The VFF Test is On!

I think Anita, that (assuming you come back to read this) people have been pretty sparing. I'm sure I speak for almost all when I say - we told you so. That is not the point. I would like to know where you go from here and I'm sure that if you want to come to terms with your failure (you MUST accept it as such), then there are many people on here that are not small minded enough that they will not give you advice and help.
 
"..... she did fail according to the requirements laid out prior to the show."

Yes. No question. The agreed-to threshold for success was 3 out of 3. Her claim was falsified the moment she signed off on the first trial.
 
volatile said:
No there weren't. She knew in advance that there was only one missing kidney per round - it's 3 tests, not 36.
Click to expand...
There was actually only one test.*

It was an all or nothing proposition. No partial credit for getting the correct person and correct side in Round 2 or for getting the correct person but the wrong side in Round 3. No partial credit for showing her work (all the Xs and ?s in her notes). It was either 100% correct or fail.

*Actually it wasn't a "test" anyway! :rolleyes:
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
There was actually only one test.*

It was an all or nothing proposition. No partial credit for getting the correct person and correct side in Round 2 or for getting the correct person but the wrong side in Round 3. No partial credit for showing her work (all the Xs and ?s in her notes). It was either 100% correct or fail.

*Actually it wasn't a "test" anyway! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course! :) But the odds of one round completely right is 23%...

And you KNOW "I got the one right I was *sure* about!" is gonna be her angle when she returns.
 
bluesjnr said:
[...] then there are many people on here that are not small minded enough that they will not give you advice and help.
Click to expand...


Very many of us involved in these threads have invested more than a little effort into doing that already. The result was that the advice and help was almost always ignored. Rarely was any appreciation shown. Giving advice and help? Several of us have received yellow cards and mod warnings for doing exactly that. :rolleyes:
 
GeeMack said:
Very many of us involved in these threads have invested more than a little effort into doing that already. The result was that the advice and help was almost always ignored. Rarely was any appreciation shown. Giving advice and help? Several of us have received yellow cards and mod warnings for doing exactly that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Well, no one ever said it was going to be easy.


:duck:
 
GeeMack said:
Very many of us involved in these threads have invested more than a little effort into doing that already. The result was that the advice and help was almost always ignored. Rarely was any appreciation shown. Giving advice and help? Several of us have received yellow cards and mod warnings for doing exactly that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well yes, of course, but no!

Perhaps our Doe eyed Swede deserves some recognition for her bravery in the face of such adversary. Some might call it stupidity but at least she made a point of being here and answerable to us. She might have been deluded but we (all of us) knew that she would fail. I'm betting that she is more honourable than Connie Sonne.

I think she is more to be pitied than scolded.
 
volatile said:
No there weren't. She knew in advance that there was only one missing kidney per round - it's 3 tests, not 36.
Click to expand...
.
Wrong. She knew there was *at least* one per round. There could have been more.
.
 
The protocol is very clear. Three trials, 6 Subjects per trial. One Subject in each trial missing a kidney, status (LF or RT) not specified.
 
TSR said:
.
Wrong. She knew there was *at least* one per round. There could have been more.
.
Click to expand...


The protocol (found here) specifies...

Five of the Subjects will have two kidneys. One Subject (the Target) in the group of six will have only one kidney.​
 
I'm just wondering, the people who set this test up were aware that kidney disease can cause pale skin and that some kidney disease medications cause a yellowing of the skin, right ?

its seemed to me since this started that choosing to base the test on kidneys was a little silly, the signs and symptoms of kidney disease are pretty easy to spot.
Anyone know if anyone in Anitas family or social group has any history of kidney disease so she might have known this in advance ?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
It was an all or nothing proposition. No partial credit for getting the correct person and correct side in Round 2 or for getting the correct person but the wrong side in Round 3. No partial credit for showing her work (all the Xs and ?s in her notes). It was either 100% correct or fail.
Click to expand...
True, but the fact is that she identified two of the three people (of a total of 18) who were missing a kidney. The odds of identifying at least two of the three is 7.4%. The odds of doing what she claimed, on the other hand, was 0.06% (1 in 1728). But the focus should really be on her getting the two out of three correct. On average, a person without paranormal ability or non-paranormal clues would get none of the three people correct about 58% of the time and one of the three people correct about 35% of the time. So, do you think that she got two of three people correct because she was lucky or because she had non-paranormal clues? If the latter, what specifically?
 
I have a friend who is a nephrologist. When I heard what the test was, I asked her about this. She said that if the person was a healthy kidney donor, or they had lost the kidney in an accident, or if they had had kidney cancer in the distant past that there should be no way to tell that the kidney was missing. No skin color, no odor, no "look in the eyes." Nothing. Perhaps IIG was using people with active kidney disease, but if not, there should not have been any way for her to figure out who was who. And she didn't.

Ward

ETA: This is in response to Marduk's most recent post.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
So, do you think that she got two of three people correct because she was lucky or because she had non-paranormal clues? If the latter, what specifically?
Click to expand...

That's been discussed...an audience member remarked that he had gotten 2 of 3 hits simply by observing more fidgeting from those two. Another chatroom member said that her daughter guessed all 3 people (not kidney sides) because they looked sickly.
 
Chimera said:
That's been discussed...an audience member remarked that he had gotten 2 of 3 hits simply by observing more fidgeting from those two. Another chatroom member said that her daughter guessed all 3 people (not kidney sides) because they looked sickly.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, the test was a complete farce.
 
Marduk said:
its seemed to me since this started that choosing to base the test on kidneys was a little silly, [...]
Click to expand...


Anita can see missing kidneys better than any other thing she's ever claimed, so much so that she has completely disavowed every other paranormal claim she ever made and stands on the kidney seeing thing as her one and only singular ability. She was insistent that seeing Dr. Carlson's kidney missing was her most vivid, most certain, most convincing vision ever. A one-off, which she didn't even think to mention until after the man told her he was missing a kidney, was her basis for this entire piece of performance art. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom