations are anecdotal evidence, if even that, and I have consistently described them as such, and I have never expected any of you to take them as evidence.

Yes, you did. You did so by even beginning this thread. You had the expectation that you could come here, post a link to your website, and people here would offer you analysis on those "observations" and help you develop a protocol for testing. If you didn't expect any of us to take them as evidence, since they were all you had to offer, you wouldn't have come here in the first place.

I am not delusional or self deceptive. I encounter several comments made by skeptics here that imply to me that they are not objective. To for instance state that one (not necessarily you, in this case, desertgal) believes that I am lying or deluded about things that I know for a fact but can not prove are not examples of lying or delusion prove to me that some form beliefs that are not true.

I beg to differ. I think most people have remained objective. However, ALL your claims, taken together, strain credulity to the breaking point. As well, you contradict yourself repeatedly. You only wish for your claims in this thread to be taken into consideration regarding your ability, but ALL your claims point towards your credibility.

Post #10
"I have not tried telepathy with the person in another room. I expect that true telepathy would be more difficult with increasing distance, and, again, I would not be seeing the person and it seems that I need to see the objects in order to use my ability."

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience-Post #81"Suddenly I pick up the perception of a being...I try to ignore it because although a clear perception it makes no sense. I detect that it is miles away from us deep in the forest, and our consciousnesses have reached one another and we are aware of each other. I know what it thinks.. We never did see it, nor do I want to."

"I am confident that if I were in American Bigfoot territory I could connect with it and if I win its trust I might be able to meet them. I have a good way of communicating with beings when we connect mind to mind. I always know what to say, how they respond and how to win their trust. I am quite confident that if I ever undertook such a mission, I could venture out into the woods of America with a camera and be able to encounter the Bigfoot. Unless I detect that they are dangerous that is, then I'd stay far away. Good thing is I know exactly what a creature perceives and does. I love looking at the thoughts and perception of various animals, especially frogs and vultures whose thoughts are especially beautiful."

Post #33: "By the way, another aspect of the ability is that I perceive what others perceive from their point of view."

Post #68: "Plus I feel what a person is feeling and that can not be acchieved by vision"

"Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #62, Post #63, Post #64, Post #65

Post #66: "I would love to be invited to haunted scenes across America and believe that I could be an interesting psychic to speak with the spirits and to find out some historical information from the past. I could give good descriptions of historical American events, speak with the person who were involved. If I am ever invited to the White House I can speak with Abraham Lincoln because I see him there. If anyone has a haunted home you can invite me to investigate. There are two kinds of ghosts: victims, and offenders. Victims died in a fire, by drowning, starving, murder, rape, or disease, and it is very important to find these people and to help them. I can not guarantee that anything of the ghostly kind is a real part of what the world is, even though I suspect that the world is not just our physical world of atoms. There exist negative areas, where bad things have happened, and I think that a part of clearing up in this world is to visit these sites and to heal the past. Even though most of you are happily unaware of this, I believe that everyone is affected by the world's energies.

As for the ghosts of offenders, I am almost as scared of these as if I had to face them in life. Ghosts see me and can attack. Good thing is I've developed a way of speaking to them and can often talk them into leaving. I live with these perceptions, and often they are not perceptions of my own. Other people independent of me, as well as cats and dogs and animals, experience these together, and there is often historical evidence that can suggest that these events took place. What ever it is, to me it is a non-material world that is not made of atoms that exists superimposed with this one. I do not need to make statements about whether it is really here or not, I just see it and feel it and can interact with it, and it interacts with me. "

Post #406: "I tried to join The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum at http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/ but believe it or not they ask "Are you human?" and you have to answer "Yes" in order to register, so I couldn't do that and asked myself where is an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus supposed to go and luckily Randi welcomes the opinions of all forms of life."

I have definitely not stated that I will continue to believe in an alleged ability

You haven't? This is just from the first five pages of this thread:

Post #13: "I will always have and use this ability." "I do not question whether I have these abilities." "Whether this is a form of synesthesia or ESP in either case it is what it is and I continue to use it and to enjoy the benefits of it, and I do not favor one label over the other."

Post #42: "I've always taken it for granted and for my personal use and experience with it I do not need any kind of confirmation of its authenticity. Whether a scientific test of it shows that it is ESP, or shows that it is something else such as synesthesia would not matter to me or change much of anything. The ability will be the same, and the observations the same."

Post #47: "To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before."

Post #59: "Whether a test shows that I appear to have ESP, or shows that it is something else like synesthesia, doesn't really change anything in my world. I will continue to perceive the very same information."

"I am not worried about either outcome of the test, like I've said, I will continue to experience the same ability whether it is ESP or synesthesia."

Post #68: "I can not claim to know what the ability is and can not believe that it is ESP or believe that it is not. No matter what the results of a test will be my beliefs about the ability will remain the same..."

Post #72: "I want to understand the ability for what it is, yet I will continue to experience it no matter what it turns out to be. Whether it is ESP or something quite normal I would not favor one over the other. The ability itself remains exactly the same."

"I will continue having the ability no matter what the outcome of the test is."

"If I fail the test I will still receive information and will still believe that I receive information. What I refer to as "ability" is the receiving of information. The "ability" does not refer to ESP since I do not even know if it is ESP. If it were synesthesia, I would still call this the "ability" since I receive information."

Post #72: "I think synesthesia is just as awesome as any ESP and no matter what the label for why I receive information is nothing changes in my world of things."

Post #82: "I was just saying that no matter what the results of the tests are, the ability that I have will stay the same and not go away, and for my own purposes of having the ability I do not need a test to confirm that I am making observations since I already know I am making observations."

Post #111: "When I say "ability" I refer to being able to detect and make observations on health information when others, applying ordinary senses, can't. The ability works and exists."

Post #161: "When I say "I have an ability", I mean that I perceive information about health that others don't and can't. With "ability" I do not claim to know the cause of this information. If I fail the test I will continue to receive information in the same way as before however I might find out what the true origin of the information is."

"That is why I have the test, to find out why I have the observations. The observations will remain."

"Whether I pass or fail the test the ability remains the same."

"I have the ability of perceiving information that other people do not and can not perceive. The question is only whether that information comes from ESP or from down-to-earth causes such as synesthesia. In either case which ever it may be, the ability and the information continues to come to me. Nothing changes in my world."

"Let's just see what the test will reveal. It will not bother me if I fail the test, since I get to keep my ability"

"What I refer to as my "ability" is the fact that I make observations. If the test results show that my ability does not consistently lead to correct observations, and that it is not the case of ESP or anything interesting like that, then nothing would change in my world."


Do you want me to go on? I can quote more examples, if you like.

...because I do not believe in an alleged ability now either.

Fine. NOW. But, my opinion (and others here) wasn't based on what you are stating NOW. It was based on your prior statements. Don't say you have definitely not when you definitely have.

I do not openly diagnose people nor do I have plans of doing so. I only do this with friends and family...

Post #161: "If I were to receive plenty of requests from people to come and see them and tell them what I sense in them, first of all I would have to tell them that I am not licenced to dispense medical information, and that my information might be incorrect, and I would have to take great care so that a person could not be injured by what I say."

"I do not intend to charge money for my services." What difference does that make? If you're not a doctor, you're not a doctor.

Post #72: "Your prediction that I will be dispensing medical information is nonsense. I will never do such a thing

You already HAVE done such a thing.

Post #40: "One day when I met a friend of mine I was stunned because there was something highly unusual about him <snip>"

Post #68 It is along the lines of..."You have damage to the esophageal valve of the stomach." <snip> Information that a person can check with themselves right away and does not need a doctor or hospital to confirm."

Post #72: "In the specific case of the esophageal valve"...<snip>

Post #68"The only health information I dispense to people is to my closest friends and family...

Have You Had A Psychic or Ghost Experience - Post #81: "I'd love to meet your wife and I am sure I could describe her ailments to her in the exact way as she perceives them. If I detect an alternative treatment I can suggest it however I am not entitled to take the place of conventional medicine."

From Your website: "Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition..."

"Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him."

...and always after offering a thorough disclaimer.

Do Psychics Have The Right To Practice Skill - Post #1: "I always give a lengthy disclaimer to persons before I give them the information I sense. I say "Although I have never been confirmed incorrect yet, this time might be it. I can not guarantee that what I see is correct unless you are able to confirm with me based on your knowledge of your health..." <snip>

Somehow, I find it really doubtful that you go into this whole long spiel every single time a family or friend 'nonchalantly' comes to you for a 'diagnosis'. In any event, when you get the chance, take a look at http://www.stopsylvia.com A waiver doesn't dictate human emotion or pain when a "psychic" makes a wrong observation. You can have all the waivers you want - it isn't going to stop someone, somewhere, from getting hurt when they 'nonchalantly' trust what you are saying, and it turns out not to be accurate.

Please people stop saying that I would make medical diagnose publicly when nowhere I have stated that I would.

Do Psychics Have The Right To Practice Skill - Post #1: "I am very interested in meeting with persons to give them readings, mainly to continue to determine the accuracy of the information, and I am sure that there are many who would be interested in volunteering for this. More for entertainment purposes on my behalf and theirs, but also when I describe ailments in the way that a person perceives them it does them good to receive confirmation, and perhaps my information could be of some benefit to their health."

I am very responsible in this.

You might very well be. You offer no proof of that, other than quoting an oral disclaimer that we have only your word for that you've actually given.You've also asked people on this forum to help you put together a lists of do's and don'ts for sharing your alleged ability. Irregardless, again, a disclaimer, printed or otherwise, offers no control over human emotion and distress.

Maybe you should seek psychiatric help for believing things that are not true or part of reality, such as your belief that I would be diagnosing people, or your belief that I believe in having an ability.

Can you honestly read all of the above and NOT see the discrepancies, the backpedaling, the total absence of anything credible in your statements and claims? I don't believe what isn't true, Anita. Kindly don't suggest that I need psychiatric help, in light of the above.

My opinion remains that you are delusional and self deceptive. It's not a condemnation. The human mind is a complex software, and it's also fallible. Everyone suffers breaks from reality - sometimes big, sometimes small. There's no shame in seeking help. But, please, don't state that my opinion is unfounded. It isn't.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Great synopsis desertgal! We have reached the point in this exercise where pointing out the contradictions, is far more entertaining that the original premise, which is clearly losing steam ..

I was working on something similar, but see no point in continuing.. Thanks for putting your time into that ..

I have been re-reading the early pages and noted some incongruities in the discussions of a test protocol.. VFF was saying :

" If I miss an ailment that is considered to be there, yes I can say that "the ailment was not strong enough for me to sense". That is why I am allowed to pass on a person when I do not detect an ailment. I will only lose points when I make an incorrect observation."

When your claimed ability is " detecting ailments ", wouldn't failing to detect an ailment when there is one, a clear failure of the claimed ability ?

To state otherwise is ludicrous and inarguable in the context of this claim ..


Perhaps this has been pointed out before: if so, how did she rationalize her way out of it ?

 

[volatile]

Perhaps this has been pointed out before: if so, how did she rationalize her way out of it ?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little circular reading and a dollop of cognitive diossonance. The power only works when it's correct. When it's incorrect, she knew all along that it wasn't working, but tried guesing anyway, just in case.

When she's right, she's right. When she's wrong, she's definitely not wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Hence "there have been only hits".

Cloud-busters and such.

 

[desertgal]

Great synopsis desertgal! We have reached the point in this exercise where pointing out the contradictions, is far more entertaining that the original premise, which is clearly losing steam ..

Entertaining...and unsettling. One has to wonder if Sylvia Browne started out this way. "I see ghosts. I talk to animals. Hey, you, over there! You feel that funny tingling at the back of your neck? I know what you're thinking. You've had a vasectomy. Sign this waiver, and take some l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. And your dog thinks he wants Alpo for dinner."

Probably not so far fetched as it sounds.

I was working on something similar, but see no point in continuing.. Thanks for putting your time into that ..

You're welcome.

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by Miss Kitt
Do you "see people's insides" all the time, or not? Is it a daily occurance? When you find a person you can "read", can you read them all the time, or only on some occasions?

Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. If I am busy with other things I am less likely to notice such images, just like when you are busy and there is music playing in the background, you might not be aware of the sound at all. When I am more relaxed and attention is not on other things, I tend to perceive more of the medical images. But yes it is a daily occurrence. Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. I can read a person all the time except if I become very tired which is when most abilities of any kind would be harder to do. I can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time. And, although you did not ask this specificly, I also see inside myself and I do this very often to check on things.

It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person.

It’s “so clear that they are hard to ignore”, it’s “a daily occurrence”, you “can make the conscious effort to form the images at any time”, but you “only rarely … choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person”? Say what?

I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy, which gives the appearance that I'd be less experienced than I in fact am. Which is also why I can not for instance state whether I can detect an appendectomy or not. I do not have the experience of checking accuracy as much as I have experienced perceptions.

Don’t worry about ‘checking for accuracy’. ‘Checking for accuracy’ is unnecessary at this point. Do you think you get ‘vibrational info’ with respect to appendectomies, or not?

Originally Posted by Miss Kitt
If it is some form of physical perception, then it should work most of the time. (Most of us have perceptual difficulties when we are tired, overstressed, in a distracting environment, etc.) If only certain people produce a 'signal' she can 'read', then those people would, one expects, always be readable.

And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I ALWAYS can. I have NEVER come across a person who I wasn't able to read.

I am absolutely flabbergasted! You have NO excuse for not having a good, tight protocol set up.

Some say that I think I'm special when I don't feel that way.

In my specific case, I’m more skeptical of your perception that others do not find you ‘special’.

Others then criticize me for the opposite saying that there's something suspicious because I don't think I'm special.

Anita, there is ‘something suspicious’ about that.

I challenge you to spend two weeks with me, getting to know me and my perceptions and perhaps you too would get used to it.

Anita, if the above statement is true, you’d would have convinced us by now.

All I say is please accept that they are true to me, in which all you accept is that they are reasons why I am proceeding toward further tests.

Anita, we know that they’re “true to you”, really we do. But you keep insisting that they’re REAL.

Originally Posted by Old man
I just assure you I am not trying to trick anyone, and the anecdotal experiences I've described, all took place in the way I described prefer to remember them.
Fixed it for you.

Nonsense Old man. You are entitled to suspect so, but I know the truth about what took place because I was there.

Then you now have another extraordinary power to add to your list – a 100% accurate memory! Congratulations!

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

On the contrary on real, formal tests I will always state my confidence level and whether I believe my abilities are working. And at that point no excuses can be made to disregard any incorrect answers.

But, the testers won’t be able to see that that is in fact true, absent a demonstration, will they?

Originally Posted by Old man
However, I notice that you now seem to be saying that you can ‘perform on demand’. Can you clarify this a little?

Yes I can choose to do a head-to-toe inspection to detect information that isn't already obvious or clear enough to get my attention on its own. I intend to apply my "on demand" skills on medical information tests.

Great. Thank you.

I haven't had time to update my website yet. There is a lot of things I need to add, clarify, and also to change. I've been stuck here responding to the comments about me.

Thank you, again. That is what I expected. I do know that you’re been busy (especially since you’re so driven to respond to all of these posts (No way I could do what you’ve been doing!)).

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

I absolutely love the idea of going out there and doing my thing, but I really need to consult legal council to find out whether the study I plan to do is in accordance with law first. I am not making excuses or trying to postpone the study, I am simply being responsible in my approach.

You absolutely do not “need to consult legal council” to look at people in a public place! Do you really think I’d be in ‘legal trouble’ if I posted that I went to the mall yesterday and saw seventy five people, three of whom I thought were blind, and eight that I’m sure had had amputations of various and sundry limbs? Come on, get a little tighter grip on reality, girl! You ARE “making excuses”, AND deliberately misunderstanding what I’m suggesting you do!

Originally Posted by Old man
Despite the fact that you're implying that your ability is likely to be manifested multiple times every day.

It can manifest many times a day depending on what people I meet on a particular day. I can of course not approach each person to check for the accuracy of my perceptions.

Originally Posted by Old man
And you want us to believe that you can't seem to define your 'power' better than you have so far?

You bet. I don't know if I perceive information if I don't see the person, ie. a full screen because I have no such particular experience. I do not know if I can detect appendectomy because I have no such experience. And so on. The upcoming study will deal with some of these questions.

No, Anita. If I suddenly thought that I could detect breast implants (in women, Locknar!), for a quick and dirty test I’d just go to the mall, look at a number of women, write down how many I looked at and how many I was sure had had implants, and post that info here tomorrow. If I didn’t ‘see’ any implants, I post that either there were in fact none to be seen, or that I may have been wrong about my ‘power’. Simple, easy, and something that you just refuse to do.

The 1 in 20 refers to information that comes to me on its own. I can choose to do a head-to-toe reading in any persons at which I will detect something in every person. I do like your idea of going out and finding out what and how often I sense in a crowd of people, I do that sometimes.

And here, you say you’ve been self-testing, and you STILL won’t tell us what you can do! ARRRGGGHHH!!11!

 

[Locknar]

Desertgal - I've said this before, but it is worth repeating....nicely done.

VFF - I think it fair to say, as Desertgal has excellently pointed you have no idea what you are saying/claiming; to many contradictions. My suggestion is you overhaul your website, state in plain English what your claim is, loose all the anecdotal stories (ie. campfire stories) since they are pure "woo woo", and go from there.

This would far more helpful to your claim (what ever your claim is) then replying with a giant "neener neener your wrong desertgal."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Entertaining...and unsettling. One has to wonder if Sylvia Browne started out this way. "I see ghosts. I talk to animals. Hey, you, over there! You feel that funny tingling at the back of your neck? I know what you're thinking. You've had a vasectomy. Sign this waiver, and take some l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. And your dog thinks he wants Alpo for dinner."

Probably not so far fetched as it sounds.

Finishing the education, and having a Masters or two in a scientific discipline, can't hurt on the talk-show circuit, either..

I'm looking forward to the book.. The adventures at JREF should make an interesting chapter..

We can all say we knew her when ..

 

[roger]

Great synopsis desertgal! We have reached the point in this exercise where pointing out the contradictions, is far more entertaining that the original premise, which is clearly losing steam ..

I was working on something similar, but see no point in continuing.. Thanks for putting your time into that ..

I have been re-reading the early pages and noted some incongruities in the discussions of a test protocol.. VFF was saying :

" If I miss an ailment that is considered to be there, yes I can say that "the ailment was not strong enough for me to sense". That is why I am allowed to pass on a person when I do not detect an ailment. I will only lose points when I make an incorrect observation."

When your claimed ability is " detecting ailments ", wouldn't failing to detect an ailment when there is one, a clear failure of the claimed ability ?

To state otherwise is ludicrous and inarguable in the context of this claim ..


Perhaps this has been pointed out before: if so, how did she rationalize her way out of it ?

"I can hit a major league baseball pitch" - I hope you don't expect this claimant to achieve 100% success.

"I can find lost golf balls on the golf course" - I hope you don't expect the claimant to find every ball on the course.

Or take my claim when this was brought up earlier in this thread - "I can identify a pit bull". A lot of pit bulls are poorly bred and very low conformance. It does not follow from my claim that I can identify a low conformance pit bull as a pit bull. My claim is merely, when made wordier, "I know what a high conformance pit bull looks like, and when presented with one, it's very likely that I will call it a pit bull. I make no claim for identifying every dog, nor for being able to divide any/every dog into pit bull/non pit bull categories." Take the dog in my avatar. He's been called a pit bull; personally, I have my doubts about that. But, who knows? My inability to ID him has no bearing on my ability to ID my very high conformance pit bull Koa.

A pretty reasonable claim. If you watched Crufts, you could probably identify the standard poodle with 100% success. That doesn't mean that you might misidentify a poorly bred poodle as, say, a mutt with part Porteguese water dog in it.

edit: and, of course, just about any medical test has false positives and negatives. Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little circular reading and a dollop of cognitive diossonance. The power only works when it's correct. When it's incorrect, she knew all along that it wasn't working, but tried guesing anyway, just in case.

When she's right, she's right. When she's wrong, she's definitely not wrong.

And a file drawer effect that even Rhine would have been ashamed of.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"I can hit a major league baseball pitch" - I hope you don't expect this claimant to achieve 100% success.

Your analogy is flawed.
The correct analogy would be to say when you miss a major league baseball pitch,
you don't count it as a miss.. How does that work ?

Don't hold Anita to higher standards than normal medical tests.

Why not ? Her claim goes beyond normal medical tests ..

 

[desertgal]

Look, Anita, if you really believe that you have this ability, then I think you need to do the following:

For one thing, as Lochnar suggested (thanks, Loch), overhaul your website. You've proposed conducting a study while you are waiting for a formal test. Fine, do that. Anecdotal evidence has it's place - but it needs to be thorough. Do as UncaYimmy suggested - be as specific as possible. Where did you meet the person, under what circumstances, was there prior knowledge of any medical conditions, were there outward signs of any medical conditions, smoker/non smoker, height, weight, age, etc, etc. You could easily develop a basic criteria for assessing an individual. If you make a correct perception, then, if you can, have the person offer a corroborating statement for your site. And DON'T, whatever you do, put anything that even hints at postdicting. That'll kill your credibility right there.

Be prepared to acknowledge all sources of your diagnosis-stored information, common perception, uncommon perception. For example, if a subject is 200 pounds overweight and acknowledges that he drinks, and you diagnose heart disease, then be willing to say that that might have contributed to your diagnosis. Don't cling obdurately to your "ability" to "see" into his heart and "visualize" the problem.

Put your waiver in writing and post a copy. If possible, post signed copies for each episode. Back yourself up. Saying that you recite an oral waiver doesn't mean squat to anyone, and it certainly isn't proof that you take cautionary measures seriously.

Refine your claim. You say have this ability, then you say you don't. You say that you don't care if it is ESP or not-but you have made other claims that relate to ESP, so the unspoken interpretation is that, regardless of any test results, you do think it is ESP. As well, it doesn't cover this or that medical condition, or it does cover this or that medical condition, or it works with chemicals, or it doesn't work with chemicals, etc, etc, etc...sit down, write it out, edit it, edit it some more, and refine it. Simplify the bejeebers out of it. Right now, nobody is sure what you are claiming.

From there, you can move towards a workable protocol. Keep it simple. Don't allow yourself wiggle room. If your ability is real, or isn't real, it will come out in the wash. There's several folks here who are obviously willing to hep, if you can refine your claim so they know what they are helping with.

And if it does turn out to be a delusion, or your imagination...then, you'll be able to move on with a lighter step and a clear mind.

Those are my suggestions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Due to the sheer volume this thread has become hard to follow. There's also a lot of confusion because of seeming contradictions and misunderstandings. And because of the nature of the forum, it's hard to follow a single train of thought to get anything resolved.

Therefore, I have requested from the moderators that they create a moderated thread with just Anita and myself. It will be an interview style thread that I hope will allow us to clear up the misunderstandings, clarify positions, and come up with a plan of action. Anita has agreed to this and is willing to have me be the interviewer.

It's important to note that the reason I want it to be one-on-one has nothing to do with anyone else personally. Lots of people in this thread have asked great questions and made excellent points. It's all about continuity. We're all jumping all over the place, and Anita is doing her best to answer. It just seems that we're not getting anywhere.

Why me? It was my idea, I'm willing to spend the time, Anita is okay with me doing it, and I didn't want to get involved with holding some sort of election (too many skeletons in my closet). I do ask that people send me private messages with questions they'd like answered and/or suggestions for what needs more exploration. Of course, there's a wealth of information already here, so I have plenty with which to get started.

I will make a post here when the interview thread is started assuming everything goes smoothly with the moderators.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

This is the post where Anita learns to hate me

Miss Kitt:
Serious health problems are highlighted and catch my attention on their own no matter what I am doing, and are at times so clear that they are hard to ignore. When it comes to average information, such as simply seeing what the insides look like, or information that is not associated with a problem, whether I see them depends on where my attention is. ... Every person is equally available to be read, there is no one who is harder to form images from than others, however people differ in how much "interesting" information they carry around. ...
...It is common in my life, but only rarely do I choose to do a head-to-toe reading of a person. I think the problem you point to comes from the fact that I haven't had enough experience with the perceptions where I have been able to check for accuracy. .. And yes it works most of the time. All people produce signals that I can read. It is then a matter of whether the person has any interesting information to note on. And yes once I've read a person once I always can. I have never come across a person who I wasn't able to read.

bolding added

I cannot make this agree with prior statements. If every person can be read, than why is there all this allowance in the proposed testing protocol for "passes" for not getting any information? Since doing a focussed reading can be done on any person, how can there be anyone who will not show something on a viewing? (Unless somehow someone is in perfect health and has never had a surgical intervention or broken bone.) VFF's ability cannot be able to work, X-ray-like, to show tissues, and then somehow fail to find some surgical incisions/removals and not others.

Anita, can you see why I am puzzled by this? It just does not logically follow that you can always see people's insides, but somehow be wrong for some conditions but not others. You say, for instance, you can see formerly broken bones, would you wish to alter that to say, "I can see a broken fibula, but not a tibia?" or "I can see a once-broken arm, but not a collarbone?" Those kinds of limitations would apply to seeing things that make visible, if minute, changes in the shape or motion of the area of the body, but not to seeing inside.

I am now taking more initiative, and I will work as fast as I can and not give up until there is a definite test result that concludes no ESP ability, ESP ability, or beyond doubt has established that this is an untestable claim.

I see you still fail to include the possibility that there is no ability, just a healthy dollop of imagination and some subconscious processing. This is different from an untestable claim.

Actually I do not conclude whether I have ESP or not until a test suggests which is the case. I believe my perceptions are real perceptions, but I do not conclude that the perceptions are images formed from actual information in the real world until proven so, regardless of what I would come to believe from my perspective. I am remaining open-minded, and I suggest you skeptics here do the same.

italics added

This paragraph seems to be in direct contradiction to your comment above. ??You have stated clearly and repeatedly that you know your perceptions exist and are 'real'; you have said that every time you have checked, they are accurate. But at the same time, you say that you have not concluded that the images are formed from actual information??

And besides my images are far beyond the meager quality of X-ray imaging.

Once again, the bald declaration of superb imaging -- if this is true, how can there be conditions you don't perceive? Specifically, how can there be some surgical removals (vasectomy) that you perceive, and some that you don't?


By the way, I would also like to know--squeamish folks, skip to the signature--if you can detect hemorrhoids? An easy place to test this is on any park playground. Look at the mothers of small (under age 2) children, and see if any of them show one. Statistically, you are tremendously likely to encounter at least one; especially in mothers with one baby and a couple of young kids. Trust me, this is (A) abnormal to the body, (B) intermittantly very painful, and (C)commonplace.

I am quite at a loss to make the different aspects of your claim work into one consistent whole.

Hoping you can de-confuse me, Miss Kitt

 

[desertgal]

Due to the sheer volume this thread has become hard to follow. There's also a lot of confusion because of seeming contradictions and misunderstandings. And because of the nature of the forum, it's hard to follow a single train of thought to get anything resolved.

Therefore, I have requested from the moderators that they create a moderated thread with just Anita and myself. It will be an interview style thread that I hope will allow us to clear up the misunderstandings, clarify positions, and come up with a plan of action. Anita has agreed to this and is willing to have me be the interviewer.

It's important to note that the reason I want it to be one-on-one has nothing to do with anyone else personally. Lots of people in this thread have asked great questions and made excellent points. It's all about continuity. We're all jumping all over the place, and Anita is doing her best to answer. It just seems that we're not getting anywhere.

Why me? It was my idea, I'm willing to spend the time, Anita is okay with me doing it, and I didn't want to get involved with holding some sort of election (too many skeletons in my closet). I do ask that people send me private messages with questions they'd like answered and/or suggestions for what needs more exploration. Of course, there's a wealth of information already here, so I have plenty with which to get started.

I will make a post here when the interview thread is started assuming everything goes smoothly with the moderators.

Oh, well. Good luck with that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good idea ..
Anita seems to go to great pains to address all comments, even when they are clearly rhetorical ..
She seems more concerned about being accused of not responding, rather than addressing the issues that have been raised.

Perhaps the interview format can relieve some of the pressure ..

 

[Ashles]

Good idea ..
Anita seems to go to great pains to address all comments, even when they are clearly rhetorical ..
She seems more concerned about being accused of not responding, rather than addressing the issues that have been raised.

Perhaps the interview format can relieve some of the pressure ..

Agreed. This claim needs focus and one person asking the questions makes sense.

Only one further comment, everything else aside, I have to slightly disagree with a couple of previous posters - although there has been confusion I do feel Anita has on at least a couple of occasions stated she would accept that a failed test might indicate that the sensations she is experiencing were not yielding real information and were either imagination or an error in her visual processing.