Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[Drs_Res]

We are not hard to break. Just DO what you say you can do.

 

[Farencue]

What am I missing?

Nothing that you didn't catch on video

 

[Uncayimmy]

I did not look at Mark's eyes. If I have a checklist that says eyes and I specifically answer that they are ok, then that is evidence against the claim.

Please stop lying and contradicting yourself. You stated on the tape that if you say nothing is wrong and something is wrong, that doesn't falsify the claim. Now you're claiming it would. There's a pattern here. I have noticed the following things about you as a result of the tape and your comments in this thread and others:

Reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
You've said some not so nice things about people, and your rampant excuse making is your way of avoiding shame and humiliation.

Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
It was painfully obvious how you were attempting to manipulate Mark on the tape.

Has feelings of self-importance
You really think people want to interview you and hear all about your latest "discovery" about your ability.

Exaggerates achievements and talents
Painfully obvious.

Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
Pretty much all you ever talk about is this amazing ability of yours.

Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
You actually have the nerve to ask people here to design tests for you after the way you have treated them.

Requires constant attention and admiration
Painfully obvious.

Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
Several people have tried to help you in this thread, but you have rebuffed them and/or treated them with scorn.

Has obsessive self-interest
Painfully obvious.

Pursues mainly selfish goals
Your goals are all about proving your powers and making yourself special.

I respectfully suggest that you take advantage of the free counseling available to you at your university. Print this post as a cover sheet. Underneath that print the contents of the moderated interview thread. Underneath that put the contents of this thread with links to the videos. Underneath that put the contents of the "VFF Test Is On" thread. Hand it to a counselor and say you'll be back in a week, then go back in a week. See what they have to say.

 

[tsig]

They didn't. Chemical perceptions are weaker (weaker as in less frequent) than medical perceptions so I focus on the stronger part of my claim.

If I state in advance that I am not happy with an answer such a complaint should be considered. Excuses made after the fact, whether genuine or not, are no longer reliable from a claimant. That is why I make my excuses in advance.
And I do not count such answers as correct. If I make one answer that I say is wrong and another I say is right, and the first is wrong the second right, I only count one right, the other is simply discarded.

It is not that easy. I do not simply sweep across the stage and instantly see the kidneys like some x-ray vision. It takes paying attention and focusing on the vibrational field that I feel, that then turns into images. I was basing my claim on kidney detection on just one past experience, which happened to be an easy one. I knew my answer in trial 1 was wrong, therefore it does not represent my claim and I do not count it against my claim.

And failing a test does not automatically equal falsifying a claim. Any research scientist would know that.

Excuses in advance??!

 

[LashL]

I did not look at Mark's eyes. If I have a checklist that says eyes and I specifically answer that they are ok, then that is evidence against the claim.

^^This is pure, unadulterated BS.

2008: "My ability works on its own without any effort from me, just like when you see a page with written text you read the words whether you choose to or not and it is hard not to read it."
...
"Eyes/Vision - I can see through others eyes and identify exactly what their vision is like, if it is blurry, grainy, loss of color vision and to what extent, and compare left and right eyes and identify blindness."


2010: She spends hours with the fellow, most definitely looking at his eyes in the process, and then "scans" him at length and completely misses the fact that he is nearly blind in one eye.

Yawn⁹

 

[Sean84]

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

Source

It's a boojum.

 

[Uncayimmy]

For those who may be thinking that Anita is undergoing some sort of transformation, read the following post by her. Before clicking the link, see if you can guess when it was written. If you can't stomach the whole thing, skip to the bold parts. You will then understand better why things are as they are.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4188512#post4188512
I expect that there must have been unusually high levels of the bacteria in the stomach since he was taking a supplement. Unusually high levels of something fall into the category of unusual. I still find it remarkable that I was able to detect the fact that he had taken a bacterial supplement which fit the description of it that I gave.

There are actually plenty of cases where I do not detect things that are considered as being present, and this is the disclaimer for my ability that I have always outlined. I have never claimed to be able to detect all cases in which an ailment occurs, since I do not detect in all cases in which an ailment occurs. For instance I have on many occasions detected that a person is diabetic (some of these cases were checked for accuracy and found to be correct, none of these cases were checked for accuracy and found to be incorrect, and in some of these cases it was not possible to check for accuracy). Yet there have been many cases where I find out that a person is diabetic and I realize that I wouldn't have known, and even when I consciously apply my ability I do not detect it.

This is true for many and probably most of the ailments that I have experienced detecting. I do not detect them in each case in which they are considered to occur. I sense each case as occurring to a different extent, the feeling of the ailment is strong to different degrees in different people. And it is also true that ailments do come in many extents, we all know that pain for instance can exist in a wide range of extents from mild to severe. Cases that are most severe in terms of the feeling of them catch my attention on their own and I detect them. Cases that are milder I might detect only if I make the effort of finding them. And, cases that are the mildest I may not detect at all, even if they are considered to be there. And do remember that I've detected ailments that are not considered to be detectable by ordinary senses, which is why I look forward to testing the ability.

This limitation of my ability should not discredit the possibility of having an ability. There might still be an ability even if it might not be as strong as it could be or as it should be.

This limitation of my ability is something I have always highlighted in my correspondence with the IIG in designing the test protocol. "I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs." They have not objected to this since it is part of my claim and there might still be an ability and it is still possible to design a test that accommodates this limitation without reducing the quality of the test.

I suggested in my protocol draft that I be given a larger number of persons to view than what the number of observations are that I need to make. I will then select the ten people with the ten observations that I am most confident in, and the remainder of the people are not part of the test at that point or part of the scoring. I refer to this as "gathering the test material". It accounts for the fact that I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs. I will still be making ten very specific claims of observations that can be checked for accuracy.

I have however had to ask for an additional condition to the test. That is if I do not detect something in a total of ten persons, then I do not want that to constitute a failed test. Rather that should be the case of an inconclusive test since the material that was available for the test (ie. the persons with health conditions) was not adequate for my ability. That would not mean to say that there is no ability at all.

I will not be forced to guess on the test. I will only make claims of observations when I saw something. Those observations that I claim to make are then fully available for being checked for accuracy. I still think that a good test will be designed and I can't wait to have it.

My accuracy is good, even if my observations are not as frequent as some might demand them to be. And all ailments that are there for detection will be ones that have been determined as being undetectable by ordinary senses.

JWideman:
It would be an absolutely exhausting task for me to have to record every single case of any ailment or thing that happens to a person's body. Luckily as I've just stated I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs, nor have I ever claimed to. I will not lose points for not detecting an ailment. I will only lose points for detecting something inaccurately. I will record my observations, but will not record when I did not observe something that you'd consider to be there.

Ashles:
Hi nice to have you here. I make observations far more frequently on health information than on the other aspects of the ability. The official test will involve health information since that is the main part of my ability. I am less interested in the other types of observations that I make since they are less frequent and less interesting.

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. I want to design tests that as closely as possible resemble what the actual real-life observations were. I am considering having the cereal test, which should be very simple to set up. If I was able to detect the Lactobacillus cereal from rows of otherwise plain brands of cereal then surely by placing different samples of cereal with and without the bacterial supplement, in identical boxes of the same material, then according to the observation I should be able to detect it. Most likely this test will be done today with a friend.

The procedure should be simple. Have for instance four samples of cereal in identical sealed boxes, one of which contains the bacterial supplement. A friend will prepare and place the samples and for test purposes not be present as I make the identification so not to give away where it is in any way. I will not tamper with the samples, and I record my answer. If I sense where it is, I say so. I will however not start guessing and if I do not sense where it is, I record that as my answer. I will post the results here, no matter what the results will be.

I am definitely not going to disappear. I greatly look forward to having these tests. I was just saying that no matter what the results of the tests are, the ability that I have will stay the same and not go away, and for my own purposes of having the ability I do not need a test to confirm that I am making observations since I already know I am making observations. I am having the tests to find out what the source of the observations are.

I am just as casual about my ability as everyone is about having eyesight. Sorry about that.

I'm not sure I fit the description you make of these typical persons who claim to have an ability. I worked hard to suggest a test protocol to the IIG that would eliminate any sources of error and I've stated over and over again that I welcome finding out that it is not the case of ESP. I have no reason to favor having ESP over having just an unusual but wordly ability. No matter what the test results are or what label the ability gets, the ability stays the same and not much changes in my life. I have not put myself into a situation where I would depend on it being ESP. I have not claimed it as being ESP, I do not charge people money for observations, etc.

I can't tell you how I look forward to having the test with the IIG and being given the chance to detect health information in a controlled setting. I am very curious to finding out what I can do.

I apologize if I am not entitled to feel the way I feel about my ability. It is just a normal part of me. Thank you for writing.

See that word? Entitled? She can't give it up because she believes she's entitled to these perceptions. She told us early on that they will remain with her even if they are proven to be inaccurate. Of course, if they are inaccurate, then it's just her imagination. That's a hard pill to swallow. Could you do it?

See the excerpt from a Skype conversation we had. You'll see that she is afraid to give it up.

[10/14/2009 2:30:04 PM] Anita Ikonen: If I see and feel ghosts then I want to be entitled to that.
[10/14/2009 2:30:12 PM] Jim Carr: So, you are afraid that you would be considered mentally ill because those things are not real?
[10/14/2009 2:30:34 PM] Anita Ikonen: I guess so. I just feel that I am entitled to be the way I am.
[10/14/2009 2:30:42 PM] Anita Ikonen: I am not a danger to myself or others.
[10/14/2009 2:30:58 PM] Jim Carr: You are afraid of reality?
[10/14/2009 2:31:14 PM] Anita Ikonen: No. I experience reality. But above that I have my very own subjective perceptions.
[10/14/2009 2:31:19 PM] Jim Carr: You're sick, Anita. There's no shame in that.

There are other quotes like that:

• If I see tissues when I look at people, I should be entitled to it.
• I feel entitled to my medical perceptions.
• I am entitled to my synesthesia. I use it to study. I learn concepts in terms of colors. And the medical perceptions seem to be some rare form of synesthesia. And I am entitled to it.

And even if she fails test after test, she will always believe she detected that Dr. Carlson was missing a kidney:

But Jim!!! I detected the missing kidney!! I did!
I absolutely did!
There IS a paranormal claim!
Something I can't explain or deny!
I absolutely did detect it!

The problem is that she's been wrapped up in all sorts of paranormal stuff since childhood and it affects her daily life to this day in very serious ways that extend beyond missing kidneys and dinner napkins:

As for ghosts. I've seen and heard ghosts all my life, ever since I was a little girl. Now, as an adult, it is something I still live with. Certain places are uncomfortable for me. It does have some consequences. I do cry when I feel their overwhelming emotions sometimes. And some ghosts feel intimidating. But for most of the time, I can stay away from haunted areas.

It doesn't bother me, it is something I am used to. I intend to investigate whether the perceptions of ghosts are real or not. I can have interesting dialogue with ghosts. A friend's relatives talk with me quite often. I've described accurate information about them that I shouldn't have known. Not by cold reading. But direct.

This runs far deeper than merely attention seeking behavior. She deliberately hides all sorts of things about her life from people. She wants people to think she's just a science student investigating something unusual. However, it's painfully obvious that she has a compulsion for validation as well. She's very good at getting people to focus on the little details at the expense of the big picture.

She can't be helped because she doesn't want to try to help herself. It's like she's the only normal person and we're the pod people. A dozen test failures won't have any effect because she won't let it. She will use all sorts of tactics to protect these claims because they are part of who she is.

 

[zooterkin]

We will never know what I would have said or done in such a situation as it did not happen. But what did happen was that I said trial 1 was wrong, trial 2 was correct, trial 3 right person guessed side and the accuracy and inaccuracy was perfectly predicted by me.

Not so. During test design I was basing my description of how the claim works with detection of missing kidneys on only one past experience. The two issues I encountered during the test were unforeseen by me, ie. that some people are harder for me to feel into to detect kidneys and that three trials is too much.

Also the process by which I find missing kidneys starts by finding the sense of imbalance in a person, and to then narrow down to which side the imbalance is felt. It is a two-part process, whether you like it or not.

The claim has not been falsified until I present perceptions that I state represent the best of what the claim tries to do only to find that those perceptions are inaccurate, and this has not happened yet. The fact that my understanding of the claim and how it works evolves and improves as I have more experiences with it, is not evidence against the claim but merely points to this being an investigation and learning process. There are still things I do not know about my claim. If I were offering people psychic readings I could learn very quickly, but I only do readings in presence of skeptics.

i ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD.

 

[Ashles]

I was feeling into her head and noticed the strange cold burning feeling at the tip of her nose and then saw the vision of her stroking her nose and it was obviously depicting cocaine use. As obviously so as if you were watching somebody use cocaine, but with the added bonus of feeling the sensations in the nose.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1

And my goodness there WAS a Skeptic with us! My Spencer Marks was there! Good thing I go nowhere without him while in LA. I wish I had a tag-along Skeptic with me here in North Carolina.

We dont see him confirming any of this.

She told me that yes she has used cocaine.

So you just out of the blue asked this complete stranger if they used cocaine?
Or they ust offered this information unbidden?
Either way once again it demonsrates you do not solely read skeptics as you have claimed. Another contradition, what a surprise.

Ok. Even if you say cocaine use is very common, had I said to a person that she has used it and she has not, then that would still have been an interesting case of inaccuracy, so I like to mention anything that I feel because any observation opens it up for possible inaccuracy to be revealed. And I am looking for inaccuracy, as that would end this claim. Any sporadic cases of accuracy can not confirm this claim, only a large-scale test could actually end up concluding on the claim as verified. So, inaccuracy is what would lead to a conclusion the easiest in the occasional readings like these.

1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results

Had you asked me to guess based on logic and what I know about this person, whether she has used cocaine, I would have guessed no.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1

Well if you say this is untestable, so be it. I was just giving some more anecdotes of my experiences with this claim. I would like to test the claim on detection of who is missing a kidney or the uterus.

8 You have already made inaccurate medical perceptions - in the kidney test, and Wayne's throat

 

[Ashles]

Ashles, I have not a single case of inaccurate perceptions that I can recall. I never claimed a problem with Wayne's throat, what I felt was the normal feeling of the adam's apple. As I do not have one myself, the feeling I got from it was unexpected for me so I wrote it down, but then concluded it was the adam's apple before I gave my conclusions to him.

This is all pretty easy now:

8 You have already made inaccurate medical perceptions - in the kidney test, and Wayne's throat
One of Anita's most baffling repetitions is that she will consider her medical perceptions claim falsified if she claims to have detected something and this turns out to be incorrect.
(It hardly needs to be reiterated that when she misses medical complaints, no matter how major, she does not consider this a failure as she 'wasn't scanning for that particular ailment')
She repeatedly claims that when she does make a medical claim it has always been correct.
Yet this is blatantly and demonstrably untrue!
In a reading at a skeptics meeting Anita used her 'ability' to scan a subject - Wayne. She declared she detected "throat discomfort".
However Wayne had absolutely nothing wrong with his throat.
Anita then attempted to say she was detecting his Adam's apple. Of course why she would feel the need to declare that she was sensing something that was clearly visible and obviously present is the real question. She has never noted sensing something clearly visible either before or since.
(Edited to add from DG reminding me - She then changed her claim to that she was just sensing the bony presence of his Adam's Apple. Uh oh, another problem for Anita... the Adam's apple is not bone, it is cartilege. Anita has not adressed this issue. She's wrong twice on this one alone.)
Obviously this was a declaration of something abnormal which turned out to be incorrect and required Anita to try and spin it so it wasn't an incorrect diagnosis. Sadly for Anita absolutely no-one is taken in by this spin.
(Edited to add: I forgot Anita also mentioned Wayne has a "tired left shoulder". It turned out there was nothing wrong with his shoulder. Anita then claimed what she was 'detecting' was... just his shoulder. Anita's ability is truly amazing - it allows her to sense the presence of random visible body parts)
Also in the kidney detection claim Anita declared missing kidneys and specified sides in individuals where this was clearly and unequivacally incorrect.
So without any shadow of doubt Anita HAS made inaccurate and incorrect medical diagnoses.

In the IIG test I knew the accuracy and inaccuracy beforehand. Had I been asked to discard answers that I knew beforehand to be wrong I would have had 100% accuracy. I am not making this up and it is not ad hoc.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1

I knew because I also saw a vision of it. It was quite obvious. If you see someone using cocaine, even with the added benefit of feeling what their nose is feeling, you would also make that conclusion.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1

Did I tell you about the time when I was looking at random SEM images on the internet, all of which were close-ups of insect body parts, and gazing closely into one of the images made me feel high? So I was wondering why am I getting high from looking at an insect picture? I scrolled down the page to read the description and behold it was a close-up of cannabis.

4 That is an entirely unfalsifiable claim thus completeley irrelevant
2 That contradicts your own previous claims
7 That is a claim you have so far not tested and would be easy to test - see 1
1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results

*I have never used cannabis in my life so I also did not have the experience stored in my past experiences to draw from. It was brand new. It was interesting though... I was experiencing real changes to my eyes, muscles and sensory experiences.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1
1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results

SEM is Scanning Electron Microscope.

I am saying she doesn't come across as the type of person who would. But this also means that if she does have signs, I would not have recognized those as indicative of past cocaine use.

6 Simply repeating the same claim in the absence of evidence is pointless - see 1

Dear sweet desertgal... my perception was accurate so it is not just accusations. Plus, don't you think I feel and see lots of private information about people I interact with? And why are you saying it was an IIG member? Hollywood has lots of people.

Well then as Desrtgal points out tis demonstrates you were lying about only 'reading' skeptic.

But this one was confirmed! I could ask this person to verify this with you all, but then again it involves personal information. However, my Spencer was with us so he could confirm this if he remembers the details!

We don't see him leapng to your defence here.

And, I know you are the super stingent science researcher who knows all about proper testing and stuff, but here's an additional tip - generally a really tight scientific test, a really rigorous and meticulous test doesn't normal rely solely on anecdotal evidence from someone's boyfriend.

As for everyone else: if I do not respond to specific comments and allegations does not mean that I am in agreement with them. I don't want this thread to lose sight of the main topic.

Which is:

1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results

Yawnⁿ

 

[Ashles]

They didn't. Chemical perceptions are weaker (weaker as in less frequent) than medical perceptions so I focus on the stronger part of my claim.

2 That contradicts your own previous claims
11 That is yet another example of you attempting to turn a fail into 'learning yet another new restriction on the ability'

If I state in advance that I am not happy with an answer such a complaint should be considered. Excuses made after the fact, whether genuine or not, are no longer reliable from a claimant. That is why I make my excuses in advance.

11 That is yet another example of you attempting to turn a fail into 'learning yet another new restriction on the ability'

And I do not count such answers as correct. If I make one answer that I say is wrong and another I say is right, and the first is wrong the second right, I only count one right, the other is simply discarded.

11 That is yet another example of you attempting to turn a fail into 'learning yet another new restriction on the ability'

It is not that easy. I do not simply sweep across the stage and instantly see the kidneys like some x-ray vision. It takes paying attention and focusing on the vibrational field that I feel, that then turns into images. I was basing my claim on kidney detection on just one past experience, which happened to be an easy one. I knew my answer in trial 1 was wrong, therefore it does not represent my claim and I do not count it against my claim.

2 That contradicts your own previous claims

And failing a test does not automatically equal falsifying a claim. Any research scientist would know that.

12 We know how scientific testing should work. Your posts demonstrate you do not

 

[Ashles]

It all comes down to this:

And I come back to you guys because you would never help me cheat to win a test so you are reliable in paranormal test situations, specifically for the type of resentment that we see here. I can not set up a test for myself, well, because I would already know the answers. Anybody have a local Skeptics group? Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus? Care to set up a simple test for me? Could be the topic of your next meetup, unless you'd rather talk about other skeptical events. Falsifying VFF should be kind of fun for a skeptical get-together? And then let me do a quick reading on each of the Skeptics to see if something I say is inaccurate? What say you?

No. We're not setting anything up for you any more. It's pointless as you always ignore the results.

On the one hand you pretend that a test will demonstrate your ability or falsify it.
On the other you treat every test as part of an ongoing and never-ending series of parameter modifications.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

When testing is actualy organised for you and you fail, you claim it is all part of the onging research.
You do remember all your many, many posts claiming that scientific research means that you have to keep altering parameters and keep testing again and again?

Well that's exactly the problem.

Why would any skeptics help you set up and conduct a test that they know will have no real outcome. If you fail you will simply change some random parameter and ask for more testing. and so on and so on and so on...

Sorry, you have used up all your chances.

No skeptics want to work with you any more because you have demonstrated yourself to be unreliable and downight fraudulent when it comes to analysing your results.

No more testing for you, no more groups of people watching Anita guess medical conditions, no more attention. No more big exciting rooms with huddles of people looking at Anita.

All the work has to be done by you now (which it should have been before you wasted eveybody's time).

You need to work out what you can do reliably and stop expecting everyone else to do everything for you. We are all very, very bored of this claim now.

1 Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results

 

[Daylightstar]

It all comes down to this:

And I come back to you guys because you would never help me cheat to win a test so you are reliable in paranormal test situations, specifically for the type of resentment that we see here. I can not set up a test for myself, well, because I would already know the answers. Anybody have a local Skeptics group? Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus? Care to set up a simple test for me? Could be the topic of your next meetup, unless you'd rather talk about other skeptical events. Falsifying VFF should be kind of fun for a skeptical get-together? And then let me do a quick reading on each of the Skeptics to see if something I say is inaccurate? What say you?

Hmm, delusion of grandeur.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

I can see what Anita's career in chemistry research will be like. She will develop a theory, and she will either prove her theory, or spend the rest of her career tweaking parameters and retesting until her theory is either proven, or the grant money is used up. She will then whine about the meanies on the research committee cutting off her funding before she could falsify her theory with yet more parameter tweaking, and then form a slight variant of the theory and try to get funding to test that "new" theory. This cycle will repeat until she retires or changes to a new career path.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Hmm, delusion of grandeur.

She couldn't possibly be delusional. She said so, so it must be true, even in the absence of any actual reliable testing by a psychological professional.

 

[desertgal]

Despite my very mean blog post about you, I actually do like you. You are completely wrong on a great number of things, but I sort of admire your relentlessness. Speaking of which, have you ever read Moby Dick?

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Moss]

is yet again strangely appropriate.

 

[Jonquill]

is yet again strangely appropriate.

Having all my limbs severed is not my main claim.....

 

[Akhenaten]

At last!

Sanity has returned to the thread. It took a nasty turn there for a bit.


Good work, dear skeptics.

​