Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[TSR]

.
You seem to have missed this, Anita:
.

An imperfectly set up test is still better than no test at all and still presents the opportunity for me to provide medical readings whose accuracy can be obtained, allowing the possibility of falsifying the claim even in such simple conditions.

.
No, a badly designed test is *not* better than none at all. And you believing that it is simply confirms your lack of scientific rigour.
.

An inaccurate medical perception is all it takes.

.
You mean like detecting a kidney where there was none? Or detecting its absence when there was one?
.

 

[likelystory]

Anita if you don't produce or prove your claim soon, then people will ignore you.

Your youthful beauty (30 ish) can only enchant the Jeff Wagg's for so long before ending up on the scrap heap

 

[Ashles]

Eeew, you are asking me to look into the contents of the digestive system and to perceive what they have eaten. Ok. I can do that.
.

Then go away, find out the parameters of this new claim (so you don't waste anyone's time with countless tests which you fail but claim to 'learn something new) and come back when you have the following:

A clear description of this ability
A simple and robust test
A set of parameters in which you are confident the ability will work
A description of what levels of succeess you are predicting
A description of results which you would accept would falsify the claim

Can you manage doing those steps?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Then go away, find out the parameters of this new claim (so you don't waste anyone's time with countless tests which you fail but claim to 'learn something new) and come back when you have the following:

A clear description of this ability
A simple and robust test
A set of parameters in which you are confident the ability will work
A description of what levels of succeess you are predicting
A description of results which you would accept would falsify the claim

Can you manage doing those steps?

Don't forget this part of that claim, Ashles:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4180547&postcount=22
I can also see the composition of urine and the contents of the stomach and intestines and am learning to decipher this into what a person ate. It does not bother me at all. One of the clearest things to see that a person ate, is a meal composed mostly of sucrose (tablesugar), and another one is a meal composed mostly of fat.

There are plenty of claims by Anita Ikonen that she could easily test. She told us that failing the IIG test would falsify all those "lesser" claims. Guess not, huh?

Why is she continuing down this path? It's leading nowhere.

 

[Ashles]

I agree with UY - this is just getting boring now

You are just making the same old claims over and over, the same excuses for being completely unable to demonstrate ANY special ability (paranormal or otherwise) and making the same errors in analysing your own claims (whether deliberately or accidentally)

We are just having the same circular discussions

It's got so that I reckon the vast majority of your comments can be responded to with about 13 standard answers:

• 1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results
• 2 That contradicts your own previous claims
• 3 That simply isn't true - Restating it repeatedly will not make it true and it won't convince anyone it is true in the complete absence of evidence
• 4 That is an entirely unfalsifiable claim thus completeley irrelevant
• 5 Your claim has not ever been demonstrated. It is simply your claim without any evidence, no different from any one of a million other paranormal claims with no evidence
• 6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1
• 7 That is a claim you have so far not tested and would be easy to test - see 1
• 8 You have already made inaccurate medical perceptions - in the kidney test, and Wayne's throat
• 9 That is not true and an attempt to put a positive spin on a clear error/failure
• 10 That is yet another change to how you have described your 'ability' to operate
• 11 That is yet another example of you attempting to turn a fail into 'learning yet another new restriction on the ability'
• 12 We know how scientific testing should work. Your posts demonstrate you do not
• 13 Your results are no different to someone guessing/random results

1 is the most important of these

It's time for you to stop trying to talk your way into having a special ability - that will never work

Actually demonstrate one, or move on and expend your energies on something real.

NB - I am listing these bullet points to illustrate how repetitve your comments and our responses have now got.
I will when necessary or convenient refer back to them to keep illustrating this point

Your claim can go no further without well designed testing which yields significant and successful results. In months/years of talking/testing you have not achieved this.

 

[Ashles]

Then go away, find out the parameters of this new claim (so you don't waste anyone's time with countless tests which you fail but claim to 'learn something new) and come back when you have the following:

A clear description of this ability
A simple and robust test
A set of parameters in which you are confident the ability will work
A description of what levels of succeess you are predicting
A description of results which you would accept would falsify the claim

Can you manage doing those steps?

And do this on a new thread.

It's time now for you to be doing the work on this claim yourself.
Not simply chucking out random claims and expecting skeptics to come up with protocols, find the subjects and run all the testing, only for you then to declare the test simply a stepping stone to you learning more about your own ability. Ie a complete waste of their time.

Do all the fine tuning and parameter discoveries on your own time.

 

[desertgal]

So you did actually read it, and you are simply ignoring what he posts.

More like this.

 

[desertgal]

I did do a reading on another person while in Hollywood last weekend, and I felt this burning tingle at the tip of her nose, but not in the inside of the nose, and with it I saw a perception of her stroking the tip of the nose when that happens. Aha, I knew it was cocaine use. Turns out it was. How common is cocaine use? I have never perceived this in another person before. And you certainly would not have guessed just by looking at this person. What ever outward clues you might think that a person who does this has, she would not have had it.

If you had never perceived it in another person before, how could you have known it was specifically cocaine use? Cocaine isn't the only 'snorted' drug, and all of them burn. So do allergies, for that matter-and it IS allergy season.

And if you have never perceived this in another person before, and don't know the outward signs of cocaine use, then how would you know that she wasn't displaying them?

You've now accused a nameless member of the IIG of being an admitted cokehead.

Nice. Way to go, Anita. Their continued association with you isn't making the IIG look too good.

Why do you repeatedly interject these unproven anecdotes? They simply validate the theory that you are just fantasizing.

 

[Ashles]

I did do a reading on another person while in Hollywood last weekend, and I felt this burning tingle at the tip of her nose, but not in the inside of the nose, and with it I saw a perception of her stroking the tip of the nose when that happens. Aha, I knew it was cocaine use.

Were you scanning for this?

Or was it one of the strange and random examples that just jump out at you?

Which curiously never ever happen when in the company of one or a group of skeptics.

Turns out it was.

And how do you know it was?

Please describe the circumstances that allowed you to confirm this 'reading'.

How common is cocaine use?

Very.

I have never perceived this in another person before. And you certainly would not have guessed just by looking at this person. What ever outward clues you might think that a person who does this has, she would not have had it.

So you are declaring that whatever outward signs a cocaine user might possibly usually exhibit, this cocaine user was for some reason entirely immune from them?
And you know this... how?

By the way - nice introduction of a new claim that is obviously untestable.
I would ask if this claim extended to the ability to detect the presence in a human body of other, legal drugs/chemicals that have no visible effects... but I think we all know what the answer would be...

 

[kittynh]

oh dear. I really wanted to believe that Anita really was interested in exploring this ability, rather than just hanging with a bunch of skeptics getting attention. She seems articulate, has been a chemistry major, is rather pretty... she's got a lot going for her.

She doesn't seem ready at all to be convinced to become a skeptic. Which is fine. But then again, why hang out with them? They are going to challenge and indeed not be very respectful...but I think they would be more respectful if she were more serious about her ability herself.

I just don't feel that she really respects herself. I've delt with people that truly feel they have paranormal ability and have had paranormal things happen to them. They don't act like Anita. To them, and most of them are lovely people not out to rip off anyone, their power or experience is life changing. Their focus isn't on proving or disproving. It's simply using that ability or figuring out what it means in their lives. I'm not talking about the charlatans and fakers. One person I know truly believes that she has the ability to communicate with animals. She's a vetrinarians assistant. Makes little money, but is so happy in her work. She spends her free time volunteering at the humane society. She has veryhappy pets (they get a lot of attention). Her life is focused around her "ability" and using it for good. She says "I could be a pet psychic, but money means nothing when you have this gift. I am so happy just being able to use my gift every day. I know this is why I was given it" Now, does the vet and the humane society really think she is a psychic? Well, she has little fear of animals and is very good at reading the body language of animals. She's very very good with animals. So they are kind of fence sitters. All they know is she is great with animals and does really good work to ensure their welfare, much of it as a volunteer.

She doesn't sit around bars doing tricks with someones pet hamster.

 

[Wolrab]

So if I take any kind of test, all I have to do is say,"Yup, that's what I meant to say.", and I get credit for any incorrect answer? Swell!

 

[Akhenaten]

oh dear. I really wanted to believe that Anita really was interested in exploring this ability, rather than just hanging with a bunch of skeptics getting attention. She seems articulate, has been a chemistry major, is rather pretty... she's got a lot going for her.

She doesn't seem ready at all to be convinced to become a skeptic. Which is fine. But then again, why hang out with them? They are going to challenge and indeed not be very respectful...but I think they would be more respectful if she were more serious about her ability herself.

I just don't feel that she really respects herself. I've delt with people that truly feel they have paranormal ability and have had paranormal things happen to them. They don't act like Anita. To them, and most of them are lovely people not out to rip off anyone, their power or experience is life changing. Their focus isn't on proving or disproving. It's simply using that ability or figuring out what it means in their lives. I'm not talking about the charlatans and fakers. One person I know truly believes that she has the ability to communicate with animals. She's a vetrinarians assistant. Makes little money, but is so happy in her work. She spends her free time volunteering at the humane society. She has veryhappy pets (they get a lot of attention). Her life is focused around her "ability" and using it for good. She says "I could be a pet psychic, but money means nothing when you have this gift. I am so happy just being able to use my gift every day. I know this is why I was given it" Now, does the vet and the humane society really think she is a psychic? Well, she has little fear of animals and is very good at reading the body language of animals. She's very very good with animals. So they are kind of fence sitters. All they know is she is great with animals and does really good work to ensure their welfare, much of it as a volunteer.

She doesn't sit around bars doing tricks with someones pet hamster.

For the last 18 months or so, a small, dedicated group of folks here at the JREF Forum, sometimes referred to as the Meanies™, have been trying to help people such as yourself come to this realisation.

For our trouble we've been accused of character assassination, labelled as obsesssive and infracted for telling it like it is. We've been ignored, ridiculed, sanctioned, insulted, censored and belittled.

Ultimately we found ourselves forced to take the greater part of our activities to another site altogether simply to be able to continue free of the sometimes vehement opposition of our fellow sceptics.

What kind of support have we had from this Forum, whose aims are ostensibly to educate and to further the causes of skepticism and critical thinking?

On top of the slings and arrows that I've mentioned above, the final insult came from no less a source than Jeff Wagg and his cohorts, who, having offered Vision from Feeling a platform from which to promulgate even more of her nonsense, tells us that he finds her claims 'interesting'.

I think the day has finally arrived when I feel vindicated enough to declare, on behalf of the Meanies:

We told you so.​

 

[skeen]

The wheels on the bus go round and round
Round and round, round and round

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

An inaccurate medical perception is all it takes.

And you had one (several even) in the kidney test but you attempted to cover yourself by suggesting one of your answers was wrong - had it turned out to be right by some fluke, you would have claimed it as a hit and said that your period of doubt after the event was just nerves or whatever. A blatant attempt to double up your chances. As it was a miss, you stuck with 'I knew it was wrong' and try and claim that as some sort of hit.

From your initial description of your abilities you should have been able to get every one right (including the side of the body) as you could simply look into people and see the kidneys (or not if they were absent). As has been explained to you ad nauseum, getting the right person / wrong side is a 100% miss, not a half hit. Each kidney, or absence, is one, distinctive test.

Ashles post was an extremely complete debunking of your claim and any continued protestations are now so obviously flying in the face of the facts that it is extremely difficult to believe that even you continue to believe.

 

[Almo]

Anita is convinced she has power to see visions from touching....so why not leave it at that? Unless you skeptics are trying to rule her.

She doesn't have to keep telling avowed skeptics on a forum owned by a foundation with a million dollar prize meant to make paranormal claims look silly that she has paranormal abilities. Seems to me we're not the ones trying to rule someone. It's more like she needs our approval.

 

[Ashles]

Oh I forgot about this post:

For the sake of this forum more so than for my own purposes I'll arrange tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on so that we can see if I can make the same observations under controlled settings.

"tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on"...

I wonder how they all went?

 

[tsig]

So if I take any kind of test, all I have to do is say,"Yup, that's what I meant to say.", and I get credit for any incorrect answer? Swell!

Also if you get a question wrong all you have to say is "I knew I was wrong on that one" and it's marked correct.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Another way to interpret the test protocol is that in each round, there were 11 kidneys on the stage, within 6 people (12 possible locations), and her requirement was to locate all 11 kidneys in their proper positions on the stage. Someone who claims to see kidneys easily should have no problem seeing the existing kidneys on the stage. In the first round, she did not see a kidney that was there, and saw a kidney where none existed.

Since the test protocol required a 100% accuracy in all three rounds, this one round is all that is required to fail the test. We will even let you, Anita, decide which failure counts as the one that falsified your claim. You can choose seeing the non-existent kidney, or not seeing the existent kidney. Your choice. Either way, the claim is falsified, based on the protocol YOU agreed to.

 

[TSR]

As has been explained to you ad nauseum, getting the right person / wrong side is a 100% miss, not a half hit. Each kidney, or absence, is one, distinctive test.

.
Actually, it is *two* misses: Seeing a "missing" kidney that was not, and not seeing a missing kidney.
.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Er, lust?

Here's an old, but extremely sensible bit of common wisdom:

Never sleep with someone crazier than you are.

From the title of this thread all the way through it, this thread is overly harsh. You skeptics think that gifted people can just perform on demand without regard to the myriad of issues that should be in place when dealing with someone who can do something special.

Unfortunately someone on this site has poisoned Anita against me. If that had not happened I am certain our motel room study would have been on A&E.

Please see above.

We can all take some Comfort Inn that.

If you keep doing stuff like this I may have to start liking you.