Apparently, Prana is a type of Yoga...probably something she recently "discoverd".

LOL. I was aware of the term but not in the context of using it to survive 8 days without water. Who's got that kinda time anyway? You can't be active for that time period and survive.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Jun 2009 12:38 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread....ost4785738

I've done 7 once and 8 twice without any water or food, using techniques of prana. Also I've come across documented cases of people surviving for longer than that when they've had to in cases of emergency. So that four days is incorrect.

I have no idea what she means by "techniques of prana" but I find this claim doubtful. But who knows? It's possible if you pretty much do nothing and stay in a climate controlled environment.

Why would you want to, though? I know Anita will probably claim that, as a superior "star person", or using prana, she was able to transcend the thirst and discomfort, but I think that is a lot of hooey. 7 or 8 days without water or food would be one miserable stretch of days-not to mention the health risks.

Just another one of her fantasies. If not, then, no offense intended, but going seven or eight days without sustenance for no reason at all isn't impressive. It's just stupid.

I'm with you, DG. It just sounds like another attempt at getting attention, which is the driving force behind all these claims.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Jun 2009 06:26 PM
I'm with you, DG. It just sounds like another attempt at getting attention, which is the driving force behind all these claims.

My husband is a UAV/RPV pilot-flies recon and surveillance for the US military in Afghanistan. About ten years ago, they were in Quatar when he and his crew got cut off from their military escort. Seven guys, one canteen of water, and no food for three days before the military could get them out. By that time, all the guys were severely dehydrated and sicker than dogs-and that was with, at least, some water. They were in the hospital for a week, and it took months before he felt like his system was back in balance again. One of the guys, who has diabetes, came pretty damn close to dying,
.
Anyway, he just read Anita's claim on the JREF and said it is total crap. For one thing, anyone who has ever gone without water for even two days, much less seven or eight, will tell you that there wouldn't be a chance in hell they would voluntarily do it again. Secondly, he says, anyone who would brag about it so lightly has no clue how hellish an experience it is. Thirdly, her claim is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever had to do it involuntarily.

According to this site, http://www.survivaltopics.com/survi...out-water/, surviving without water depends very much on the temperature. They don't mention relative humidity, but I'm sure that's a factor as well. So, it's reasonable to believe that it's possible for someone to survive for 8 days at home if you kept the temperature at a cool 70 F (21 C).

But as you point out, it's an absolutely horrible experience. I've pushed myself hard enough to have suffered the effects of dehydration. It's an awful experience. Fortunately, my experiences were brief and not dangerous. I can't imagine how horrible it is to really feel the effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

And we're supposed to believe that this same woman who could repeatedly endure dehydration couldn't handle a professor throwing pieces of paper at her and saying mean things without dropping out of the class and almost comitting suicide over it? http://forums.randi.org/showthread....ost4480237

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Jun 2009 11:01 PM

And we're supposed to believe that this same woman who could repeatedly endure dehydration couldn't handle a professor throwing pieces of paper at her and saying mean things without dropping out of the class and almost comitting suicide over it? http://forums.randi.org/showthread....ost4480237

As well, she would also have us believe that she can become ill for days with nausea and headaches simply from attempting to identify bacteria in dry cereal, etc. with her "ability":

"Conclusions: I was starting to feel tired and also something reminiscent of the beginnings of the headache and nausea I had before when I did tests on identifying Lactobacillus bacteria in cereal samples. I need to be careful and not exhaust myself because it can take several days for me to recover to the point where efforts in doing these studies won't make me feel uncomfortable."

...but, again, can utilize mind over matter techniques to repeatedly endure dehydration?

She continues to protest that she isn't mentally ill. Yet, she either conjured this fantasy up, or actually did it. Neither speaks well for her mental state.

ETA: I don't doubt that someone could do it-although it would be risky as hell. I just doubt that any sane person voluntarily would. (religious/political principles aside.) But, people do do stupid things, so maybe...and it's a big maybe...once. But. not twice, and certainly not three times.

Besides, and I thought about this last night, I don't know any one person who could afford to take seven or eight days out of their lives to do it. I mean, if you were to attempt it, you'd have to figure you wouldn't be doing much else as the days passed. Not an acitivity for the average busy person.

Hi Everyone! I am new here, and have so many questions and comments that I don't know where to begin. So I'll just jump in here with a really simple question.

Is there a chance VisionfromFraud was kidding when she wrote that stuff about being a star person?

I'm still wading through all of the threads on her; so far I've only read the posts revolving around her claim that she couldn't register for some forum (lucky them) because they asked if she's human.

Maybe there's more about it somewhere, but from my current knowledge-base, I can't believe even someone as nuts as she is really thinks she's from some star somewhere. And she does try to joke, every now and then.

To put my views on the record right away, I think she's preparing for a future career in woo and needs to be stopped NOW. She might well be insane, too, but that rarely gets in the way of any career, and besides, she's probably crazy like a fox.

So there's my first post. Thank you again, UncaYimmy, for sending such a kind reply to my email.

OH.MY.GOD.

I really should have looked at the thread list before I posted (I came directly into this thread via a link.) She REALLY does think she's a star person. I need a moment.




OK. I'm back. I've never heard of any of this Ashtar nonsense. I truly can't get over it. They let this girl into a University?!? To study science?!? The Admissions Dept. was really asleep at the switch the day they reviewed her application.

I still think she's still crazy like a fox, though. Or maybe crazy like the offspring of a fox and Margot Kidder, or something.

Posted By Christa on 07 Jun 2009 09:39 PM
OH.MY.GOD.

I really should have looked at the thread list before I posted (I came directly into this thread via a link.) She REALLY does think she's a star person. I need a moment.

Welcome, Christa.

Your posts made me chuckle, as you had the same reaction we all did when Anita first posted her "star person" claim on the JREF-which was, at the time, apropos of nothing, since we sure weren't discussing star people. I don't think many of us had heard of the concept. . I had the mental image of a bunch of people around the world collectively gaping at their monitors.

It really doesn't leave any doubt that something has gone awry in Anita's mind, does it? I don't disagree that she is scamming, or that she is planning to enter the woo industry, but I also think there's more than a little narcissism going on there. She may have all her crayons, but some of them have started to melt.

Welcome, Christa,

Your reaction is the reason I felt it necessary to outline all of her claims. Anita tries to keep people focused on a few narrow claims, but I believe you need to take a holistic (ha!) approach. When you look at everything she has said, it really makes you wonder what's going on in her head? Does she believe all of it? I think she does.

I'm one of the few who doesn't think she is preparing for a career in woo. It's certainly possible, but I think it's a case of "look at me!" syndrome.

Just a heads up, Christa ,the original members of this forum have been accused of bullying Anita, when we've only asked her for honest answers/facts . Anita has been a topic of discussion on JREF forum, and on this forum, for quite some time. She's mostly quit posting since the debacle of her last "study".

Thanks for the warning, Audible Click. I'm still reading through a lot of Anita threads at JREF, and so far I disagree with what happened there.

TBH, I was surprised a skeptics' forum would restrict free speech the way JREF did. I know there's a controversy about IRL interventions in Anita's life, which since I don't know much about it yet I don't have an opinion, but in general I don't think it's possible to bully someone who acts like her.

She's a nutbar scam artist who shows up in a skeptics forum, probably in an attempt to manipulate members and use them for her own ends, what does she expect? A tea party?

I am not a product of internet chan culture, but I take free speech very seriously. Unless people are making death threats or seriously suggesting illegal activities, limits should be minimal.

I don't expect skeptics, of all people, to over-moderate the sharing of opinions. Whatever happened to robust discussion to get at the truth?

Also, I just joined JREF and Anita was the thread that appealed to me the most. I couldn't see the point of posting there when this site offered so much info. If she goes back there, I might post there, too biu I can't really see the point of interacting with a dishonest, delustional crackpot.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 08 Jun 2009 05:10 PM
I'm one of the few who doesn't think she is preparing for a career in woo. It's certainly possible, but I think it's a case of "look at me!" syndrome.

Well, to be fair, a career in woo could definitely be considered another manisfestation of "look at me!" syndrome. There is a lot of ego stroking to be had from those who believe in such things.

I had my doubts about Anita's motivations. Narcissism, definitely, but I wasn't sure if a woo career was part of it. But, Longtabber made a pretty strong case, based on considerable experience, and while that didn't wholly convince me, it did make me step back and look at the whole picture. There were a few things that had been niggling at me from the beginning, about Anita's motivations.

When she first came on the JREF forum, two of her first posts stand out in sharp relief against her claims that she isn't interested in a woo career. One was her claim that she would love to have her own radio show, and involve celebrities, but, more significantly, she asked JREF members to help her compose a waiver for "psychic medical readings". Granted, once she saw the way the wind blows on the JREF, she backed off and started to protest that she wasn't actually serious, but, to me, those statements were two of the most unguarded ones Anita ever made,. and they were enlightening.

As well, any doubts I had left were pretty much vaporized by her "body art" page, and her more recent offer to provide psychic readings to folks under the guise of her "study". To be honest, the "body art" page, more than anything else, gave the lie to her pretense at a scientific investigation, and to her claims that she had doubts about the origin of her ability, or that she was willing to accept that her ability was merely cold reading and/or synesthesia. That one page made it pretty clear it was all a sham. As well, she continued to hint about "for entertainment purposes only" waiver, even as she continued to deny her interest in a woo career, and, after UncaYimmy posted a link to Brent Atwater's website, Anita made continued references to the amount of money Atwater makes for her 'readings'. I think that titillated her, even as she outwardly scorned it.

That said, though, I don't think her interest in a woo career is motivated primarily by money. In fact, I get the impression that the money is secondary-appealing, absolutely, but not as appealing as the notion of fame, glory, recognition, etc. She has as much said that is something she craves, during the time she and UY were discussing the Nobel. After all, she didn't express interest in winning the Medal based on an accomplishment using conventional science.  She dreams of winning the Medal based on scientifically establishing paranormal ability. It would, I think, in her mind, be the Medal to beat all Medals, and a short cut to glory. Why toil in a lab for 40 years in the hopes of reaching Stockholm when you could just leapfrog  by establishing paranormal ability now? With the added bonus of being both subject and scientist. Hence her disappointment when UY pointed out that she couldn't win the Medal as psychic and scientist both. Hence her backtracking when I pointed out that she couldn't claim it is synesthesia and still claim it is paranormal.

I mean, we all know she can't see into the human body, and she knows it, too, but the real issue is that she definitely has the ego to believe she can pull it off to anyone and everyone she meets. Nine months on the JREF didn't change that one bit.

And, of course, her quest for legitimate fame and glory explains her involvement with the JREF and other skeptic organizations-it's been a game of "fool the skeptics and win some credibility". Or, rather, "mention the skeptics on my website a gazillion times because it looks far more credible than the 'Star People Association'".

She may be quiet, but she isn't done. I think her involvement in that "star people" group has opened up a whole new audience for her, and she's busy repeating the process with believers instead of skeptics. Which makes this website even more necessary. UY doesn't need to pierce the logic of skeptics, but, hopefully, he might get through to any believers that still have logical brain cells.

Posted By Christa on 10 Jun 2009 02:40 AM
TBH, I was surprised a skeptics' forum would restrict free speech the way JREF did. I know there's a controversy about IRL interventions in Anita's life, which since I don't know much about it yet I don't have an opinion, but in general I don't think it's possible to bully someone who acts like her.

Well, some of that was me. I was pretty rude to her. Partly to, hopefully, jolt her into awareness, but, also, because it was wholly exasperating to watch so many good people offer her reasonable, logical advice, and see her repudiate it completely. In all honesty, though, I have kids Anita's age, and, if one of them acted the way she does, I know I'd tell them to pull their heads out of their butts and step back into the real world, too. It's  a waste of  intelligence, opportunity, and legitimate accomplishment.

As well, Anita's colossal ego is like nail on a chalkboard. I've yet to see her display one iota of humility, or even self awareness, so I think she'd better get used to rudeness in response. Life is too short, and people have limited patience.

I do categorically deny any charge of "harassing" her IRL. Attempting to present a mentally disturbed person with the opportunity to establish a dialogue with a mental health profesisonal is not harassment, by any stretch of the imagination. It was interesting to note that Anita didn't start crying "harassment" until she began parroting whatever private dialogue she had going with Plumjam. Since Plumjam is an all out jackass, I guess we know what I think of his opinion. Besides, I'm 52 years old. The last time I 'harassed' anyone was backstage at a Pink Floyd concert in 1974-and I still maintain that Roger Waters started it.

I do believe now, though, that Anita is beyond intervention or help. Maybe in 10 or 20 years, she will understand where we were all coming from, but I don't know. I'm not sure that real life experience isn't going to slide off her ego like water off a duck's back.

Anita has a burning desire to feel special, but does not have any real special talents.

She wants attention and praise and, like so many people today, wants a short cut to this.

Working hard, getting a job in scientific research and making great discoveries all takes too long, and requires a degree of scientific knowledge that, good scores aside, she has never displayed.
So it's much easier to:
1) Claim you are going to be a great scientist and make amazing discoveries in the future
2) Claim a special paranormal ability

1) Falls down very quickly whenever Anita tries to actually discuss real science. In one memorable thread on the JREF several people completely demolished her poor understanding of electricity (despite the fact she desperately tries to come across as a physics expert). She has carefully avoided attempting to discuss actual science again.
2) Falls down when testing is suggested. Anita has put herself in an impossible position here. She claims to be all pro-science and testing, but knows that even casual testing will demonstrate she has no ability at all. So she has done everythig she can to delay, move goalposts, dilute and alter claims etc. Anything rather than have a real test. Nonetheless, even the badly designed and run amateur tests she has done have demonstrated clearly that she has no ability. She has been forced to stop posting on the JREF after the disastrous last study in which she actually performed worse than 2 out of 3 random other people. She has to give the excuse that someone involved in the test ran off with some of the results so she can't publish proper results until they give her a copy. I lose track of how many months ago that was.

In summary, Anita desperately wants to feel special, and reacts quite agressively when it is pointed out that she has no special ability and has not demonstrated even the slightest hint of one, either paranormal or otherwise.

And the surviving without water business is just simply a clear lie.

Anita told me over Skype that she doesn't feel like you are being objective by saying she's lying. I told her it's a fair evaluation. I also told her to sign up on this board and defend herself. Apparently she's too busy these days. She's not too busy to read the site or to make claims. Just too busy to defend them.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 11 Jun 2009 12:35 AM
Anita told me over Skype that she doesn't feel like you are being objective by saying she's lying. I told her it's a fair evaluation. I also told her to sign up on this board and defend herself. Apparently she's too busy these days. She's not too busy to read the site or to make claims. Just too busy to defend them.

Laughable, considering she had the time to dig up a five year old thread to make that claim on.

I guess that will be her new defense now, huh? No one is "objective". Even more laughable, coming from a woman who has never displayed objectivity herself.

Ultimately, rather sad. She's a college student. She's young. She should be out having pizza and beer with some pals. Instead, she spends more than ample time making ridiculous claims on the Internet. A very lonely fantasy world.