Audible Click
The gap in the plot
No one is stopping her.
The VFF Test is On!
- Thread starter SezMe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen iig
No one is stopping her.
derekcbart
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 86
Hello.
This has come up a couple of times before, so let me clarify.
The IIG $50,000 Paranormal Challenge has two phases to it just like the JREF MDC, a Preliminary and a Final. What is causing some confusion is that the IIG refers to its Preliminary as a Demonstration and the JREF refers to its Preliminary as a Test. However, the process is basically the same for both Challenges. If an applicant passes the Preliminary (Test or Demonstration) then the applicant moves on to the Final Test for the prize money.
BTW, the Anita Ikonen Preliminary Demonstration Protocol WILL be published before the Demonstration, but I do not know yet if it will be published Saturday morning or earlier than that.
Thank you.
-Derek
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Thanks again, Derek. That has indeed been causing some confusion.
You are right - so right that she is, in fact, about to be tested. Your point?
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
In your post that was sent to AAH you said "Let her be tested." and my post was in reply to that.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Your post is extremely reasonable, bkuesjnr.
Anyway.
Tonight's the FACT meeting and Saturday's the Demonstration. VFF is investing a lot of time in this, especially considering the workload of a double sciences major.
Still, I think ness' and volatiles' posts are gold, so perhaps the thread is worth it for learning more.
It's fantastic the IIG will be able to live-stream the event and I'm really looking forward to reading the protocol.
Just three days to go!
devnull
Philosopher
Then why didnt you write it down?
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,583
I am always amazed at the "valiant defender" types who come out of no where to 'defend' Anita even though the only thing shes been subjected to is critical thought. In the end, in the process of debunking the self-righteous valiant defenders all we do it give Anita even more attention, which we all know is the reason why she continues on with this paranormal facade. That is why, even though I replied to this one, he is already on ignore so I don't feel compelled to continue to reply to him when he makes a self-righteous reply to this.
By the way, thanks for showing yourself as a liar - you clearly haven't read Anita's threads else you would know that she has failed SEVERAL tests, even those she conducted, over the years. Numerous people pointing out her consistent failures are simply noting that not test she ever takes will convince her that she does not have superpowers. She has already set herself up for failure by proclaiming she will fail the test in this very thread, and noting that even when she does fail it will not falsify her paranormal claims.
Anita has (from what I can count) failed 4 tests: 1 by FACT (medical perceptions), and 3 self-administered (crushed pill perceptions, street readings, and the tests she conducted with her boyfriend). All of them tested her paranormal claims of perceptions in some form, and she failed in a spectacular manner. So please stop playing the valiant defender, because no one is impressed.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
Hey, knowing someone else's intentions is cool. You will, no doubt, soon be applying for the MDC.
And? If this happens, it will make this claimant different from all the others how?
He's a valiant defender of clear thinking...an ability you're clearly short on.
I'm impressed. So we can add that assertion to the list of failures on your part.
She carries on the façade because like all paranormal claimants she is deluded. It has nothing to do with with how much attention she is getting here.
I really don't know where you going with this, You are being somewhat harsh I think.
I'll post a response despite your ham fisted attempt to edit me in advance. This thread is not all about your opinion
I'm sorry you think I'm a liar. I have read all of VFF threads and her website and those of others (I cannot speaketh their name). I know all about her failures and her assertions after the fact, the pills, the kidneys etc. None of that changes anything. This thread is about the upcoming test not the past tests. Once she's failed the upcoming test then you'll all have plenty to berate her for and can bray, donkey like, to your hearts content. I may even join you; me being a self-righteous SOB an' all.
Asking rhetorically because you have run away; in what way, other than saying give her the chance to fall in public before you publicly pick her up, am I defending the girl? You seem to be setting up this defender premise - to what end I don't know.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I'm looking forward to this test.
I'm sincerely hopeful that one of the tangible results we see from it is an end to the disruptions that have been caused here by events leading up to it.
I'm sincerely hopeful that one of the tangible results we see from it is an end to the disruptions that have been caused here by events leading up to it.
VisionFromFeeling
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,361
I can't keep up with all the posts in this thread, so I'll have to answer just a few of them now. And don't be accusing me of intentionally avoiding comments or criticism - I just don't have the time! Remember that there's so many of you and only one of me!
So I decided to not write it down, and to find out that I was wrong, and to put that into my personal notes at the back of my head. And, like Pixel42 pointed out, it is highly improper practice for anyone calling themselves science-minded, to cover up unfavorable data, and trust me I was sitting there for many minutes wanting to write it down. I held the pen against the paper, and was literally forcing myself to not write it down. I had an internal debate going on for several minutes, one side saying that I must write down my perception, and the other saying that it simply isn't true because logically he can't be missing a kidney. I want to record inaccuracy also, but this time I had to choose to not write it down because I had had interesting cases of accuracy in the past and felt that those were deserving of a test.
So that is the story, again, of why I chose to not write it down.
That is why, for instance, I had a person in a dark room and attempted the medical perceptions, and totally failed, only learning that for an actual test I do require to see the person and that there be light. The testing conditions were thus established, and I submitted a testing protocol draft and reached a final protocol with the IIG.
In all previous attempts, I have been trying test conditions to learn what type of test I can design for my claim. How much time do I need? Do I need to see the person? Can the person be facing me or can they not be? Do I need light or does it work in the dark? How does distance affect it? What type of screens could I agree to? All of these questions were answered, by either performing or failing during various conditions, such that a test procedure could be designed.
The very best test conditions that the claim could agree to, was then put into a protocol draft. If an acceptable testing procedure could not be designed based on those requirements, the claim would have been concluded as untestable and therefore set aside. Fortunately, a testing procedure that does enable the conditions of the claim, and that imposes no additional requirements that would inhibit the claim, was possible.
If I fail the IIG Preliminary demonstration, my paranormal claim that suggests that I would be able to detect beyond the use of ordinary senses of perception, accurate health information that is not known to be accessible to ordinary perception, is falsified. It would be disrespectful of me toward the IIG and everyone else who has been involved in this otherwise.
I don't mind failing, or passing, any test. I just want accurate and reliable results, and they will be. This is a test, not a study. The testing conditions have been agreed upon by me, and I have acknowledged that my claim is capable of its best performance under those conditions. Therefore this, being a test, will provide conclusive results.
I've done well with the crushed pill tests. I was unable to make final conclusions on the pill samples sent to me by Pup because I perceived two pairs that were similar and was unable to label them one way or the other (kind of like being asked, "which of these two shades of red is more red?")
I have not done any street readings. I have written down my perceptions from people passing by, but not in situations where I could have checked for their accuracy.
The studies conducted with my boyfriend assisting, were purposely designed to test the upper boundaries of my claim. I wanted to find out whether I could agree to being in a dark room, or have my eyes closed (I tested both), or have screens. I wanted to find the best test conditions for the protocol draft.
The only test capable of giving a conclusive answer, is the IIG Preliminary, because this is not a study, I am not trying out the testing conditions. The testing conditions of the IIG Preliminary have already been approved of by me.
I think it confused a whole lot of you that I was doing a study.
This time comes from my own spare time, not from time demanded by my studies. Surely even a double science major is able to take one evening off (for the FACT meeting) and one weekend (for the Preliminary), even though I usually study both evenings and weekends, all week, every week!
The perception of the kidney being missing was one of the clearest if not the clearest I have ever had, yet logically I could not allow myself to believe that it could be true. My knowledge of kidney removal was both limited and inaccurate, and I was under the assumption that only elderly who are obviously and visibly ill would have had to have a failing kidney removed. I did not know at the time that persons who have to have a kidney removed may in many cases be young individuals, and even be apparently healthy and doing well, nor did I come to think of there being kidney donors, and that some people are actually born with just one kidney - so I was logically unable to believe that this person would be missing a kidney!
So I decided to not write it down, and to find out that I was wrong, and to put that into my personal notes at the back of my head. And, like Pixel42 pointed out, it is highly improper practice for anyone calling themselves science-minded, to cover up unfavorable data, and trust me I was sitting there for many minutes wanting to write it down. I held the pen against the paper, and was literally forcing myself to not write it down. I had an internal debate going on for several minutes, one side saying that I must write down my perception, and the other saying that it simply isn't true because logically he can't be missing a kidney. I want to record inaccuracy also, but this time I had to choose to not write it down because I had had interesting cases of accuracy in the past and felt that those were deserving of a test.
So that is the story, again, of why I chose to not write it down.
Quite often when some of the internet Skeptics can't persuade me with their thought, it turns into personal attack. A good Skeptic should be able to get their points across without having to try to break someone down and beat it into them. Just my thought. I mean, if I don't agree with something, I am unlikely to agree thanks to being subject to personal insults.
Actually, I am not doing this for attention. I am actually uncomfortable with the negative attention this has stirred. I am just discussing a paranormal investigation. And you put someone on ignore, after only that much? After all I've been through with some of you guys, can you believe it I have not once put anyone on ignore? I do skip a few posts if they are just rude, though, but at least I read through, just in case.
To correct you, I have not yet had a single test, only studies. There is a significant difference. During a study I am attempting different and new test conditions to see how I will do during those. I have deliberately been using difficult testing conditions to try to map out the upper boundaries of the capabilities so that I could design the very best test based on that.
That is why, for instance, I had a person in a dark room and attempted the medical perceptions, and totally failed, only learning that for an actual test I do require to see the person and that there be light. The testing conditions were thus established, and I submitted a testing protocol draft and reached a final protocol with the IIG.
Nothing I have done prior in this investigation has been a test. The IIG Preliminary, although they call it a demonstration, I consider a test. All of the testing conditions during the Preliminary have been agreed to by me and I have attested that my claim will perform at its best during those conditions. Therefore if I fail the Preliminary, the claim is over.
In all previous attempts, I have been trying test conditions to learn what type of test I can design for my claim. How much time do I need? Do I need to see the person? Can the person be facing me or can they not be? Do I need light or does it work in the dark? How does distance affect it? What type of screens could I agree to? All of these questions were answered, by either performing or failing during various conditions, such that a test procedure could be designed.
The very best test conditions that the claim could agree to, was then put into a protocol draft. If an acceptable testing procedure could not be designed based on those requirements, the claim would have been concluded as untestable and therefore set aside. Fortunately, a testing procedure that does enable the conditions of the claim, and that imposes no additional requirements that would inhibit the claim, was possible.
I am of course preparing myself for the event that I would fail, so that I would not be uncomfortable with that outcome, and also, perhaps, since I should not have been able to detect that a kidney was missing in the past case, and perhaps some other mechanism will be revealed.
If I fail the IIG Preliminary demonstration, my paranormal claim that suggests that I would be able to detect beyond the use of ordinary senses of perception, accurate health information that is not known to be accessible to ordinary perception, is falsified. It would be disrespectful of me toward the IIG and everyone else who has been involved in this otherwise.
I don't mind failing, or passing, any test. I just want accurate and reliable results, and they will be. This is a test, not a study. The testing conditions have been agreed upon by me, and I have acknowledged that my claim is capable of its best performance under those conditions. Therefore this, being a test, will provide conclusive results.
I did very well with readings with FACT members.
I've done well with the crushed pill tests. I was unable to make final conclusions on the pill samples sent to me by Pup because I perceived two pairs that were similar and was unable to label them one way or the other (kind of like being asked, "which of these two shades of red is more red?")
I have not done any street readings. I have written down my perceptions from people passing by, but not in situations where I could have checked for their accuracy.
The studies conducted with my boyfriend assisting, were purposely designed to test the upper boundaries of my claim. I wanted to find out whether I could agree to being in a dark room, or have my eyes closed (I tested both), or have screens. I wanted to find the best test conditions for the protocol draft.
The only test capable of giving a conclusive answer, is the IIG Preliminary, because this is not a study, I am not trying out the testing conditions. The testing conditions of the IIG Preliminary have already been approved of by me.
I think it confused a whole lot of you that I was doing a study.
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,361
Those calling me attention seeking and those calling me delusional are having a fight as to which it is. Where is the one calling me a liar? GeeMack might care to join in. Let them talk about it, meanwhile I think I am just wanting to have a test.
What?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Why are you so self-centred as to think you need to answer every post? It's not YOUR thread. You didn't even start the thing.
Irrelevant.
Keep telling that story and see if it becomes true.
Hint: It won't
Abandon science. Study engineering. Build a bridge. Get over it.
Chortle.
I have no evidence of how much you read, but I have considerable experience at judging how much you understand. I suspect there is a wide gap between the two.
You've had Studies™, Tests™, Investigations™, Trials™ and Aten Knows What Else™ 'til people's eyes are bleeding from reading about them.
The only thing we haven't seen so far is Results™
Drivel
In fact, it all is.
I think it confused a whole none of us. There is certainly lots of evidence of confusion about some things though, but you needn't be looking out here for it.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I said, "I'm looking forward to this test. I'm sincerely hopeful that one of the tangible results we see from it is an end to the disruptions that have been caused here by events leading up to it."
Which bit are you having trouble with?
PS If you're going to edit my posts when you quote them, please acknowledge that you have done so. It's rude not to.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
IIRC you come third out of four - where the other three made no claim to extraordinary abilities. If that is your idea of doing very well, how would you have had to do in order to conclude that you had done very badly?
VisionFromFeeling
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,361
Correction: I did very well with the readings with FACT members as the volunteers, I think. But I came in third out of four on the study with people off the street as volunteers and FACT members as participants with the assignments of the study.
I thought "FACT reading" referred to the readings with FACT members as the volunteers. I do not hide any inaccurate data and I have no problems with acknowledgeing the results of the study. Just look at how I have posted all the inaccuracy in the study with screens etc. And if I fail the Preliminary, I will highlight those results everywhere it needs to be.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
No, it wasn't. It was yet another flat denial of the reality of the situation.
Don't sweat it Hon. Your publicity department is quite efficient at doing that sort of thing.