Vision From Feeling

[skeen]

Ah yes, impatience. Is that your way of explaining away your ducking and diving? No-one buys your crap, Anita. Why even try? Get some help.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things.

To her, no. To us, yes.

Let me fix this for her:

I have not made a single verified incorrect perception that I will admit to.

That's accurate, and verified by this thread.

Everyone:
I do apologize if I didn't just go out into the public and harass people about their health problems...

Just "friends" and "family".

A study has now been designed that enables the volunteers to remain anonymous

Except, of course, the skeptics she has already met.

Guys, just relax. The study or studies will take place.

We're relaxed. We're just having fun at her expense at this point.

I am not mentally ill, deluded, or a liar.

Sure. Whatever she says.

I perceive medical perceptions when I look at people...

Except when she doesn't.

...and there has been apparent accuracy...

Except when there hasn't.

...and cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available.

Like "reading" that a male subject has an Adam's Apple.

I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.

Which takes us back to she is either deluded, a liar, or a scam artist. Take your pick. You can even pick more than one.

 

[Locknar]

<snip> I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.

No, you're not. You are busy playing scientist.

If you were really doing this, with a self professed life time of such ability you'd have already done so.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

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

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

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

And she told us all about it in great detail!

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

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

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

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

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

Actually yes, her conduct is almost textbook as to profiling a con. For example, a good con man KNOWS he is running a game that either cannot be proven ( because it doesnt exist) and as such also knows it often cannot be disproven for the same reason. ( remember they KNOW the truth and as such design all scripts to skirt it) They operate in 2 modes when conning:

99% of the truth is a lie

99 truths out of 100 total is still a lie

They anticipate questions and have canned answers that always end either open ended or open to personal interpretation and when they feel cornered- they go into long solilquies in hopes of "sounding" smart or doing a data dump willed with enough fluff to hopefully bog you down so you will miss the small facts in it.

Dr Meehan who did the "data dump" on the DNA ( which he knew was misleading) in the Duke case is an example. ( until Brad caught him)

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


I would say she is very good at it. The tactic you illustrate is an age old game where they give the "illusion" of sincerity by appearing "weak" or stupid. ( cons frequently play dumb so the mark THINKS he has the upper hand and then whammo) The clue is that she hasnt responded as a scientific mind would ( stop and re evaluate) or as a delusion would ( continue to argue her point from a denialist perspective)

Also, she is quite deliberate in provoking responses she wants ( she has a reason, its just not clear yet)

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

simple, this isnt her "target audience"- she is "establishing credibility" by facing skeptics and sticking to her guns. ( as time goes on, she will spin that to her advantage)

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

Its called cherry picking what she wanted you to hear. Its no different when a suspect would tell me they were somewhere else and hand me some obscure "proof" or alibi until i showed them the video. That whole park thing is a smoke and mirror. Its the "elaborate ruse". For her experiment, she doesnt NEED any formal setting. it could be in someones living room. idf she wanted volunteers, post her experiment around campus requesting some or at the local sports bar.

Shes just obfuscating- nothing more.

This is just my experience but nothing I see points to anything other than a deliberate, methodical, thought out scam.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:

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

What testing? There has been no testing of my paranormal claim of accurately detecting health information! That you can't see that there has been no testing yet and especially no failed testing yet is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

GeeMack:

... and not a single case of inaccuracy.

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

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

UncaYimmy:
No I am not required to read every single post very carefully anymore now that I am busy with the other things in my life. You do realize that many of the posts here are only full of insults and nothing that I would need to comment on or reply to?

al capone junior:

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

What can I say. I'm a girl. If I were a boy my webpage would probably be blue.

LONGTABBER PE:

I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

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

Honey, by that definition I am definitely not deluded. *although they won't believe that *

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LONGTABBER PE:
Honey, by that definition I am definitely not deluded. *although they won't believe that *

I agree, you are not. You are a con artist.

Another sign of the con- they always have an "answer' for everything. ( they have to because if they didnt, any person looking would see thru it because in reality, it never was there)

This "experiment" is like a blog infomercial about a pill that makes a certain part of the male anatomy grow.

 

[Locknar]

I agree, you are not. You are a con artist.

Another sign of the con- they always have an "answer' for everything. ( they have to because if they didnt, any person looking would see thru it because in reality, it never was there)

True...but to what end, what is the con?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Are you lying or are you delusional?

Neither.

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

Yes I know that but the skeptics are still credible volunteers and if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim. As I've said the study can not provide evidence for the claim but can provide evidence against it.

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

I will write them again and receive specific permission to conduct the study at a reserved location in the park. I will then go and check out the location and take pictures of it and e-mail these to the skeptics who have expressed interest, and we will hopefully be able to have the study there.

tsig:

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

I don't care. I am doing this investigation with skeptics and scientists.

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

No. I love Randi. If my paranormal claim involves a non-ability and it somehow slipped past studies, and tests, and ended up at the JREF then I would be happy if Randi figured out how to falsify it.

 

[desertgal]

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

I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself? She doesn't even attempt to counter logic with logic-she just veers off into irrational or disingenuous tangents.

IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.

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

I dunno. Having experienced clinical delusion, I see a lot of similarities. But, of course, it's a matter of personal interpretation.

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

Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Or maybe that's just her alter ego: Vision From Sight^TM.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

True...but to what end, what is the con?

Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.

Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end)

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

LONGTABBER PE:

Actually yes, her conduct is almost textbook as to profiling a con. For example, a good con man KNOWS he is running a game that either cannot be proven ( because it doesnt exist) and as such also knows it often cannot be disproven for the same reason. ( remember they KNOW the truth and as such design all scripts to skirt it)

I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.

I would say she is very good at it. The tactic you illustrate is an age old game where they give the "illusion" of sincerity by appearing "weak" or stupid. ( cons frequently play dumb so the mark THINKS he has the upper hand and then whammo) The clue is that she hasnt responded as a scientific mind would ( stop and re evaluate) or as a delusion would ( continue to argue her point from a denialist perspective)

It is funny reading your analyses.

Also, she is quite deliberate in provoking responses she wants ( she has a reason, its just not clear yet)

Funny.

simple, this isnt her "target audience"- she is "establishing credibility" by facing skeptics and sticking to her guns. ( as time goes on, she will spin that to her advantage)

Oh dear. I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.

This is just my experience but nothing I see points to anything other than a deliberate, methodical, thought out scam.

There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

Locknar:

True...but to what end, what is the con?

Way to go Locknar!

LONGTABBER PE:

Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.

My how surprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience.

Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end)

This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself? She doesn't even attempt to counter logic with logic-she just veers off into irrational or disingenuous tangents.

IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.



I dunno. Having experienced clinical delusion, I see a lot of similarities. But, of course, it's a matter of personal interpretation.



Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Or maybe that's just her alter ego: Vision From Sight^TM.

I agree, we are both looking at this thru our personal experiences and honestly the jury is still out.

>>>I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself?

We used to call that 'explaining away". My opinion is that the answer is neither and this whole thing is for the woo audience. ( setting herself up as a scientific woo with a Joan of Arc syndrome for future use after this is all forgotten) It wouldnt be the first time a con artist has "seeded" the field.

>>>IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.

Thats how we used to catch them. They DO understand logic and use it. I see her using generic logic ( devoid of reason). Her goal is establishing that it CAN work. ( not proving that it DOES work) Infomercial scams do this all the time with no money down making money in your underwear with free government funds. They use 'simple logic" the exact same way.

>>>Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Its rare that the con lets his ego get in the way of his end goal. ( I've seen them cry, beg,plead, stand tough- whatever the situation called for)

She isnt going to "face" anything because she already knows her "testing" will produce what she wants and she will then shed all negative remarks like water on a ducks back.

Remember, this is all just a testing sandbox for the "real" end goal.

 

[desertgal]

skeen:
What testing? There has been no testing of my paranormal claim of accurately detecting health information! That you can't see that there has been no testing yet and especially no failed testing yet is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

Oh, look. Anita is assimilating terms now.

GeeMack:

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

Oh, let her ask it again and again. We don't mind.

You do realize that many of the posts here are only full of insults and nothing that I would need to comment on or reply to?

For "insults", see "honesty". Not that Anita would know the difference.

What can I say. I'm a girl. If I were a boy my webpage would probably be blue.

And if she were really a "star people", her webpage would have little stars and such. Maybe a spaceship. Wouldn't that be cool?

Are you lying or are you delusional?

Neither.

Both.

Yes I know that but the skeptics are still credible volunteers and if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim.

And she can get more hits with cold reading.

I will write them again and receive specific permission to conduct the study at a reserved location in the park. I will then go and check out the location and take pictures of it and e-mail these to the skeptics who have expressed interest, and we will hopefully be able to have the study there.

More stalling. More delays. More dodging.



Fixed them for her:

I look at people and I pretend/cold read to perceive health information. My perceptions cold reading has had no apparent correlation to the actual health of persons, but I change that when I write my anecdotes. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely pretending to be working toward a scientific explanation. It could be is unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation as I fictionalized it to be. I want to find out. I want to "sell" this ability/maintain my delusion, so the more fake investigations I pretend to be interested in conducting, the better.

My how unsurprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience enter the woo economy by performing unethical, but hopefully lucrative, psychic medical diagnosis.

This pseudo investigation is to pretend to explain why I can look at people and pretend to perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information after I write my fictional anecdotes. That's what it's all about.

It is funny reading your analyses...

The word is "fun", wacko "science" student Anita, not "funny". And your fictional anecdotes are far more amusing. Tell us another.

 

[GeeMack]

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

We could rehash your miserable failure with Wayne. You threw that piece of crap in here, but don't you think it's been kicked around enough to make everyone's shoes stink? But... again you demonstrate that you completely misunderstand the position you've put yourself in. You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that. Nobody has to show how you have provided inaccurate information. If you were really a science student you'd know that.

So, since you haven't been able to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities, and you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't able or willing to do so, why don't you save the tiny shred of dignity you have left (boy, oh boy, am I going out on a limb there), and just 'fess up. Admit you've failed and we can all have a good laugh. Uh, if you haven't noticed, we're all laughing at you anyway. Wouldn't it be a much more pleasant experience if you were able to laugh with us rather than being the brunt of this horrible joke you've created?

So to review... here's the consensus at this point. Pretty much everyone here has been listening to you babbling for just short of three months now. And as far as I can tell, everyone has come to the conclusion that you're either seriously mentally ill, or that you're simply a liar.

Which do you think it is, Anita?

 

[Jeff Corey]

... if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim...

Now that's a bit better. At least you are not requiring statistically significant negative results anymore. And that only took a few weeks and pages of text.
Next, you should get your data collection cleaned up so the data can actually be analyzed. I think that Unca Yimmy and Ashles had some suggestions along those lines.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that. Nobody has to show how you have provided inaccurate information. If you were really a science student you'd know that.

About 20 or 30 pages ago I posted this:

So, from this point forward perhaps I should substitute for "ESP" something like "a mind control advice implanted by your mother, who is really an Illuminati agent." Thus, your [Anita's] paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, or that we do not expect me to have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, but to say that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. And I was right about that.

We've come so far since then.

 

[desertgal]

You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that.

Well, and I am sure this will included in her defense, she kinda has. She 'perceived' that Unca has vertebrae, knees, an elbow, and two wrists. She 'perceived' that another guy, whom she already knew had had heart surgery, had a scar on his chest. She "saw" bacteria in a stomach. And, lest we forget, she used her sooper power to "perceive" that Wayne has both a shoulder and an Adam's apple.

 

[Farencue]

Hello everyone
This is my first ever JREF post although I have been sitting in the corner at this party since it started. The party was fun at first, it reached a climax - now I have had too much to drink and can feel a hangover coming on. I think if the party was being held at my place I would be asking people to please go home now.

This has been very educational for me, thankyou JREFers for your teaching skills, I have spent a lot of time on this thread "listening" and learning, something I did not do at school therefore I am not highly educated.

I have a question for Longtabber PE if you dont mind - as an experienced investigator what are your observations of Anita's written English considering that English is not her first language? I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer.
Thanks again.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I have a question for Longtabber PE if you dont mind - as an experienced investigator what are your observations of Anita's written English considering that English is not her first language? I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer.
Thanks again.

Well, thats hard to answer because I work globally and deal with all kinds of "English" and honestly didnt look at that parameter. I didnt know it wasnt her first language either. ( and its hard to say from a blog)


I know from dealing with Europeans you can see their spelling and such. ( going to the repair "centre" to get a "tyre")

Sorry but I cant really say without meeting the subject

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

LONGTABBER PE:
I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.
It is funny reading your analyses.
Funny.
Oh dear. I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

Locknar:
Way to go Locknar!

LONGTABBER PE:
My how surprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience.
This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about.

Well, VFF, heres the deal. I am a PhD ( Engineering) and have been doing "experiments" and reporting on custom designs since before you were born. I can recognize a farce from a mile away. I'm simply calling your hand on it.

>>>I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.

According to YOU. You wouldnt know a "scientific explanation" if it came up and hugged you. What you are doing is telling a tale.

>>>It is funny reading your analyses.

Maybe but those "analyses" have sent a lot of bad guys to jail, been proven in various courts and in my field.

>>>I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

No ( see 1 above) you are out to scam. See, you violate the basic IMRAD method of study/report writing.

You are starting from a false premise that you actually have these abilities you claim. ( putting the cart before the horse as those claims are unsubstantiated). The "M" in IMRAD is method.

Heres the first step ( which you talk around and skip) and that is to establish whether in fact you actually have an ability to study or now. ( I see the subtle inferences and know how the game is played but you arent going to skip first base here)

So, your first method is to show you have an ability- heres your test.

Get the skeptics ( or anyone but have an accredited proctor) to ( WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE) select a group of people with affidavits of conditions. Have a few bogies thrown in as well.

They select and arrange the study according to your parameters and you sit in a room and "cold" meet them. You dont see them before hand and theydont speak.

We will see in short order if you have any ability at all and that will determine the course ( if any) of the rest.