Merged Migraine Test, VFF, and LightinDarkness

[desertgal]

I am in the process of getting independent verification of this claim. As soon as I have more info, I'll post it here.

You might wish to make them aware of this statement by Anita:

"If I fail the IIG test then I can look into other possible explanations to the claim. But at this point I have no reason to suspect that the claim is based on a mental illness. I look at people, I see images. That in itself is not a mental illness but just an expression of my synesthesia, and synesthesia by definition is not a mental illness. Also the way I handle my perceptions makes them not a mental illness. I do not base decisions on them or change my behavior based on them. I do not go around telling people about the health information I sense in them. So still there is no reason to be concerned of a mental illness. But the fact I am investigating this is because of the accuracy in cases where I shouldn't have been able to know what I knew. The IIG test will show whether I can see the number of kidneys or not, so let's just wait for that."

Isn't the IIG challenge a paranormal one? Synesthesia is not a paranormal claim. Since Anita has already established the non paranormal cause of her alleged ability, they may not wish to waste any further time on her.

 

[skeen]

Anita, I think you're getting crazier. And you don't have synesthesia.

 

[bookitty]

As I've said before, you do remember seeing a missing kidney. You were deep into your fantasy human MRI mode, you felt something in the general area of the back and were then told about the kidney. At that point you thought "Yes, that's it!"

Your memory of this event is very clear and precise. The only problem is that it is totally false. People create false memories all the time. Perhaps you are unaware of the "Bugs Bunny" study?

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20012/0613011.htm
About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print ad describing a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny said later they remembered or knew the event happened to them.

The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus...

How our brains process information and come up with new startling realities is infinitely more interesting than playing the witch-girl. (Every campus has a few.) As a scientist, you should be more focused on facts than your ego.

Starting with a paranormal premise and then filling in the blanks with pseudo-science and fancy words is best left to creationists, conspiracy theorists and alt. med scam artists.

 

[desertgal]

Anita, I think you're getting crazier. And you don't have synesthesia.

Of course she doesn't. But, she continually claims that is the cause of her "ability". Anita wants it both ways, as always. Synesthesia and a paranormal ability. Why should the IIG waste further time with her?

 

[Farencue]

Those people at the IIG are mighty patient.
Here is their September 2009 update on Anita:

"Anita Ikonen has returned to the IIG, this time with a revised claim of paranormal medical diagnosis. Anita claims that she can psychically determine whether or not someone has had a kidney removed by looking at them. The IIG is digesting her proposed protocol for testing this latest claim and we hope to have Ms. Ikonen in Los Angeles for a preliminary test before the year is out."


Gotta laugh at the "this time with a revised claim......"
Had a laugh too at "IIG is digesting her protocol"
And horror of horrors what is this? "Anita claims that she can psychically determine....."

So there you have it readers, this is all the evidence you need that Anita has, in her mind at least, submitted an "acceptable" protocol and has a date.

Is anyone interested in running a book on when Anita will tire of her own games?

 

[Agatha]

Why do you keep typing "att. treatment", VfF? You don't habitually shorten any other words, not even quite complex long ones which you use often (like synaesthesia). Is there a reason why you are shortening this particular word and no other? Are we being led to believe that you are intending one word when in fact you are meaning another one?

Does 'att.' stand for attempted? Attainted? Attentive? Attested? Attractive? Attitudinal? Attributed? Attenuated? Attendant? Attention-seeking?

It means attempted. I abbreviate it because it is a long word and I type it so often. There is no hidden agenda behind the abbreviation I assure you. I'm just tired of typing. Then why do you guys abbreviate VisionFromFeeling as VFF?

Ah, right. 'Attempted' is such a tiring word to type. Paranormal, synaesthesia, investigation, falsified, detection, vibrational... all those words which are equally as long or longer, and which you use hundreds of times more often, are not nearly as tiring. It's just one of those amazing coincidences that the only word you habitually abbreviate is the one which qualifies your use of the word 'treatment'.

Is it legal for you to call what you do treatment? No.

How about 'attempted treatment? Probably still no, but it doesn't sound so good from your perspective.

What about 'att. treatment'? Probably still not legal, but so much more likely to fool people into believing what you do might help them.

It is no different from the wordings of charlatans peddling false cancer 'cures'. By offering treatment, 'att.' or otherwise, you are no different from those charlatans.

 

[pakeha]

In response to me, VfF wrote:

No! LightinDarkness specifically asked us to share any involvement between us regarding an attempted migraine treatment in the public Forum! He/she is the one who did not want us to discuss it in private messages!

And as soon as LightinDarkness announced to me that he/she had changed his/her mind about making the communication public, I respected that and promptly removed the PM messages from my website. If LightinDarkness is now asking that all references to his/her person be removed from my website as well, I will of course abide by that. But note that this reflects a change in his/her original intent. ...

I went around to VfF's website and lo, the name has been removed, but the woman has chosen to dedicate paragraphs explaining the incident, with a link to this thread, which rather effectively identifies the s/n of the poster who prefered to remain anon. in this affair.
I call that sort of evasion basically dishonest.

Rather like the att. attempt ploy.
I'm still unsure what VfF means by remote viewing and how it is different from people-watching in a park or mall.

 

[pakeha]

Those people at the IIG are mighty patient.
Here is their September 2009 update on Anita:

"Anita Ikonen has returned to the IIG, this time with a revised claim of paranormal medical diagnosis. Anita claims that she can psychically determine whether or not someone has had a kidney removed by looking at them. The IIG is digesting her proposed protocol for testing this latest claim and we hope to have Ms. Ikonen in Los Angeles for a preliminary test before the year is out."

...Is anyone interested in running a book on when Anita will tire of her own games?

Thanks for the update, Farencue.

 

[Femke]

Bookitty, thanks for your marvelous example. I was searching for an attractive way of showing how people can convince themselves of false memories. It was spot on.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

How our brains process information and come up with new startling realities is infinitely more interesting than playing the witch-girl. (Every campus has a few.) As a scientist, you should be more focused on facts than your ego.

The fact is that I detected the missing kidney during the reading. The fact that you consider this unbelievable qualifies it for a paranormal test. It really did happen. But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I went around to VfF's website and lo, the name has been removed, but the woman has chosen to dedicate paragraphs explaining the incident, with a link to this thread, which rather effectively identifies the s/n of the poster who prefered to remain anon. in this affair.
I call that sort of evasion basically dishonest.

Rather like the att. attempt ploy.
I'm still unsure what VfF means by remote viewing and how it is different from people-watching in a park or mall.

I will not censor my paranormal investigation when it fits the Skeptics.

I was asked to do a remote viewing test where I have to tell whether a person is or is not standing behind an opaque screen. And it is different from what I do, since I require to see the person.

 

[Pup]

I was asked to do a remote viewing test where I have to tell whether a person is or is not standing behind an opaque screen. And it is different from what I do, since I require to see the person.

So how about that brilliant shoe test?

 

[Sideroxylon]

The fact is that I detected the missing kidney during the reading. The fact that you consider this unbelievable qualifies it for a paranormal test. It really did happen. But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

Until you have done proper tests you have no justification to claim that as a fact. It’s no different from the dowsers claiming they detected water or whatever else.

 

[StevenCalder]

I will for the last time ask for the date and time that you claim to have given to the IIG, please.

I will take a lack of an answer as an admission that you have been less than honest about this.

Thanks for yet again a lack of an answer on this. But I guess I got my answer in a way. You can't honestly wonder why people assume your lying if you are lying...

I am not interested in your excuses for why in all this time you have not got your act together and tested yourself and I am not interested in your unproven opinions of your own unproven "powers".

We have seen a whole bunch of "I'm going to get tested this time, honest!" none of which have come to anything and I predict that this current test with the IIG will probably be the same. I hope I am wrong, I really do, but at this stage it seems unlikely.

So rather than stay here and feed your need for attention, I am not going to bother engaging with you on anything else until I see some evidence. If you ever have that evidence, either a positive or negative result, I will be intrested.

 

[fromdownunder]

The fact is that I detected the missing kidney during the reading. The fact that you consider this unbelievable qualifies it for a paranormal test. It really did happen. But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

The fact is that you have said on this thread that you have claimed that you have given a time and date for your kidney test, You lied! Grow up!

And you have not responded to any request to actually tell anyone what time and date that you said you have given for the test. Can't you even state that ... ooops!, I should not have said that? Because if you cannot, you are even hiding from yourself that you are a liar and a fraud. Get help, if you cannot even admit to yourself that you made at least one false statement. Liar!

Norm

 

[desertgal]

But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

Great. Then stop encouraging the endless debate with your bogus crap, go take the test, and let us know when you are done.

 

[bookitty]

The fact is that I detected the missing kidney during the reading. The fact that you consider this unbelievable qualifies it for a paranormal test. It really did happen. But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

Please read that post again more slowly. I believe that you have a very clear memory of detecting a missing kidney.

I also believe that there is a very common and rational explanation for this memory. The important thing is that you have zero interest in checking out the rational reasons first.

Of course you don't need to. But in that case you really should refrain from calling yourself a skeptic. A skeptic looks at all possible answers.

Speaking of skeptics, where's that test protocol from IIG?

 

[bookitty]

Great. Then stop encouraging the endless debate with your bogus crap, go take the test, and let us know when you are done.

[qimg]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2433/vffattentionwhore2.jpg[/qimg]

Given VFF's stalling, lying, posting other's personal information on her site, and her general inability to play well with others, "...because I am inhumane.." is the single best typo ever!

 

[Audible Click]

. But rather than endlessly debating whether it happened or not, what matters is if I can do it again on the test because then we will know.

You could stop this debate dead in it's tracks by posting the date and time of your IIG test. Below and bolded is an excerpt from UY's blog on the Stop VfF site. You seemed quite excited to have recieved an e-mail from IIG. So why not share the date and time of the test?

[9/14/2009 7:26:07 PM] Anita Ikonen: Jim, what could I do to make either of the tests happen sooner? Have I not done everything I can? What more do you think I could do.
[9/14/2009 7:26:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Insert no reply here _______________________
[9/14/2009 9:29:49 PM] Anita Ikonen: Hooray!! The IIG just sent me the test protocol!!!
[9/14/2009 9:30:02 PM] Anita Ikonen: Want a peek of it? I know you want to.
[9/14/2009 9:31:08 PM] Jim Carr: No, I don't want a peek.
[9/14/2009 9:31:28 PM] Anita Ikonen: Not even a little one? Ok. No peek.
[9/14/2009 9:31:48 PM] Anita Ikonen: Is your wife right there?
[9/14/2009 9:31:56 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes or no.
[9/14/2009 9:32:17 PM] Jim Carr: My wife is asleep and rarely comes in my office when she's awake.
[9/14/2009 9:32:28 PM] Anita Ikonen: Ok. Never mind.
[9/14/2009 9:33:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: It's a very long e-mail. I haven't read it yet. How exciting.
[9/14/2009 9:33:54 PM] Anita Ikonen: I sincerely hope that I can agree to it and thus the test can FINALLY HAPPEN! I will do my best to accept the protocol.
[9/14/2009 9:36:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yay! They are suggesting the original test protocol with three trials with one in ten persons who is missing a kidney rather than the ten people and not being told how many are missing a kidney! That makes it much better!
[9/14/2009 9:37:03 PM] Anita Ikonen: Three trials with ten people each, in each trial one person is missing a kidney.
[9/14/2009 9:40:06 PM] Jim Carr: What part of "No, I don't want a peek" didn't you understand?
[9/14/2009 9:40:07 PM] Anita Ikonen: IIG: "The Applicant may not pass on a trial or any of the test segments. A pass will be considered a “miss”."
[9/14/2009 9:46:39 PM] Anita Ikonen: I've got to share this with you: "Once per trial before the Applicant makes her final selection, she may dismiss any number of Subjects that she feels are not the Target." I'm very happy they have included that in the protocol!
[9/14/2009 9:46:52 PM] *** Jim Carr blocked Anita Ikonen ***

 

[Drs_Res]

To ask me to detect whether there is or is not a person behind an opaque screen is to ask me to do a remote viewing test and it is not something I can do.

Even though you were able to see "into" your friend behind a screen and not see the person, even though in the protocol discussion you agreed to having the test subjects hidden except for the shirts on their backs and can not see the person.

It is remote viewing to exactly the same extent that detecting a missing kidney through someone's clothing is remote viewing.

ETA: The amusement factor is gone for me. I won't post anymore to the VFF threads; she'll get none of my attention any longer.

EXACTLY.

I will not censor my paranormal investigation when it fits the Skeptics.

I was asked to do a remote viewing test where I have to tell whether a person is or is not standing behind an opaque screen. And it is different from what I do, since I require to see the person.

No you don't. See my first point in this post.

So how about that brilliant shoe test?

Yes, the brilliant shoe test, the one that is the same as detecting if someone is behind a screen or not.

VFF, I am not asking you to do the "full body detection test". Please note that I only suggested it because it is simple and could falsify all of your claims in one fell swoop, ironically, that is the same reason that you blindly refuse to look into it. Even though I was the one who suggested it, I never pushed you on it, and I won't start now.

Please (for the third time now) stop calling it a remote viewing test, it's not.