VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[bookitty]

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...




Cited.

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

Yes, UY was replying to one of my last posts. Me, singular. But do really think it is possible to discuss anything other than VFF's personality at stopVFF?

 

[desertgal]

Yes, UY was replying to one of my last posts. Me, singular. But do really think it is possible to discuss anything other than VFF's personality at stopVFF?

Yes.

Caucasian Vs. African American Health Statistics
Revolutionary War Ghosts
The Ghost of Benjamin Franklin

Obviously, I can't debunk all of Anita's claims. I did attempt to debunk the ones I could, and I provided the factual research to back up my statements. I wasn't discussing her personality. I was discussing her claims.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

From the main menu of the StopVFF site there is a page called The Tests. In it I describe the IIG test including double-guessing and trying snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I also touch on the other "tests" she has given herself and failed. Also linked from the home page is The Claims, where I list many of the outrageous things she has told us such as not being a human (she's a star person who is several hundred years old), surviving without food and water for eight days (twice), being immune to alcohol, and speaking with ghosts (just to name a few). The front page has a link to my blog about her suspension (but not the latest one).

If you go to the Discussion area, one of the threads at the top is entitled "Harassment" and was started by VFF herself. It has the most responses of any thread on that page and probably the entire forum. On that same page you see "Looking into Restraining Orders" and "Harassment Part II." It's not a prohibitively large amount of information to digest.

I disagree with your contention that one needs a "stalker-ish" interest to get the basic facts and certainly don't appreciate the implication that goes along with your description. Why would you choose that term? If this discussion were about a physics theory, would it require "stalker-ish" interest to familiarize yourself with the science? How about health care reform? Scientology? Hate crime laws? Sylvia Browne's record on finding missing people? H1N1?

The fact is that we, "The VFF Crew," have repeatedly asked Anita to take down her VFF and Alenara website and go away, which is the opposite of stalking. I can think of at least four people besides myself who publicly and repeatedly asked Anita to stop contacting us privately (not to mention the migraine Meetup group that went private). When VFF is quiet, so are the StopVFF site and the VFF related threads here. Has Anita ever once asked people to stop contacting her or stop talking about her? No. Even while on yet another suspension from this board, she's contacting the JREF staff member who runs this board, who inexplicably decided to give her yet another platform. And I don't recall anyone here sending an e-mail to Anita saying, "I might be dying, so if you don't hear from me again, know that I LOVE YOU!"

Like I said, it's not difficult to acquire the basic information. It's also abundantly clear that there's a wealth of information out there. Asking questions and asking someone to defend their conclusions is fine by me. However, I do find it frustrating to be told that I'm wrong because someone hasn't bothered to see what I've seen.

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.

You're assuming that if people express emotions they are not objective. If that's the case, then no opinion is every truly objective because we are never devoid of emotion. Even indifference is an emotion. What you seem to be saying is that we're not allowed to display our negative emotions while responding to this stuff.

Apparently, however, you're allowed to express your positive "what if she's really coming around" emotional response without anything to back it up. In fact you seem to be spending more time talking about other participants rather than supporting your argument. I've challenged you to support your contention that there are alternate interpretations we should consider. I provided a wealth of information supporting my conclusion. I haven't seen anything like that from you yet.

So, yeh, I'm personally frustrated with you, and I'm sure it shows. My frustration stems from the [lack of] evidence I've seen. I'm not interpreting the evidence through my emotions. You've reversed cause and effect.

If you want to show that some of us are not behaving properly towards others, then by all means step right in to the specific situation and offer your opinion. I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that it's a good idea to treat people fairly. Even DG apologized (again) for reacting badly to someone over a year ago. If you see it, point it out right then and there because chances are whoever is reacting poorly doesn't realize it at the time.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, UY was replying to one of my last posts. Me, singular. But do really think it is possible to discuss anything other than VFF's personality at stopVFF?

I seem to recall a quite extensive article over there that dealt with Vision from Feeling's claimed extraterrestrial origins, which was completely without editorialisation or any allusions to anything other than VfF's own words.

I'm fairly sure the author didn't know anything about her personality at that stage.

I think is was titled 'The Claims - She's a Star Person' and I think this is a link to it here.

I might be mistaken, of course, but I doubt it.




ETA: I apologise for my part in this derail. I won't be continuing with it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, UY was replying to one of my last posts. Me, singular. But do really think it is possible to discuss anything other than VFF's personality at stopVFF?

Now you're getting silly. There has been quite a bit of factual analysis on the website. Unfortunately, Anita ignores all of it and has continued down a path filled with lies, misleading statements, broken promises, harassment, and threats. There's no way her personality is not going to come into it, especially when she starts threads like this:

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Discussion/tabid/294/aff/1/aft/197/afv/topic/Default.aspx
I have informed some of the faculty at my university about the harassment campaign headed by yourself and UNC-Charlotte staff member Alexis Seven. I assume that I can tolerate personal insults, that are targeted against my looks or my behavior, and I understand the origin of these attacks to be the paranormal inquiry that I work on during my spare time. It is also being revealed, that some of the motives of Alexis and those students that take part in the harassment with her, is due to jealousy of my high grades, my career goals, and the support I receive from faculty for my unique research ideas and ambitions within Physics.

<snip>
Alexis will face some charges and I will have a hearing arranged. She might even lose her job, who knows, because she is responsible for highly unprofessional and inappropriate behavior while representing our school, and she has personally been involved in spreading lies about our faculty, and of me of course.

I do not know what to do with you, Jim Carr. You are just an attempt at a skeptic, fighting pseudoscience by attacking my investigation and me personally, and growing meaner and meaner as you see it having no effect in stopping my inquiry. There will be a point, too, where you will also face charges. There does exist a point, where what you are doing against me crosses the line to being illegal.

The reality is that the "facts" are crystal clear to just about everyone except Anita. Remember, in 18 months she's only taken (and failed) a handful of self-administered tests and repeatedly failed to produce the promised raw data. Instead she has been on a spin campaign while garnering as much attention for herself as she can. Naturally, her personality plays a big part of this.

As far as the data goes, it's a done deal. The fact is that 357 people have voted on the survey on the home page with the question, "What do you think about Anita's claims?"

She's fooling herself - 26%
She's playing games - 12%
She's setting herself up for a future scam - 18%
She needs the help of a mental health professional - 41%
Her claims are real - 4%

I wonder how many of the 14 people who voted that her claims were real were actually serious. I do very little moderation on the board. On the few occasions I have moderated posts, they were for negatively delving into personal areas of her life that have no relevance to her claims or public persona. I have never once censored views opposed to mine, and I stated outright to you, without being asked to do so, that you are welcome to state whatever opinions you want.

If you are unwilling to make your opinions known and support them, please don't blame it on my website. Let's not forget that I was the one who encouraged Anita to post on StopVFF. She refused for months before jumping in feet first. It wasn't until the third time she threatened me with lawsuits and police action that I had to take the unfortunate step of revoking her posting privileges. I still permit her to comment on my blog entries, though.

Why are you personally so invested in seeing that Anita is perceived in a different light?

 

[bookitty]

UncaYimmy, here are the positive changes that I see.

In order to view the Regen Traynor test at IIGWest, Anita joined. In doing so she gave up the possibility of another test with the IIG. Hanging out with skeptics was more important.

After her own test, Anita creatively interpreted the results. And yet, she has never once accused the IIG of cheating or suggested in any way that the test was unfair. Jeff Wagg compares her favorably to Connie Sonne in this regard. Connie Sonne used her results to manufacture a false antagonism - the skeptics vs herself. Anita has never done that.

As she starts to ask questions, she reaches beyond the JREF board. On the board her persona is set in stone. Outside the board, the people she talks to encourage her to look towards the future instead of dwelling on the past. Getting mired in the past makes it difficult to change.

Of course, any of these can be explained away with attention-seeking etc. But if there is something there, it should be encouraged or at least not discouraged. As I've mentioned before, human beings rarely react well to having people yell "Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! You stupid attention whore!!" at them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

That doesn't sound like a shining example of critical thinking.

When she called you, was it at home, through Rational Alchemy, or was it at the JREF offices?

When you invited her to be on RA, did you make it clear that this invitation was from RA Jeff and not JREF Jeff?

When you spoke with her and she recorded the conversation, were you aware you were being recorded?

During this conversation, which Jeff was speaking - JREF or RA? Did you switch hats?

Have you given permission for her to put the recording on her website?

One of your duties is to manage the forums, so I assume that you were aware that she was on her fourth suspension, the latest being for three weeks for repeated personal attacks. How, if it all, did this factor into your decision? How did you separate the two Jeffs in evaluating this information?

You say that she can carry on a conversation. Is that the typical standard for the show?

You have had exchanges with members regarding VFF. You told GeeMack:

VFF is allowed to be dishonest, just like everyone else. Having dealt with more challenge applicants than just abut anyone else, I'm familiar with people like her. She's most likely deluded, lying, or both. She's probably doing all this to get attention. And she's allowed to do all those things so long as she's staying within the rules of the forum.

So, what factor did knowing that she's dishonest, deluded and seeking attention play in your decision to interview her?

You watched the IIG test live, so I assume you saw how she tried to parlay her "alternate guess" into a hit when the results of the first trial were given. Why didn't you bring this up?

All things considered, why did you rush into this interview? Did you not have a spot prepared or did you bump somebody?

There's a wealth of information on her on my website. Did you review it before the interview? Did you consider having me as a guest expert providing another perspective?

Your attention is appreciated.

 

[Nigel Aves]

A quick response. It's taken a bit of time to get signed up on these forums.
First off, this is the very first time that Brian or myself had ever talked to Anita. The only “facts” that we could go on are those available on the IIG website. Test 1 – failed / Test 2 – success / Test 3 Success on person / Failed on kidney side. From what we read on IIG the test was choosing the person and then selecting the missing side the kidney was on. This test was conducted with three groups of 6 people of whom one would have a missing kidney. I mention this only because I saw ..
“she left two people in each group of 12 as being without a kidney” … there were no groups of 12. Only groups of 6.
I read a little earlier in the forums that the test was only based on "which side the kidney was missing". That being the case the test should only have had participants with a missing kidney. If you look at the IIG test and the way it is conducted you'll see that it is really for for both. Finding the person and choosing the correct side because you cannot get the correct side and no person! So, it was a two part test.

The thing we talked about was that even though all of us are in agreement that as per the stated test protocols Anita failed and Anita totally agrees she failed the test. But what we did agree on was that there was sufficient evidence from the test to be worthy of a 2nd look. Nothing more, nothing less.

The test as it was designed by IIG and approved by Anita gives us the following "odds". The odds are a little different than the way that Powerball odds are worked out as it's three separate tests but the results are all based as a whole. These typically would be the odds as given in a betting shop.

The chart shows test group1 x test group2 x test group 3 and possible success.
Person - Side - Odds - % chance of hit

0x0x0 0x0x0 1331 / 1728 - 77% of getting test totally wrong
1x0x0 0x0x0 726 / 1728 - 42%
1x1x0 0x0x0 396 / 1728 - 23%
1x1x1 0x0x0 216 / 1728 - 12%
1x0x0 1x0x0 121 / 1728 - 7%
1x1x0 1x0x0 66 / 1728 - 4% << Anita's result
1x1x0 1x1x0 11 / 1728 - 0.6%
1x1x1 1x0x0 36 / 1728 - 2%
1x1x1 1x1x0 6 / 1728 - 0.3%
1x1x1 1x1x1 1 / 1728 - 0.05% chance of getting test totally correct

BTW - The odds of dying from an injury during the year and becoming a target for Sylvia Browne and John Edwards is about 1/1820 Which are actually pretty close odds to what Anita was being asked to accomplish.


So when you look at the statistical outcome of the result Anita had a 4% chance of getting to where she did. That is incredibly low odds (about 1 /26) and that is why we believed that Anita should be given a 2nd chance.

It's a great shame that there is so much negativism about this subject on the JREF forums and I was very pleased to see the following on the IIG web site.

"IIG Chair and CFI-Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown is excited. “With Sylvia Browne, Allison DuBois, and John Edward running around making outrageous claims, and refusing to allow any outside scrutiny,” says Underdown, “it’s quite refreshing to see someone come forward and put their money where their mouth is"."

She should actually be congratulated for having the nerve and courage for doing what she did. She stood, she was counted and she failed. And where she is a lot different from other paranormal tests, she is not making excuses for her failures. Even during the tests she was honest in her conclusions. The first group she admitted she had no clue. Would it not have been a lot easier to risk a guess?

Skeptics are not debunkers, they are a different animal. Skeptics use critical thinking and come to conclusions based on the available evidence. The other important aspect of a skeptic is that when we see some light in a tunnel we should be happy. It's the only way we can work. This is what makes a skeptic different from the Woo and the cynics. When you become a cynic you are actually no better than those we are trying to question and sadly it's far to easy to slip from skeptic to cynic just because of all the nonsense that is out there and the people who are screwing hard earned cash away using what I would consider the tools of the grifter.

As skeptics we need to make sure that the moral high ground remains ours. We must never slip into the "miss quoting" and "lying" and "slandering" so often used as main tools by the "other side".

 

[GeeMack]

A quick response. It's taken a bit of time to get signed up on these forums.
First off, this is the very first time that Brian or myself had ever talked to Anita. The only “facts” that we could go on are those available on the IIG website. Test 1 – failed / Test 2 – success / Test 3 Success on person / Failed on kidney side. [...]

But that's where you're wrong. The claim was that she can see a missing kidney, not that she can determine who is missing a kidney. She guessed wrong on the first round, correct on the second round, and wrong on the third round. Period.

And, if you had read the protocol or otherwise familiarized yourself with the test, you would have understood that it was a pass/fail test. If she guessed any of them wrong, any of them at all, then her claim to have an unerring ability to see missing organs inside of people was proven to have failed. She failed. 100%.

And, again, if for some odd reason you do think there's something interesting about someone making one correct guess out of three rounds of a one-in-twelve guessing game, if you think it merits some further testing because it's so interesting, I also had those exact same answers in each round of the test. Do you think that's interesting? Is it interesting enough to merit testing me further to see if I have some kind of magical x-ray vision?

Seriously.

 

[Akhenaten]

As skeptics we need to make sure that the moral high ground remains ours. We must never slip into the "miss quoting" and "lying" and "slandering" so often used as main tools by the "other side".

Aaaaaargh! Another one!

As me, I don't care where the moral high ground is. I am not a sceptic. Keep your labels to yourself, thank you very much.

As for lying and slandering. Hmm . . . stong words from a newcomer, I'd think. Maybe that's not what you meant? I'd bloody hope it's not.

The evil of miss quoting is just a complete mystery to me though. Should I only quote married ladies?

 

[GeeMack]

She should actually be congratulated for having the nerve and courage for doing what she did. She stood, she was counted and she failed. And where she is a lot different from other paranormal tests, she is not making excuses for her failures.

Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Sorry, Nigel, you couldn't be more wrong. Once again I'd like to remind you that there is an abundance of information right here on this forum, the Stop Vision from Feeling web site and forum, the IIG web site, and Anita's own blog/web site. If you'd familiarize yourself with the claims and the claimant you'll see that you're wrong. She has done nothing but make excuses for her failures, to the extent that she can't even understand that she does not have magical powers. She claims to believe she does. She claims to believe she knew which answers were right and which were wrong ahead of the reveal, and she believes that turns the entire test into some kind of verification that her powers are real.

I hate to say it but she duped you, Nigel, suckered you good. You and Jeff fell for her wiles. It's all there in those web sites and forums. Go have a read. You'll very likely change your mind. And don't be too embarrassed. Lots of people fall for a good con.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In order to view the Regen Traynor test at IIGWest, Anita joined. In doing so she gave up the possibility of another test with the IIG. Hanging out with skeptics was more important.

* Many of us wonder at the coincidence that Anita, who told us she couldn't afford $10 for Pup's chemical identification test, just happened to be 3,000 miles away in Hollywood at the exact time that the test was being given.

* Some of us wonder why she sat right in the middle where she would be in every camera shot of the audience.

* Anita knew that she was not permitted to attend the test, but she asked anyway. After being discouraged, she showed up anyway and borrowed money to join. She could have hung out with the skeptics after the event (I'm sure they went for pizza or something).

* By joining the IIG, she now has an excuse for not being tested by them again. Remember, the problem has been getting her to take a third-party test in the first place. How is that a step forward?

* Since she doesn't live there, she won't be "hanging out" with those people. And since it was a test, all she was allowed to do was sit there. That's not "hanging out" in my book.

* She already "hangs out" with a local skeptics group (FACT). By attending meetings and doing "informal" readings with members, she ensured that FACT can never test her claims either.

I see a pattern. You're just engaging in wishful thinking. Why? What is your personal motivation to see things this way?

After her own test, Anita creatively interpreted the results. And yet, she has never once accused the IIG of cheating or suggested in any way that the test was unfair. Jeff Wagg compares her favorably to Connie Sonne in this regard. Connie Sonne used her results to manufacture a false antagonism - the skeptics vs herself. Anita has never done that.

Right. In other words, nothing has changed. That's the point, Bookitty. She's repeating the same behaviors, and you're trying to spin it into a slow-motion epiphany. Anita's tactic is post-hoc analysis. Connie's was to accuse people of cheating. The end result is the same - a refusal to accept the results. Why praise her for consistency?

As she starts to ask questions, she reaches beyond the JREF board. On the board her persona is set in stone. Outside the board, the people she talks to encourage her to look towards the future instead of dwelling on the past. Getting mired in the past makes it difficult to change.

Evidence?

This is all part of the same pattern she has been following since Day One.

* She started with the IIG before she came here. She didn't come here until the IIG basically said, "Come back when you've got something because this is a waste of time."

* At the same time she came here, she posted essentially the same OP on other skeptic boards. She only pursued this one because we gave her attention.

* She joined FACT soon thereafter. As they gave her more attention, her participation here dropped off. What triggered StopVFF was when VFF told FACT that she liked messing with the skeptics here.

* After the novelty of FACT wore off and the attention subsided, she came back here.

* Six months after the kidney thing, Connie Sonne had her publicized test. That's when Anita started the IIG ball rolling again.

* She has revealed some details to professors (synesthesia, vibrational algebra), and those professors chose not to pursue it with her.

* She has written to real MDs about her abilities, but nothing ever came of it.

* She contacted a migraine sufferers Meetup group, but they rejected her.

* She contacted another nearby skeptical organization, but nothing came of it.

* She has written to paranormal organizations about her abilities, but nothing came of it.

And now you want us to read something special into this latest foray?

* After the attention from the IIG test wore off and she was banned from my board and suspended from this one, she went seeking attention by calling Jeff Wagg on the phone. She also contacted me again despite my repeated requests not to.

I'm pretty sure you already know all this stuff, Boo. At the very least you should know a lot of it. Why are you choosing to ignore all the past behavior in the hopes of seeing something new? Do you have some personal experience in this regard that is influencing your analysis?

Of course, any of these can be explained away with attention-seeking etc. But if there is something there, it should be encouraged or at least not discouraged. As I've mentioned before, human beings rarely react well to having people yell "Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! You stupid attention whore!!" at them.

Your attempts at emotional appeals are transparent. Who has called her a stupid attention whore or said she was wrong, wrong, wrong? Before the IIG test, many of us worked hard to pin her down to what the test would mean. She finally said failure would falsify her claims. After she took the test, many praised her for it. Several of us asked without any malice if her claims were now falsified. Well, we all know how that worked out.

It is completely unfair of you to characterize our reactions as if we are not giving her more than a fair chance to change the persona she has "cast in stone." We did. She could have honored her word, and we would have resoundingly accepted it.

But she didn't.

 

[Locknar]

The only “facts” that we could go on are those available on the IIG website. Test 1 – failed / Test 2 – success / Test 3 Success on person / Failed on kidney side.

As I understood the protocol, "success" was defined as picking the right person and the right kidney side. If this is the case, the only accurate description for Test 3 is "failed".

 

[bookitty]

* Many of us wonder at the coincidence that Anita, who told us she couldn't afford $10 for Pup's chemical identification test, just happened to be 3,000 miles away in Hollywood at the exact time that the test was being given.

* Some of us wonder why she sat right in the middle where she would be in every camera shot of the audience.

* Anita knew that she was not permitted to attend the test, but she asked anyway. After being discouraged, she showed up anyway and borrowed money to join. She could have hung out with the skeptics after the event (I'm sure they went for pizza or something).

* By joining the IIG, she now has an excuse for not being tested by them again. Remember, the problem has been getting her to take a third-party test in the first place. How is that a step forward?

* Since she doesn't live there, she won't be "hanging out" with those people. And since it was a test, all she was allowed to do was sit there. That's not "hanging out" in my book.

* She already "hangs out" with a local skeptics group (FACT). By attending meetings and doing "informal" readings with members, she ensured that FACT can never test her claims either.

I see a pattern. You're just engaging in wishful thinking. Why? What is your personal motivation to see things this way?


Right. In other words, nothing has changed. That's the point, Bookitty. She's repeating the same behaviors, and you're trying to spin it into a slow-motion epiphany. Anita's tactic is post-hoc analysis. Connie's was to accuse people of cheating. The end result is the same - a refusal to accept the results. Why praise her for consistency?


Evidence?

This is all part of the same pattern she has been following since Day One.

* She started with the IIG before she came here. She didn't come here until the IIG basically said, "Come back when you've got something because this is a waste of time."

* At the same time she came here, she posted essentially the same OP on other skeptic boards. She only pursued this one because we gave her attention.

* She joined FACT soon thereafter. As they gave her more attention, her participation here dropped off. What triggered StopVFF was when VFF told FACT that she liked messing with the skeptics here.

* After the novelty of FACT wore off and the attention subsided, she came back here.

* Six months after the kidney thing, Connie Sonne had her publicized test. That's when Anita started the IIG ball rolling again.

* She has revealed some details to professors (synesthesia, vibrational algebra), and those professors chose not to pursue it with her.

* She has written to real MDs about her abilities, but nothing ever came of it.

* She contacted a migraine sufferers Meetup group, but they rejected her.

* She contacted another nearby skeptical organization, but nothing came of it.

* She has written to paranormal organizations about her abilities, but nothing came of it.

And now you want us to read something special into this latest foray?

* After the attention from the IIG test wore off and she was banned from my board and suspended from this one, she went seeking attention by calling Jeff Wagg on the phone. She also contacted me again despite my repeated requests not to.

I'm pretty sure you already know all this stuff, Boo. At the very least you should know a lot of it. Why are you choosing to ignore all the past behavior in the hopes of seeing something new? Do you have some personal experience in this regard that is influencing your analysis?


Your attempts at emotional appeals are transparent. Who has called her a stupid attention whore or said she was wrong, wrong, wrong? Before the IIG test, many of us worked hard to pin her down to what the test would mean. She finally said failure would falsify her claims. After she took the test, many praised her for it. Several of us asked without any malice if her claims were now falsified. Well, we all know how that worked out.

It is completely unfair of you to characterize our reactions as if we are not giving her more than a fair chance to change the persona she has "cast in stone." We did. She could have honored her word, and we would have resoundingly accepted it.

But she didn't.

So there is no possible way for her to change unless she does it all at once and within your guidelines?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Wow, Nigel. Wow.

Why do you think you need to tell us the odds for the test? Do you think we don't know? Do you think we've been floundering around going, "Gee, guys, anybody know what those results meant? Is there a statistician in the house? Bueller? Bueller?"

If you want to read an informed analysis of the test, visit the website I created about VisionFromFeeling. There's quite a bit you don't know, such as the fact that her worksheets included at least two people in each trial whom she believed were shy a kidney.

That aside, in what world is a 1/26 chance incredibly low odds? A roulette wheel has worse odds than that! Same with a craps table. Casinos are littered with worse odds than that, yet people win all the time. There's nothing special about it at all.

It sounds like you don't understand odds at all. If 100 people took the same test as Anita and didn't play the "hedge the bet by having alternates" game, then on average we'd expect four people to do as well. In other words if she performed in front of an audience of 100 people, odds are in favor of a few members of the audience doing just as well.

Here's the skinny. Anita left at least two "missing kidney" slots on each of her worksheets. That means she failed to detect that a kidney was missing present in 5 out of 6 locations. It also means that she saw a kidney in 2 out of 3 locations where there was no kidney to be found.

By contrast, the sonogram lady got 100% correct in far less time.

And, please spare us your lectures when you clearly have no idea of the history behind this claimant. Have you even read this entire thread?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Mr. Aves,

Welcome to the monkey house. While I'm critical of some aspects of the interview with Anita Ikonen at www.rational-alchemy.com, I'm still glad the interview took place and I enjoyed listening to it.

There are a couple of things about the IIG test that I think are important. The first one is Iknonen's claim. She claimed that she could look at a clothed person and look/feel inside that person's body all the way down to a molecular level. She could see exactly what was in the body. She did not make a claim that she could sense the aura of a person and based on that aura, determine if they were missing an organ. She said she could get exact information about what was going on inside a body. That's the claim that was being tested. At one point on your show, she did say that she would have preferred not to have determined which side (but she did agree to that), but then later when your panel was suggesting other organs (spleen, etc.) she said that she preferred kidneys because the imbalance makes it very obvious to her. One side clearly has a firm, pink kidney, and the other side does not. That is the claim that was being tested.

I suspect that the IIG set it up the way they did so they could number the test subjects in a clear manner so that everyone including Iknonen would easily be able to identify what they were talking about. It's led to confusion, so it was probably a mistake in the test protocol.

Also, it's been noted elsewhere, that when someone donates a kidney, it is usually the left kidney that is donated. I guess it's easier for the surgeon to remove. Anyone knowing this (if they were trying to guess which kidney were missing) would choose the left kidney as the missing one more often than guessing the right. Guess which side she chose on all three trials? It was the left.

To summarize, if we were just talking about a two part guessing game, then maybe she did OK. But we are talking about a specific paranormal claim that she made. In that case, she did not do quite as well, despite trying to stack the odds in her favor by always choosing the left side.

But she nailed one of them fair and square (unless she really was expecting to see bookitty's friend in trial #2).

Thanks,
Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

So there is no possible way for her to change unless she does it all at once and within your guidelines?

You can drop the straw men, Bookitty. I never said anything about the possibility of changing nor did I say she had to do it all at once. You presented your meager evidence. As I told you beforehand, and you agreed was "fair," I examined it against the history of Anita's behavior. I found it entirely consistent. There's nothing here indicating even the slightest change because she's said and done all this before.

Once again, what is your personal experience in this regard that gives you special insight and allows you disregard a mountain of evidence to see something nobody else sees? Do you have personal experience with someone like this? It looks to me like you want to see something that's not there. Let's stop beating around the bush, okay? What is it?

 

[Anthem]

All in all, the show seems to be a nice introduction into the world of Anita and the test at the IIG.

About beating the odds:

Somewhere earlier, before the test took place Anita answers Pup in the "VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test"-thread, Pup in bold:

Originally Posted by Pup
I may have missed this already being discussed, but has there been any talk about identifying which kidney is missing (right or left)? It would double the odds.
Useful only if the prevalence of right vs. left kidney removals is determined. For instance, what if 90% of all kidneys removed for donation are the left kidney? Then I should not receive extra points for "knowing" that it was the left kidney that was removed.

Browsing around the internet I can find some statements that seem to endorse this prevalence: "Generally, the left [kidney]is preferred because of its longer renal artery".

In the aftermath of the test at the IIG, during the questioning or the interview, (from the top of my head) Anita admits this might have influenced her choices...
That could be an explanation as to why she missed the right missing kidney in the last trial and she might have enhanced her luck(?) a little.

ETA: wardenclyffe beat me to it

 

[Audible Click]

A quick response. It's taken a bit of time to get signed up on these forums.
First off, this is the very first time that Brian or myself had ever talked to Anita. The only “facts” that we could go on are those available on the IIG website. Test 1 – failed / Test 2 – success / Test 3 Success on person / Failed on kidney side. From what we read on IIG the test was choosing the person and then selecting the missing side the kidney was on. This test was conducted with three groups of 6 people of whom one would have a missing kidney. I mention this only because I saw ..
“she left two people in each group of 12 as being without a kidney” … there were no groups of 12. Only groups of 6.
I read a little earlier in the forums that the test was only based on "which side the kidney was missing". That being the case the test should only have had participants with a missing kidney. If you look at the IIG test and the way it is conducted you'll see that it is really for for both. Finding the person and choosing the correct side because you cannot get the correct side and no person! So, it was a two part test.

The thing we talked about was that even though all of us are in agreement that as per the stated test protocols Anita failed and Anita totally agrees she failed the test. But what we did agree on was that there was sufficient evidence from the test to be worthy of a 2nd look. Nothing more, nothing less.

The test as it was designed by IIG and approved by Anita gives us the following "odds". The odds are a little different than the way that Powerball odds are worked out as it's three separate tests but the results are all based as a whole. These typically would be the odds as given in a betting shop.

The chart shows test group1 x test group2 x test group 3 and possible success.
Person - Side - Odds - % chance of hit

0x0x0 0x0x0 1331 / 1728 - 77% of getting test totally wrong
1x0x0 0x0x0 726 / 1728 - 42%
1x1x0 0x0x0 396 / 1728 - 23%
1x1x1 0x0x0 216 / 1728 - 12%
1x0x0 1x0x0 121 / 1728 - 7%
1x1x0 1x0x0 66 / 1728 - 4% << Anita's result
1x1x0 1x1x0 11 / 1728 - 0.6%
1x1x1 1x0x0 36 / 1728 - 2%
1x1x1 1x1x0 6 / 1728 - 0.3%
1x1x1 1x1x1 1 / 1728 - 0.05% chance of getting test totally correct

BTW - The odds of dying from an injury during the year and becoming a target for Sylvia Browne and John Edwards is about 1/1820 Which are actually pretty close odds to what Anita was being asked to accomplish.


So when you look at the statistical outcome of the result Anita had a 4% chance of getting to where she did. That is incredibly low odds (about 1 /26) and that is why we believed that Anita should be given a 2nd chance.

It's a great shame that there is so much negativism about this subject on the JREF forums and I was very pleased to see the following on the IIG web site.

"IIG Chair and CFI-Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown is excited. “With Sylvia Browne, Allison DuBois, and John Edward running around making outrageous claims, and refusing to allow any outside scrutiny,” says Underdown, “it’s quite refreshing to see someone come forward and put their money where their mouth is"."

She should actually be congratulated for having the nerve and courage for doing what she did. She stood, she was counted and she failed. And where she is a lot different from other paranormal tests, she is not making excuses for her failures. Even during the tests she was honest in her conclusions. The first group she admitted she had no clue. Would it not have been a lot easier to risk a guess?

Skeptics are not debunkers, they are a different animal. Skeptics use critical thinking and come to conclusions based on the available evidence. The other important aspect of a skeptic is that when we see some light in a tunnel we should be happy. It's the only way we can work. This is what makes a skeptic different from the Woo and the cynics. When you become a cynic you are actually no better than those we are trying to question and sadly it's far to easy to slip from skeptic to cynic just because of all the nonsense that is out there and the people who are screwing hard earned cash away using what I would consider the tools of the grifter.

As skeptics we need to make sure that the moral high ground remains ours. We must never slip into the "miss quoting" and "lying" and "slandering" so often used as main tools by the "other side".

Well, where to begin? As GeeMack pointed out you've misunderstood the IIG test and it's parameters.

Ms. Ikonen vehemently states that the IIG test did not falsify her claim.

You don't understand the odds in the test and that was discussed extentsively here and at SVfF.

Ms. Ikonen chose the left kidney every time because that is the kidney that is most often removed and she knew this.

You don't appear to have done much research in preperation for the interview.

I find your last two paragraphs rather insulting. You don't get to define skepticism,cynisism or "the moral high ground" for the members of this forum.

 

[remirol]

She has been given far more attention than she deserves.

I have close to 100,000 words from Anita in the form of Skype chats and e-mails.

Unfortunately, there's no way to do a stop site and prevent it from being spun by the target. And there will always be publicity that you'd rather they not have. Like anything else, there is a cost-benefit ratio.

My feelings about her are irrelevant and, quite frankly, you really have no clue what those feelings are.

I agree that this is a bit off-topic, so I hope this slight derail doesn't go any further. I'll be happy to entertain PMs or discuss it over at StopVFF in more detail.

(How many posts after this by UY...? )

I'm pretty confident you lack the depth of knowledge about VFF...

There has been quite a bit of factual analysis on the website.... Let's not forget that I was the one who encouraged Anita to post on StopVFF.

Did you consider having me as a guest expert providing another perspective?

If you want to read an informed analysis of the test, visit the website I created about VisionFromFeeling.

Let's stop beating around the bush, okay? What is it?

It's painfully obvious to me that Anita is a paper tiger created by someone else to promote someone else, frankly. All this concern over Jeff doing an interview of Anita on a little-known podcast (let's face it, compare to how many people listen to Glenn Beck. I'd be delighted to see RA get that popular, but the reality is that right now, RA is "little-known"), and whether she can spin the lack of grilling... when the truth is right there in front of us the whole time.