Where are the study results you repeatedly promised to publish last spring? You know, the ones where you did worse than three of four controls?

Why haven't you finished the crushed pill test? You must have lied when you said you could not afford the $10 for the reference samples you allegedly required because now you can afford to fly to California!

What happened to the other local skeptics group you contacted  who were allegedly interested in testing you? Surely you would want ot save the money by doing it locally.

What happened to the person with migraines you intended to try to heal?

What happened to contacting the psychology department about investigating your perceptions scientifically as if they might be synesthesia?

We don't forget these things, Anita.

The paperwork from the first study are still on my desk waiting for the scanner to be installed after the PC crashed and we had to buy a new PC. I *almost*, very nearly, begun working on that this weekend, but then I realized that I had a large homework due. It is a lot of papers, and I do have a lot of schoolwork to do. I do intend to publish it though.

[ Edited to Add: How ironic! Not five minutes after I posted this, my laptop computer crashed! ]

You know fully well why I didn't present conclusions on the crushed pill test. I perceived two pairs of similar compounds and was unable to distinguish the two without reference samples. It would be like asking someone to distinguish between two similar shades of blue, and two shades of green, without giving them references to know how each is labelled.

And back when I said that I couldn't afford to buy the reference samples, I truly couldn't. This semester, luckily, I am doing a little better money-wise. But now the main focus is the IIG test, not a pill test. I have not submitted a claim of chemical perception to a test, it is just an experience I have and it is not a priority right now. It would be like asking someone who is preparing to run a marathon, to go swim across the English channel. Aren't you happy I am having a real IIG test instead? 

I did contact local Skeptics groups and several did show interest in arranging a Preliminary test for me, but I have now not heard back from them for a while. But that is alright since there will be an actual test soon instead.

I am meeting with the man whom I attempted to treat for migraines, again one of these upcoming weekends for a follow-up "attempted treatment". Why don't you call him and see what happened to him? You do have his number, and you were given permission to speak with him!

As for working on synesthesia research, I simply do not have time for that. Such time needs to be invested on my coursework and on my undergraduate research projects. I will be researching how human brain waves might affect tissue structure! Yeah!

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 26 Oct 2009 11:31 AM

 Aren't you happy I am having a real IIG test instead? 
...
But that is alright since there will be an actual test soon instead.

You mean a preliminary demonstration.

Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? And why do you then think there will be an actual test?
Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim?
Or missing organs, or ....whatever it is all about.
 

Yes, what I will have with the IIG on the 21st is a Preliminary demonstration. But it is the same thing as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. Either way, it is only a Preliminary. And of course if I pass the Preliminary test/demonstration, I win nothing and the claim is not verified.

You did not answer my questions. Would you answer my questions please?

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 26 Oct 2009 04:59 PM

Yes, what I will have with the IIG on the 21st is a Preliminary demonstration. But it is the same thing as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. Either way, it is only a Preliminary. And of course if I pass the Preliminary test/demonstration, I win nothing and the claim is not verified.

my bolding

No, it is not.

 

You mean a preliminary demonstration.

Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? And why do you then think there will be an actual test?
Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim?
Or missing organs, or ....whatever it is all about.  

You did not answer my questions. Would you answer my questions please? 

What I will have with the IIG on the 21st is what they call a Preliminary demonstration, which I believe is the same as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. I do not expect to pass the Preliminary, but that doesn't keep me from emphasizing that if I were to pass the Preliminary, it would not verify the claim. Of course the Preliminary can not verify the claim. I think I have been clear on all of this.

Alright, the IIG Preliminary demonstration and the JREF Preliminary test are not exactly the same, then. But they are similar in that they precede a formal test. But you are right, the IIG is less strict about the Preliminary than is the JREF. You'll see what I mean.

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 27 Oct 2009 09:41 AM

You mean a preliminary demonstration.

Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? And why do you then think there will be an actual test?
Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim?
Or missing organs, or ....whatever it is all about.  

You did not answer my questions. Would you answer my questions please? 

What I will have with the IIG on the 21st is what they call a Preliminary demonstration, which I believe is the same as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. I do not expect to pass the Preliminary, but that doesn't keep me from emphasizing that if I were to pass the Preliminary, it would not verify the claim. Of course the Preliminary can not verify the claim. I think I have been clear on all of this.

Alright, the IIG Preliminary demonstration and the JREF Preliminary test are not exactly the same, then. But they are similar in that they precede a formal test. But you are right, the IIG is less strict about the Preliminary than is the JREF. You'll see what I mean.

Okay, that means your anwers to the three related questions are:
1) Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? = yes.
2) And why do you then think there will be an actual test? = you don't think there will be an actual test.
3) Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim? = No.

Many thanks.
Do you agree that your statement "there will be an actual test soon " is factually incorrect and that you should not have made that statement?

With this, I wholeheartedly agree.
Indeed, an informal demonstration. But the IIG West even brings in the UCLA and the press for something that is according to themselves not even the formal test. And then they say: "regardless of the outcome, this will be quite an event."
Huh? What is the IIG West up to?

It is almost stranger than the unspecified claim of VfF.

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 27 Oct 2009 09:41 AM

You mean a preliminary demonstration.

Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? And why do you then think there will be an actual test?
Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim?
Or missing organs, or ....whatever it is all about.  

You did not answer my questions. Would you answer my questions please? 

What I will have with the IIG on the 21st is what they call a Preliminary demonstration, which I believe is the same as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. I do not expect to pass the Preliminary, but that doesn't keep me from emphasizing that if I were to pass the Preliminary, it would not verify the claim. Of course the Preliminary can not verify the claim. I think I have been clear on all of this.

Alright, the IIG Preliminary demonstration and the JREF Preliminary test are not exactly the same, then. But they are similar in that they precede a formal test. But you are right, the IIG is less strict about the Preliminary than is the JREF. You'll see what I mean.

Yes Anita, and a dog and a cat are similar because they are mammals?  Do you have even the vaguest idea of how confused you are?  You lie or don't understand what this preliminary test is all about until it is pointed out by other posters.  This seems to be another blatant grab for attention but we've come to expect nothing less from you.

Posted By Daylightstar on 27 Oct 2009 02:33 PM

With this, I wholeheartedly agree.
Indeed, an informal demonstration. But the IIG West even brings in the UCLA and the press for something that is according to themselves not even the formal test. And then they say: "regardless of the outcome, this will be quite an event."
Huh? What is the IIG West up to?

It is almost stranger than the unspecified claim of VfF.

It is utterly bizzare. It's almost as if they are setting her up for public humiliation ... but surely they can't be? Baffling.

 

It's almost as if they are setting her up for public humiliation

Okay, that means your anwers to the three related questions are:
1) Didn't you expect to have your missing kidney claim falsified with the preliminary demonstration? = yes.
2) And why do you then think there will be an actual test? = you don't think there will be an actual test.
3) Do you now expect the result of the preliminary demonstration to support your missing kidney claim? = No.

Many thanks.
Do you agree that your statement "there will be an actual test soon " is factually incorrect and that you should not have made that statement?

That's right. I do expect to falsify the claim with the Preliminary demonstration. Even though I did detect the missing kidney in the past incident. And no, I don't expect to get to proceed to the IIG formal test. And of course, regardless of the outcome of the Preliminary, even if I were to pass the Preliminary demonstration it would not verify the claim, because that's just how the Preliminary is structured. When I've said that there will be "an actual test soon" I was referring to the Preliminary, and it "is" a "test" in the sense that it may very well falsify the claim and present the final conclusion to the claim. The only way in which the Preliminary is not a test is that it is incapable of verifying the claim, but I think we can all be happy with that. I think I should have made that statement, and I also think that you are overanalyzing.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Oct 2009 02:16 PM
I'm surprised the IIG is even going through with it. She says she expects to fail. She says her abilty is somehow related to synesthesia (nonsense). I mean, what's the point?

The changes to the JREFF challenge were for the better. They now require an academic affidavit to show that someone has demonstrated their ability. Only then do protocol negotiations commence. What the IIG is doing is basically wasting their time. Let the claimant demonstrate the ability informally at a university FIRST before wasting so much time on them.

I am flabbergasted that 2 1/2 years later the only thing Anita is going to do is attempt to do a demonstration that she should have attempted on her own before ever attempting the IIG. The precedent the IIG is setting is terrible. Basically, they are saying that if you have some sort of fantasy with no evidence, they will indulge you.

I actually agree. Problem is, it is difficult to arrange preliminary testing for my claim, it is not like a paranormal claim involving playing cards or telepathy. The claim requires persons whom I have not met before and who have a very specific aspect to their health, and participants who can arrange the whole thing for me.

I will not feel humiliated if or when I fail the Preliminary. The claim is based on a genuine experience that I have described honestly and truthfully, regardless of the disbelief some of you have - and that is why it is a paranormal claim in the first place, because it is as unbelievable as it is. I think I will set a valuable example to other persons who claim paranormal experiences. Above all, it will show that it is very easy to arrange and go through a paranormal test. I think what I've done will be a contribution to skepticism, not to pseudoscience.