The VFF Test is On!

Thank you for raising your concerns, although I feel that they are mostly based on prejudice from how other paranormal claimants have behaved in the past and do not apply to me personally. You are speculating about what kind of person I am and what I will do with my claims. Paranormal claims can be harmful when used carelessly or to exploit people, but if they are in the hands of a responsible person there is no need for concern. As a chemistry student I can safely handle dangerous chemicals, but someone else might cause harm to themselves or others. It all depends on who you are and how you handle what you have.
...Only 17 days left!

I'm sorry to see VisionFromFeeling didn't touch on my real concerns nor for my reasons for having them.
Whatever the parallels are between the lady and previous candidates, the most alarming signs are produced by her own words. It's really difficult to take seriously the claim of a person who who makes up 'Revolutionary ghost' stories.
 
Yes. That's why many of us feel that these aspects of Vision from Feeling's behaviour are pertinent to the other claims she has made/will make in this forum.
 
My claim is not magical x-ray vision, but that when I look at people I see images in my mind that depict internal organs and health,
You contradict yourself. What you describe is what is generally referred to as "magical x-ray vision".

and that I have experienced accuracy that should not be possible, such as in the case of detecting that a kidney was missing.
You can't claim evidence. You have to demonstrate evidence of your claim.
 
Not even about her dialogues with Benjamin Franklin's ghost?
Anyway, we're closer to the 21st now.
 
Unfortunately I did detect the missing kidney but I chose to not write it down. That is the truth of it, and it is not a false memory. !

If you did not believe your own perceptions enough to write it down why should we now believe you had them?
 
You contradict yourself. What you describe is what is generally referred to as "magical x-ray vision".

Or "imagination", depending where you're from. ;)

You can't claim evidence. You have to demonstrate evidence of your claim.

At rough estimate, that has been pointed out to VfF about 14, 532 times. She simply carries on with anecdotal evidence and "I really really did!".

Denial. It ain't just a river in Egypt. ;)
 
Only two weeks left! I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to it!


And we're looking forward to your announcement that your paranormal claim is falsified. You do remember this posting at www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com...

Anita at stopvisionfromfeeling.com... said:
I am tremendously pleased with the test protocol. From my perspective it is absolutely perfect, and it contains no elements that I worry could reduce my performance. I have confidence in my single past experience of detecting that a left kidney was missing, and am willing to let this specific claim represent the entirety of the medical perceptions claim. And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified.


Do you figure to announce your failure here on the JREF Forum, at the stopvisionfromfeeling.com web site, or at your own web site? Any or all of the above?

Oh, and there's still some concern about how you define failure. People obviously have different notions about that, so it would be nice if we were all on the same plane before your demonstration. That way you can't waffle after. We know you're familiar with how that waffling after the fact works.

Is your definition of failure like most of us consider failure, like when you aren't able to demonstrate that you actually have magical x-ray vision, or will it be like that class you failed and still claimed to have a 4.0 GPA? Maybe it will be like when you failed to see a guy's missing kidney with your magical x-ray vision, then claimed that you actually had seen it, but only after he told you about it later? What exactly will you accept as failure in this demonstration? How much waffling are you going to allow yourself, or expect us to allow, so you can claim you didn't fail (by your definition) after you actually do fail (by everyone else's definition)?
 
It appears she was interviewed for the paper, unless they took those quotes from somewhere else and just plugged them into the article. So much for her constant insistence that her paranormal claim and her school/professional career are separate entities, and never the twain shall meet.
 

...

It read way too familiar so I went back and reread the press release.

IIG Press Release said:
During this preliminary Anita Ikonen demonstration Ms. Ikonen will be presented with multiple human test subjects and asked to identify those who are missing internal organs. If she is successful Anita will move on to the formal test for the IIG’s “$50,000 Challenge,” and potentially go for a one million dollar prize offered by the godfather of skepticism — James Randi. The demonstration will be conducted at the offices of the Center for Inquiry in Hollywood on November 21, 2009.

IIG Chair and CFI-Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown is excited. “With Sylvia Browne, Allison DuBois, and John Edward running around making outrageous claims, and refusing to allow any outside scrutiny,” says Underdown, “it’s quite refreshing to see someone come forward and put their money where their mouth is.“ Anita Ikonen is a class of applicant that the IIG refers to as a ”medical dowser” — people who claim to be able to sense the inside of the human body and detect illness or defects in the anatomy. ”No one has been able to display this kind of ability under controlled conditions,” claims Underdown, “so this will be history in the making if Anita is able to perform properly.”

On hand for the demonstration will be members of the IIG, scientists from UCLA and representatives of the media. If Ms. Ikonen succeeds it would represent a substantial challenge to the practice of medicine and the underlying scientific principles of physics.

UNC's story said:
During the preliminary testing done by IIG Anita will be asked to identify who out of a multitude of human test subjects are missing internal organs. If Anita is successful she can then go on to the formal test for IIG’s “$50,000 Challenge.” Potentially if she then passes this test she will then go for a one million dollar prize offered by the godfather of skepticism — James Randi.

IIG Chair and CFI-Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown is excited about the upcoming testing to be done with Anita. “With Sylvia Browne, Allison DuBois, and John Edward running around making outrageous claims, and refusing to allow any outside scrutiny,” says Underdown, “it’s quite refreshing to see someone come forward and put their money where their mouth is.“ Anita Ikonen is a class of applicant that the IIG refers to as a ”medical dowser” — people who claim to be able to sense the inside of the human body and detect illness or defects in the anatomy. ”No one has been able to display this kind of ability under controlled conditions,” claims Underdown, “so this will be history in the making if Anita is able to perform properly.” “We look forward to putting Anita’s claims to the test. Regardless of the outcome, this will be quite an event,” promised Underdown.

On hand for these demonstrations will be a number of members of the IIG, scientists from UCLA and representatives of the media. If Anita then succeeds in there trials it would represent a substantial challenge to the practice of medicine and the underlying scientific principles of physics.

I've spent years being damned careful about making sure when I submit something, it's my own words. I'm not sure what the rule is when it comes to press releases however and I may be derailing into a molehill instead of a mountain.
 

Back
Top Bottom