The VFF Test is On!

[JoeTheJuggler]

And so if results are still inadequate to indicate that *something* interesting is taking place, then the claim shall be falsified. At least I can investigate further.

See post 935. You argued that the test was able to falsify your claim. You said repeatedly that if you failed, you'd consider your claim falsified.

You failed, yet now you say the claim is not falsified.

Funny. . .quite a few of us predicted this is exactly what would happen. And none of us are asserting a paranormal power!

 

[Senex]

Anita,

Some people will never be satisfied no matter what you do. I recommend you and I go off exploring evil motel rooms and leave this behind us

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And as for the new claim Anita is making that she knew ahead of time which guesses would be correct and which would not be correct: I don't believe it.

She didn't know that. I'm not even so sure she guessed it. (I think she said something like "I felt better on round 2" or maybe even "more confident. Which is not he same thing as making a prediction ahead of time, "I will be wrong in rounds 1 and 3, but right in round 2." In fact, she did make a prediction before the whole thing began, and that was that she would be correct 100% of the time.) She said a lot of things, and made a lot of guesses. She's trying to make something out of the fact that she can retroactively pick out something she said and shoehorn it to the results. This is simply playing the coincidence game--it's a game where the rules are completely arbitrary, and you can just make up as you go along what is significant and what isn't.

I think UY is right--her M.O. is to be slippery and evasive. A claim will never be falsified because she'll always have some other modification (or completely new claim) that hasn't been falsified.

I've just been reading Flim Flam, and about all I can say is that she's not unique, and there's nothing new or innovative or even interesting in what she's doing.

 

[Jonquill]

Excuses: In trial 1, I had to spend a lot of time seeing through subject number 12 who was a heavier-set person. It was very difficult for me to feel through to his kidneys. For the longest time, I could find neither of his kidneys. I knew that of course he has at least one. So I spent a great deal of time searching for his kidneys, making sure that I would not guess that he is missing a kidney, simply because I did not find them. First I found the right one. And to find the left one, I actually had to start at his bladder which is close by to the pelvic bone, and feel my way up towards his kidneys. The kidneys were deeply embedded, and it was difficult for me to find them. Once I had concluded that I've found both of his, I could move on to the others again. But then I did not have much time left. That is why in a future test there will be no more heavy-set subjects.

Well why didn't you look at that person last, by which time you would have seen the missing kidney in the skinny guy sitting next to him?

 

[Rodney]

Rodney,
I had to leave the chat room early to go to work the day of the test. I made my predictions early (before trial #1 started) and I missed every person, but I got the sides 100%. What powers do I have? The power of lucky guess when it came to the sides.

As I've already explained, Anita's test was a two-step process: (1) Determine which of six subjects is missing a kidney; and (2) For that subject, determine which kidney is missing. If you miss (1), (2) is irrelevant because you're making a judgment for a subject who has two kidneys. Now, if the three subjects who were missing kidneys were identified and you correctly guessed which kidney was missing for each subject, that would be relatively impressive, with odds against of 7 to 1 (assuming that the left and right kidneys are equally likely to be missing). However, the odds against Anita's results were about 17 to 1.

 

[Drs_Res]

As I've already explained, Anita's test was a two-step process: (1) Determine which of six subjects is missing a kidney; and (2) For that subject, determine which kidney is missing. If you miss (1), (2) is irrelevant because you're making a judgment for a subject who has two kidneys. Now, if the three subjects who were missing kidneys were identified and you correctly guessed which kidney was missing for each subject, that would be relatively impressive, with odds against of 7 to 1 (assuming that the left and right kidneys are equally likely to be missing). However, the odds against Anita's results were about 17 to 1.

No, you missed the point again. It was not a 2 step process. It was find which of 12 slots the kidney is missing from. You are the one adding the extra step.

If she can do what she said she could do than she would have no problem finding the missing slot.

She did the open test in less than 2 minutes with 2 people.

 

[Uncayimmy]

As I've already explained, Anita's test was a two-step process: (1) Determine which of six subjects is missing a kidney; and (2) For that subject, determine which kidney is missing.

How does one accomplish #1 without by definition accomplishing #2? Did the sonogram lady have that problem?

 

[Paul2]

Rodney, tell us why Anita's process isn't similar, in relevant regards, to any of us determining who is missing an arm. If you can't, then why do you insist on creating the fiction of "determining *who* is missing an arm/kidney, and then which one?" If you were to be tested on who was missing an arm by looking at them, there would be no reason for you to make a two-step process (who is missing an arm, and which one).

 

[Paul2]

I couldn't possibly keep up with all of the posts here! I will see to arranging another test. Not to qualify for a paranormal challenge cash prize, not to verify myself as with psychic abilities, but just to find out more about this experience that I have.

There is no reason to suspect that a test, as if you had psychic abilities, which you don't as far as anyone can tell, would help you find out more about your experiences.

I will not bother the IIG, JREF, or local FACT Skeptics with the next test though. The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible. The amount of time will be the same. And only two trials in one day, not three.

Can your "abilities" be so fragile that concealing head, arms, etc., is crucial? And why not just take 1 minute per subject instead of reducing the number of trials from three to two? You said these experiences are immediate.

If statistical chance was responsible for the somewhat of a 50% accuracy I acchieved in the IIG Preliminary, then I would hope for chance to fall into a lower result in the next one. Or if there is *something* else involved, I would hope for that to be revealed again to some extent.

According to the terms of your IIG test, you did not have 50% accuracy. Stating which person had a missing kidney and getting partial credit was not part of the protocol, was it? You performed no better than a moderately lucky guess, so why don't you just admit that it was a moderately lucky guess?

I am not doing this to pass as a psychic. I am investigating an experience I have of feeling and seeing health information and organs. Needless to say, I have not yet falsified the claim.

Even though you said the IIG test would falsify the claim.

Be honest.

 

[Rodney]

How does one accomplish #1 without by definition accomplishing #2? Did the sonogram lady have that problem?

Through some unknown paranormal means, Anita might be able to detect that a subject is missing a kidney, but wouldn't necessarily be able to pinpoint which kidney. However, if she erroneously detects that a person with two kidneys is missing one, there is no point in asking her which one is missing, is there?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Through some unknown paranormal means, Anita might be able to detect that a subject is missing a kidney, but wouldn't necessarily be able to pinpoint which kidney. However, if she erroneously detects that a person with two kidneys is missing one, there is no point in asking her which one is missing, is there?

Ah, I see. You say this is a 2-step process based on some completely unknown mechanism. Of course, the mechanism to accomplish #1 (find the person) is worthless for step #2 (which kidney). Therefore, she has not one but two paranormal abilities.

Seriously, Rodney, you're getting more ridiculous as time goes on. Find another pony to hitch your cart to 'cause this one's dead.

 

[fromdownunder]

Through some unknown paranormal means, Anita might be able to detect that a subject is missing a kidney, but wouldn't necessarily be able to pinpoint which kidney. However, if she erroneously detects that a person with two kidneys is missing one, there is no point in asking her which one is missing, is there?

You are suggesting a paranormal ability for Anita that she does not claim to have. Perhaps you should contact her about this, and explain it to her.

After all, perhaps she would be delighted to add this one to her long list of fail.

Norm

 

[LightinDarkness]

I have to say I am disappointed that people were personally attacking Anita on her physical characteristics. Skeptics, of all people, should know that we shouldn't judge people based on how they look. People can't control that (even weight - there are medical problems which cause weight gain that none of us can detect by looking at someone). Its good to see some people have apologized. Although Anita agreed to a public test, the purpose was to examine her ability, not what she looks like.

However, although that is certainly a black mark on these events it doesn't really change the out come. Anita, your willingness to ignore the fact that you failed the test and demand for more tests DOES lend credence to the fact that you are experiencing some powerful delusions. Please seek help from a mental health professional before continuing these facades.

 

[derekcbart]

We are still collating all of the various information, but since the audience guessing is getting discussed so much I wanted to let you know that two members of the audience who participated in guessing for all three rounds did as well as Anita.

Two people were correct for Round 1.
No people were correct for Round 2.
One person was correct for Round 3.

Hello.

My apologies, but I just realized that the above information is incorrect. The two people in the first round were actually people who chose the same person as Anita. In the first round no one chose correctly. However, one audience member did choose the correct person, but the wrong kidney.

Sorry about that.

-Derek

 

[SezMe]

Seriously, Rodney, you're getting more ridiculous as time goes on. Find another pony to hitch your cart to 'cause this one's dead.

Wise counsel, Rodney.

 

[Maia]

No, I saw it, but ignored it. By your "logic", if there had been 12 rounds and Anita had come up with the correct person each time, but had missed the locations, you would conclude that she has no paranormal ability and that there is no need to investigate further.

What you and the rest of the folks here who fancy themselves to be skeptics need to do is consider the following hypothetical: If someone developed a novel hypothesis regarding early detection of cancer, and conducted a study that produced a P of .0567, would you say that the hypothesis should not be evaluated further?

Again, I agree that if Anita had actually gotten results that were astronomically unlikely to be due to chance and were reasonably related to her claim, then a lot of people on this board would be interested in further investigation. Say what you like-- the fact is that a lot of people would indeed be very interested if, say, the design of the study had been such that Anita had been able to correctly and rapidly identify a huge number of people who were missing kidneys, but didn't always get the side right. This doesn't mean that anything would come out of the investigations in this case, but after all of the time and effort and speculation put into this weird thing, people would like to see if there would be a possibility of something interesting and unexpected about the conclusion. That is a good example of what could make a real-world situation different from an abstract statistics problem about flipping coins. In this extremely unlikely eventuality, nobody would be able to resist finding out the truth about what was really going on (and it might turn out to be an artifact of a bad study design-- but that would be a conclusion, too.)

However, the if situation just didn't occur, and the problem is that this theoretical question would only have relevance if it did. The question has to stand on its own without that, and it really can't. Nothing happened in this test that showed any ability even close to what's been claimed (or to any ability that HASN'T been claimed, either. Or to anything that's been claimed in the past...) The bizarre post-test comments definitely aren't helping anything.

 

[ynot]

I couldn't possibly keep up with all of the posts here! I will see to arranging another test. Not to qualify for a paranormal challenge cash prize, not to verify myself as with psychic abilities, but just to find out more about this experience that I have.

I will not bother the IIG, JREF, or local FACT Skeptics with the next test though. The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible. The amount of time will be the same. And only two trials in one day, not three.

If statistical chance was responsible for the somewhat of a 50% accuracy I acchieved in the IIG Preliminary, then I would hope for chance to fall into a lower result in the next one. Or if there is *something* else involved, I would hope for that to be revealed again to some extent.

I am not doing this to pass as a psychic. I am investigating an experience I have of feeling and seeing health information and organs. Needless to say, I have not yet falsified the claim.

Well, carry on among yourselves. Any pressing questions can be e-mailed to me and will be answered. I am far too busy.

VFF/Anita - Even if you may not be posting here at present I imagine you are still reading from time to time so hope you may see this and respond. I will PM this to you as well just to make sure you get it.

Don’t know why any test of your claimed ability has to be concerned just with “seeing” kidneys. As you say, you can also “see” bones, spleens and bladders. In other words you can “see” stuff that confirms a person is present. Why not construct a simple test that only requires you to say whether a person is present or not? Far easier to achieve than “seeing” if a person has one or two kidneys.

If you are going to have “better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible“ then why not screen out all things that confirm a person is present? In other words you would just be able to view the lower back part of a t-shirt that would either be worn by a real person or a dummy. To avoid correct identification from seeing the movement of breathing the t-shirt could be held slightly away from the person‘s body or the dummy could be made to “breath” like a human.

If you have any objections to such a test I would appreciate you explaining them.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling:
I will not bother the IIG, JREF, or local FACT Skeptics with the next test though. The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible. The amount of time will be the same. And only two trials in one day, not three.

I thought she said on more than one occasion that she had to see skin in order for her abilities to work. I figured that was why IIG allowed skin to show.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have to say I am disappointed that people were personally attacking Anita on her physical characteristics.

I'm not disappointed nor am I surprised.

* Many of the people were drinking or up past their bedtimes. They were just having fun.

* It was incredibly boring to watch, so naturally people bantered about the only thing they could see. For most it was the first time seeing her. Considering how many times she falsely accused me of soliciting "naked pictures," how often she has flirted with people, and the variety of heavily altered pictures of herself she has posted, it's no surprise people discussed her appearance.

* This wasn't a test worthy of skeptics. Anita herself said that she did not expect to pass and made it pretty clear that a failure would not mean her abilities didn't work those other times. It was a spectacle treated as a spectacle. People treated it with the same respect she treated it.

* Anita has mistreated a large number of people over the last year, yourself included. Skeptics are not immune to the normal reactions of human beings to take their shots at someone who has mistreated them. Being petty or catty is not mutually exclusive to being a skeptic, and it did not interfere with how the results were evaluated, and that's all that matters when it comes to skepticism.

* It is not a "personal attack" to make observations about a person amongst friends. It's not like people were contacting her directly to insult her. They made observations which, in fact, were true.

* After the test Anita e-mailed me to tell me I was fat. I also know for a fact that she e-mailed another person to say that the reason this woman did not comment on her weight was because she, herself, was fat. Anita is just not a nice person despite her claims otherwise.

I'm not saying it was a proud moment for anyone involved, but I'm not going to condemn people for simply acting like people. Skeptics are human too.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah, I see. You say this is a 2-step process based on some completely unknown mechanism. Of course, the mechanism to accomplish #1 (find the person) is worthless for step #2 (which kidney). Therefore, she has not one but two paranormal abilities.

Just as I've been saying. If he thinks she has this other ability (that she never claimed to have and that the test wasn't designed for), why doesn't he think she can levitate?