VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[GeeMack]

I know it won't be a perfect test, especially since my friend knows what that organ is and for all you know he could have told me. But I will let you know what happens and how it went. It will have credibility issues I know, but at least if I fail to detect it I will let you know and you should all be happy about that. I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed.

Big deal. You will lie again like you did about Dr. Carlson's kidney.

At least what this does is add to my claim and experience.

More unsupported claims might as well be more lies. But all this evasion and changing the subject makes it pretty clear we've been right in assuming you're not going to follow through on that kidney counting guessing game crap you've been blathering about for so many pages.

 

[desertgal]

I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed.

Well, some honesty from you would make a nice change...

 

[stanfr]

I read the first couple of posts, then skipped to the last couple. Guess what?? Through my psychic abilities (wonder if im eligible for the million...) I was able to figure out everything that happened in the intevening 27 pages! If all the skeptics who pointlessly engage in debate with Anita would spend the same time picking up some garbage on the side of the road, this Country would be a far cleaner place...

 

[catbasket]

I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney.

 

[Ashles]

I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney.

There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims.

Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test.

If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable.

Her reasons will for one of the following:

• It is too unreliable to test (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes)
• It is not her main claim so she is not interested in testing it (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes)
• She is only interested in testing it under completely uncontrolled circumstances

Anyway this thread is specifically only for her very rigid and detailed Kidney Testing protocol.

(Unless she mentions another completely different test herself, in which case this thread is about any old random test she can think of - but remember that's only if Anita comes up with a different test - if you come up with a different test, that is considered by her to be off topic and she will report you)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Posts about the missing organ "test" have been split to a new thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151879. If you want to talk about anything other than VFF's kidney detection test, start a new thread or post in the general (moderated) thread. Any further off topic posts and derails may be dealt with more severely.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Professor Yaffle

 

[Pup]

There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims.

Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test.

If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable.

And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita but I can't find it via the search function.

Edited to add: I was posting at the same time so didn't see the mod box. Not sure if this post is off topic for this thread or not... don't think so, so I'll leave it for now.

 

[catbasket]

And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita but I can't find it via the search function.
...

Searching for post by VFF containing the text 'boxedin' I found this has indeed been suggested previously, by Akhenaten here. Apologies, I'd completely forgotten about that (and it was less than a week ago!).

ETA - actually it was eight days ago.

 

[Farencue]

First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test.


I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested.

More evidence of your lies Anita. You wrote the above post on 15th of August saying you will email - why did you not say you already had emailed?

From: Anita Ikonen
Sent on: Sunday, August 9, 2009 1:12 AM

Dear Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT),
As most of you probably know by now, I am a paranormal claimant investigating my experience of medical perceptions. When I look at people I perceive images that depict the inside of their bodies based on a feeling of a vibrational pattern across them (see more at www.visionfromfeeling.com) I have chosen a specific type of health information of whether a person is missing a kidney and submitted this claim to the IIG (www.iigwest.com) and they are arranging an official paranormal test for me that will take place in Hollywood California hopefully by the end of 2009.
Before I have the official test, the IIG have recommended that I try to arrange a preliminary test first to verify my claim or to falsify my claim so that I am better prepared for the outcome of the IIG official test. I would also like to have a preliminary test in order to get more practice in performing the official test. The preliminary test would take place here locally and should be similar to the official test but does not have to be as elaborate and can for instance only involve one trial instead of three. The preliminary test is a test and its results are significant toward my claim. If I fail the preliminary test I will still want to take the official IIG test to falsify the claim properly. If I pass the preliminary test it will not be evidence in favor of the claim since with the way I plan to arrange it there is a 1 in 10 chance of passing it by guessing.
I need help with finding one (or more) persons for the test who have had a kidney removed, and nine other persons who have both kidneys, all of whom are persons whom I have not met before. As the claimant I can not be involved in finding these persons myself. I can arrange a conference room or something similar to that where the test can take place. I can arrange the screen that is used. I also need Skeptics to bring in the ten volunteers for the test, to verify that the test rules are being followed, to collect my answer sheet and to determine the results of the test. My suggestions on the preliminary test are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/preliminarytest.html. The test procedure for this preliminary test does not need to be identical to the test procedure that will be used in the official IIG test and I will be happy to discuss it with FACT and make improvements on it with you.
Please let me know if you can help in arranging this preliminary test with me.
Thank you for considering.
Paranormal Claimant
Anita Ikonen

Hmmm, did nobody from FACT reply to you?

 

[Uncayimmy]

VFF told us in another thread that she was too busy to respond here. I guess she's not too busy to send me Skype messages, which I told her repeatedly I would make public at my discretion. Since she doesn't like it when I paraphrase and quote, here's what I recevied. Other messages not relevant to this thread are on my website (see my sig).

[9/3/2009 7:11:32 PM] Jim, I need to take new initiative and arrange a kidney detection test here locally while I wait for the IIG test to be arranged.

[9/3/2009 7:12:53 PM] Anita Ikonen: I will contact more Skeptic groups and ask around. Maybe some know at least two persons who have had a kidney removed.

[9/3/2009 7:13:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: I want my claim falsified or to pass a test and move on to more tests right away! The negative attention is getting out of hand.

[9/3/2009 7:14:06 PM] Anita Ikonen: By the way, I might be coming to Arizona some time in the near future. I know somebody there I really need to meet.

[9/3/2009 7:14:37 PM] Anita Ikonen: And it ain't you.

[9/3/2009 7:51:23 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me.

[9/3/2009 7:52:50 PM] Anita Ikonen: I told them that the test would require persons who have one kidney, but I also said that a test could be set up without any such persons, if necessary. As long as I am not given any clues about how many or if any persons with one kidney they have found for the test, with ten people in a test I would have to describe whether a person has one or both kidneys. At least as a preliminary, to try to fail my claim at least.

If you're wondering where my responses are, there aren't any.

 

[fromdownunder]

So is this a pre test, a pre-pre test, or just something that Anita can agaiin say "something went wrong on the night - it doesn't falsify my claim, after all, I am a sceptic". "I did see a missing kidney, I just did not want to say so at the time."

The volunteers should all be women. That way she could test for a diaphram at the same time.

Norm

 

[pakeha]

Interesting news, UnkaJimmy.
I wonder which skeptics groups that would be, then.

Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

Your claim is already falsified- all of this is just another dog and pony show

 

[pakeha]

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. ...
I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

This is a wierd sort of post to make.

skype messages to UnkaJimmy that yet another group has been e-mailed
then
posting here to refuse to name it?

Wharever groups it is, I should hope the protocol will take into account having volunteers remove tampax so as not to befuddle VfF's impressions.

 

[Akhenaten]

OP - 10 August 2009

Attention Skeptics Nationwide,

<snip>

The IIG have suggested that I have a preliminary test before having the official test with them so that I am better prepared for the outcome of their test.

That is why I am asking all of you if any of you would be willing to set up a preliminary test of my claim with me.

<snip>

Today

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test.

<snip>

If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not.

<snip>

One of these things is not like the other thing. Please explain.

 

[GeeMack]

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

Oh, spare us the drama queen double talk, Anita. That's just another comment full of gibberish and bullcrap. Sounds like something a person would only say if they were mentally ill. And if you're not mentally ill, you're certainly...

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

... a liar and a fraud.

 

[Ashles]

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then.

Then there is absolutely no need to inform us of yet more unverifiable clims for proposed/imaginary future tests involving unspecified skeptics groups which may or may not exist.

It's fairly hard to imagine why you would keep the details of which skeptic group it is secret. I thought you wanted help in creating a protocol?
Oh wait I forgot, when you actually finally appeared to agree a protocol in this thread you then revealed you had already sent a different (and worse) protocol to IIG. Rendering a lot of the protocol disucssion here rather pointless.

And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim,

It is. It definitely is. Okay? It is suffcient to falsify the claim (this is you 'strongest ability' remember?).
But you will refuse to accept that, so please don't pretend that you have even the slightest intention of considering the option that this test will be able to falsify your claim.

although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim./quote]

And that would be true even if it were an actually well designed test.

Which seems very unlikely this will be since it is being designed and set up by you entirely in secret.

If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not.

Actually that should be the point where you yourself decide that there is not anything requiring further study.
It is interesting that that is not an option you are even considering.

I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

If it were well designed, it would be, expecially as you have described your abilities as 'never incorrect' and of such awesome power and range as you previously have.
If you fail even this pre-preliminary 10 person kidney detection test, when this is supposedly your 'strongest ability' then this should all be considered over.

Of course it wn't be because you refuse to allow the possibility of a falsification scenario in any test.

Again, very interesting.

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test.

But do please keep us updated regarding how you don't have time to respond to us and, keep us informed of any further kidney tests you are setting up in secret, with no revealed protocol and with an unspecified 'skeptic group'.
Because those are the kinds of in-depth updates that are really pushing this claim forward.

Back to my Taylor expansions...

Of course you can feel free to discuss all the in depth science you are apparently learning about in the Science and Mathematics forums on this very website, with people who are highly knowledgeable in the fields.
I would have thought someone who is such a 'science fan' as yourself would be in there all the time.

I'm just wondering when we will actually start to see the tiniest shred of evidence of all of this scientific learning.

As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind...

 

[GeeMack]

As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind...

And the word 'never' seems quite fitting, too.

 

[fromdownunder]

I wonder if Anita is now using UncaYimmy as her conduit for the Board. She is "too busy to post" but apparently not "too busy" to contact him on a regular basis, in the full knowledge that he will reproduce what she says somehwhere on the Boards.

It may be a new way to get her daily "fix"

Norm