The VFF Test is On!

How I knew I was right when I was right

Now watch what I say after each trial. Some of what I say was recorded before they turned the voice recording off. I said plenty more in between the trials during the breaks, when the microphones were off. I truly knew when I was right, and when I was wrong.

Listen very carefully to what I say after trial 2. Anita Ikonen Paranormal Challenge - Part 1, start listening from about time 01:38:00 into the movie (or 00:47:10 remaining of the movie).

I shared my comments as soon as the subjects had left, understanding that I should not speak while the subjects could hear.

Me to James Underdown:
"This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"

James to me:
"You said this one went better?"

Me to James:
"I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious [left kidney in subject 24 missing], but this one I never saw, either [one of the kidneys in subject 22], but this one was more apparent [left kidney in 24 more apparent as being missing], and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense." [ie. if the missing kidney is one of the ones that I really thought I saw, the claim is clearly just nonsense]
"So, that's nice." [because the claim would clearly and without question in my mind be falsified]

Me to Karen:
"This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and, I can't do it."

"I feel good about this..."
Sound cut off.

When sound returns again, and after chatting with the internet people, me to James:
"I'm excited about the second one, because..."

Me to Karen:
"As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all those kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well."
"I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me."
"I'll be darned if it's the other one. 'Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."

To John Suarez:
"The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."

Sound is cut off. So what I am saying here, is that I was so sure of seeing all but two kidneys in trial 2, the left kidney in number 24, and one of the kidneys in number 22. That if it would turn out that the missing kidney was one of the kidneys that I thought I saw, I would be thoroughly convinced that my claim was falsified.

How I felt about the trials does not affect the official results. But I am here trying to learn about the claim. How is it that when I truly have a perception that I believe in, it is correct? And when I know I am wrong, it is wrong. I will still continue and have another test, and see what that teaches me.
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
truly knew when I was right, and when I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you.

Me to James Underdown:
"This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"
Click to expand...
"Went very well" and "I feel really good about it" and "I was very sure it was one of the two" and "I like it" is not proof you knew you were right.

In fact, you didn't know, and you hedged things and made a lot of comments. No surprise that you can retrofit some of them to make it look like you knew which guess was right.

But you didn't know.

ETA: And don't forget your claim was that you're always right, so this new/modified claim (you can see organs some of the time and when you do you know you're right, or something like that) is of no interest.

Also, please see post # 935.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
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.
Click to expand...

ynot,

With all due respect, you are spinning your wheels here. VfF will not agree to a full screen person there/person not there test. We went through that months ago with her in the thread I linked to earlier.

The problem is that VfF NEEDS/MUST HAVE wiggle room. She will do NOTHING to falsify her claim, EVER (I hope to be proven wrong though).

The evidence is starring you in the face as we type. She said if she failed this test she would be happy to proclaim her claim to all medical perceptions as falsified. She backed away from that even as the test results were unfolding.

She is a woo and not a science student, this test and her reactions to the failure prove that.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Now watch what I say after each trial. Some of what I say was recorded before they turned the voice recording off. I said plenty more in between the trials during the breaks, when the microphones were off. I truly knew when I was right, and when I was wrong.

Listen very carefully to what I say after trial 2. Anita Ikonen Paranormal Challenge - Part 1, start listening from about time 01:38:00 into the movie (or 00:47:10 remaining of the movie).

I shared my comments as soon as the subjects had left, understanding that I should not speak while the subjects could hear.

Me to James Underdown:
"This one went very well. Can I tell you? Or no?"

James to me:
"You said this one went better?"

Me to James:
"I put an x when I see it, and a question mark when I don't see it, so this one was quite obvious [left kidney in subject 24 missing], but this one I never saw, either [one of the kidneys in subject 22], but this one was more apparent [left kidney in 24 more apparent as being missing], and I feel really good about it. Well, at least all of these were very clear to me, so if it is one of those, it is clearly just nonsense." [ie. if the missing kidney is one of the ones that I really thought I saw, the claim is clearly just nonsense]
"So, that's nice." [because the claim would clearly and without question in my mind be falsified]

Me to Karen:
"This one went better, and it was between two only, and I was very sure it's one of the two. So if it isn't one of the two, it is obvious, that this isn't anything, and, I can't do it."

"I feel good about this..."
Sound cut off.

When sound returns again, and after chatting with the internet people, me to James:
"I'm excited about the second one, because..."

Me to Karen:
"As long as I'm sure, like, if, if I'm sure, that, I saw a kidney, and, it wasn't there, then that would be good, because that would prove for me, that it isn't true, what I'm seeing, but if I wasn't sure about what I am seeing, then I would be left thinking, well, you know, was it or wasn't it. But in this trial, I was very sure, of all those kidneys, except two, so if it, so if I made a mistake, then that's a good thing, then it's really obvious, and reliable, so, this round went very well."
"I'm not trying to pass, I just want a result I can really, that convinces me."
"I'll be darned if it's the other one. 'Cause there were two. And I couldn't see either of them. So if it's the other one..."

To John Suarez:
"The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."

Sound is cut off. So what I am saying here, is that I was so sure of seeing all but two kidneys in trial 2, the left kidney in number 24, and one of the kidneys in number 22. That if it would turn out that the missing kidney was one of the kidneys that I thought I saw, I would be thoroughly convinced that my claim was falsified.

How I felt about the trials does not affect the official results. But I am here trying to learn about the claim. How is it that when I truly have a perception that I believe in, it is correct? And when I know I am wrong, it is wrong. I will still continue and have another test, and see what that teaches me.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying that your post answer “feeling“ is better than your answer. If this is so why don‘t you say number one has one kidney and then wait to see what your “feeling“ says?. If it doesn’t confirm your answer then move on the number two and do the same thing until you give an answer that’s confirmed by your “feeling”. This then becomes the “real” answer for the test.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't believe you.


"Went very well" and "I feel really good about it" and "I was very sure it was one of the two" and "I like it" is not proof you knew you were right.

In fact, you didn't know, and you hedged things and made a lot of comments. No surprise that you can retrofit some of them to make it look like you knew which guess was right.

But you didn't know.

ETA: And don't forget your claim was that you're always right, so this new/modified claim (you can see organs some of the time and when you do you know you're right, or something like that) is of no interest.

Also, please see post # 935.
Click to expand...
Listen very carefully to what I say after each trial. Also, you may want to contact Karen, James Underdown, Mark Edwards because they heard how absolutely sure I was that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, and trial 2 was right. You just want to argue, and want to disbelieve everything I say. Even when the evidence is there, that I am telling the truth. I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of the trials beforehand.

The claim still is that when I know I am right, I am right. See my post about excuses somewhere upthread.
 
Last edited:
Drs_Res said:
ynot,

With all due respect, you are spinning your wheels here. VfF will not agree to a full screen person there/person not there test. We went through that months ago with her in the thread I linked to earlier.

The problem is that VfF NEEDS/MUST HAVE wiggle room. She will do NOTHING to falsify her claim, EVER (I hope to be proven wrong though).

The evidence is starring you in the face as we type. She said if she failed this test she would be happy to proclaim her claim to all medical perceptions as falsified. She backed away from that even as the test results were unfolding.

She is a woo and not a science student, this test and her reactions to the failure prove that.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting a "full screen". I'm suggesting exposing only enough of the clothed person to be able to see internal organs but not enough to confirm that there is a person present.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
You seem to be saying that your post answer “feeling“ is better than your answer. If this is so why don‘t you say number one has one kidney and then wait to see what your “feeling“ says?. If it doesn’t confirm your answer then move on the number two and do the same thing until you give an answer that’s confirmed by your “feeling”. This then becomes the “real” answer for the test.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying here. See my post with the excuses for my inaccuracies in trials 1 and 3, pretty much that in trial 1 I ran out of time, and in trial 3 I was tired. I will set up another test, in which both of these issues will be cleared out. And if I produce consistent results, it will better explain things.
 
ynot said:
If you have any objections to such a test I would appreciate you explaining them.
Click to expand...

Please don't ask her to go through this again. There have been several thousand posts on the subject both here and on www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com. Do you really think you're asking something insightful that nobody has asked before a dozen times?
You can start by reading these threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150447
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152656
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151183

If you want the short answer, Anita has steadfastly refused to submit to any test that will have conclusive results and not allow her an enormous amount of sensory input. You wanna know why she won't use a screen? Because she says it won't work, that's why. Wanna know why she won't do simple tests like fractures or identifying chemicals? Because that's not her "strongest" claim and she only wants to test her strongest claim. It's that simple. It's like trying to understand why two toddlers fight over the same cup of milk.

I don't mean to be rude, but at this point nobody, including you, is going to find just the right question to ask Anita to give her that "aha!" moment. It's all been done multiple times to no avail.

She has failed multiple tests. Some of her wild claims have been resoundingly debunked. She has made and broken numerous promises.

Most importantly, she has claimed that she was going to do "other" tests numerous times and never followed through. Never. Not once. She was going to do more lactobacillus testing, but didn't. A second study (never happened). A synesthesia test with the pysch dept at school (never happened). A test with another skeptics group (never happend). Migraine tests with another person (never happened). More tests on induced information (never happened).

She finally failed on the big stage in front of hundreds of people. It's over. Let it be. If you're curious, visit my website or read the threads here. There's no new information forthcoming, only repetition and spin.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I don't understand what you are saying here. See my post with the excuses for my inaccuracies in trials 1 and 3, pretty much that in trial 1 I ran out of time, and in trial 3 I was tired. I will set up another test, in which both of these issues will be cleared out. And if I produce consistent results, it will better explain things.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make any sense to give an answer if you’re not certain it’s correct (and less sense if you're certain it's not). Better to give no answer at all unless you know it’s correct. Or change your answer when you know it isn’t correct until know it's the correct one. Use your “feeling” ability that you seem to be certain you have to test your answers before they become your final answers - simple.
 
Last edited:
Sorry ynot, misread that.

But the fact remains you suggested a person there/not there test and she will refuse that. She likes to call it "remote viewing" and that's not her claim. Only kidney detection is her claim. Like I said, we did go through this before.

It gives her no wiggle room. No wiggle room=no test.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Listen very carefully to what I say after each trial. Also, you may want to contact Karen, James Underdown, Mark Edwards because they heard how absolutely sure I was that trial 1 and 3 were wrong, and trial 2 was right. You just want to argue, and want to disbelieve everything I say. Even when the evidence is there, that I am telling the truth. I knew the accuracy or inaccuracy of the trials before hand.
Click to expand...
Feeling confident and saying you feel good is not the same as knowing. It's pointless for you to wonder how you knew something, when you have no proof that you knew it. In fact, you didn't know it.

The claim still is that when I know I am right, I am right. See my post about excuses somewhere upthread.
Click to expand...
This is a new claim.

Your previous claim was that you are always right, so there was simply no question of knowing when you're right and when you're wrong.

Please respond to post number 935.
 
ynot, the test you are suggesting is nothing but a remote viewing test. To see whether there is a person present behind a screen or not. My claim is not remote viewing. My claim is that, when I look at a person, and know that the person is there, I would be able to detect the presence or absence of internal organs. I will not submit to your suggested test, since, it is not my claim to be able to remote view. To see a part of the person, with my eyes, is a vital part of the claim. Do not ask me again, we've been over this before.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
"The second one, I like, because all but two kidneys... yeah, I'm talking about the second... I like it... I like it because, I was sure about seeing all but two. So, if it, if the target was one that I think I saw, then it's, the claim is definitely over, and that's nice."
Click to expand...

I must have VisionFromFeeling because I can smell the desperation from here. You made two guesses in round 2. That gave you a 15% (1 in 6) chance of being right. Ooh!

You made two guesses in round 1 and were wrong on both. How many guesses did you make in round 3? Just one? So in all that's 5 guesses and 1 right. That's a 35% chance of happening. You are freaking amazing, Anita!! I can see the Nobel prize now.

You failed.

Again.

It's over. Now, go get some help.
 
Anyhow, there will be another test. I have already spoken with one of the key members of the IIG, and asked him if the IIG or him personally would feel offended if I were to try to arrange another test. He said that it is ok and that I may have another test. The test will of course not be with the IIG, or the JREF, or with my local FACT Skeptics group, however it will certainly be with reliable and credible people. It is up ahead in the future, though.

Note that my goal is not to become some certified, practicing psychic. You may allege that as much as you want, but you will never see that happen. It is an experience I have, that I feel health information in people, and I wish to investigate that, even still further. I have more questions after the IIG Preliminary.

If you expect me to want some cash prize, or to become a verified psychic, then of course you will be mad at me and think that my behavior is unscientific or irrational. But if for once in your hearts, you could imagine that I do feel and see perceptions of health information, and that it does have some interesting accuracy, you would understand and tolerate that I am simply investigating this to learn more.

You can fight me all you want, but my investigation is not harmful or an attempt at woo, it is a scientific inquiry, and I do intend to continue.

Several questions and comments were made after the IIG Preliminary that discuss the impact of any external clues on my answers, or on the answers made by audience members. Someone pointed out the tattoos on number 24 in trial 2, or age, or other visual characteristics. Meanwhile I was doing my best to disregard any visual information, and to only focus on what my felt perceptions were. But even at that, I can not account for what information it really is, that the perceptions are based on.

So that is why on another test, there will be minimal amount of visual information available. The subjects' backs will be all that is visible, through individually adapted cut-outs in a screen. No arms, tattoos, hair, pants, legs, skin, or age, will be visible.

Also, since I did make the complaint of fatigue at trial 3 (and you do hear me sighing in trial 3), any future test will only involve two trials in one day. PS. Wait til you see my draft papers. So for those of you who doubt that I had any fatigue in trial 3? Just wait til you read my trial 3 draft paper. You'll see what I wrote for sure.

There will also be no heavy-set subjects, since I did learn that those take longer for my perceptions to penetrate.

I have learned about my limitations more, from this experience. And so, if those concerns are addressed in another test, and can no longer be an issue, I could learn much more from the results of such a test.

Please do not try to discourage me from having another test. The purpose is not to pass as a psychic, or to win a cash money prize. I am learning more. I am intrigued by this process, by what I feel, and what I see, that leads me to know the number of kidneys in a person. And I do know when I am right, and when I am wrong.

This is a learning process. Not some immoral, unscientific practice of woo. Please I hope that one day you could all see that. So I will continue. With, or without, your support.
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
ynot, the test you are suggesting is nothing but a remote viewing test. To see whether there is a person present behind a screen or not. My claim is not remote viewing. My claim is that, when I look at a person, and know that the person is there, I would be able to detect the presence or absence of internal organs. I will not submit to your suggested test, since, it is not my claim to be able to remote view. To see a part of the person, with my eyes, is a vital part of the claim. Do not ask me again, we've been over this before.
Click to expand...
Don’t see why you need to know a person is there to be able to detect internal organs. If the person is there you should be able to detect internal organs regardless of knowing that the person is there by “normal” means. Given the location of internal organs they would be in darkness and you should be able to detect then in a fully darkened room.

When a person making incredible claims won’t do credible testing then one has to question their honesty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom