Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

So it's unlikely that we're going to get any guesses on the pill test that was sent to her, what, a month ago?

And then, for those with excellent long-term memories, there was the mall survey... 'eventually' is turning out to be a long time.

btw. Happy Birthday.

Thanks.

Hey, Ashles. Happy birthday.

Thank you too.

 

[Locknar]

Not by vff rationalisation.

She'll say (as she's done for missed medical complaints failures) that if she hasn't attempted it she can't say she can't do it.

Kinda.... She did say she had spent two hours on this, but needed more time. This from the person that has stated they can "see"/"sense" ice cream as it is being eaten?

ETA: I guess this means that the Vibrational Algebra ^TM only works on known (to her) substances. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to what she has previously stated.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you too.

"Too" ? Hey, I said it first!

 

[EHocking]

Kinda.... She did say she had spent two hours on this, but needed more time.

Riiiggghhttt.. . . . and a sample of the uncrushed pills as "reference". Odd, that. Her claim was that she could discern from "vibrations" what effect a drug would have on the human body..... when it was in pill form and she knew the name of the drug, I guess.

This from the person that has stated they can "see"/"sense" ice cream as it is being eaten?

From behind, in a dark room, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard"....

ETA: I guess this means that the Vibrational Algebra ^TM only works on known (to her) substances. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to what she has previously stated.

Surely not!?

 

[desertgal]

Happy Birthday, Ashles.

@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.

You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.

I came to this site only recently, entirely due to RSL, and, I readily admit that I am skeptical, but I am not an 'experienced' skeptic when it comes to examining such claims.

I do tend to try and decipher what motivates the claim first-i.e. attention seeking, the woo economy, etc. It seems to me that, often, certain motivations will 'explain' the claim even before one begins to examine the claim itself.

Out of curiosity, is this an unfair or incorrect way to approach a paranormal claim?

My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.

I can agree with this. Many of her anecdotes jibe with this. Even her 'reading' of Wayne - 'sensing' an Adam's apple in a male subject, to me, has absolutely nothing to do with her alleged extrasensory ability or perceptions.

 

[skeen]

Anita's description of her abilities (in the context of claims that she is delusional, or having hallucinations) correlates exactly to imagination, or "making stuff up". While possibly contradictory to earlier statements, she has repeatedly said that her "perceptions" don't enter into the real world.

In other words, they're in her mind. In her imagination. It's possible that she has trouble separating imagination from the real world, but I don't believe that's the case at all. Clearly this is a person who just wants to be special. Why else would she clearly make up this nonsense about vibrational algebra?

We have to take these claims in the context of her other claims: ghosts and spirits, crystals, vibrations and quantum jargon, etc. etc. This has nothing to do with science. This is why I wonder why she even brings science into the matter at all; when she claims to be a star-person, and claims that she can see and communicate with ghosts, what's the point?

Whether she's lying or not about her experiences, she has mental issues. To lie to this extent, to seek this much attention, is clearly a sign of mental disorder. One thing we do know for sure, is that she does not have these abilities. So I don't tip toe around my belief that there's something wrong upstairs; this much is apparent to everyone anyway.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But what can we possibly do that prevents her from claiming 2) anyway? She has already done that.

Nothing.

If she makes this claim when it's untrue, we can say with all honesty that it's
a lie. If she says this when it is true, then any counterargument will sound just like she sounded when she interpreted the Wayne reading.

If the study is going to go ahead it will go ahead.

If she does it in a public place, which looks unlikely, she will need four volunteers. If they don't support the study, she'll have to work hard to find other people. If she does it at a FACT meeting, then they have to agree with it.

She needs the test/study. She can't do it without assistance. Nobody has to agree to assist if they believe the results are useful.

Who does it send such a message to?

Several people have posted in this thread about how educational it has been for them. I've gotten a PM or two to that effect. I know *I* have learned things.

On the downside any lurking woo believers present or future will see that if you just dig in your heels, the skeptics will capitulate and abandon the very way of thinking that makes them skeptics.

I will not willingly and knowingly abandon the rigor I had when I started.

Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?

Yes, because you and Anita will have found a way to utilize it to create a falsification scenario. How many paranormal "studies" have we seen where we roll our eyes and say, "That protocol stinks!" It seems legitimate because paranormal "scientists" use it. If skeptics assign it a value, it gives it credence.

It's a fairly simple calculation. Anita has claimed success in instances where she has detected something of 100%.
I am suggesting a failure rate of 16.7% or below. Compared to her own claim this is a massively lower position.

You're repeating the obvious as if it strengthens your argument. It does not. You haven't even provided a basis that 16.7% means anything in any way.

I apologize in advance if I am insulting your intelligence. It's not my intention, but I believe you may have a flaw in your logic about the numbers. I trust others to correct me where I'm wrong because I'm not an expert.

Here's the thing: Performing significantly below the level of chance is just as unlikely as performing significantly above chance. Furthermore, without careful analysis, a 1 to 6 miss ratio may actually be more or less difficult to attain by chance than a 1 in 7 hit to miss ratio. It sounds counter intuitive, but it's true.

We know a coin flip has a 50-50 chance of heads or tails. Assuming everything is kosher, then if we flip the coin 100 times, the most likely result is 50-50. Intuitively we say that 45 to 55 is not unlikely. Intuitively we also say that 90 heads is very unlikely. At the same time we are also saying that 10 tails is equally unlikely.

So, if we ask someone to guess the results of the flip, we would expect them to get 45 to 55 of them right. If they got 90% of them right, we would probably think that maybe there's something there since it is very unlikely that they would get 90 guesses right. At the same time we are also saying it is just as unlikely that they would only get 10 guesses right. By chance these two outcomes are equal.

Therefore, if I said that in order to falsify a claim of accurately predicting coin tosses a person must miss 9 or more times for each hit, I've actually made it extremely difficult for them to fail. It would be just as difficult as telling them they had to guess correctly 9 or more times for each miss to prove accuracy.

And that's with easy math. Take Keno as another example. There's a board with 80 numbers. The computer randomly selects 15. The player chooses 1 to 15 numbers in an attempt to match.

If you pick 12 numbers, the odds of getting 2, 3 or 4 correct are each better than getting 0 or 1 correct. In fact getting 2 right is 1:4 whereas getting 0 right is 1:43. See this website on Keno Odds.

Thus, without any math behind your 1 to 5 miss to hit ratio, we have no idea what meaning there is, if any.

In the moderated thread I wrote this:

If you performed at level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?​

Anita replied

This is the type of test I expect to have. And if I fail to obtain medical perceptions in such a test I would definitely conclude, as we all would conclude, that it is not the case of a paranormal ability of perceiving accurate health information. Yes.​

Work from there.

This study is not anything like a genuine scientific attempt to discover a perfomance higher than chance.

With modifications this study can reveal an ability that is no better than chance. That's all the evidence anyone needs to reveal that something outside of chance is NOT at work. Proving something cannot be explained by chance alone is much more difficult and has a much higher bar.

But operating around the level of chance is adequate proof that chance alone was probably at work, especially when the claim is 100% accuracy.

Anyway if Godofpie rejects her study I am all for that. But I don't think it would change Anita's intentions in any way. She would probably proceed with the study with Uni friends instead.
I'm only working on the asumption the study will go ahead no matter what.

And if she does, so be it. I want no part of it if it's junk science. That's why I insisted she remove my name from the study form and protocol. I will not assign any value to the results without knowing exactly what it is I am saying.

Show me your work. If 16.67% is around the level of chance and a host of other issues are resolved, I will consider assigning meaning to it. Until then, it's just junk.

So we could all simply turn our back completely on the study and ignore Anita from hereonin (which doesn't look likely) or we can try and get something useful from it.

We should treat it the same way we treated the chemical identification tests and reading photos. Attack the data vigorously without lending it any credibility it does not deserve. If this is another test that means nothing, then that's what we should say.

Do you not think we could get anything useful from instances where Anita claims a perception at a level she agres is significant, yet it is incorrect?

I don't need anything useful. She does. I already know there is no ability.

What Anita needs to learn is how to evaluate data properly. Telling her that sensing mild pain or discomforting pain in someone that has no pain is anything but a complete miss is just silly.

I'm still not clear what your counter proposal is. Simply say no to Anita and hope she listens and ditches the study completely? Is that likely?

I really don't care how likely it is or not. I do not need her to do a survey, study or test. She does.

What do you want? Anita to suddenly say "Oh hang on this study isn't a sensible way to analyse my ability, I hadn't realised until you pointed that out for the 68th time!"

That would be nice. If I once again have to say, "Anita, you are not listening to people who know better than you. Your study was worthless and a waste of time. Nobody supported it." then so be it.

I am unclear as to FACT's current position. I thought they were agreeing in principle to the study as it stands?

His recent quote was something to the effect of that it's not fair to ask the group to participate in a study that will lead to inconclusive results at best.

Look Unca I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I don't see how simply ignoring the study achieves anything.

I'm not ignoring it. I already told you that No means No and any Extent means yes. I will only look at items in the last 30 days. I will outright ignore some conditions. I don't care if she agrees or not. I'm right, and she's wrong.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I see Anita hasn't posted for a couple of days, busy doing homework maybe, but seems to be since godofpie posted the email from Dr Carlson saying she got her test with Wayne wrong.

She logged in yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon/evening. Perhaps she is just skimming the posts like she told us she would do. As of Thursday afternoon's mail delivery I have not received via postal mail or fax the notes from her survey that she offered to send. I'm in Phoenix, and she's in North Carolina. I did receive a card from my niece in Virginia that was mailed Tuesday.

 

[GeeMack]

Could anyone possibly be taking away from this that anyone thinks the Scale is a sensible way to test?

Why, certainly. Anita thinks using the Scale is a sensible way to test. And thanks to everyone working with her to tweak the details of the Scale, she'll keep on thinking it. Hey, after all, it's being endorsed by a brilliant JREF member! The rest of us aren't indulging her fantasy or allowing her to manipulate us.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Happy Birthday Ashles!

Studies are keeping me very busy. I'm hoping to have the 1st Study with the FACT Skeptics this Sunday February 8 2009 but that decision is now in their hands not mine. And for those of you who've kept claiming that I do all that I can to avoid a study and a test, in order to arrange and to conduct this study I am looking ahead at at least two nights where I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming Exams^TM.

The study procedure I've hastily written for the FACT Study, and the health questionnaire specific for that study, are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html. Note that the health form document provided there is uploaded on the internet with the tables all wrong and that the original Word document looks more orderly. If someone wants the original, printable Word documents of any of the files that are available on my website then please e-mail me and I can send them to you.

What else do I have to say before I recede back to studying... I haven't been able to read all of your posts here. I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions. The man has an adam's apple. Me and my Skeptics:

​

 

[desertgal]

I made no incorrect perceptions.

If Wayne had a 'slightly uncomfortable' Adam's apple, then, no, you didn't. He didn't, so you were incorrect. If Wayne had had a slightly "tired" shoulder, then, no, you wouldn't be incorrect. He didn't, so you were incorrect. If you are too deluded to see that, that's your problem. Every other person here counts those two things as misses. Yu can keep reiterating your illogical analysis until the cows come home. It won't change anything. You'll still be wrong.

Oh, boy, here we go with the...

Me and my Skeptics:

​

...the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with.

...manipulative nonsense again. So pathetic.

 

[Jonquill]

"I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM. "

I hope being tired won't make Anita perform badly on her Perceptions Study on the 8th.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jim (godofpie):
Thanks for all your work with the FACT Skeptics, and I do appreciate the huge resource that you all are in my paranormal investigation.

I wanted to show you this before I posted it to the forum. Dr Carlson and I have been corresponding and he cc'd me on an email that he had sent to someone else. I have his permission to post the portion of his email that relates to his observations concerning Wayne. You are a nice person Anita and I don't want to hurt your feelings but you continue to point to your reading on Wayne as a success of your powers. I don't feel it was a success (...) and neither does Dr. Carlson. Below are his observations.

What I meant by success was that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim since I did not make any incorrect perceptions. That is what I was happy about, although I realize that I should try to remain more neutral and unaffected emotionally regardless of what results reveal. The viewing with Wayne was not successful since I did not make any accurate medical perceptions. But the viewing with Wayne was also not unsuccessful since I did not make any inaccurate medical perceptions. All I concluded from this experience was that I had yet again failed to falsify the claim, which is exactly what I concluded to Dr. Carlson after the viewing when he came to ask about the outcome.

I think we are both right.

"I have had only a few meetings with Ms. Ikonen. Though I have dealt with claimants in the past, most of them were referred to me by JREF, and already more or less knew exactly what claim they were making. Ms. Ikonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim.

Roughly I know that I can look at a person and detect health problems that are structural or perceived in nature. However I am required by testing organizations such as the IIG West and by Dr. Carlson before he would prepare a test of my claim, to form a more specific claim. The study will help me form a more specific claim.

She asserts that she can detect medical ailments by examining people,

By looking at people.

but in fact, there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even high, efficiency.

I lack the experience to make claims about the efficiency. It does not mean that the efficiency would necessarily be high or low. I just don't know the efficiency that's all. It's because I don't run around offering psychic medical readings to people to find out. And, that is what the study is for.

The one test

Nope. Was part of my study, not a test. A test is able to pass or fail a hypothesis. What I did with Wayne was by no means capable of passing the hypothesis since some cold reading was still available since I am taking a gradual approach from the everyday experience with the perceptions and change by change by implementing test conditions toward a real test procedure which would be a test.

we have performed with her involved her looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked it with a low level of confidence.

I said that I had felt something in the front of the throat but that it involved a bony structure, but I realize that it could have been dense cartilage. I knew it was not associated with the thyroid or other soft tissue nor embedded tissue. I also knew that the extent of what I perceived was very low and that it was not a health problem, ie. not an ailment. I also found out that it was the adam's apple I was perceiving. And I did not state it as any kind of answer as to what ailments I might have detected. My conclusion was that I detected no health problems in Wayne. My confidence was high that it was a perception of something that occurs to an insignificant extent.

Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect.

He said he has no throat ailment and I said I sense no throat ailment. I said I sensed his adam's apple. I'm pretty sure he has an adam's apple.

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."

I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list.

re posted with permission from Dr Eric Carlson

If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best.

Of course I respect Dr. Carlson. But what I have designed is a study not a test. A study whose objectives are to find out more about the claim. A test would be designed not to find out more about the claim but to pass or falsify a claim. Why can't I have a test study? If FACT does not want to participate in the study I'll just have to find some other skeptics who will.

On a brighter note, I just read that you are trying to resolve the "hit or miss" problem with Ashles. That's great! If you can come to some kind of agreement with him what a hit is and what a miss is I think we are heading in the right direction. Good Luck!

The study is designed as a study for me to gain a general idea of how closely my perceptions correlate with the perceptions that a person has of their health. It is not a test.

 

[desertgal]

"I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming ExamsTM. "

I hope being tired won't make Anita perform badly on her Perceptions Study on the 8th.

She's laying out what will be an excuse for the delay in advance. She does that a lot.

 

[GeeMack]

I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions.

You can keep trying to spin this all you want, but you'll still be wrong.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is another piece in an ever increasing pile of evidence that Anita is pulling a scam, is a compulsive liar, or is completely out of touch with reality.

I'd still like to know, which do you think it is, Anita?

 

[godofpie]

Happy Birthday Ashles!

Studies are keeping me very busy. I'm hoping to have the 1st Study with the FACT Skeptics this Sunday February 8 2009 but that decision is now in their hands not mine. And for those of you who've kept claiming that I do all that I can to avoid a study and a test, in order to arrange and to conduct this study I am looking ahead at at least two nights where I have to stay up as long as possible and get maybe 2 hours of sleep in order to be able to study for my Upcoming Exams^TM.

The study procedure I've hastily written for the FACT Study, and the health questionnaire specific for that study, are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html. Note that the health form document provided there is uploaded on the internet with the tables all wrong and that the original Word document looks more orderly. If someone wants the original, printable Word documents of any of the files that are available on my website then please e-mail me and I can send them to you.

What else do I have to say before I recede back to studying... I haven't been able to read all of your posts here. I do have one thing to say, though: I did not falsify the claim in my viewing with Wayne. My conclusion of his health was that I found no health problems. I did detect something in the throat which I concluded was the adam's apple and I concluded that the extent to which I detected it was insignificant. I made no incorrect perceptions. The man has an adam's apple. Me and my Skeptics:

​

Unless I have missed something, I don't know anything about us getting together this Sunday. I have emailed the group to see who is available when, and have received a few responses, but I have made no such arrangements. Am missing something Anita? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: I just received this email.

Dear FACT Skeptics,

I do hope that we can have the study into my paranormal claim this Sunday February 8 as I am hoping to begin making some real progress in my investigation.
Here is a study procedure written specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?access_key=key-igh6i4fgromuvbb62r3
And the health questionnaire specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?access_key=key-2kds8ritvrjnq13y745e
The internet version of the questionnaire displays displays the tables incorrectly. Find both of these documents enclosed as original and printable Word.doc attachments in this e-mail. E-mail me if you are unable to access printable versions of the documents.

Jim wrote,

Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.

The study is not a test and is primarily not designed according to a point scale system, but see the enclosed study procedure which suggests one method of obtaining a result. In the procedure I suggest that for each of the answers that can be answered on a scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, each discrepancy of one units between the answers of volunteer and claimant results in a deduction of 20% of the possible 1.0 point for that question. So that if one answers 2 and the other answers 4 there is a deduction of 40% and 0.6 points correlation for that particular ailment. Since it would be easy to "collect points" by guessing randomly and getting at least "some" correlation, the average correlation per question is calculated. Two skeptics are asked to look at the volunteers and to fill in health questionnaires alongside me the claimant and we will compare the average correlation between claimant and that acchieved by non-claimants. I do not have an answer as to what specific results would lead to the falsification of the paranormal claim. This study is designed primarily for educational purposes, and to make it into a test would reduce the educational quality of the study. I am just hoping that a non-ability would have some opportunity of being revealed.

If it bothers you that there is not a specific point at which the claim would be falsified you may then assume that falsification of a non-ability is not among the objectives of this study. I really would value your participations. This study would be tremendously helpful in forming a stronger claim and coming closer to a real test and the real falsification of a non-ability.

And, do remember: it is a study, not a test. So don't take it "too" seriously. I do hope that the study can take place. Please participate!

Paranormal claimant,
Anita Ikonen

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I started viewing Wayne while being under the strong logical assumption that this man has a long list of serious health problems. Because he had been so eager to be viewed by me, and, after all, he had made a list. So, I began viewing him, feeling the Vibrational Information^TM that I feel when I attempt the medical perceptions and having these form images in my mind. When I view a person I barely look at them, because I experience it as my primary sense is feeling, not vision, that forms the perceptions. Yet I have to see where the person is. (Upcoming Studies^TM will attempt to find out what extent of a person's body I need to see in order to form perceptions. Perhaps the volunteers can be behind a screen! If so, yay!)

Well, I made a general search to see what "dissonance" of a health problem would come up first, but... none came about. So I had to look at one part of the body, one at a time. I looked at the heart. It looked perfect! I looked at all the organs and everything looked beautiful and healthy! So, I started to doubt myself, thinking that my abilities were tuned down somehow. So I made the effort of magnifying what I perceive, thinking that "all the health problems on his list" would become stronger. That is when I felt the adam's apple, and the left shoulder. So I thought, those are the strongest perceptions of his body that I sense! Keep in mind I claim to not only feel and see health problems, I claim to also feel other sensations that a person has. And yes, even the good ones. Such as... when a person is eating ice-cream?

So I wrote down the strongest perceptions that I had: left shoulder, and adam's apple. But strongest is a relative term. It does not imply "strong". Knowing that the extents of these two things that I had sensed were insignificant, I had to conclude that I found nothing wrong with his health. And that is what I concluded as my final answer.

If you guys think you can turn that into inaccuracy then you are just displaying questionable reliability and objectivity. Those two were not inaccurate perceptions. The man does have an adam's apple. And he does have a left shoulder.

I mean, I can even perceive what a person feels that are subtle and healthy things. Like... when a person eats ice-cream, or when they swallow, or their heartbeat, or breathing. If I said that I felt someone's breathing, you would all jump at me and say that I made an incorrect perception since I supposedly claimed to sense lung cancer. No. If I say I felt someone's breathing, I felt someone's breathing. If I say I sensed someone's adam's apple, or left shoulder, then those were what I sensed. I fully and clearly concluded at the end of the viewing with Wayne that those two perceptions were not related to health problems.

Oh, you guys... just stay with the truth of things. Don't misinterpret all the time.

 

[Jonquill]

Why feel the left shoulder if there is nothing wrong with it, why not the right shoulder or both of them?

 

[GeeMack]

Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect.

He said he has no throat ailment and I said I sense no throat ailment. I said I sensed his adam's apple. I'm pretty sure he has an adam's apple.

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."

I asked if he could write down his ailment in a list of four ailments, three of which he does not have. And I was unable to find the ailment even when it was on a list.

You were wrong, Anita, flat out 100% wrong. And everybody but you knows it. Everybody. And that, among a small mountain of other evidence, is why people keep suggesting that you might be mentally ill. You can't be sane and honest, and keep insisting that you didn't fail completely in your session with Wayne. I think a lot of us, out of sympathy, are hoping it's mentally ill. At least there's a chance you can fix that.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:

I'd still like to know, which do you think it is, Anita?

Skeptics' impatience? Misinterpretations?

godofpie:

Unless I have missed something, I don't know anything about us getting together this Sunday. I have emailed the group to see who is available when, and have received a few responses, but I have made no such arrangements. Am missing something Anita? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: I just received this email.

I thought we were having a study this weekend. You were the one who suggested this Sunday, as long as I'd provide the material and have your approval.

Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.

*Posted since it is already available on the Skeptics Group's website.