The VFF Test is On!

[GeeMack]

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

Can't say I blame you for turning tail and running now. I can't imagine how you could possibly embarrass yourself any further or demonstrate any more convincingly that you're a liar and a fraud.

 

[Jonquill]

I'm eagerly awaiting what Roy Stemman's 'Paranormal Review' makes of it.

http://www.paranormalreview.com/paranormal/missing-kidney-to-prove-psychic-power/#more-309

 

[desertgal]

I knew that my answer from trial 1 would be incorrect, and after the trial was over and the subjects had left, and the microphones were off, I told Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards all about that.

Similarly, I also knew that trial 2 would be correct, and that trial 3 would be incorrect, and shared that with IIG members.

The only way you could have known, in advance, that your answers to #1 and #3 were incorrect would have been by also knowing the correct answers, so...why didn't you write the correct answers down?

Oh, that's right...because you are a liar and a fraud.

 

[Farencue]

For those interested, some comments made during Anita Ikonen's failed demonstration by her classmates, are very interesting.
Drop by the stop vision from feeling website to check out the live chat transcript.

Thanks to the IIG for setting up this demonstration - the outcome is that Anita Ikonen has proven herself to be a liar and a fraud, otherwise known as a scam artist.

 

[SezMe]

No, they didn't.Why am I so certain? Because they stated that nobody who was selected knew what organ was supposed to be missing.

No, that's not true. I know because I was the one who recruited #36 and she KNEW they were looking for participants who had only one kidney.

 

[Akhenaten]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

According to me, you are the claimerer and therefore don't get to vote. I did, however, conduct an att. straw poll amongst the eligible voters in the chatrooms.

Guess what?

How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong?

That is irrelevant. Further, since you knew that you were going to be wrong, why didn't you at least pick someone else? Or is it that you only KNEW you were wrong AFTER the results came out? That would line up better with what everyone else saw, and it would be a much better thing for you to be able to see also, as a m att. er of fact.

And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct?

That is irrelevant and wrong, as above.

These are not after-the-fact rationalization, false memories, lies, or delusion.

I'll wager on a tutti-fruiti, with a dash of everything. And some p att. é

I shared these thoughts with Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards, each after each of the three trials, and these are three highly credible people and they can confirm this if they choose to.

Did you do an att. Arcturan Mind Meld™ while the cameras were off? Since that wasn't in the protocol, it's irrelevant.

I will try to arrange for more testing, but the format will be a little bit simpler to set up, however with a stricter test protocol that allows for even less visibility of the subjects.

Th att. 'll end well.

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

You have my undivided att. ention.

 

[Jeff Corey]

For those interested, some comments made during Anita Ikonen's failed demonstration by her classmates, are very interesting.
Drop by the stop vision from feeling website to check out the live chat transcript.

Thanks to the IIG for setting up this demonstration - the outcome is that Anita Ikonen has proven herself to be a liar and a fraud, otherwise known as a scam artist.

Ok, I have been a bit hard on her, especially where she claimed a perfect average for a semester when her school showed she didn't. Because it's really hard to have a perfect average in a semester where you earn an F. She has a perfect average in this recent test because she knew when she failed. It's a similar situation. I don't think she is trying to scam us. She has succeeded to scam herself. That's sad.

 

[SezMe]

I think Jeff has the right take. She can't see inside people's bodies. We all know that. But Anita, for some reason, has to be special and having this ability makes her so. Hence, she'll twist the outcome in any way possible to confirm that she is, in fact, a special person. Sad, really.

 

[chillzero]

No, that's not true. I know because I was the one who recruited #36 and she KNEW they were looking for participants who had only one kidney.

I think all three targets knew this information (which makes the protocol worse) but not the rest of the volunteers. Sorry for confusion.

 

[Drs_Res]

<snip>

Followed by 1,500 words or so.

Actually, you were low. It was 3,109 words.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Anita, where did anyone say anything about your weight? I certainly didn't see any disparaging remarks about you personally in the chat rooms (although I couldn't read all of it). From what I have seen people have (accurately) judged you on your failure in this test, not on your personal characteristics. If anyone said anything about your weight then you should identify them - that is certainly not something that is acceptable and goes against what we are here for. We are here to evaluate your paranormal claims - not what you look like.

However, we have to judge you based on your performance in regards to your paranormal claim - which you failed. The test falsified your claim, according to your own posts here.

However, somehow we all knew this was going to happen:

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

I must be psychic:

With this many trials/subjects and given the way the test is set up, a chance of failure is almost guaranteed (since Anita doesn't really have any powers, and would have to rely on cold reading techniques to get a hit).

However, if she happens to get a hit on just one of the groups she will claim that something blocked her powers from working the rest of the time. Guaranteed.

Somehow I knew this before the test! How could that be...that I (and others) have predicted EXACTLY what you have done?

This whole "I knew I was wrong but didn't say anything" charade has got to stop. You are using it to spin the results. You thought you had the right subjects, or else you would not have picked them. You might have actually told someone at the test that you were wrong in between trials, not because you actually thought so, but because you were hedging your bets. You knew you could bring it up if you were wrong - and you were - and spin it if you happened to get a hit by chance.You were wrong, and you have failed. Your medical perceptions claim is now falsified. If you are unable to pass a test like this which has multiple opportunities for cold readings and had a high chance of you getting a hit based on the small group sizes, you would certainly fail any other rigorous test.

 

[Agatha]

I was one of the participants in the stopVfF chatroom who made comments about Anita's appearance, and I apologise to her for that - no amount of rudeness, arrogance and lies on Anita's part justified my making personal remarks.

The chat transcript is still an interesting read for anyone interested, lexvonrockets performed exactly as well as Anita on the trials in that she picked 11 right on the first trial, prior to the test.

VfF, can you not see that you performed no better than chance? You failed the demonstration and you assured us that failure would falsify yiour claim.

Your claim is falsified and I think you are in the very fortunate position of having a choice of two paths. The difficult one back to reality, science and critical thinking, or the easy one to a world of woo and ridicule.

Chillzero will no doubt confirm that the first path, while initially more difficult, is the one which will lead to a better, happier life.

 

[Sean84]

Was anyone else bothered by her frequent chair moving?

Even when they added 2 more chairs she continued to move chairs directly behind volunteers. It seemed like she wanted the volunteers to know where she was. I assume this was why she was asked to take off her shoes, but in any event, it's communication between Anita and the volunteers.

If I knew someone was directly behind me staring at me I'd probably get a little self-conscious and that would likely have some physical manifestation which would aid any amateur cold-reading.

Beating a dead horse... I know...

 

[jhunter1163]

I was one of the participants in the stopVfF chatroom who made comments about Anita's appearance, and I aplogise to her for that - no amount of rudeness, arrogance and lies on Anita's part justified my making personal remarks.

I second this. I also made my fair share of snide remarks about Anita's appearance, which were uncalled for and I apologize for them.

But let's look at the statistics. Here are the results of the JREF members who guessed along with Anita:

Akhenaten: 0 hits (sorry, Pharaoh)
jhunter1163: 0 hits (apparently VisionFromSwilling is just beer goggles after all)
Volatile: 0 hits
Agatha: 0.5 hits
McLuvin: 1.5 hits

(Agatha's daughter apparently got two out of three, as did the guy in the audience, but since I don't have written evidence I exclude them, sorry about that)

Here we see exactly what is expected statistically; one in five does as well as Anita. She did nothing that couldn't be explained as a lucky guess.

 

[Akhenaten]

I second this. I also made my fair share of snide remarks about Anita's appearance, which were uncalled for and I apologize for them.

But let's look at the statistics. Here are the results of the JREF members who guessed along with Anita:

Akhenaten: 0 hits (sorry, Pharaoh)
jhunter1163: 0 hits (apparently VisionFromSwilling is just beer goggles after all)
Volatile: 0 hits
Agatha: 0.5 hits
McLuvin: 1.5 hits

(Agatha's daughter apparently got two out of three, as did the guy in the audience, but since I don't have written evidence I exclude them, sorry about that)

Here we see exactly what is expected statistically; one in five does as well as Anita. She did nothing that couldn't be explained as a lucky guess.

Why must you people always be so mean. If I pick three from three, it's wrong; if I pick none from three, it's wrong. Everything I do is wrong.

Anyway, I knew my picks were wrong, because I was jet lagged after going down to the shops to get cat food. (I can see inside cats). I just didn't write down the correct answers because I thought you'd all think that I was cheating if I did too well.

So, my darling sceptics, if you'll all just be patient, you'll see that I really, really, really, really can . . .


What was the question again?


PS Lex is a poopy head.

 

[MRC_Hans]

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

That is called denial.

How did I know that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong? And how did I know that trial 2 would be correct?

I have no idea, but simple guesswork would do. The odds are not very high on that. Why should we care?

I will try to arrange for more testing, but the format will be a little bit simpler to set up, however with a stricter test protocol that allows for even less visibility of the subjects.

Translation: "I will try to set up a test where I can cheat."

Anyhow, I think I am done here. If there is another test later on, I will update my conclusions then.

Yes, you are indeed done here.

Bye.....

Hans

 

[desertgal]

Anita, where did anyone say anything about your weight? I certainly didn't see any disparaging remarks about you personally in the chat rooms (although I couldn't read all of it).

There were, but I don't believe there is any need for apology. They were "just observations", after all. Ain't that right, Anita?

So long. sweetie.

 

[GeeMack]

Was anyone else bothered by her frequent chair moving?

Even when they added 2 more chairs she continued to move chairs directly behind volunteers. It seemed like she wanted the volunteers to know where she was. I assume this was why she was asked to take off her shoes, but in any event, it's communication between Anita and the volunteers.

If I knew someone was directly behind me staring at me I'd probably get a little self-conscious and that would likely have some physical manifestation which would aid any amateur cold-reading.

Beating a dead horse... I know...

Although the chair moving was a little disconcerting, I found it entertaining. After all, from Anita's perspective this was a show, an entertainment event more than anything else. I might take a few minutes of the video and dub in some circus music, or maybe some stock magicians' background music, and choreograph it to the rhythm of the chair moving routine. If I get it done I'll post it on YouTube.

And Anita, all your wishing and hoping and pretending that reality simply disappears when you ignore it won't make it so. You still have this hovering over you. Remember this posting at www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com?...

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.

If you don't intend to just keep on lying, you can post that announcement whenever you're ready.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, that's not true. I know because I was the one who recruited #36 and she KNEW they were looking for participants who had only one kidney.

And on top of that the protocol did not specify that this was "blinded" in that way anyhow.

In fact, the protocol didn't say anything about how the subjects were selected and assigned to the groups.

 

[Moochie]

Well said. I can only add that nothing is set in stone. It is still possible for her to discuss these results with the people here and come to a different conclusion.

Her thoughts on the matter seem to be "It was very nice being the center of attention and I would quite like to do it again sometime." Perhaps after she realizes that there is zero possibility of a rematch, she will be more open to examining the experience critically.

I think at this juncture, for me at least, VfF is eminently forgettable. It seemed clear to me, listening to her after-test chatter, that she had no intention of allowing that the test had falsified her claim. My guess is, she will continue building some sort of momentum for her fans, with ad hoc "tests" and voluminous reports on her site, along with long-winded discussions with "her skeptics" here and perhaps elsewhere, until that fateful day when she will "come out" as a fully fledged "psychic medic."

Pathetic.


M.