The VFF Test is On!

Akhenaten said:
Beyond that I'm with you, and all subjects would have to be confirmed in a more rigourous test, I'd think.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a challenge, not a scientific study.

The only circumstance I can see that would prompt me to confirm every subject would be if Anita had gotten all three trials correct. If there were other people missing kidneys, then the IIG could challenge the results because the protocol required one missing kidney per trial. Considering the logistics, I see no problem with the IIG taking that "risk."

As long as the IIG could confirm that just *one* selection by Anita was wrong, it wouldn't matter if that person were the only person with two kidneys. Any "errors" in Anita's favor are not grounds for her challenging the results.

Like I said, it's a challenge, not a scientific study. If it were a scientific study, it never would have happened in the first place. Hell, the pseudoscientific organizations didn't even want to touch it.
 
derekcbart said:
We did have an agreement with Anita on the testing protocol.
Click to expand...

If this is so, then I stand corrected. From what Anita said on this forum, I was under the impression that that wasn't the case, and that it sounded to me that is was unlikely there would be an agreement on a final protocol. My impression was that if she had passed the preliminary, then new negotiations on a final protocol would have begun. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected, and am happy to admit that I am wrong.

The test is not simply "run a second time" as you claimed. You cannot get from 10,000:1 to 1,000,000:1 simply by repeating any test. You have to do many more rounds in order to get to the correct odds.
Click to expand...
In at least some cases for the MDC a repeat is indeed the agreement for the final.

However, my overall point is that since the MDC is a legal contract, JREF absolutely must abide by its own rules. Those rules say that the protocol may not be changed (except by mutual agreement). Everything I read in the JREF rules state that once the protocol is agreed to, then you start the preliminary test. (Ideally, the first protocol provided by the claimant is a legitimate way of testing the claim, and no back and forth negotiations are needed, but I doubt that often happens. However, once there is an agreement, then there need not be more negotiations.)


You have good protocol ideas, but please do not say what an organization does if you have never been directly involved in what that organization does.
Click to expand...
Again, I will ignore your advice. This is an example of an ad hominem argument. Whether or not I have ever been directly involved in what an organization does says nothing about whether my criticism/comments are valid.

By the same standard, the only people who can criticize the Church of Scientology or Novus Spiritus or the NRA or PETA are those who have been directly involved with those organizations.
 
Posting this here even though it's OT.
derekcbart said:
For example, Connie Sonne was an applicant for the IIG Paranormal Challenge as well.
Click to expand...

OK, I admit I'm wrong. I just read the Connie Sonne protocol, and it says,

If all three of Ms. Sonne's selections are correct, the test will be considered a success and Ms. Sonne will begin negotiations for a final Challenge test.
Click to expand...

:blush:

It still doesn't seem right to bill a preliminary challenge as part of the Million Dollar Challenge if there is no money at risk and no agreement for a test that does risk the money.

But I admit I was wrong. My apologies.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Yes, I failed the third trial. I got the correct person, but the wrong side. I had also reached my limit, and was very nearly raising my hand up to cancel the trial. I was having a headache, my claimed perceptions stopped working, I felt an electrical imbalance all across my body, and I felt close to fainting. I never have these symptoms at other times in my life though, but have experienced them in the past when I have pushed myself to do too many trials, like in the bacteria detection tests at home.

Those are real symptoms, and not minor. I am not lying about them, or exaggerating them. And for those of you who are quick to judge, and would like to call me a liar on that, if the video that was taken from the front of the stage is released, you can all see it close-up. And once my draft papers, that were stapled to the back of the answer sheets, are published, you can all see that I clearly write that I am tired.
Click to expand...

Who cares. On the first trial, when you were at your freshest, you got the wrong person, which made that trial 100% wrong. You failed the test at that point. The fact that you were tired on the third trial is irrelevant and meaningless. Even if we completely discount and pretend the third trial never happened, and only judge you based on the first two trials, you still failed the test. If you had been right on the first two trials, and simply got the wrong side on the third trial, your constant whining about being tired on the third trial might actually have been meaningful. But you didn't guess correctly on the first trial, so the whining about being tired is meaningless and merely distracting from the fact that you failed the test as soon as the first trial was completed. Everything else after that point was merely academic. Get over yourself, and admit that you failed the test, and the claim is falsified, as you promised you would.
 
Hey, now. Be fair.

In the first trial she knew she was wrong. In her notes she had selected two people as missing a kidney, and neither person was the target. She had a 30% chance of being right about the person, but despite these overwhelming odds, she knew she was wrong.

In the second trial she knew she was right. Again, she had selected two people in her notes as being the target, but despite this obstacle was able to select the correct person and kidney!!!

In the third trial she knew she was wrong, but this time it was because her powers were failing just like they have always done when tested under rudimentary controls (it's very taxing, don't you know). Again, in her notes she had two people selected as targets. Unlike the first trial, one of these people was the actual target, only her powers were so weakened, she didn't know it. However, she knew she knew she didn't know but didn't know how much she did know.

How can you look at this and not think there is something extraordinary going on?

* Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
 
Ness36 said:
Please correct me if I am making a mistake.

...

1.) To detect anything, you must emit a particle, have it hit and interact with the subject (in this case the electron) and then be able to collect the particle that comes back to you.
Click to expand...

You don't actually have to emit a particle, you just have to detect one coming from the subject. I detect the things I see by detecting the photons they reflect, refract, or emit. Those photons would typically only originate with me if I was using a torch in the dark :)
 
dlorde said:
You don't actually have to emit a particle, you just have to detect one coming from the subject. I detect the things I see by detecting the photons they reflect, refract, or emit. Those photons would typically only originate with me if I was using a torch in the dark :)
Click to expand...

Or if you manifest my light.
 
Maia said:
Well... I have to disagree with you on that one. IMHO, inaccurate memory is NOT what this phenomenon is about. But everyone has their own take on it.
Click to expand...
:confused: that's what I said - Anita's memory isn't the problem... the problem is her irrational belief structure.
 
dlorde said:
You don't actually have to emit a particle, you just have to detect one coming from the subject. I detect the things I see by detecting the photons they reflect, refract, or emit. Those photons would typically only originate with me if I was using a torch in the dark :)
Click to expand...

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

Would you believe I was thinking that, but I didn't write it down?? :flirt:

I guess in my head I was thinking of the specific example of seeing kidneys inside a person, not the general principle.

I was thinking that the atoms in kidneys aren't likely to emit many usefully detectable electromagnetic waves all by themselves, you have to hit them with something like ultrasound waves, and no visible light can reach them.

And if Vision From Feeling is claiming she can see on the scale of the electron, she would have to be detecting photons emitted by electrons as they change energy levels, which I didn't think was very likely, I am guessing they wouldn't travel far, they would be diffuse and multidirectional, and would be confused with photons emitted by every other atom in the body.

The other possibility would be herself emitting some electromagnetic waves which must have a wavelength smaller than electrons. That was the case I was thinking of.

None of it makes very much sense anyways, and the more you think about any possible rationale for these claims, the more confusing it is.
 
dlorde said:
:confused: that's what I said - Anita's memory isn't the problem... the problem is her irrational belief structure.
Click to expand...

Well..... let's leave it at that. Probably all for the best to not elaborate further. However, I would absolutely not place the problem anywhere except with Anita, and I do agree that an irrational belief structure is at the bottom of things. Didn't someone say that she'd actually been banned? Maybe that was a while ago, but if it was recent enough, it would certainly explain why she isn't posting now.

I'm still not sure how to make sense of her reactions to the way the test turned out. It was probably always too much to expect that she'd admit the claim was falsified, and it wasn't too surprising (although sad) that we all saw a list beginning with the word "Excuses." The claim that she knew in advance how likely it was that her perceptions were correct or incorrect, and that this somehow formed the basis of a new ability worth investigating, was just odd.

The main thing I don't understand is why anyone would think that any of this had a chance of getting any other set of reactions from the people on this board than the one it got. The history of her previous claims is kind of a matter of public record around here, and nothing less than truly passing that IIG test would have impressed anybody. But Anita had to know that coming up with the list of excuses and weird new claims that she did was never going to be received well,with responses ranging from scorn to pity. This is the part that I personally don't understand. I would much rather shoot myself in the foot and then go to Bible camp all summer long before doing what Anita did.
 
Ohhh.... thanks for clearing that up. :) Well, we'll see if it lasts, I guess. It's not as if there's really anything else to say about that test from her end, but then there wasn't anything to say in the first place, and it was said anyway.
 
From Mark Edward's blog:

I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes allloted, told me point blank that she “felt very positive ” about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused. Luck? Chance? ….or Woo? We were all surprised.
Click to expand...

Jim and Mark talked about her hit during the break between tests? I thought that only one person from the IIG knew who the targets were, and that person was sequestered away from everyone else. Is this a security breach?
 
Last edited:
Jonquill said:
Sorry if this has already been posted but here is the update in the Paranormal Review.


Did Anita Ikonen really fail?

http://www.paranormalreview.com/paranormal/did-anita-ikonen-really-fail/#more-317
Click to expand...


This quote from the cited article indicates to me that the author has no clue at all about what's actually been going on.


For her part, Anita has indicated that she is ready to be tested again, having learned some valuable lessons from this test which will improve the design of the next one.
Click to expand...


I have a bridge he may be interested in buying.
 
TheSkepticCanuck said:
Anita keeps telling us to ask some of the people she talked to at the demonstration what they saw and heard. Here is another report from one such on-stage witness. Mark Edward has written of his experience at the demo:

http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/05/girls-who-stare-at-kidneys/

A very good summary of the whole fiasco.
Click to expand...


That was indeed an excellent review.

Here's my favourite bit:

Should we give her credit for getting close? Let’s put it this way:

■ Would you give your dentist credit for pulling a tooth close to the bad tooth?

■ Would you want Anita deciding which lung should be removed if one were diseased?

■ Would you want your airline pilot to be close to landing the plane safely?​

Close is the distance between impressive and meaningless.
Click to expand...
 
Chimera said:
Jim and Mark talked about her hit during the break between tests? I thought that only one person from the IIG knew who the targets were, and that person was sequestered away from everyone else. Is this a security breach?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that caught my eye too. But as I read your link, those words are not there. Right link? Caught his mistake and corrected it? If the latter, he should have made the edit explicit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom