VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[GeeMack]

I'm curious as to who this Nigel Aves is, who seemed very keen to credit Anita with 2 successes out of 3 tests. If success was defined in a certain way by the protocol, there was probably a good reason for it, and going back to redefine 'success', without, apparently, knowing the ins and outs, doesn't seem like a good way to proceed to me.

Going back to redefine success is how the woos deal with failure. Hearing Nigel jump in feet first into the woo camp was pretty odd. His suggestion that there's something interesting about a person making one correct guess in three tries at a 1:12 guessing game was one of the greater disappointments of the interview.

Obviously he was just as poorly prepared for the interview as Jeff was. Neither of them had a clue about what is really going on with VfF despite having pretty much one-click access to sources of all knowledge on the issue. They were both manipulated by Anita. Listening to a couple of grown men fawning and cooing like that when they could/should have actually been presenting a skeptical position was, well, rather pathetic. But like I mentioned before, it's show biz.

And if it really was interesting and merits further study, why doesn't Nigel contact me about being tested for magical powers? After all, I got the exact same answers in the test as Anita did. Obviously if her magical powers merit further testing, mine do too. Seriously.

 

[zooterkin]

And if it really was interesting and merits further study, why doesn't Nigel contact me about being tested for magical powers? After all, I got the exact same answers in the test as Anita did. Obviously if her magical powers merit further testing, mine do too. Seriously.

Was it easy to guess who the people with only one kidney were in rounds 2 and 3, or was it just chance?

 

[Akhenaten]

The emotional investment of many here in someone who is essentially a harmless woo is a sight to behold.

Agreed.

Well, without meaning to single anyone out, this is where a lot of the problem starts:

Okay, I have to admit I wasn't aware of all the personal stuff . . .

<snippage>

I also have to admit I haven't read much of the threads about her . . .

<and again>

Perhaps if the discussions were only carried out by people who actually read the threads concerned before adding their own contributions, things would stay a bit more rational?



ETA: I'll just reiterate that I in no wise mean to single out Tumblehome here for criticism. For reasons which elude me, every single Vision from Feeling thread has this almost-defining characteristic - everyone seems to want to dive in and join the fray without feeling the slightest need to figure out what the thread is actually about.

Kudos to the folks like zooterkin who ask some pertinent questions first.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Perhaps if the discussions were only carried out by people who actually read the threads concerned before adding their own contributions, things would stay a bit more rational?

I think this is not really a reasonable position to take, but it's one that I've heard from lots of posters in the VfF threads. In a perfect world, everyone would enter the discussion only after reading all of the background material, but who's going to do that? I was hear from the beginning, so I have read it. I can't imagine that if I were a newcomer that I would go back and read every tedious and repetitive post in every thread about VfF before posting an opinion.

Of course, that might mean that my opinion would be mistaken. If that were the case, then I'd hope that the folks with more experience would gently inform me about what I was missing. Instead I might be attacked as unworthy of posting here. It's just not helpful. It's a little like the Scientology threads where FredCarr never tells anyone about Scientology, but just answers all questions with "read the book." I don't think that makes people want to read the book.

These pages need not be reserved for special people who've done ALL the research. There's already www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com for those who study her more intensely, and there's the "private room" at that website for the super-duper VfF scholars. I see no reason for all the vitriol aimed at the membership here when they ask questions or even make statements out of ignorance. It just makes this forum a much less friendly place.

I still remember the member of the Forsythe Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) who began posting here on VfF's activities with that group. He had not read every post by/about her (and there were a lot fewer of them then), but he came here to report on his observations of her in his local skeptics group. He was treated so poorly by the regulars that he simply went away. And we lost a source of potentially good information about this case.

Who knows what each new poster might be bringing to the table? I find it unfortunate that "attack" seems to be the mode that so many of us live in.

And, yes I ended that last sentence with a preposition.

And so I end this diatribe,

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

Was it easy to guess who the people with only one kidney were in rounds 2 and 3, or was it just chance?

Gee, this interview has people talking about the IIG test again, and in a second-guessing manner. Big surprise!

You have to remember that (as best as I can tell), when Anita completed her worksheets during the trials, she left two people in each group of 12 as being without a kidney. That gave her a 41% chance of getting one location and a 26% chance of getting two people (guessing the person was not the protocol). You can see an example of her worksheet below.



Upon revealing the results of the first trial, Anita mistakenly believed the target was actually the alternate she had on her worksheet. She was quite excited and started telling the audience about how she was actually right. That is, until someone pointed out that the target was not her alternate but a third person entirely.

As for being "correct" in the second trial, the target was a friend of Bookitty, a member here. She had described him briefly on the forums as having been in a horrible motorcycle accident and having metal replacement parts in several places in his body (legs, I believe). Below are some stills. What's not immediately apparent are the large scars on his arm, which Bookitty says were not visible. when he was sitting in the chair. You can decide for yourself if there were any visual cues that might have made this person a more likely target.




Personally, I think he's sitting cockeyed in the chair. Nobody can say for sure what part, if any, his appearance played. What we can say is that according to her worksheets, Anita chose 6 locations that were missing a kidney, and 5 of them actually had a kidney. She also detected a kidney in two out of the three locations where one was missing. By contrast, the lady with the sonogram was 100% accurate and needed far less time.

 

[zooterkin]

You have to remember that (as best as I can tell), when Anita completed her worksheets during the trials, she left two people in each group of 12 as being without a kidney. That gave her a 41% chance of getting one location and a 26% chance of getting two people (guessing the person was not the protocol).

It's a shame none of the interviewers seemed to be aware of that.

Upon revealing the results of the first trial, Anita mistakenly believed the target was actually the alternate she had on her worksheet. She was quite excited and started telling the audience about how she was actually right. That is, until someone pointed out that the target was not her alternate but a third person entirely.

Again, this is at odds with Anita's description in the interview, where she was claiming she felt she'd got it wrong in the first round.

As for being "correct" in the second trial, the target was a friend of Bookitty, a member here. She had described him briefly on the forums as having been in a horrible motorcycle accident and having metal replacement parts in several places in his body (legs, I believe). Below are some stills. What's not immediately apparent are the large scars on his arm, which Bookitty says were not visible. when he was sitting in the chair. You can decide for yourself if there were any visual cues that might have made this person a more likely target.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of when I asked GeeMack how he made his guesses.

Personally, I think he's sitting cockeyed in the chair. Nobody can say for sure what part, if any, his appearance played. What we can say is that according to her worksheets, Anita chose 6 locations that were missing a kidney, and 5 of them actually had a kidney. She also detected a kidney in two out of the three locations where one was missing. By contrast, the lady with the sonogram was 100% accurate and needed far less time.

Once more, a shame that the podcasters seemed unaware of all this.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

By contrast, the lady with the sonogram was 100% accurate and needed far less time.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think this is not really a reasonable position to take, but it's one that I've heard from lots of posters in the VfF threads. In a perfect world, everyone would enter the discussion only after reading all of the background material, but who's going to do that? I was hear from the beginning, so I have read it. I can't imagine that if I were a newcomer that I would go back and read every tedious and repetitive post in every thread about VfF before posting an opinion.

What I find annoying is when people say in effect, "I don't see the problem, so you guys should lay off" when they haven't actually looked for a problem. I don't think any of the VFF regulars object to somebody asking questions. If somebody tuned in to Gilligan's Island and just saw the Skipper hitting Gilligan with his hat, the skeptical reaction is to ask why. The woo approach is to call Mr. Grumby a bully and Gilligan an innocent victim. What's even worse is when someone says, "I've never watched the show, but I saw Bob Denver as Maynard G. Krebs on Dobie Gillis, and I don't think he deserves to be treated like that by the fat guy, and you guys are wrong for laughing."

Of course, that might mean that my opinion would be mistaken. If that were the case, then I'd hope that the folks with more experience would gently inform me about what I was missing. Instead I might be attacked as unworthy of posting here. It's just not helpful. It's a little like the Scientology threads where FredCarr never tells anyone about Scientology, but just answers all questions with "read the book." I don't think that makes people want to read the book.

I understand what you're saying, but I have provided an enormous amount of background in this thread alone. There's always a level of frustration when somebody posts in a thread, especially when being critical of others, when it appears they haven't been following it. That's just human nature, and it's not unique to the VFF's threads.

These pages need not be reserved for special people who've done ALL the research. There's already www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com for those who study her more intensely, and there's the "private room" at that website for the super-duper VfF scholars. I see no reason for all the vitriol aimed at the membership here when they ask questions or even make statements out of ignorance. It just makes this forum a much less friendly place.

I understand what you're saying, but where has there been vitriol aimed at people asking questions? I don't think I've noticed that.

I still remember the member of the Forsythe Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) who began posting here on VfF's activities with that group. He had not read every post by/about her (and there were a lot fewer of them then), but he came here to report on his observations of her in his local skeptics group. He was treated so poorly by the regulars that he simply went away. And we lost a source of potentially good information about this case.

I don't remember who you are talking about. Was it GodofPie? If so, I don't think you're recollection is accurate. I vaguely remember somebody else, but it's a vague memory and unreliable. My searches were fruitless.

Who knows what each new poster might be bringing to the table? I find it unfortunate that "attack" seems to be the mode that so many of us live in.

Again, I see your point, but where is this happening?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I'm curious as to why Jeff Wagg agreed to the interview with Anita specifically.

There are any number of people around who claim paranormal abilities and are unable to demonstrate them.
I am wondering why Jeff decided to pick Anita in particular. Especially as her claims actually have been debunked (as opposed to someone with paranormal claims who hadn't yet been tested).

Mostly availability and the fact that she can carry on a conversation. It wasn't a carefully planned event, in fact it was rather spur of the moment.

 

[desertgal]

I don't remember who you are talking about. Was it GodofPie? If so, I don't think you're recollection is accurate. I vaguely remember somebody else, but it's a vague memory and unreliable. My searches were fruitless.

No, Ward's recollection is accurate. It was in the middle of the original VfF thread, shortly after Anita's 'reading' of Wayne. It wasn't "godofpie"-I can't remember the fellow's name-and I was the one who treated him poorly. The man made a blunt assumption based on a misconception, and I made an impatient, knee jerk response instead of explaining (perfection not being my strong suit). I've acknowledged and apologized for that several times already.

 

[Daylightstar]

Was there a purpose to this interview with VfF?

 

[Audible Click]

Was there a purpose to this interview with VfF?

Apparently not.

 

[wardenclyffe]

No, Ward's recollection is accurate. It was in the middle of the original VfF thread, shortly after Anita's 'reading' of Wayne. It wasn't "godofpie"-I can't remember the fellow's name-and I was the one who treated him poorly. The man made a blunt assumption based on a misconception, and I made an impatient, knee jerk response instead of explaining (perfection not being my strong suit). I've acknowledged and apologized for that several times already.

I don't blame desergal specifically for that incident. I don't think she was alone (but she was carrying the flag that time). I think this was just the most egregious example of what happens often in these threads.

UncaYimmy says that it's just human nature. It's true, it is human nature to become frustrated when people post things with which one disagrees. But this isn't a barroom argument. It's an internet forum. It's possible to think and reconsider answers before hitting the "submit" button. Too often, I think, the frustrated reaction to an ignorant question or assertion makes new posters feel unwelcome and unworthy. There are ways of doing this other than demanding that every poster read thousands and thousands of posts or immediately saying WRONG!

If the regulars here were a little more inviting, I think they'd find a lot more people who'd be eager to start digging into the archives to see what has transpired over the last couple of years.

I know there's frustration with ignorance and there's frustration with the moderation team. Venting that frustration here ends up making all discussions about this subject prickly and unpleasant. Even when VfF is suspended, it's still unpleasant. It's human nature, but the computer should allow us to filter that a little bit. Otherwise we end up as a tiny faction of posters in a secret room on another website. I don't find that helpful to the larger cause.

Ward

P.S. I have nothing against the "secret room" nor do I have anything against www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com. I'm only concerned that the clique of VfF researchers should be a little more welcoming or they'll end up as a tiny and insignificant voice in the argument (no matter how right they are).

 

[bookitty]

wardenclyffe has a point. There is far too much information out there. A newcomer needs to get take a stalker-ish interest in order to catch up. Even if they were to read the IIG Site, Vff's site, Stop Vff and the various blogs that commented on the test, they wouldn't get the whole picture.

For example, the concerns about the subject in the second trial which UncaYimmy has outlined above. This is important information. To someone who was only interested in skeptical paranormal investigation, all these little details from the IIG test would be fascinating.

In order to find it, you would have to dig through the JREF forum threads. Endless pages of bickering, back-tracking and personal opinion. Yet if you don't read enough of these pages to join in with the pitchforks, you are told that you can not have an opinion.

Someone used the word "hate," that is obviously too strong. But it does show that there is an emotional response to VFF and her claims. An emotional reaction is rarely an objective one.

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps if the discussions were only carried out by people who actually read the threads concerned before adding their own contributions, things would stay a bit more rational?

I think this is not really a reasonable position to take, but it's one that I've heard from lots of posters in the VfF threads.

If that's the only place you've read it, you may need to broaden your horizons. It's a fairly common idea, not just on internet forums, but pretty much anywhere that conversations occur.

In a perfect world, everyone would enter the discussion only after reading all of the background material, but who's going to do that?

I'd assume anyone who wants to appear as though they know what they're talking about.

YMMV

I was hear from the beginning, so I have read it.

Whear?

I can't imagine that if I were a newcomer that I would go back and read every tedious and repetitive post in every thread about VfF before posting an opinion.

I can't either, really. The trouble is that the tedious and repetitive posts were made by the type first/read later people to begin with.

See how that works?

Of course, that might mean that my opinion would be mistaken.

Yup. it almost certainly would, unless you got lucky. I haven't seen much of that happening though.

If that were the case, then I'd hope that the folks with more experience would gently inform me about what I was missing.

Hope springs eternal, but research generally doesn't. You have to actually do that.

It's the gentle informing of every single newcomer that makes VfF threads so repetitive and tedious. Again, see how that works?

Instead I might be attacked as unworthy of posting here.

Nah. The MA will protect you from that.

It's just not helpful. It's a little like the Scientology threads where FredCarr never tells anyone about Scientology, but just answers all questions with "read the book." I don't think that makes people want to read the book.

That depends on the person's desire to engage FredCarr (and other scilons). I know far more about scientology than he does, and I didn't need his help or his encouragement to arrive at that position.

Knowledge is free.

These pages need not be reserved for special people who've done ALL the research.

No, they don't. They need to be preserved for everybody to read before they buy into the issues therein.

There's already www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com for those who study her more intensely, and there's the "private room" at that website for the super-duper VfF scholars.

Horse/cart thingy, mate. SVfF was created, at least in part, to escape the morass of VfF threads in this Forum.

Private room? Super-duper VfF scholars? That really bothers some people, doesn't it? I'll bet the people who inhabit the room of which you speak are laughing their socks off about it..

I see no reason for all the vitriol aimed at the membership here when they ask questions or even make statements out of ignorance. It just makes this forum a much less friendly place.

I wonder why the same vitriol hasn't affected SVfF.

I remember the member of the Forsythe Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) who began posting here on VfF's activities with that group. He had not read every post by/about her (and there were a lot fewer of them then), but he came here to report on his observations of her in his local skeptics group. He was treated so poorly by the regulars that he simply went away. And we lost a source of potentially good information about this case.

Maybe he didn't disappear at all. Maybe he just went and joined the Sanctum Sanctorum at SVfF to get away from the noise here.

Who knows what each new poster might be bringing to the table? I find it unfortunate that "attack" seems to be the mode that so many of us live in.

Well, those of you that live in that mode should strive to improve yourselves, I guess. That's what I'd do.

And, yes I ended that last sentence with a preposition.

That I can live with.

And so I end this diatribe,

Ward

Amen.

 

[bookitty]

Private room? Super-duper VfF scholars? That really bothers some people, doesn't it? I'll bet the people who inhabit the room of which you speak are laughing their socks off about it..

We're laughing at you in our private treehouse! Lulz!

I wonder why the same vitriol hasn't affected SVfF.

Perhaps because its been made clear that people who do not agree with the opinions of StopVFF can go elsewhere?

 

[desertgal]

There are ways of doing this other than demanding that every poster read thousands and thousands of posts or immediately saying WRONG!

If the regulars here were a little more inviting, I think they'd find a lot more people who'd be eager to start digging into the archives to see what has transpired over the last couple of years.

I agree with your points. I agree with Skeptic Canuck that a gentler, less confrontational approach seems to be in order. To achieve that, I'm happy to sit back, keep mum, and let those with a less confrontational style work with Anita. Granted, I doubt it will get you any further...but who knows?

That said, I'm not sure why this is being brought up now. What I saw earlier in this thread was a reasonable response by UncaYimmy to Tumblehome. Yes, UY mentioned that he didn't think Tumblehome had read the entire VfF saga, but instead of bluntly suggesting that Tumblehome do so in a dismissive manner, he capsulized a portion of the background material for Tumblehome's convenience.

How did that bring the thread down to the level of a brawl? I would consider it an improvement over the previous example you provided of the FACT skeptic that I drove off.

As for the radio interview...well, according to Jeff Wagg, it was done on the spur of the moment. Even so, I thought it could have been handled better. Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard very little critical examination being given to Anita's claims-and, even with the loose format that Jeff Wagg described, wouldn't critical examination be the point of such an interview? Otherwise, it is just Anita rambling on and on about the same claims she has been making for the last 18 months...and the listeners are left wondering why Rational Alchemy even bothered. I don't think it's an attack on Jeff Wagg to say that. He's probably had interviews (maybe even this one) that, in hindsight, he thought could have been handled better himself.

As well, when Anita admitted that she guessed throughout the IIG demonstration, and Jeff Wagg said she still should have been given credit towards having a paranormal ability because she guessed half right in trial 3...what exactly does that accomplish for a show dedicated to rational thinking? It's actually, no offense, nonsensical.

If the idea of the radio interview was to encourage Anita to take a more critical approach to her own claims, I doubt it was successful.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snipness>

Someone used the word "hate," that is obviously too strong. But it does show that there is an emotional response to VFF and her claims. An emotional reaction is rarely an objective one.

Not to ignore the rest of your post, but I think I mostly answered it in my response to Ward. This emotional thingy is another issue though.


I can only speak for myself when I say that VfF's various claims, tests, trials, demonstrations - whatever she calls them from week to week - elicit no emotional response from me at all.

Why would they? She's ten thousand miles away from me and will never be in a position to affect me in any way with any of her Arcturan X-ray vision/migraine healing/vibrational analysis stuff.

But two things will definitely cause me to get a bit testy:

1. People who try to tell me that I'm doing scepticism wrong (and skepticism).

2. Anita Ikonen pretending to be a sceptic.​

So as long as folks don't fall into either of those two groups, I'm a very happy camper. I'm only here for the funny pictures, after all.

 

[Akhenaten]

We're laughing at you in our private treehouse! Lulz!

I certainly would be if they'd let me in there.

Perhaps because its been made clear that people who do not agree with the opinions of StopVFF can go elsewhere?

Cite?

 

[GeeMack]

Perhaps because its been made clear that people who do not agree with the opinions of StopVFF can go elsewhere?

Yeah, that's probably why the owner of the Stop Vision from Feeling forum recently said to one of the members during a discussion where there was a difference of opinion, "Boo, you're welcome to do whatever you want in regards to Anita's character, and you're welcome to do it here." Any idea who he was referring to when he used the moniker, "Boo"?

ETA...

Cite?

Cited.

Now back to our previously scheduled topic, the Rational Alchemy interview...