Vision From Feeling

[skeen]

Anita: this doesn't have to be so long and drawn out. Your first step should be to suppose you do not have this ability, and then to proceed toward confirming that.

Do you know how long that would take? 60 seconds. At most. Merely walk outside, and when you see inside of someone, so long as their ailment is not embarrassing, or anything like that, confirm with them that they have it.

You are not allowed to tell them about an ailment they don't know they have, because that's useless.

So long as you are being honest with yourself, you will discover once and for all, and for sure, whether you have, or do not have this ability. You will fail, and I don't think you're prepared for that.

Do you know how much time you're going to save? You could have done this 3 times whilst I typed this out. But you're not going to do it, are you? Ask yourself why.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 22:

Locknar:

If you insist you must view the person in order for you to do what claim you can do (along with everything else, you have waffled on this point)...you can not summarily rule out "cold reading". But of course you knew this already.

I only have what my everyday experiences have been with the perceptions. In the upcoming study I intend to try different type of screens that reduce and hopefully eliminate possible cold reading. I do realize the concern of cold reading and I know that a test will not be set up in which cold reading would in any ways be possible, so I have every interest in testing different test conditions in the upcoming study. There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example.

We have talked in PMs several times on the topic of being specific & quantifying your statements/claims. After our conversations, and this thread, the best you can do is "my claim is to detect health information"?

After the upcoming study I should hopefully have some experience so that I can make a clearer claim, which specifies the health information that will be included in the test.

Specifically what health information in whom, how often can you do this (ie. at will, several times a day, etc.), under what specific conditions, etc. to start with. This is a power you claim to have always had...surly these are easy questions given a lifetime of this "power."

These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out.

While forum members may have asked, your website had these campfire stories long before you came here. To claim or otherwise imply you posted your stories soley because of Forum member requests is false.

I have always had interest in posting examples of what my perceptions are. I have not expected these anecdotes to be taken as evidence. Surely I realize that they do not qualify as evidence.

Your website/bloged anecdotes are nothing more then campfire stories, based on your perception and interpretation of events that may have occurred. They are not accurate nor are they evidence of anything.

And I know that they are not evidence. They are however accurate descriptions of what I have experienced. They are examples that give specific insight into my claim.

Reno:

re the 'replies from page blah-blah' style of posting from VFF: I love my mouse scroll wheel.

If I did that I'd be under attack for avoiding questions and comments. Bear with me here, I'm working hard. I'm just trying to clear out misconceptions and to keep up with everybody.

skeen:

When you step outside of the box, it's really quite hilarious isn't it? I can type on a keyboard - this is easy to prove. I can think of thousands of ways to prove it is true. I can do it, so I can do it, so I can do it. When it comes to woo woo's (and I think we can very well classify Anita as one of those by now!), it's utterly impossible to prove their abilities. She has all the opportunities open to her in the world to prove them, but it hasn't happened.

Unfortunately my test involves other people. I've contacted two skeptics groups. One is very slow in progress, bless their hearts. The other quickly pointed out for me what the next step is to come closer toward an actual test, and I have now taken initiative in planning a study to meet that requirement. This test is not as simple as typing on a keyboard. My test needs the involvement of scientists and/or skeptics, as well as plenty of volunteers who can involve their health information in a test. Besides these issues from the involvement of other people on a test, my specific claim involves a phenomenon that needs to be lifted out of its everyday experience and into a controlled laboratory setting - and this adaptation involves work, which will be addressed in the upcoming study.

You could play the keyboard in any environment and there would be no suspicion that you might be gaining this skill because of any environmental factors in your surroundings. With my claim, however, there are many possible explanations such as cold reading that need to be taken care of for a test. I must however be able to test each test condition before I can agree to whether my ability works under those conditions or not. This claim does not make test arrangements straightforward, but I believe it is testable and work is on its way.

Instead, she posts excruciating ramblings in this thread, resulting in absolutely nothing whatsoever. They serve only to prolong her delusion. I told you - there will be no real test.

If you look carefully, my ramblings are responses to y'alls ramblings. I'm just engaging in a conversation. I do agree that the ramblings are excrutiating and also that they result in nothing whatsoever. There will be a real test.

Anita: no-one believes you. Moreover, I think you're a liar. And you do not have synaesthesia.

Of course no one believes me. There has been no real evidence yet. I'd be disappointed if someone believed me without evidence. Not even I believe that I have ESP yet, because I haven't received real, laboratory quality evidence. But I am not a liar. And I do have synesthesia to some extent, I just don't know whether that is what the perceptions are made of.

biomorph:

Great. Be nice to see some results at some point...

I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions.

Why, it won't change the results, will it?

I explain my perspective in part to avoid misunderstandings and in part because it should make it easier to design a test according to what my claim is.

You shouldn't have to adapt it. Otherwise you might miss something. Maybe you should devise tests that don't need that adaption? Dunno. Maybe thats what you mean..

My claim definitely needs to be adapted from everyday to laboratory setting. Scent and sound need to be masked, and screens need to be tested, and I will need to present my perceptions in a different format than what I have done in everyday experience. Of course I must test each condition before I can state whether my claimed ability works under those conditions.

About me arranging the study;

Putting off the inevitable, won't change the result.

The study will benefit test arrangements since I will be able to know what test conditions I can allow, and we can have a test that is as uncomplicated as possible. Of course it won't change the end result.

Test to see if it is there first, then were it might come from.

And that is exactly the plan.

Glad you are willing to be so honest about where you may have gone wrong. However you've stated earlier you are never wrong...perhaps you mis-spoked.

What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition). I am open to encountering incorrect perceptions if they occur and are revealed as inaccurate on the study or the test.

Irrelevant.

A lot of the things discussed here are irrelevant.

I will then complement this understanding by studying Histology (the study of human tissues) on the graduate level.

That should delay things nicely.

The fact that I will study Histology in my career has got nothing to do with this paranormal investigation, so don't be concerned with any delays due to my studies. Histology will be valuable in the research in my career and I do not consider it a waste of time or a significant delay.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

ReverendClog:

Having laboured through this thread, I wish to offer a chance to resolve this once and for all. I propose myself as a subject for vision from feeling to diagnose.
I will provide independent verification from at least three physicians of the serious and incurable ailment I have just recently been diagnosed with to whichever testing commitee JREF deems able.
This will include test reports and c.a.t. scan and x-ray media. I will then allow Vision from feeling to 'examine' me with her ability.
I have no outwardly visible signs of illness, and ten other volunteers who have been independently examined and declared 'healthy' by medical doctors, (If this is acceptable by JREF, I will pay any and all medical expenses incurred in this process.), will also be examined by vision from feeling.
If she can identify and diagnose my ailment in detail, (and me of course), then, if JREF awards her the prize I will also add $10,000 us dollars to vision from feelings award.
I am by the way entirely serious about this and additionally will, if vision from feeling is successful, reimburse any expenses she incurs be they travel or loss of earnings etc incurred by attending the test.
BTW, I am able to do this because a sickness/life insurance policy has paid me out in view of the nature of my illness, and I have no dependents or beneficiary's and to be honest reading about peoples claims has given me a great deal of pleasure.
Anyhow if anyone would like to propose any modification to my suggestion or simply trash it, then feel free to my friend.

Thank you for your offer and interest in participating in the investigation. I am of course very interested and would like to begin to make plans with you for arranging this at your earliest convenience.

I have not made arrangements with the JREF to set up tests of my paranormal claim yet, since they place additional demands on their applicants such as media presence which I do not have. I have applied with the IIG West of Hollywood (www.iigwest.com) and am also involved with a local skeptics group locally here in North Carolina. I am sure that there is a local skeptics group near you who might be willing to participate in our test. I would like to send you a private message asking where you are located, or alternatively, where we would set up the test, so that I can begin by contacting a skeptics group local to that area.

I am glad that my investigation has been able to provide someone with some entertainment and here's hoping that our test will be a lot of fun for everyone involved.

ReverendClog: Since you are a new member of the JREF Forum, you might not know this, but you can see my private message to you in the upper right corner, and can also respond to me in the same place.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Still page 22:

Hokulele:

You behaved exactly as JWideman suggested with your reading of UncaYimmy.

Neck! Vertebrae! I knew it!

My claim was not to detect medical information from pictures, so I apologize for that. I was keeping track of the hits and misses for myself, and was merely glad to compare what I'd sensed with the facts, but I shouldn't have thought out loud should I. You've got to see me "in action" with live persons. And you will, soon. I hope to be able to video record the upcoming study and tests. Recording is more likely to take place now that I've decided that most likely the persons will be viewed from a back-view and not front in order to avoid unintentional eyecontact or other forms of communication, and this way their privacy is better respected and recording is more likely to take place.

UncaYimmy:

Anita, you have been wrong about medical information. You said that you can "sometimes" detect information in photos. You attempted that here at least twice as I recall. You failed. Does this at all call into question your prior belief about detecting conditions in photos or on TV? You *did* say you could do it sometimes.

What I claimed was that I have sometimes detected health information from pictures with good accuracy. They were pictures I saw in life, and they were cases that were not made by effort. In my study with you and the pictures I had to make the effort to obtain the information. None of this was part of my claim, yet I wanted to see what the results would be anyway and also to please the curiosity of Forum members. What ever test results would be from things that are not my claim, do not account towards proof for or against my actual claim. That's like saying that just because I happen to burn the cookies in the oven for Christmas (which I didn't) it would reduce my reliability in my paranormal claim.

On your website you describe a problem with the small intestine in a specific location immediately below the sternum. That's not where the small intestine is located. Thus, you are wrong. Period.

I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception. However even from a very skeptics point of view I am unable to completely dismiss this specific perception, nor the possible ESP ability itself, since I have asked the person again, and pressed him for truth. He states that he has had a very significant ailment that is exactly as I described, in that area. I can not say that the feeling of strain in that region is not somehow connected to the small intestine. It sounds far fetched but there is nothing to conclude against that. You see, I was absolutely correct about the description of the ailment as it is perceived by the person, as well as the very specific location of the ailment, and there is nothing to tell us that that particular ailment is not related to the small intestine. I don't think this case is very obvious in whether it was accurate or inaccurate, especially since two thirds of the description were definitely accurate and highly unlikely to be concluded from guessing or cold reading.

You also stated that someone's heart "absorbed" some kind of oil, possibly peanut. To the best of my knowledge no organs "absorb" any oils directly. Fats are broken down during digestion into other forms. What you're saying really doesn't make any sense. There could be fat in the heart muscle, but there's no "oil" that could be recognized as peanut or otherwise.

Ahem. Different sources of fat and oil are digested by the human body to yield different types of derivatives. Being different for instance in the extent of hydrogenation. It is not impossible to speculate whether an oil derivative could be identified and traced back to its food source. Fats and oils are chemically not alike. In my sense of the word, the heart can absorb oil derivatives, but if this is all again the result of a wording error, then pardon my Swedish. When I see the heart in my perceptions, very often people have a significant outer layer of orange-yellow fat tissue. Some people don't. Of course I mean oil derivatives and not "pure peanut oil floating about in the body"!!! The explicitness and detail that I am required of in this Forum is paranormal in itself!

You also describe how "vertebrae do not slide freely from each other and are locked." The exact phrase vertebrae slide freely doesn't show up at all in Google. It's not clear at all what you're saying. Are you implying that his vertebrae are somehow fused?

Well pardon my Swedish. What I was describing is the natural mobility of vertebrae with respect to each other. According to how I see it in my perception, when the spine is bent, typically one or a few vertebrae will move the most, but adjacent vertebrae adopt some of this movement but to less extent the further they are from the area that is being bent, and that there is something that looks like horizontal movement (movement parallel to the base of a vertebrae), or 'sliding'. In a spine that has a portion that is 'locked', the vertebrae lack this freedom of movement, so that when one vertebrae should be moved, and each adjacent vertebrae move to a lesser extent the further it is from the main area of movement, instead in the locked spine, several vertebrae in a row move together as if they were a rigid one piece. Which reduces overall mobility. Vertebrae sliding freely refers to them each being able to move in different ways, to different extents with respect to one another. Vertebrae that are locked together all try to move as one. And that is what I was describing.

In regards to the vasectomy you said you "saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed." How could you possibly tell that? The vas deferens is always cut and cauterized. A small section *may* be removed, but how could anyone possibly tell? If I cut a string in half or take 1/2 inch out of the middle with two cuts, there's no way anyone could know unless they knew how long the string was originally. There's plenty of slack there.

How I could possibly tell that sections of each vas deferens had been removed? Because I was seeing it and describing my medical perception. The person in question confirmed that yes he had had vasectomy and yes it had involved the removal of a portion of the vas deferens. Prior to this medical perception I was under the belief that a vasectomy involves an incision and not the removal of tissue, because of how the procedure is described in everyday language can have one assume that it involves simply an incision. I clearly saw that there was a portion missing, like a "gap" between the two ends, but I understand what you are saying with the string. Either case, my description of vasectomy and tissue being removed are either 2 hits or 1 hit and 1 unknown, and we can not confirm inaccuracy with the removal of tissue.

As for your claims about stroke volume in the heart, that doesn't smell right to me. From my research it seems that normal people have a stroke volume of about 66%. SV x heart rate determines blood volume. If this guy's SV was 1/3 of normal, then his heart rate must have been going dangerously or even inhumanly fast to compensate *or* he was heading into shock. I'm no doctor, so I can't be certain. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

Well Honey the stroke volume of the heart can be measured and established by medical procedures. What I said was that this person has a significantly lower stroke volume than most people, and that could be checked by a medical professional. I counted the stroke volume as neither a hit or a miss since this information could not be checked for accuracy by us. Of course there are people who have a low stroke volume!!!!!!! Stroke volume is one of the things that are improved on by exercise, for instance. It is definitely not impossible for a person to have an unusually low stroke volume.

You said that some person's "threshold from the stomach to the pyloric valve was set much higher than in most people." What the heck does that mean? Food passes from the stomach to the intestines via the pyloric sphincter.

Well I meant the pyloric sphincter. And what I meant was that the diagonal portion of the wall of the stomach that runs between the pyloric sphincter to the bottom of the stomach was significantly higher than usual.

You also said "I also saw that the kidneys were significantly larger than most people." Are you saying that you can see kidneys in every person you meet? How do you know?

How on earth do you conclude from this statement that I'd be saying that I see kidneys in every person I meet? This was an example of when I see the kidneys in one person that I met! UncaYimmy! What I obviously implied was that his kidneys were larger than most of the kidneys that I've actually seen with medical perception. This is like when Locknar started to talk about including women on a vasectomy detection test because I said "people" and not "men". Of course I haven't seen ALL PEOPLE in the whole world! To try to take my statements absolutely literally is sometimes just silly.

desertgal:

You need this thread? For what?

To discuss test design and to analyze the results of the upcoming study and tests.

I only share this ability with people who know me well.

Once again, that is an outright lie. I keep pointing this out to you, and you continue to ignore it, but that doesn't make it less of a lie.

Are you just stupid or what? Why on earth would that be a lie, when it is not a lie? What kind of accusations are these? So you are suggesting that I share that I have medical perceptions with all of my fellow students at school? With roommates at school? With people at the store and in the mall? With my hairdresser? I certainly do not! And stop making ridiculous and perfectly incorrect accusations against me and then trying to turn them against me.

"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."

This involves the study and tests.

"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..."

This was a new friend.

"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."

This was a new friend.

As well, you have set up a website, and posted about this alleged ability on several forums now, and offered diagnoses (which turned out to be wrong). That is NOT "only sharing this ability with people who know me well."

The website and Forum discussions are part of my investigation. They are not about me offering my "psychic services" publicly to people. I have not "offered diagnoses that turned out to be wrong" in accordance with my claim. The photography tests were not part of my claim and in them I pushed myself to try when I wasn't perceiving information like I do in real life. When I say "share this ability with people" that does not include this investigation. I do not share this ability with "people", with which I mean people in my life. I share this with you skeptics as part of my investigation, but that has got nothing to do with what I do in my life otherwise. What I have said is all true.

You have NOT been entirely honest. See above.

I have been absolutely honest. You've just misunderstood what I've said.

Exactly. But I respect each person's privacy and integrity in the best and most honorable way possible.

Except when you need a campfire story for your website.

No. The examples on my website are from my attempts of psychic medical diagnose, with friends, and for the purpose of conducting this investigation. They are not examples of me "sharing this with strangers", nor are they examples of me "offering psychic readings to people just for the sake of using the ability". In accordance with what I have said, in my everyday life outside of this investigation, I only share this with friends and family, and outside this investigation I do not openly offer psychic readings.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies to page 23:

Ashles:

Up to a point. There has to be some realistic way to study or investigate your 'creative ideas' otherwise you should probably head over to the Creative English school and start writing fiction.

My research ideas in the rearrangement of physical structures with light, and in the creation of light structures are highly acceptable research interests within the field of optics.

Thank you for expressing interest in my research ideas. My research ideas are much more elaborate and in depth than what I have expressed here. Of course I can not share top secret information here in public. You will be reading about it in scientific publications like everyone else.

You think chemistry is the best basis for learning how light will affect subatomic particles of matter at a quantum level? I really do not understand why.

I want a thorough understanding of what tissues are made of, first on a fundamental level that is beyond the study of biology. I want to understand chemical bonds and chemical structure and how these could be influenced by light and radiation. Most of my B.S. Chemistry degree will not be applicable to my study of Medical Physics but I decided to stay committed to this degree after switching from aspiring towards Osteopathic Medicine to Medical Physics.

I reiterate my request for proper testing. Only that will alter my opinions about your feelings and descritons of them. I could pretend to believe your statements about how you feel about your ability and how others have reacted to it, but there wouldn't be much point in that.

The point is, that none of us can prove how I am feeling, and I am the only one who knows how I am feeling, and that how I am feeling is rather irrelevant in this investigation, and that I do not appreciate being accused of lying when I in fact have told the truth about how I am feeling. When how I am feeling is not even of interest here. It's just a waste of thread-space and I feel sorry for the people reading and trying to make some sense of this thread.

On the whole, no, except the resistence to certain types of test and the continuing non-occurrence of proper testing.

I have not resisted testing my claim. The continuing non-occurrence of proper testing is not my fault.

Don't just blame IIG, find another group. This is your claim, you need to make the testing happen.

And I did. And now I am planning a study.

If I believed I had the ability you believe you have I would be harassing the biology and physics department of my and other universities. I would be contacting the media. I would have contacted several skeptical organisations. I would be open to try all my different claimed abilities.
In short, I would have had some proper testing done by now.

I will not involve my university in this investigation since they might not want association to paranormal topics and I don't want to entangle this with my career since many areas of science do not like this kind of thing and I am very serious about my career. The work to be done right now is to establish what test conditions can be used, and that is why the study is probably the best next step. I did contact a newspaper asking if they would write about me (this was when I wanted to apply with the JREF and arrange media presence) but they declined. I have contacted two skeptical organizations, and soon a third one in my test with Forum member ReverendClog.

But instead you decide to spend more time... ghosthunting?

In between replies from persons involved in the investigation, why can't I have other interests and activities as well? Investigations of haunted sites do not require expense of time or effort. That's like telling me not to watch TV. I would miss all my shows.

You want to distinguish yourself as different from other claimants but you continually fall into almost cliched claimant behaviour. A wide range of paranormal involvement is fairly typical of the genre.
Your failure to concentrate on this incredible ability is, I have to be honest, harming your credibility.

On the contrary I am focusing on my main claim: psychic medical diagnose from live persons. It is all of you who want me to test the other aspects of the perceptions that I have said are less frequent and less testable.

If you encountered someone who claimed they could sometimes predict the future and avert disasters, and they had ways of studying this ability, but, instead of investigating this ability they went hunting for the Loch ness Monster, how would you perceive the credibility of that claimant?

Poorly. I would be very disappointed that they wouldn't just set up the test and have the test already. However, if turns out the claimant had done what they thought possible and could not progress in their investigation at the moment, I might understand and adopt patience. My claim is more difficult to test than this one because among other reasons, it involves the participation of volunteers with health problems. And again, my haunted investigations are not big projects. They are like a day-trip. They divert no time from my investigation here.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

biomorph:

I can't quite get a grip on what you mean by "perceptions".

"Perception" is the term we use here for what is under the study of this paranormal investigation. When I look at people with my eyes, images of the insides of their bodies form in my mind. These images are life-like and from them I can describe health information both ones that are structural in nature (such as a broken bone, or tumor) and ones that are described by a feeling (such as pain, or discomfort). That is what is meant by perceptions.

Is there any difference between that which you are claiming and this?
thefreedictionary.com/schizophrenia
schiz·o·phre·ni·a (skts-frn-, -frn-)
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

I have not withdrawn from reality. These perceptions are not invasive to my life or functioning. The perceptions or anything that would be derived from them do not leak into what is otherwise my life unless I choose to tell a person what I saw or felt about their health in order to check whether there is some correlation between my perceptions and our mutual world. If the perceptions are not the case of extrasensory perception, then they are a form of automatic creativity or imagination, or perhaps a form of synesthesia. I would definitely not define them as a mental problem, especially since they are just impressions. Just like when some artists look at a field and can envision a beautiful painting out of that, but it doesn't mean that they start to live in that image or try to impose that image onto the world that is.

I don't think my patterns of thinking are illogical. On the contrary I am very devote to science, which is logical in nature. I love to find logical explanations to my ideas from science for instance, so I don't think that applies to me.

I would not define my medical perceptions as delusions, since this word has a negative emphasis and my perceptions do not. Besides, a lot of people process a lot of random thoughts in their minds that they can not control, for instance when a song starts playing in their mind and they can not stop it, and especially experienced when going to sleep. Years ago I did a meditation to focus the mind and got rid of my random thoughts and in this regard I would have less delusions than most people. My mind is very clear. I just see medical images when I look at people.

Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.
Well, it is still to be determined whether my perceptions are things that are or are not "there". So far it seems that the images "are there". And if not, then they are just images. I would believe that in order to classify as a hallucination, one would have to experience the perceptions as reality. To me the perceptions are like images but I do not experience them in the same way as I do reality. I just see and feel them, but I don't relate to them in the same way as I do with reality.

Emotional disturbances, I am unusually caring and un-greedy but that's about it.

Behavioral disturbances, none.

Intellectual disturbances, if I do say so myself I'm absolutely brilliant. I have a 4.0 GPA and am doing tremendously well academically and intellectually. But actually, it is because I relate to logical information in terms of association to images, colors, patterns and shapes, which is a little unusual.

Some results would be nice too, at some point..

I agree. I'm working on it.

Not sure I see the point of the "other" modded thread. I suppose she needs to somewhere to retreat to when no evidence turns up.

Thanks for turning that against me.I wasn't the one who suggested the private thread.

Ashles:

To clarify:
Can you do that at will?
Can you perform a head-to-toe reading whenever you like?
What is the accuracy of such readings?

I do the head-to-toe reading at will. What it is is when I choose to search through very carefully the vibrational feeling of a person's body to detect even the less obvious information that did not catch my attention on its own. That is when I detect information that is not a severe health problem but is simply something "unusual", such as vasectomy or missing molars. The accuracy of such readings, as with all readings so far, has been very good. If my perceptions turn out to have less than perfect accuracy, then the accuracy of these readings may be lower than that of the perceptions that come on their own, because they involve weaker vibrational signature.

Old man:

People have been begging you for a list of what you think you can detect! That’s what you’re postponing!

I posted a list earlier, although it is not exhaustive and some of the ailments listed are not good enough to be used on a test. The upcoming study should bring a larger list of ailments for us.

Pick me! Pick me! I can answer this one!!11!

So you think I am schizophrenic do you? Why's that? *insulted*

Anita, in the moderated thread, you made bold claims about detecting dental problems. A test of this would be very easy to set up.

Yup. Set it up for me. The study up ahead will give some experience with this too.

Upthread, you said that any of us would be convinced of your powers if we’d just spend two weeks with you. Yet, in the last month (at least) you’ve done nothing to help establish your claim. If I’d spent, say, Dec. 10 through Dec. 23 with you, what, exactly, would I have seen that would have ‘convinced’ me?

I meant to spend time with me in person.

JWideman:

Well, it did occur, and you did count it as a hit. If this is an indication of a pattern of behavior for you, then your accuracy rate is much closer to 0% than 100%.

And what exactly is an example of where I counted a miss as a hit in psychic medical diagnose in live persons? Oh you guys need to see some real life examples of my perceptions so very badly! We need it now!

desertgal:

There are some indications that she has lost touch with reality, and is delusional to some degree.

When did I lose touch with reality because when I look at persons I perceive images of the insides of bodies that detail health information, and when I describe the health information to people they report good accuracy, and all I conclude is to proceed with scientific tests to determine the actual accuracy of the perceptions? And even if the perceptions would turn out to not be actual depictions of the insides of people, I would not call myself delusional. Like I said earlier, a lot of people have random thoughts they can't control and by that are more delusional than me.

"A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)

Ideas of reference Definition: Ideas of reference involve the belief that casual events, people's remarks, etc. are referring to oneself when, in fact, they are not.
No.

2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)

Yes.

3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions

Yes.

4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)

No.

5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation

No.

6. Inappropriate or constricted affect

Definition: Affect type that represents mild reduction in the range and intensity of emotional expression.
No.

7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar

Other than my white hair, no.

8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives

No.

9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self

No.

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it?

Offering amateur medical diagnoses based on "seeing" someone's innards-I'd say that's inappropriate, too.

I do not openly offer diagnose. I am conducting a test and that is different, and less inappropriate since measures will be made to ensure no harm to participants.

skeen:

Do you know how long that would take? 60 seconds. At most. Merely walk outside, and when you see inside of someone, so long as their ailment is not embarrassing, or anything like that, confirm with them that they have it.

I will not do such a thing until I have confirmed that this is in accordance with the law and given careful consideration to how to conduct this morally and responsibly. The upcoming study will be something similar to this.

So long as you are being honest with yourself, you will discover once and for all, and for sure, whether you have, or do not have this ability. You will fail, and I don't think you're prepared for that.

Please be objective. I have presented nothing that would indicate that I will fail. Your suspicion that I will fail is based on generalization from other psychic claimants, or your assumptions, and should not apply to me. Can't we be objective.

Do you know how much time you're going to save? You could have done this 3 times whilst I typed this out. But you're not going to do it, are you? Ask yourself why.

I need to prepare the study properly, both to ensure that I get the most out of it, and to ensure that no one gets hurt.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What I claimed was that I have sometimes detected health information from pictures with good accuracy. They were pictures I saw in life, and they were cases that were not made by effort. In my study with you and the pictures I had to make the effort to obtain the information. None of this was part of my claim, yet I wanted to see what the results would be anyway and also to please the curiosity of Forum members. What ever test results would be from things that are not my claim, do not account towards proof for or against my actual claim. That's like saying that just because I happen to burn the cookies in the oven for Christmas (which I didn't) it would reduce my reliability in my paranormal claim.

Sorry, Anita, but your cookie metaphor fails miserably. Your claim about photos is directly related to your claim about doing it person. They are not the same, but they are similar. But that's irrelevant.

What I asked you and what you failed to answer is whether failing at PICTURES makes you rethink your claim that you could sometimes read PICTURES. You said you couldn't always do it, but you never mentioned if you failed while attempting to do it. I took you to mean that sometimes you got no readings.

So, once again, how did this failure affect your belief about PICTURES. Do you still think you can do it?

I do acknowledge this and since then I almost always quote this as one example of a possibly incorrect medical perception.

You are mistaken. Your website reads, "I count each of these as a total of two cases of "unverified as neither correct or incorrect"." Your site also reads, "He said that it is right below the breastbone (sternum) and defined the exact same region as I had. Exactly the same region. " The emphasis is yours. There is no mention whatsoever that the small intestine is nowhere near there.

You see, I was absolutely correct about the description of the ailment as it is perceived by the person, as well as the very specific location of the ailment, and there is nothing to tell us that that particular ailment is not related to the small intestine.

It's located in the esophagus area and nowhere near the small intestine. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence his ailment is not related to his big toe.

This is about disclosure, which goes to credibility.

In my sense of the word, the heart can absorb oil derivatives, but if this is all again the result of a wording error, then pardon my Swedish. When I see the heart in my perceptions, very often people have a significant outer layer of orange-yellow fat tissue. Some people don't. Of course I mean oil derivatives and not "pure peanut oil floating about in the body"!!! The explicitness and detail that I am required of in this Forum is paranormal in itself!

You have repeatedly called yourself a scientist, so we expect you to use precise language. If you had said his tissue absorbed copper, I would not assume that he grew copper cells. I would assume that copper is present in the cells. So when you say the tissue absorbed an oil and make a fuss about which type of oil, I don't assume you meant that it grew fat cells. If you see fatty tissue, say you saw fatty tissue.

Is it too much to ask that you be precise?

Well pardon my Swedish. <snipped the explanation about vertebrae>

As evidenced by your description, it seems you ARE capable of explaining things clearly. Please take care to do so the first time around.

How I could possibly tell that sections of each vas deferens had been removed? Because I was seeing it and describing my medical perception. The person in question confirmed that yes he had had vasectomy and yes it had involved the removal of a portion of the vas deferens.

In my mind this disproves your notion of vibrational information because no vibrational information exists for that which is not there. You can certainly detect a lack of vibrational information but only when you know something should be there such as a missing tooth. I can conceive of no possible way to detect that a small piece of the vas deferens is missing unless it was not possible for the two ends to meet.

Did you detect the cauterization? You didn't mention it. Did you detect whether either was tied off or not? I assume you didn't ask. You should and report the results. You should also ask him how he knows that a piece was removed because it's not something that always happens and probably not something worth mentioning to a patient.

Well Honey

The use of "honey" is at best unscientific and at worst condescending.

the stroke volume of the heart can be measured and established by medical procedures.

That's not in question.

What I said was that this person has a significantly lower stroke volume than most people,

You said that it was at times 20%. I presented the math that indicates that this could be an acute medical condition if a person is only pushing out 1/3 of what a normal person does.

It is definitely not impossible for a person to have an unusually low stroke volume.

I never said it was.

Well I meant the pyloric sphincter. And what I meant was that the diagonal portion of the wall of the stomach that runs between the pyloric sphincter to the bottom of the stomach was significantly higher than usual.

How on earth do you conclude from this statement that I'd be saying that I see kidneys in every person I meet?

These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.

UncaYimmy! What I obviously implied was that his kidneys were larger than most of the kidneys that I've actually seen with medical perception.

I feel I am qualified to say that someone has a big nose or big boobs because I have seen thousands of noses and boobs. In fact I notice both in every person I see. If you are going to make claims about what is abnormal, then you must expect to be questioned about how you know what is normal.

Furthermore, you claim that you almost automatically see things that are abnormal and that you need to concentrate to detect things that are healthy. You also claim that you have really only read family and friends.

Thus it would seem that you would have only seen "normal" kidneys in those people you have focused upon for a detailed reading. This, of course, begs a few questions:

How many abnormal kidneys have you seen?

How many normal kidneys have you seen?

In percentage of people you have read have you even seen kidneys at all?

Of course I haven't seen ALL PEOPLE in the whole world! To try to take my statements absolutely literally is sometimes just silly.

I never said anything about the whole world. I made the reasonable deduction that if someone is able to determine an enlarged kidney that they must have some form of reference. When that person claims to see inside the bodies of humans, then the natural assumption is that they have seen a large number of kidneys.

This is what skeptics do, Anita. We ask questions. The more extraordinary the claim, the tougher the questions. The longer you go without a decent test or study, the less credible you become.

Note: I don't make the rules. I just explain them.

 

[Akhenaten]

<-------- VfF

Plot --------->

 

[desertgal]

Are you just stupid or what?

Well, we all can't be "absolutely brilliant" now, can we? In one sentence you say: "I only share this ability with people who know me well.", and in the next instance, someone you just met that very day is a "friend". Someone you just met that day can't "know you well", can they? Stop contradicting yourself, for God's sake.

I have been absolutely honest. You've just misunderstood what I've said.

The battle cry of psychic claimants the world over. "It's not me-it's you!"

They are not examples of me "sharing this with strangers", nor are they examples of me "offering psychic readings to people just for the sake of using the ability". In accordance with what I have said, in my everyday life outside of this investigation, I only share this with friends and family, and outside this investigation I do not openly offer psychic readings.

Yeah, right. Whatever you say, Anita.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
When did I lose touch with reality because when I look at persons I perceive images of the insides of bodies that detail health information, and when I describe the health information to people they report good accuracy, and all I conclude is to proceed with scientific tests to determine the actual accuracy of the perceptions? And even if the perceptions would turn out to not be actual depictions of the insides of people, I would not call myself delusional. Like I said earlier, a lot of people have random thoughts they can't control and by that are more delusional than me.

You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it?

I dunno. I scored 0. Let me check with the spirit of my late aunt Sophie's Bigfoot, and I'll get back to you.

desertgal: I have offered to give any of you my phone number if you PM me, so that you can hear whether I have a Swedish accent or not. Care to take me up on the challenge?

Well, I realize that you are "absolutely brilliant" and I am "stupid", but, since you seem to have missed it - I wasn't the one doubting that you are from Sweden. In fact, I never said that at all. What I said was that, for those who might have that doubt, since two posters have met you in person, it would be fairly easy to confirm that you are, in fact, from Sweden simply by asking them.

Just recently I spoke with the spirit of a friend's father and was able to describe with perfect accuracy loads of details of their life together that I had no prior knowledge of. I can speak with them and get names, years, and other information that can be checked against facts. You may be skeptical, but for you to conclude without any evidence against this occurrence that I'd be delusional is starting to give me a negative impression of your skills in inquiry.

Fine. Show me some evidence, and I'll conclude otherwise. It's rather the nature of a skeptic to remain skeptical when no evidence has been presented to back up a claim.

Although the anecdotes lack proper documentation they are accurate representations. In each case as far as I have been able to at each time, the accuracy was not falsified. I was asked by Forum members to provide examples of the perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page is. You don't have to read it if it bothers you. All they are, are examples. I'm sorry if I didn't have a team of scientists with me and proper testing procedures available when I was out and met with new friends.

Nonsense, that isn't what I said at all. You provide no background information on your subjects at all. There is no way for anyone to decipher whether your conclusions are based on your alleged ability, or retained information, or simple observation. You don't need a team of scientists to collect background information after the diagnosis to help verify the accuracy. The repeated "I came, I saw, I diagnosed" does not render your anecdotes valid examples of your alleged ability.

!!! I've replied!!! I think I've exposed you as someone who just keeps stating things that aren't true. I guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon. You're not participating in a true skeptics manner. There is usually no evidence or reason behind your statements, and many are expressed, in my opinion, in a slightly negative manner.

A) Unfair of you, since I posted that before you replied, but I apologize for the confusion, and b) you offer no evidence to back up your statements, either, Anita. In fact, you've offered up several contradictions and some wild assertions. I realize you have to arrange testing, and that takes time, but when you contradict yourself, is it wrong to question that?

If this bothers you you don't have to participate, not that I am throwing you out because I'm not...

Throwing me out?

guess I'll have to start disregarding your comments soon.

Okay. See you later. Good luck.

 

[biomorph]

biomorph:
I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions.
I explain my perspective in part to avoid misunderstandings and in part because it should make it easier to design a test according to what my claim is.
My claim definitely needs to be adapted from everyday to laboratory setting. Scent and sound need to be masked, and screens need to be tested, and I will need to present my perceptions in a different format than what I have done in everyday experience. Of course I must test each condition before I can state whether my claimed ability works under those conditions.

I understand that.
However I have some doubts that this is the way forward timewise.
Surely many of the "sight, sound" type stuff can be bundled together? They are "knowns"
You think of as many thing as you can that to prevent any physical consequences getting through.
In one test.

There are lots of examples of these tests..

However any real evidence will show some sort of mechanism.
Even without controls, or tests, you ought to be able to make a simple claim, and have the real physical evidence that there is something happening to start with. Basic observational evidence yeah?

About me arranging the study;
The study will benefit test arrangements since I will be able to know what test conditions I can allow, and we can have a test that is as uncomplicated as possible. Of course it won't change the end result.

Look, its all here, on the forum somewhere.

So far I find the plan you are devising to be as complicated as you can make it.

And that is exactly the plan.
What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition). I am open to encountering incorrect perceptions if they occur and are revealed as inaccurate on the study or the test.

Ok whatever...

A lot of the things discussed here are irrelevant.

you said it.....

The fact that I will study Histology in my career has got nothing to do with this paranormal investigation, so don't be concerned with any delays due to my studies. Histology will be valuable in the research in my career and I do not consider it a waste of time or a significant delay.

Thats put my mind rest thanks, and of course your career is important.

good luck

 

[biomorph]

2 is not 5. I thus do not have schizotypal disorder. Do you have it?

You don't need all five.

One can be enough.

I think you may need to reconsider that reply.

Do you have it?

No, but I scored zero, not 2......?

 

[Ducky]

You just don't get it. It's not the one claim, Anita, it's ALL the claims. For heaven's sake, you came on here and proclaimed that you can commune with ghosts, speak telepathically with all animals, mythical beings, and humans, and to have these "visions". Then you threw in, apropos of nothing, your belief that you are a reincarnated white dwarf star. Taken altogether, it points to 'delusional'.



I dunno. Let me check with the spirit of my late aunt Sophie's Bigfoot, and I'll get back to you.

I wonder if she would have picked a white dwarf star had she known that they are also referred to as "degenerate dwarf" stars.

 

[Pup]

Anita, if I recall correctly, you're somewhere near Charlotte, NC, right? I just found out I'll have a two-hour layover in Charlotte, in the late evening on a Friday, during a trip in early March (assuming everything's on schedule and goes as planned). I'm a 49-year-old male who wouldn't mind having his health "read" and discussed under these circumstances. I'm a complete stranger to Anita in real life.

Would that be useful?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You don't need all five.

One can be enough.

I think you may need to reconsider that reply.

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

 

[biomorph]

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

******************************************
I apologise VFF, Ive most probably got that bit wrong.
********************************************

If one needs all five, then yeah you and I both clear of that one I guess.

So um......is there some condition that the two that are there describe, PY?

Maybe not.

 

[desertgal]

You do need at least 5 to be diagnosed with that disorder. Now please quit the amateur online psychiatric diagnosing.

In that regard, I owe Anita an apology. I should never have posted that description of schizotypal disorder, Anita, or even come close to making the assumption that it applies to you. I am, in no way, qualified to have made that assumption, and I sincerely apologize.

As well, I sincerely apologize if other assumptions I have made have caused you distress. That was not my intention. Some contradictions may seem picayune to others, but I've raised six kids, and I've worked as a researcher for true crime authors for many years - questioning small contradictions has become second nature to me.

While I still believe that your claims, taken altogether, do point towards delusional, I should have afforded you the opportunity to complete your testing and/or offer solid evidence before expressing my doubts. Given that, I shall refrain from further comment in this thread.

I know I have been sarcastic at times, and I am sorry, but this type of claim has a negative effect on me. We've all seen it with Sylvia Browne, et al. To act on this type of alleged ability is never harmless, regardless of the context in which you 'perform' it. Family, friends, testing, studies, surveys - what have you - it still has the potential for inflicting emotional damage, regardless of waivers and the like.

Anyway...again, I apologize, Anita, and I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Locknar]

There is still hope for testing my claim, since I've detected plenty of things where I personally can not imagine what the cold reading might have been. Such as the vasectomy example.

I seem to recall (mentioned in another thread), you've "detected" a vasectomy once?

Out of all the people you've examined with your "power" and given a 1:6 ratio of men with vasectomies (in the US)...nothing special. Unless, of course, you've asked ALL the men you've used your "power" on and confirmed things?

After the upcoming study I should hopefully have some experience so that I can make a clearer claim, which specifies the health information that will be included in the test.

A lifetime of this "power" and you need yet more time to study before quantifying your claim?

Sounds like the typical "delay and stall" tactic to me, given this has been going on since 2007 with ZERO credible testing/results.

These will be investigated with the upcoming study. The work ahead is to take what is the everyday experience and to adapt it to an acceptable test setting. Of course I have no experience reading people who are behind a screen, for instance. Many details need to be tried out.

Same comment as above, "delay and stall."

I have always had interest in posting examples of what my perceptions are. I have not expected these anecdotes to be taken as evidence. Surely I realize that they do not qualify as evidence.

And I know that they are not evidence. They are however accurate descriptions of what I have experienced. They are examples that give specific insight into my claim.

You state above you know your anecdotes are not evidence...then describe them as "accurate descriptions."
IF you truly understand that anecdotes do not qualify as evidence then stop presenting them as such or anything other then YOUR undocumented and uncorroborated perception of events.

Scientists keep written notes/diaries of events, noting observations, controls, variables, etc. A blog of anecdotes, written after the fact, without corroboration, detail (such as controls, variables, etc) is well...nothing more than a collection of campfire stories and of no merit.

My test needs the involvement of scientists and/or skeptics, as well as plenty of volunteers who can involve their health information in a test. Besides these issues from the involvement of other people on a test, my specific claim involves a phenomenon that needs to be lifted out of its everyday experience and into a controlled laboratory setting - and this adaptation involves work, which will be addressed in the upcoming study.

By making the entire process overly complicated, this sounds more like "delay and stall."

Rather then work on a far simpler aspect, such as detecting elements/chemicals as you've claimed to have done, you've chosen to focus on "health issues" - convenient as health claims are virtually impossible to verify in your current (undefined, unquantified) context.

With my claim, however, there are many possible explanations such as cold reading that need to be taken care of for a test.

You've stated you must see the individual, summarily ruling out cold reading seems unlikely unless you focus on something with no visible/overt clues; ie. tonsillectomy, appendectomy, etc.

And I do have synesthesia to some extent, I just don't know whether that is what the perceptions are made of.

So you have been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have synesthesia?

I plan to conduct a study early in 2009 which should yield some results. It is not a test, but it should answer many questions.

If this study is as undefined/unquantified as everything else involving your claim, should it actually happen it will do nothing more then feed your own belief.

What I've said is that so far I've not been wrong (except for possibly in the case where I detected a problem with the small intestine and located the problem just below the sternum, unless these are connected in a health condition).

This is exactly the kind of "wiggle" you leave open with "detecting" health issues in a undefined/unquantified fashion. You were wrong, just as you were wrong in the picture diagnoses you did here...and yet your attempting to exlain it as a "hit"...again.

 

[skeen]

skeen:
I will not do such a thing until I have confirmed that this is in accordance with the law and given careful consideration to how to conduct this morally and responsibly. The upcoming study will be something similar to this.
Please be objective. I have presented nothing that would indicate that I will fail. Your suspicion that I will fail is based on generalization from other psychic claimants, or your assumptions, and should not apply to me. Can't we be objective.
I need to prepare the study properly, both to ensure that I get the most out of it, and to ensure that no one gets hurt.

Nonsense. That's just a transparent copout. And I think I can generalize about scientific impossibilities. I should also say you cannot fly, am I still generalizing?

You're wasting everyones time and I think you know it. Just quickly, and swiftly confirm the ability does not exist, and it's all over. But you don't want that, do you? You want to fool yourself into thinking you have it.

No one should have any patience with you anymore. There will be no test, there will be no nothing. It all could have ended at the skeptics meeting, you could have just said what you saw. Forget about "opportunity" - that's like saying, "I didn't have the opportunity to fly around and show people I can fly" - erm, I'm pretty sure that effectively rewriting Science would have been worth just going for it.

Your very reasoning is flawed. I question your very intelligence, and I do not believe you have any scientific qualifications whatsoever, unless you got them from the Bible belt or some kookie newage university.

 

[Uncayimmy]

On the contrary I am focusing on my main claim: psychic medical diagnose from live persons. It is all of you who want me to test the other aspects of the perceptions that I have said are less frequent and less testable.

I don't recall you saying they were less testable. In fact you were all enthusiastic about the chemical testing until your methods were called into question. You then abandoned that line of inquiry.

You told us this:

For the sake of this forum more so than for my own purposes I'll arrange tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on so that we can see if I can make the same observations under controlled settings. I want to design tests that as closely as possible resemble what the actual real-life observations were. I am considering having the cereal test, which should be very simple to set up. If I was able to detect the Lactobacillus cereal from rows of otherwise plain brands of cereal then surely by placing different samples of cereal with and without the bacterial supplement, in identical boxes of the same material, then according to the observation I should be able to detect it. Most likely this test will be done today with a friend.

You also said

As is typical when I have a chemical identification test, in the beginning I have good results, but after a while I begin to feel very drained, tired and get a headache.

Saying "as is typical" implies that you have done the tests before. In the paragraph before that you pledged to continue to run the chemical tests.

So, why did you abandon testing chemical detection? Please don't come back with your standard line about how you want to test your primary claim (not that you have actually made a claim anyway). That's just like saying "Just because."

You said you would continue to do it. You implied you have done it before. Why did you stop? Why would you spend hours verbally defending this when you could easily quiet us all by taking the test?

Actions, not words, are what we need at this point.