Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[Farencue]

Okay Anita, it's time to give up. We have all given you waaaaaaaay more time and energy than anyone half as attractive as you could reasonably expect. Yes, you are beautiful and men do fall all over themselves to get one of your piercing blue-eyed stares, but I suggest you get into modeling and out of the psychic/skeptic schtick. It's just not working for you.

I have worked closely with hundreds of psychics over the years, both as a working "pro" and as a skeptic - so I know what I'm talking about when I smell a rat. Sorry, but both of the readings you gave me Saturaday night were not even an average example of what someone could expect at a psychic fair or at any paid venue. If you had been doing that kind of reading at most places around here in Hollywood, you would be asked to leave. Even the cheapest agent I know wouldn't book you for that kind of stuff. I know you aren't into that sort of "entertainment," but I can't call it anything else at this point. There is nothing there no matter how much you insist and it's time for all of us who have better things to do to close this door once and for all. Oil painting would be a better outlet for your imagination.

There is nothing even remotely paranormal about you. I would have loved it if it was so, but it isn't. Sorry.

As usual, there are only two possible options for what you are " portraying" (a curious word you yourself used on the day of the IIG tests): 1) deluded or having some psychiatric problem that needs attention, or the more likely situation and one that requires less effort and therapy, 2) you are a charlatan. There is no other answer and no other comment. Reality beckons. Embrace it.

Thanks for your post.
I doubt Anita read a word of it though, our Favourite Arcturian has quickly realised you won't be indulging her anymore, shame too because you got a few mentions on her website along with Jeff.
I'm afraid you won't be Anita's special person anymore.

 

[paximperium]

I was very disappointed with your previous post as it sounded like something only a true woo could say, and it was even more woo than all my years of woo put together. Please join us on the skeptical side.

Who is this imaginary "us" you are talking about?

kitty's post seems pretty spot on. You're not a skeptic. You have no powers of any sort and you crave attention.

 

[Daylightstar]

Robo Sapien, if I may ask, what does the rehabilitation process look like? Am I assuming correctly that there is such a process?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

There's a hål in the bucket, Anita, Anita,
There's a hål in the bucket, Anita,
There's a hål.

Then fix it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
Then fix it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, fix it.
​

​

​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5009687&postcount=557​

 

[desertgal]

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.

And, once again, how did you know it was specifically cocaine? Crystal meth and crank are ingested by snorting, they are both white powder, they cause even more of a burning sensation than cocaine, and they have the same effects.

SEM is Scanning Electron Microscope.

I know.

Dear sweet desertgal...

I'm not your "dear".

And why are you saying it was an IIG member? Hollywood has lots of people.

So, then your claim that you only "read" skeptics was a lie.

But this one was confirmed!

Where? We haven't seen a confirmation.

I could ask this person to verify this with you all, but then again it involves personal information....

...so, even though she could post here anonymously, she won't be confirming it. Naturally.

However, my Spencer was with us so he could confirm this if he remembers the details!

I expect that, conveniently, he won't.

It remains, to us, just another unconfirmed fantasy anecdote.

That said, I'll take sadhatter's advice.

 

[Robo Sapien]

I was very disappointed with your previous post as it sounded like something only a true woo could say, and it was even more woo than all my years of woo put together. Please join us on the skeptical side.

Oh, the irony. In case you haven't noticed, this entire thread is about you NOT being on the 'skeptical side' -- did I miss something?

 

[Farencue]

Oh dear, looks like the nasty vindictive side is popping out without any control once the troll is cornered.

 

[TSR]

Oh, the irony. In case you haven't noticed, this entire thread is about you NOT being on the 'skeptical side' -- did I miss something?

.
No, but Anita missed the contradiction between claiming never to have been inaccurate, and claiming to have known that she was.

Also the disconnect between testing with a protocol that required 100% accuracy, and claiming that she could have been 100% accurate, had she been allowed to express when she was not accurate.
.

 

[Robo Sapien]

Robo Sapien, if I may ask, what does the rehabilitation process look like? Am I assuming correctly that there is such a process?

I don't really think there is a process to it, everybody is different. Those are just my observations about how these situations can come to be, that's all.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Daylightstar]

Thanks Robo Sapien.

I think Anita Ikonen simply needs to crash and get up again, no matter how difficult it may be.

 

[Farencue]

Thanks Robo Sapien.

I think Anita Ikonen simply needs to crash and get up again, no matter how difficult it may be.

Shouldn't be too difficult.
I wonder what the next incarnation will be?
Nothing so boring as tarot I hope.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

"tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on"... I wonder how they all went?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[desertgal]

Fortunately Skeptics are unlikely to be adversely affected by what is nothing but a woo reading. And Skeptics are the only people I read lately.

And why are you saying it was an IIG member? Hollywood has lots of people.

So, then your claim that you only "read" skeptics was a lie.

If I were offering people psychic readings I could learn very quickly, but I only do readings in presence of skeptics.

Listen closely, folks. You can almost hear the rumble of the backtrack gear...

 

[TSR]

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.

.
Sure it has: you have detected multiple kidneys where none exist, and detected that several were missing that were not.

This was your self-professed "best claim* -- until you failed at it. That you did not bother to actually test your claim yourself under the test conditions is no one's fault but your own, since it was suggested multiple times that you do so.

If you now want to alter that claim, have the decency to admit that you cannot do what you claimed you could do (which was itself modified from your original claims.)

But do not try to pretend that you are not moving the goalposts, and that you are beyond likely to continue to do so: you will always
find some reason why you have failed every single test you have every attempted under controlled conditions, and every single "study" you have undertaken save only those where your word is the only "proof" of accuracy.
.

 

[Drs_Res]

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.

Wrong. You are twisting history ever so slowly in your favor. You did not say in trail # 3 that you had the right person, in fact you were rather surprised and I believe that you said something like "How did I do that?!" When the person you picked was revealed as the person missing the kidney.

You are either lying or you are having false memories.

SNIP the rest...

 

[Daylightstar]

No, VfF is not changing, she is adapting.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
false memories.

Not very likely.

 

[kerikiwi]

No doubt it has been said before, but this woman is one of two things: delusional or lying.
My bet is on the latter.
And she has, like most liars, trouble keeping the web she weaves tangle free.

 

[Farencue]

.
snipped
If you now want to alter that claim, have the decency to admit that you cannot do what you claimed you could do (which was itself modified from your original claims.)
.

That. will. never. happen.

The troll is not here as a scientist, no matter what squawkings come out of the box.
The troll is here for attention. She has Jeff Wagg's approval, he finds her mildly interesting.
She is only doing what he told her to do - get tested again.
Should be worth another 2 years of trolling the JREF for attention.