• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

chillzero said:
I had no intention to rush you ... the great thing about the internet is that you can answer at your leisure.


I'm sorry but you were, which is precisely why I worded my post (368) as I did, and I suspect the same reason for Locknar's post.

You said:

and we are trying to point out to you - but much more so to Nigel Aves, who posted:


that she has never claimed that
which is what you are basing your assertions on. The 'and' in that protocol that Nigel so casually sweeps aside is central to this issue.

So, I don't feel that I'm being unreasonable in asking for a direct answer to:
Click to expand...

Nigel is on his own... I'm not saying the same things he's saying.

As for what you're saying, I don't see how it has anything to do with what I'm saying. And again, I've made no claims about the protocol, and I don't see why you think my statement is about the protocol. You think the protocol matters somehow, but as I've conclusively addressed what I think about it, I can't see how. Can you show me?

As for your example, I've said ad nauseum that she failed. But if someone in your example could find people who were holding cakes, yes, I'd think that was interesting, and yes, they still would have failed.

I feel like I've explained this 100 times, and I just don't know where the disconnect is.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Wagg said:
As for what you're saying, I don't see how it has anything to do with what I'm saying. And again, I've made no claims about the protocol, and I don't see why you think my statement is about the protocol. You think the protocol matters somehow, but as I've conclusively addressed what I think about it, I can't see how. Can you show me?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with all of the criticism of the program to date, but I think I see the problem. Those posts are not, in fact, about the protocol. They are about her claim and its claimed mechanism. The protocol - because it was designed to test that - may be confused with it, but forget the protocol for a moment, because that is not relevant to what they are saying.

Her claim is that she can see inside people at a very fine level and detect the presence or absence of kidneys. It was not and never was -- before this test -- that she can spot people without kidneys.

I believe they are just trying to point out that her attempt to inflate her success and make her result more "interesting" does not make sense. Not because it does not match the protocol, but because it does not match her *claimed ability*. If she is really seeing a missing kidney and not taking guesses, the fact she managed to select a person with no kidney, but missing the actual presence of a kidney where she says none existed, has much less importance (and arguably none at all). People can disagree on this civilly, I hope.

That being said, I think the thread has been a bit more aggressive than I'd like on their side, but perhaps a bit more dismissive on yours -- these two things fed each other, IMO, simply because of the respective perception of the other "side." Note: I'm talking about perception here, and not about anyone's actual intent.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I don't agree with all of the criticism of the program to date, but I think I see the problem. Those posts are not, in fact, about the protocol. They are about her claim and its claimed mechanism. The protocol - because it was designed to test that - may be confused with it, but forget the protocol for a moment, because that is not relevant to what they are saying.

Her claim is that she can see inside people at a very fine level and detect the presence or absence of kidneys. It was not and never was -- before this test -- that she can spot people without kidneys.

I believe they are just trying to point out that her attempt to inflate her success and make her result more "interesting" does not make sense. Not because it does not match the protocol, but because it does not match her *claimed ability*. If she is really seeing a missing kidney and not taking guesses, the fact she managed to select a person with no kidney, but missing the actual presence of a kidney where she says none existed, has much less importance (and arguably none at all). People can disagree on this civilly, I hope.

That being said, I think the thread has been a bit more aggressive than I'd like on their side, but perhaps a bit more dismissive on yours -- these two things fed each other, IMO, simply because of the respective perception of the other "side." Note: I'm talking about perception here, and not about anyone's actual intent.
Click to expand...

Very good thoughts, and I suspect you're correct. If I'm being dismissive, I apologize. I simply don't have the time for anything more than short replies, and perhaps that means I shouldn't reply at all.
 
Well and I would like to talk with Anita. There is so much we can learn from listening to people that think they have paranormal powers. At what age did she feel this? What exactly DOES she see? Like all the time, with everyone, or does she have to try. Why does she think she has this gift (is it from God, a genetic fluke). What does she plan to do with this gift? (help people, or just do it for fun). There is a whole psychological issue here that is worth studying.

Ofcourse she cant SEE through people. Xray vision, if it were real, wouldn't need any test. She could just go down a line and say "red underwear, blue underwear, green underwear, oh you should throw away that skanky pair...". I mean it would just BE. 100% of the time. We all get that. I don't think I'm rejecting that someone at some time could have some fluke and have Xray vision. But, I don't think we'd need to test for it. I'm not rejecting the claim, I'm rejecting the claimant. Like an Xray machine, WORKS. We don't go "well, you know it works better than guessing".

But what is interesting is the why and how and what of her belief. And if she can really be a skeptic. Even the "why" is she now open minded to being a skeptic.

I find her very interesting. Not paranormal, but interesting and we coudl learn a lot from her. Probably NOT by testing her again and again and again. I don't care if she can do better than average. I care if she CAN SEE THROUGH PEOPLE. THat's an easy enough claim to prove. If not, whats going on here?
 
kittynh said:
Well and I would like to talk with Anita. There is so much we can learn from listening to people that think they have paranormal powers.
Click to expand...

But I don't think she does think she has paranormal powers. I think she's proven that she is a conscious fraud seeking attention.

There is a whole psychological issue here that is worth studying.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there, but probably not for the same reasons!

But what is interesting is the why and how and what of her belief. And if she can really be a skeptic. Even the "why" is she now open minded to being a skeptic.
Click to expand...
I don't think she is. I think she's lying (again). (Again, the reason I think that, is that in her IIG test she used a method of checks and minuses that itself contradicted her claimed ability. So she knew full well that she couldn't do what she claimed, and was just hoping to get one guess right in order to make much ado about nothing.)

I don't think it's interesting why someone claims to have paranormal power either. There's a lot of people who do that just to feel special, to get attention, or even to bilk the gullible out of their money. I don't think we ought treat such people as special or in any way interesting because it just encourages more of the same.

I find her very interesting. Not paranormal, but interesting and we coudl learn a lot from her.
Click to expand...

I don't. I think she's just another example of paranormal claimants who have the gall to persist in irrational claims despite the evidence.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
Very good thoughts, and I suspect you're correct. If I'm being dismissive, I apologize. I simply don't have the time for anything more than short replies, and perhaps that means I shouldn't reply at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was intentional; I also think the initial questions probably came across as more aggressive than intended, and the two perceptions fed on each other a bit.
 
Anyone that refuses to demonstrate their claim in a simple, unambiguous and conclusive test with a self-evident result is obviously aware that their claim is a deliberate lie.
 
Ofcourse she cant SEE through people. Xray vision, if it were real, wouldn't need any test. She could just go down a line and say "red underwear, blue underwear, green underwear, oh you should throw away that skanky pair...". I mean it would just BE. 100% of the time. We all get that. I don't think I'm rejecting that someone at some time could have some fluke and have Xray vision. But, I don't think we'd need to test for it. I'm not rejecting the claim, I'm rejecting the claimant. Like an Xray machine, WORKS. We don't go "well, you know it works better than guessing".
Click to expand...

Correct me please (duh like this Forum could go ten minutes without correcting someone LOL) if I remember correctly didn't they bring out two men just before the test and say, "this man is missing a kidney, this one has both kidneys, can you see this?" Right away Anita said, "yes, that is exactly correct" then they asked her if she were prepared for the test and after she said "yes" they went on with the test.

I don't understand how she was able to see that a kidney was missing in seconds, yet it took nearly 30 minutes (and a lot of struggle) to pick out the missing kidney person (and side) for each set she did? Surely something is wrong here. I would like to hear her answer that question.

BTW Anita has decided that Mark Edward was discussing HER sex life when he wrote about skeptics and mediums in the seance room on his blog here.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Anyone that refuses to demonstrate their claim in a simple, unambiguous and conclusive test with a self-evident result is obviously aware that their claim is a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

sgf8 said:
I don't understand how she was able to see that a kidney was missing in seconds, yet it took nearly 30 minutes (and a lot of struggle) to pick out the missing kidney person (and side) for each set she did? Surely something is wrong here. I would like to hear her answer that question.
Click to expand...

Well, in one of the trials, it was because one of the subjects was a heavy set man. And it's much harder, according to Anita ad nauseum, to 'feel' her way into heavy set people.
 
Last edited:
sgf8 said:
Correct me please (duh like this Forum could go ten minutes without correcting someone LOL) if I remember correctly didn't they bring out two men just before the test and say, "this man is missing a kidney, this one has both kidneys, can you see this?" Right away Anita said, "yes, that is exactly correct" then they asked her if she were prepared for the test and after she said "yes" they went on with the test.

I don't understand how she was able to see that a kidney was missing in seconds, yet it took nearly 30 minutes (and a lot of struggle) to pick out the missing kidney person (and side) for each set she did? Surely something is wrong here. I would like to hear her answer that question.

BTW Anita has decided that Mark Edward was discussing HER sex life when he wrote about skeptics and mediums in the seance room on his blog here.
Click to expand...

No need to correct you. She did discuss the open test on the podcast with Jeff Wagg, though. He asked her about it. She seemed to remember that it happened in another area, but we remember it happening in the same location as the test. We saw that on the uStream. She also said something like she wasn't really trying on the open test. It seems odd that she would mis-remember something like that. She's always so insistent that she does not suffer from false memories.

Ward
 
There are many aspects of Anita's claim, test, her interpretation, etc that are interesting but not terribly significant. The implications don't always need to be the focus of a discussion.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
Ahh, OK. For me it's about 1:10.
Click to expand...
Really?

Jeff Wagg said:
I'm sorry, but that IS beating chance. And your friend did too. Also, getting one out of three is ALSO beating chance. Chance says she should have gotten one in six, and she got one in three.
Click to expand...
Assuming your numbers above are correct, you shouldn't be interested in her in the least.

I would also like to ask again, since you seemed to miss it the first time I asked: How did you come up with the numbers you cite above (one in three, one in six)?
 
SkeptiChick said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Really.
Assuming your numbers above are correct, you shouldn't be interested in her in the least.

I would also like to ask again, since you seemed to miss it the first time I asked: How did you come up with the numbers you cite above (one in three, one in six)?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what we're referring to here. There were six people in each trial, so if her job was to figure out which PERSON was missing a kidney, that would be 1:6 per group. That was NOT the protocol.

1:3... I don't recall saying that, or what I was referring to if I did. I may have said she got one out of three right, but that's not the same thing.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
I'm not really sure what we're referring to here. There were six people in each trial, so if her job was to figure out which PERSON was missing a kidney, that would be 1:6 per group. That was NOT the protocol.

1:3... I don't recall saying that, or what I was referring to if I did. I may have said she got one out of three right, but that's not the same thing.
Click to expand...
I quoted exactly where you said it. There is no "if".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom