The VFF Test is On!

[jhunter1163]

So what Anita is now looking for is a test that will allow her to say "oh, I guess my powers weren't working just then" whenever she guesses wrong.

Oooooooooooo-kay.

 

[Gmonster2]

As Randi always says claimants need to do self testing before submitting to a formal test to find out what they can do and yet she still didn't know how many trials she could do or that fat people take longer to read and that sometimes the sooper powers work and sometimes they dont.

They worked in the open test, failed in the 1st ,worked in the second and failed in the third, maybe only every second time they get turned on?

This testing all could have been done on people with 2 kidneys beforehand.

 

[fromdownunder]

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.

I *think* (I may have made one or maybe two comments about Anita's weight and I honestly do not remember - I was in the chat as "Norm".

I actually joined your chat around 6:00AM (my time) and hung around for the entire test. It did not start for another hour or so, and continued for close to another two hours.

I think the term "banter" covers the between test minutes pretty well and was not meant all that seriously. And the "when the hell is this going to start" period (and I realise that this was not Anita's fault) was rather boring as well.

In Chat Rooms **** happens.

Norm

 

[Uncayimmy]

Note: It occurs to me that I may seem hypocritical in addressing Anita when I have suggested that it's all said and done. My goal is to create a final comprehensive outline of her failures, manipulation, and intellectual dishonesty. This squirming after the test will be part of it, and I intend to give her a little more rope to hang herself.

Let's ask the people who heard me talk in between trials, while the sound was cut off. And maybe even it is on some of the other cameras.

Bzzzt! More intellectual dishonesty. I quoted what you said when you knew for a fact that everyone was listening. If you said other things at other times, that's not surprising considering your history.

Bah. I still can't remember what number was what subject and still have to look that up each time just to make sure I get the right number. That doesn't change things.

You're not paying attention. You were looking at the page that you had just told us had very clear markings indicating how sure you were of your choice. The number was right there. You had no need to refer back to the front page where you made your selection if your notes were as clear as you claimed. You did it because in reality you had marked TWO possible people.

I have never claimed to be able to detect everything in each case. I just claim that when I claim to detect something, it would be accurate.

This goes in the "liar, liar, pants on fire" category.

I did no such thing. I was simply marking kidneys when I felt them present, and not marking when I didn't find them. Different kidneys and in different people are differently difficult to find. That is why I spent more time on some subjects, than in others.

That's a woefully inadequate explanation and makes no sense.

Liar. I have never said that I would be afraid that my perceptions would be taken away, and I know for a fact that I wouldn't have said that, because I know that my perceptions can't be taken away. The perceptions occur on their own. And they are not a mental illness, I am just as entitled to them as anyone is to their synesthesia.

Jim: "What are you afraid of?"

Anita: "I feel fully entitled to my experiences."

Jim: "What are you afraid of?" [asked again]

Anita: "I don't want to be told that they're not allowed."

Jim: "So, you are afraid that you would be considered mentally ill because those things are not real?"

Anita: "I guess so. I just feel that I am entitled to be the way I am."

So, who is the liar?

Never mind. Don't take part in it if you don't want. If it bothers you.

It's over, Anita. You failed miserably. Let me remind you what happened:

According to your notes, which you immediately felt compelled to share with us, in each trial you selected two locations in which you failed to detect a kidney. That's six attempts. You had one success and were WRONG FIVE TIMES. The odds of that happening are about 40%.

If you and Rodney want to play the "right person" game you selected six people and two were missing a kidney, so you were WRONG FOUR TIMES. That had a 25% chance of happening.

Yet on your website you state, "so far I haven't produced a single verified inaccurate perception yet!"

There's nothing left to test. Get over it.

 

[pakeha]

There are many great posts in this thread, but this one really stood out to me:

<snipped to the conclusion>
She hedged her bets in all three trials. She made a total of 6 guesses about which kidney was missing. That gave her a 40% chance of getting one or more correct. If you look at your ridiculous notion about detecting people, she got two people "right" in your words. That's a 25% chance with six guesses.

There's nothing to see here except a woman who, in her own words, says she will not see a mental health professional about her perceptions because she's afraid they will be taken away. It's sad, but at least it's over.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_281604b0e1b0e48c2c.jpg[/qimg]

By the way, it seems I was right in predicting AI would go the Derek Ogilvie route-"I am a failure, not a fraud".

 

[LightinDarkness]

I'm not disappointed nor am I surprised.
...
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.

Thats fine, you don't have to condemn it. I didn't observe anything like that personally but I wasn't in the chatrooms for the entire time either, I only noticed it because Anita mentioned it in one of her Wall 'o Text. As you point out, I am one of the many string of people Anita has abused during her time her - and so are you. And while her treatment of people on these boards has been wrong, she must be judged on what she has control over. Mind you I get that she has presented herself to be a liar, abusive, and downright vitriolic - but she can control all of those things and had a choice to present herself that way. She deserves every critique she gets for those things.

I have been suspicious of Anita since I started reading her posts and certainly think the evidence strongly suggests she has strong mental delusions and needs to seek medical help. I have been in complete support of the StopVFF website and think you are doing a community service by recording her claims and debunking her. But those who were hurling personal insults at people because of their weight (or any other physical characteristic) is uncalled for. Not because its just wrong to deride people for things they may or may not have any control over, but because it gives her yet another excuse next time. The last thing we need is more excuses for why Anita's powers don't work after failing every test she tries. To the credit of a few JREFers, some have apologized. I just hope when we go through this again it is not an issue.

And unfortunately yes, we will go through this again since Anita has indicated she refuses to accept her failure on this test (as she will with every test that she does). Anita has made it very obvious that she intends to make a career out of this woo, and undoubately she will spin things like her test failures to be successes because she got 1 target right (100% in her mind, since he powers happened to not be working the other two times, right?).

 

[SezMe]

But hurling personal insults at people because of their weight (or any other physical characteristic) is uncalled for. Not becuase its just wrong to deride people for things they may or may not have any control over, but because it gives her yet another excuse next time.

You've got that 100% bassackwards. It is wrong, simply wrong, to denigrate Anita for her physical appearance no matter what her claims or excuses are. Your assertion is sick.

ETA: Oops, I just remembered that LiD has me on ignore for calling him on his crap. Maybe someone can quote me.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You've got that 100% bassackwards. It is wrong, simply wrong, to denigrate Anita for her physical appearance no matter what her claims or excuses are. Your assertion is sick.

ETA: Oops, I just remembered that LiD has me on ignore for calling him on his crap. Maybe someone can quote me.

I think you misunderstood what he said.

People did what people do: They commented on what they saw. Had she looked like an SI swimsuit model, people would have been talking about how hot she was. Big deal.

The *fact* is that Anita went out and got a brand new hairstyle just for the show. She says on Facebook, "I paid a whopping $30 for this hair-do at the local salon! Don't insult the hairdresser, I was the one designing it. I loved it though."

She was heavily made up, and her Facebook profile has a number of photos she took of herself with captions like, "Got my make-up on. Ready to be taken to the test now. Yeah, lots of make-up. You don't see me like this everyday." She wore a form-fitting, white dress with a waist necklace. She wore heels that were so high she couldn't wear them at the test.

It's pretty clear her intention was to be noticed. Hell, go take a look at the front page of her website and tell me she's not interested in being noticed: http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/

Well, she got noticed. And people, being people, commented on what they saw. It was just banter. There's no need to get all dramatic about it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I hope VfF will give us links to her psychic frenemy's video that slams IIG. That will be appointment viewing.

Ward

 

[pakeha]

You've got that 100% bassackwards. It is wrong, simply wrong, to denigrate Anita for her physical appearance no matter what her claims or excuses are. Your assertion is sick.

ETA: Oops, I just remembered that LiD has me on ignore for calling him on his crap. Maybe someone can quote me.

Done.
I'm trying to remember if I criticised/denigrated AI for her physical characteristics on the chat. I think not, but if I did so, I deeply apologise.

I admit, however, that I have criticised/denigrated AI in forums for her creepy photoshopped representations of herself, her ambition to be an ambassadress to the Bigfoot community, those att. treatments, her failure to recognise that failing a Uni course doesn't give one a 4.0 grade average and wanting to visit the White House to talk to mr Lincoln.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Jim: "What are you afraid of?"

Anita: "I feel fully entitled to my experiences."

Jim: "What are you afraid of?" [asked again]

Anita: "I don't want to be told that they're not allowed."

Jim: "So, you are afraid that you would be considered mentally ill because those things are not real?"

Anita: "I guess so. I just feel that I am entitled to be the way I am."

Assuming that these are exact quotes, this is exactly what I was talking about in a post I don't know how many pages ago. She does not understand the difference between her perceived experiences and her actual existence. She's entitled to her experiences. She's entitled to be the way she is. She's entitled to be. I honestly think she fears that if she sees a mental health professional, she will be snuffed out of existence.

I think her response to the psychic who wrote to her was genuine. I believe she respects the JREF and IIG. She's clearly a good academic science student. I think she'd like to be a good experimental scientist, but every time she's shaken enough to believe that maybe something's not quite right with her, the voices from ghosts or Arcturans or dinosaurs calm and soothe her into believing that everything's OK. "Just stick with us," they say. "Exploring why we're here will only hurt. We are your friends. We will protect you." She believes them. I fear they will become more and more intrusive and a once potentially great scientist will be talking to herself on a street corner.

I guess if I truly believed that forces that no one else could detect were communicating with me, I'd believe them, too. I mean, they'd know everything about me. They'd know exactly what buttons to push to make me do what they wanted. They could be pleasant and polite and fascinating and delightful and I'd want them all to be my friends. If only they were real.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is for Rodney.

Whoa! I was just looking over the chat. Akhenaten picked 11 left, and that was correct. He also picked 24 left, which was the right person and the wrong side. He scored the same as Anita!

Tsig, Lex and Agatha picked #11 left - right person, wrong side. There were three other guesses, so three out of six picked the same person.

Volatile, Geemack and Akhenaten all picked #24 left - right person, wrong side. There were three other guess, so 3 out of 6 picked the same person.

GeeMack had 36 left - right person, wrong side. Anthem and Agatha's daughter picked 36. Only four other people made guesses, so 3 out of 7 picked the same person.

This is actually kinda interesting. With a .166 chance, 19 guesses and 9 success, there was a 0.1% chance of it being due to chance alone.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Assuming that these are exact quotes

They are exact quotes.

 

[wardenclyffe]

This is for Rodney.

Whoa! I was just looking over the chat. Akhenaten picked 11 left, and that was correct. He also picked 24 left, which was the right person and the wrong side. He scored the same as Anita!

Tsig, Lex and Agatha picked #11 left - right person, wrong side. There were three other guesses, so three out of six picked the same person.

Volatile, Geemack and Akhenaten all picked #24 left - right person, wrong side. There were three other guess, so 3 out of 6 picked the same person.

GeeMack had 36 left - right person, wrong side. Anthem and Agatha's daughter picked 36. Only four other people made guesses, so 3 out of 7 picked the same person.

This is actually kinda interesting. With a .166 chance, 19 guesses and 9 success, there was a 0.1% chance of it being due to chance alone.

I thought 24 left was correct person, correct side. Trial 2 was the only trial where the left kidney was missing. Seems like IIG went out of their way to make sure they were covered if VfF did something like play the odds and go for the left kidney every time. Trial 2 was the one with the missing left kidney, so that's the one she got right. Right?

Ward

 

[Drs_Res]

You are correct wardenclyffe. 24 left was correct for the 2nd set.

 

[LightinDarkness]

You've got that 100% bassackwards. It is wrong, simply wrong, to denigrate Anita for her physical appearance no matter what her claims or excuses are. Your assertion is sick.

ETA: Oops, I just remembered that LiD has me on ignore for calling him on his crap. Maybe someone can quote me.

Watching trolls shoot themselves in the foot as you (often) do is kind of sad, but also kind of amusing.

Your ignorance is showing - try reading what I have posted.

If anyone said anything about your weight then you should identify them - that is certainly not something that is acceptable and goes against what we are here for. We are here to evaluate your paranormal claims - not what you look like.
...
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).

I was the first person in the thread to state without exception that insults based on Anita's personal physical characteristics were wrong. Additionally, I said that engaging in them goes against what it means to be a critical thinker and a skeptic.

Be careful getting down from your high horse, as often as you fall from it you might break something. I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for you to stop derailing the thread with your trolling? Or the very least, stop trying to circumvent the membership agreement and stop harassing me?

 

[laca]

By the way, it seems I was right in predicting AI would go the Derek Ogilvie route-"I am a failure, not a fraud".

Do point out where she acknowledged she's a failure. All I can find is that her claims are still not falsified, she's taking another test, blah-blah. Seriously. I'd owe you one.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Who could she possibly get to do another, more complicated test? She suckered the IIG into testing her, but after anyone gets a good gander at that test, who would be willing to go near her?

Ward

 

[Sean84]

It seems like this should be split into a new thread, "Anita Ikonen - Failure", or something.

The test is done, the excuses made, time to call a spade a spade...

**** it, it's fun to quibble over bull**** isn't it?

 

[volatile]

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

We've already flogged this issue to death - an ABX test behind a screen was flatly refused, over and over again, because Anita needs to "orientate her vision".

Now, you're correct that if she could do what she has already said she can do, such a test should be possible. But she refuses.

it's not worth bothering pursuing this further. It's done to death.