VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[bookitty]

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?

I've got no dog in this race. I just don't think the evidence is all that damning. What exactly has she done?

She's been banned for saying mean things on a forum, not a rare occurrence.

She sent 2 ill-advised emails to a migraine support group and let the matter drop.

She took a test as a paranormal claimant and then didn't to allow the sweet power of reason to banish her demons of woo. Par for the course in these cases.

She tried to contact you after you told her not to. Incredibly rude, I agree but her relationship with you has no bearing on her attraction to skepticism.

And then there's the charge of "taking advantage of this forum and the IIG" which strikes me as completely silly.

As for my past, it's better to just come out and say it. Trying to threaten me with things we've discussed in personal correspondence is hardly the way to make your case. Although it might be better to take it to your site rather than utterly derail this thread.

 

[remirol]

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.

Why aren't you calling GeeMack out for doing the same?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

That's just plain wrong,, Nigel.

It's not even on the same planet as the real situation.

Excuses for her failures is ALL we ever hear from VfF.

How could you not know this?

 

[Nigel Aves]

GeeMack / Locknar... untrue, it's about person and then kidney. As per the protocol published on the IIG website. It's all in the interpretation of the "and" but statistically it matter little.

"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."

This was about finding the person and which side the kidney is on. That quote is directly from IIG web site. So where everyone is saying "it's just about a missing kidney" are wrong and I have no clue were that information is coming from.

I have looked at SVFF but as soon as I stumble on this "Some dumb-ass moderator over at the JREF removed my post." I stopped reading the site cause a majority of it seemed to be about personal attacks. Of that I have no time at all.

"She has done nothing but make excuses for her failures," - Well, I don't remember her doing that at all while we recorded the show.

Akhenaten - LOL .... As for lying and slandering. Hmm . . . stong words from a newcomer, >> This was NOT aimed at anyone But I was just surprised at the amount of hostility that seems to be around. ....

Should I only quote married ladies? >> Absolutely. At least you'll be on solid ground! No, I've found a couple of quotes used as "proof of what a person is saying" but when the quote is re-published the "famous" smiley face is missing. And as we all know in the parlance of internet forums, that means "joking", so it was turned from a joke into a fact.

UncaYimmy >> I can answer a few of these questions.

When she called you, was it at home, through Rational Alchemy, or was it at the JREF offices? She was contacted by Rational Alchemy and added to the Skype conversation.

When you invited her to be on RA, did you make it clear that this invitation was from RA Jeff and not JREF Jeff? She fully understood that this was a Rational Alchemy radio show and had no connections at all with JREF. I'd also like to add that Jeff makes it very clear that this JEFF not JREF.

When you spoke with her and she recorded the conversation, were you aware you were being recorded? As far as I am aware she did not record anything. Can you please let me know where you obtained that information.

During this conversation, which Jeff was speaking - JREF or RA? Did you switch hats? RA - It's only ever RA unless he specifically is referring to a JREF topic.

Have you given permission for her to put the recording on her website? She has a link to the RA web site. She is not actually hosting the podcast. She also has links to IIG.

"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." - Actually people do not win all the time. They actually get lucky! The vast majority of money in casinos flows in one direction and it's not to the punter.

I need to get going, tried at answer a few questions.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why aren't you calling GeeMack out for doing the same?

Because she is allowed to choose what she says and to whom she says it, regardless of the wishes of the agitatiors on the sidelines.

MYOB.

 

[Audible Click]

Because she is allowed to choose what she says and to whom she says it, regardless of the wishes of the agitatiors on the sidelines.

MYOB.

That about sums it up, Remirol.

 

[remirol]

Because she is allowed to choose what she says and to whom she says it, regardless of the wishes of the agitatiors on the sidelines.

Certainly. And I am allowed to ask her why.

MYOB.

Public forum, sorry.

 

[remirol]

That about sums it up, Remirol.

So it's OK to claim to be the arbiter of what "skepticism" is as long as it's people who agree with you?

I see.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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:


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".

wardenclyffe beat me to it

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.

Anita has done a very good job of getting people to concentrate on just the narrow elements of the IIG test in order to spin things accordingly. Here are a few quotes to remind us about her claimed ability.

That is the nature of the vibrational information that forms the images. The way I understand it, the vibrational information is what I detect. This vibration is then what the atoms are composed of, then the molecules, cells, and tissue. Based on the perceived structure of the vibrational information, this is then in my awareness constructed upwards into corresponding structure on the atomic, molecular, and cellular and tissue level and becomes perception that is visual in structure, shape and color, and also texture, feeling, density, weight, temperature, and sometimes sound, taste, and scent.

Health problems have a form of disorderly vibrational structure. There is dissonance, something that stands out and does not blend in in the smooth way with the other vibrational information as healthy structures do. So it is easy to detect, it is like sharp shards in an otherwise smooth landscape. My mind identifies these as easily as yours identifies anything out of the ordinary, such as a black spot on a sheet of white paper, or in music one note that does not blend in. But not only that. Health problems are also recognized by the body that has them and the body's own awareness of a health problem also makes it distinguishable from the rest.

If you performed at level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?

This is the type of test I expect to have. And if I fail to obtain medical perceptions in such a test I would definitely conclude, as we all would conclude, that it is not the case of a paranormal ability of perceiving accurate health information. Yes.

Let's also not forget that Anita was able to observe the subjects for about a half hour. While the IIG did make reasonable attempts at blinding, the fact remains that Anita had 30 minutes to catch a clue. We know she knew the rough age, gender and general physical condition of each person. It's not like this was totally random like with detecting what chemical is inside a sealed steel container, a claim VFF made but refused to test. The "odds" are not what they seem because the odds are based on pure chance - this wasn't pure chance.

Remember also that Bookitty, who was a subject herself, knew the goal of the test. It's quite possible her friend (the one correct pick) did as well. And every one of the subjects knew it was an IIG test though the IIG tried to conceal the true nature. A quick bit of research on the web could have led them to finding out, which could have affected their behavior during that 30 minutes.

This makes the results even more meaningless. The notion of a retest is preposterous.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Mr. Aves,

Many of UncaYimmy's questions were about a private hour-long conversation that Ikonen and Wagg had (I assume) some days prior to the podcast. She revealed in a private message to UncaYimmy that such a conversation had taken place and that she had recorded it. I think there was a bit of confusion there. He was asking Wagg about that private conversation and not about the podcast.

Hope that clears things up.

Ward

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack / Locknar... untrue, it's about person and then kidney. As per the protocol published on the IIG website. It's all in the interpretation of the "and" but statistically it matter little.

"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."

This was about finding the person and which side the kidney is on. That quote is directly from IIG web site. So where everyone is saying "it's just about a missing kidney" are wrong and I have no clue were that information is coming from.

It's coming from that little word "and" that you're conveniently overlooking for some weird and so far unknown reason.

"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."​

No partial credit for a wrong answer. It's amazing that you can be so woefully uninformed and call yourself a skeptic. The claim was stated and defined. And you're wrong. Sadly it appears you're unwilling to make the effort to understand the facts involved here.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's also not forget that Anita was able to observe the subjects for about a half hour. While the IIG did make reasonable attempts at blinding, the fact remains that Anita had 30 minutes to catch a clue. We know she knew the rough age, gender and general physical condition of each person. It's not like this was totally random like with detecting what chemical is inside a sealed steel container, a claim VFF made but refused to test. The "odds" are not what they seem because the odds are based on pure chance - this wasn't pure chance.

Let's also not forget that I got the same answers as Anita got, and I was all the way out here in Illinois. Now maybe Anita has magical x-ray vision and I have ESP and I stole the answers directly from her brain. Or maybe I can see through people's skin and flesh all the way across the Internet. Maybe I psychically transmitted the answers to Anita. What? Sounds too fantastic to be true? Does it really sound any more fantastic than magically seeing through someone's clothing, skin, and flesh from five feet away? Really?

Maybe someday when the hubbub wanes, just maybe if I'm in the mood and everyone else seems agreeable I'll describe the method I used to get the answers I got. Just maybe it's the same method Anita used. And just maybe it really is magic.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Let the inquisition begin...

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

It was on Skype at my apartment. I have no office at the JREF.

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

Yes, we had that discussion very early on.

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

Now I don't know what you're talking about. If you mean Rational Alchemy, we were recording it. If you mean the call she recorded, my permission for her to record it is in the recording.

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

Assuming you don't mean the radio show, I was just me.

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

After the recording was done, she asked if she could put it on her site and I said yes. She did not ask before she recorded the call, so I did not record it thinking it would have an audience, but so be it.

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 are misinformed. I am the liaison between the JREF and the forum. I do not make decisions regarding suspensions or bannings except under unusual circumstances, none of which VFF has been involved in. I did not research her history on the forum before the interview.

I'm not sure what decision you're talking about, or what evaluation you're referring to.

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

We do want guests who can carry on a conversation, yes.

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


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

That's a dishonest question. I did not and do not know that she's "dishonest" or "deluded." I think she's likely deluded. It's possible she's lying, and I know she's seeking attention, though anyone with a website or podcast is also seeking attention. I am, you certainly are, and I don't see that as a bad thing unless that is the sole goal of one's activities. I don't know if it is for her or not. She says it's not, and I have to take her at her word.

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?

I only watched part of it, and I missed the beginning. If I had seen such a thing, I would have discussed it with her. She told me that she was positive she got the first one wrong, and I asked her why she chose someone if she knew it was wrong, and I don't recall her answer, honestly, but it's in the recording.

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

The opportunity was there, and I took it. We did this instead of a current events show. I've done the same with a few other interviewees as well, and will likely do so again.

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?

I am loosely familiar with your website, and I have considered having you as a guest, but have decided against it.

Your attention is appreciated.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I don't have time to follow this fully, but I would like to point out a few things:

Failing a test doesn't disprove a claim. It merely shows that the claimant failed that test. The JREF allows people to reapply because of this. If your claim is that reindeer fly, and you toss one off the roof only to have it fall to its death, you have merely failed to support your claim. You haven't proved that reindeer can't fly or even that that single reindeer can't fly. It may have chosen not to, or couldn't due to circumstances not stated.

No one is saying that she did anything other than fail the IIG test. However, she did beat moderately impressive odds at finding who who was missing a kidney. I KNOW this wasn't the test... she had to also determine the side. But the point is, if she could simply tell who was missing a kidney, that would be impressive enough to win a challenge if it was possible to set one up that way.

That said, it's very possible that there were poor controls, or she had some prior info, or she just got lucky. Possibly, it was a combination of these things. I don't really care; I'm just pointing out that of all the challenges I've watched, hers was among the most impressive. Does that mean I think she won? No. Does it mean I think she has powers? No. It means what I said and nothing more.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I've got no dog in this race. I just don't think the evidence is all that damning. What exactly has she done?

The burden is on you to provide evidence that she is beginning to change beliefs she has held for years. Why are you going on about "damning" stuff? Do I need to recap it yet again?

She's been banned for saying mean things on a forum, not a rare occurrence.

That's a lie. She was not banned for being mean. I allowed her to post mean things. I disabled her posting privileges in the forum but not her commenting ability on the blogs (they are moderated) for threatening a lawsuit and police action for a third time. That is rare.

She tried to contact you after you told her not to. Incredibly rude, I agree but her relationship with you has no bearing on her attraction to skepticism.

She didn't just "try" to contact me after I told her not to - she actually did contact me. She threatened a lawsuit and police action, so I advised her not to contact me except through an attorney. She did this numerous times, and each time I told her to stop. That's well beyond the realm of rude, and it certainly does have a bearing on her "attraction" to skepticism because this "attraction" is insincere and really part of a pattern of manipulation.

And then there's the charge of "taking advantage of this forum and the IIG" which strikes me as completely silly.

What do you call it when she comes here asking for help, receives it, ignores most of it and changes the rest so it's not recognizable, then claims that the people here are helping her in her investigation?

As for my past, it's better to just come out and say it. Trying to threaten me with things we've discussed in personal correspondence is hardly the way to make your case. Although it might be better to take it to your site rather than utterly derail this thread.

I'm not threatening anything. I have repeatedly asked you for evidence, and all I receive are assertions. I provide logical arguments backed with mounds of evidence, and you dismiss it out of hand. You have attacked my motivations for evaluating the evidence, yet you have not been forthcoming as to why you interpret things as you do. Or at least why I think you're taking the position you are.

I have had no problems disclosing the many personal things that I have experienced in this situation that could color my evaluation of the evidence, including repeating false accusations that I wish had never been made against me in the first place. It's up to you to decide how much you want to disclose.

 

[Pup]

This was about finding the person and which side the kidney is on. That quote is directly from IIG web site. So where everyone is saying "it's just about a missing kidney" are wrong and I have no clue were that information is coming from.

I'm curious about something.

Anita claims to actually "see" internal organs (or the lack thereof), so when she picked the correct person but the wrong kidney, that means she "saw" a kidney where there wasn't one, and "didn't see" a kidney where there was one--a double failure of kidney-spotting power.

If you think there's any possible significance to Anita's choosing the right person but the wrong kidney, the only thing I can conclude is that you believe she has a different paranormal ability than the one she claims. In other words, that she can tell by some other paranormal means that a person is missing a kidney, without "seeing" which one.

I'm curious what paranormal ability you think Anita might potentially have, and why you think she might be unaware of it while at the same time she believes she has a different paranormal ability (seeing inside people).

 

[bookitty]

UncaYimmy, it doesn't matter if I can prove that she is changing. All I have ever asked is that the possibility be considered. I gave my reasons for thinking there was a possibility, you disagree. Fine. That doesn't mean that there is zero possibility for change.

There is bias in dealing with VFF. From the outside this bias does not look good. Expecting everyone to read a gazillion pages of repetitious crap is ridiculous. There isn't any need to jump on everyone who doesn't join in with a rousing chorus of "You're a liar and a fraud!" upon the most cursory glance.

Let people make up their own minds. The worst thing that can possibly happen is that they'll waste time on an internet forum and possibly be threatened with hyperbole.

 

[GeeMack]

No one is saying that she did anything other than fail the IIG test. However, she did beat moderately impressive odds at finding who who was missing a kidney. [...]

And she may have picked the only three people on that stage who were wearing green underwear. It would have been just as irrelevant. And just as silly to ascribe any credit to her claim of being able to see right through people's flesh and clearly see, right down to the molecule, what is or is not inside a person.

I KNOW this wasn't the test... she had to also determine the side.

Yes. And she failed. Her guesses were no better than a few kids in a grade school class guessing how many fingers the teacher is holding up behind her back. The general consensus is, well other than the few stragglers who have been duped into believing there was something impressive about making a single lucky guess in three rounds of a 1:12 guessing game, that there is nothing impressive or interesting about it at all.

What is impressive, or at least interesting, is that there are people who don't recognize the utter failure for what it was. There does seem to be a fairly direct correlation, however, with a lack of being informed.

But the point is, if she could simply tell who was missing a kidney, that would be impressive enough to win a challenge if it was possible to set one up that way.

And of course if those three people she picked, wrong as she was, were the only three people in the room wearing green underwear, wow... just wow... it's a miracle! But if you familiarize yourself with the claim and the protocol, which oddly enough you still clearly have not done, you'll see how totally unimpressive her failure was.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm curious about something.

Anita claims to actually "see" internal organs (or the lack thereof), so when she picked the correct person but the wrong kidney, that means she "saw" a kidney where there wasn't one, and "didn't see" a kidney where there was one--a double failure of kidney-spotting power.

Yes. Twice wrong. But one would have to be at least marginally informed about the claim, the claimant, and the protocol to understand how that was what actually occurred. So the misunderstanding on the part of some folks in this discussion is understandable.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm curious what paranormal ability you think Anita might potentially have, and why you think she might be unaware of it while at the same time she believes she has a different paranormal ability (seeing inside people).

I'm curious about what paranormal ability Jeff and Nigel think I might have, or at least how interesting they feel it is that I got the exact same answers as Anita got in the test.