The VFF Test is On!

[Akhenaten]

Am I right that there were 37 persons guessing at home in each of the trials of the IIG Preliminary?

It seems highly unlikely, given that nobody on this planet would have any possible way of knowing how many people were playing at home.

And some of the 37 persons got some of their guesses correct? Using a simple randomizer, randomizing numbers 1 through 12, and using 1 as the correct answer, I randomized numbers 1 through 12, 37 times in a sequence, and using the number that appears on the top of the randomized list as the answer, number 1 showed up on top of the list three times.

Since your very first variable is most likely wrong, your calculations are invalid.

You failed.

You can not equate my answers, me being a single person, with two or three correct answers made by 37 persons guessing at random. I have not taken statistics at college, but I do know that you just can not do that.

How do you know this?

The probability of one person guessing correctly, is not the same when 37 persons are doing that. So, if 2 persons out of 37 got the same accuracy as I did, does that suggest a 2 in 37 chance of guessing correctly to that extent? That is 5.4%.

Invalid assumtion, as above.

I don't know what to make of it.

You failed.

But I do know I am having another test.

Kewl. Start another thread about it. I'm so there.

Especially since bookitty disqualified the test.

Says who?

None of you Forum Skeptics will have anything to do with my next test.

Bets?

I won't even announce when it is taking place, until it has happened and is over.

My breath, holding it am I not.

 

[desertgal]

One question: *Who* is going to administer another test for Anita? IIG is a reputable organization, backed by many skeptics and scientists. Having another test against her claims at this point would be a great waste of time and effort, and I think everyone knows that.

Peer review is at the heart of every scientific inquiry. It's true that us humans are not without fault, but this is the best system of checks and balances we have, and it seems to be a system that has served us rather well. If Anita has isolated the institution in general, to whom will she turn to test her claims? To whom, even, will she turn to *make* her claims?

Good question, and I'm wondering this myself. It is doubtful that IIG would help her create another preliminary demonstration-and, even so, she has to wait, I believe, a year before IIG would even consider the idea.

The Winston Salem Skeptics group-her original local skeptic group-disappeared from the VfF landscape some time ago.

FACT has made it clear they're not interested in helping her.

Anita hinted that she had approached two mysterious skeptic groups to help her shape the kidney detection protocol, but I'm guessing, if they even existed, they've since run for cover, since she hasn't mentioned them again.

Which leaves woo organizations. Not sure if Anita will 'lower' herself to contact them, but she did approach the Rhine last time, so who knows?

 

[Akhenaten]

What do you mean by "pick one"? I did not notice any leg brace and scars. And if I had noticed it, I would not connect those to someone missing a kidney.

You said that you didn't see the leg brace

You said that the test was ruined because you knew about the leg brace.


Pick one.

Of course people notice things subconsciously.

Do you know what a contradiction in terms is? I'll give you an example:

"Of course people notice things subconsciously."​

Clear anything up for you?

Yet another reason why I need to have another test with better screens, so that you can stop trying to disqualify the results. No head, shoulders, arms, legs, or long hair will be visible on the next test. No tattoos, leg brace, or scars will be visible what so ever.

When are you going to start a new thread and stop derailing this thread, which is about the test you already had and which you failed?

 

[Akhenaten]

I failed the IIG Preliminary,

Yep

. . . but I have not falsified the claim yet.

The claim is falsified. There was a test. You failed.

I will have another test. And you can see it once it has already taken place.

You know those Yellow Cards you keep getting for being off-topic? What do your perceptions tell you about them?

 

[desertgal]

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

Aw. Is evewyone being mean to poh woo?

ETA: PS. There won't be any chair-shuffling on the next test. I will have a chair behind each of the subjects.

P.S. No. one. cares. And, if you're going to discuss your new...ahem...test with yourself, start a new thread.

 

[Maia]

Well, there's always somebody, somewhere who will assist with whatever bizarre thing a claimant like Anita wants to do (Gary Schwarz being a good example. I particularly like the way that his favorite medium gets regular communications from Freddie Mercury.) I, for one, think we should get the word out as much as possible in order to protect others. People who are sincerely deluded should at least know they are dealing with someone who is IMHO not.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

One question: *Who* is going to administer another test for Anita? IIG is a reputable organization, backed by many skeptics and scientists. Having another test against her claims at this point would be a great waste of time and effort, and I think everyone knows that.

Peer review is at the heart of every scientific inquiry. It's true that us humans are not without fault, but this is the best system of checks and balances we have, and it seems to be a system that has served us rather well. If Anita has isolated the institution in general, to whom will she turn to test her claims? To whom, even, will she turn to *make* her claims?

I disagree. I identified two issues with the IIG test that will both be addressed and will not be an issue in the next test. Therefore, if I still produce the same inaccuracy I will be able to conclude that those excuses were meaningless. Also, internet Skeptics are questioning the accurate results, pointing out various visual information such as scars or age, and that is another reason to simply have another test that does not allow any such visual information.

Another test can only add to the results of the IIG Preliminary, and if there is nothing interesting to my claim, then the next test will only show that once more.

And of course you understand, that after bookitty disqualifying the results of trial 2, you will have to wait until after the next test for your peer review. I am already working on setting it up.

ETA: It will not involve woo organizations.

ETA: Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

 

[desertgal]

It seems to me that she might have thought about exactly how bad it would look if she could be linked to PM'ing the subject himself and instead covered her tracks by contacting bookitty directly.

No, the subject was a friend of bookitty's, and not a member of this forum. Anita could not have contacted him directly via PM. He came up in the context of a discussion about the commonality of people who have only one kidney. The discussion was not related to the IIG demonstration-it was prior to the IIG agreeing to hold the demo. Anita wanted to 'examine' him for her 'investigation', and displayed an appalling lack of sensitivity, but it was not an attempt on her part to contact someone she knew might be a subject in the demo.

 

[Akhenaten]

You are all comfortable questioning any results that would support the claim that I might have some strange subconscious cold reading skill for missing organs, and you do not allow me to question any circumstances that I identify that might have reduced my performance.

There are no results supporting any of your claims. Specifically, the one claim that you have tested has been falsified.

You are 'allowed' to question whatever you like, and your constant protestations that people are somehow interfering with your ability to do so are light years beyond tiresome.

Are you not doing your questioning even as you post here? What you're really complaining about is that people are willing to point out that your questions are nonsense. You're going to have to deal with that.

You are willing to accept the results of trial 2 to be flawed, when they are not flawed, but you won't similarly consider whether the results of trials 1 and 3 might be flawed. For instance, if I experience fatigue and the claim stops working, how does such a trial test that claim.

You failed.

I will arrange to have another test and thanks to bookitty you will only find out about it after it has taken place. The two conditions that I identified with the Preliminary will be addressed. And the issues brought up by you of visual information, will also be addressed in the next test. The screens will be more elaborate, and only the backs of the subjects can be seen. So most visual information, such as arms, legs, hair, gender, age, tattoos, leg brace, scars, will no longer be an issue. I would like to do one more thing here though. I would like to post the protocol for the next test here and ask you to identify any issues that you see with it beforehand.

OK. Since my subtle hints aren't working, I'm going to take the above quote and start a new thread about your NEXT test myself.

Now can you try and concentrate on the topic of this thread, which is the IIG test that you failed?

vIt is not a mental illness to genuinely feel something that corresponds to health information in people. It would be, if I were to assume those perceptions to be real each time, or if I were to try to convince others that what I feel is true. I have had interesting accuracy and it is not a mental illness to want to investigate that further. If I have some interesting automatic cold reading skill, I am interested to find out how it works, or if tests reveal inaccuracy, I would like to know that also.

Off topic.

Stop attacking me personally, it does not contribute to skepticism. You can express your concerns without personal insults and in a civil manner.

Off topic.

ETA: PS. There won't be any chair-shuffling on the next test. I will have a chair behind each of the subjects.

Off topic.


Is your favourite colour Yellow?

 

[desertgal]

I disagree. I identified two issues with the IIG test that will both be addressed and will not be an issue in the next test. Therefore, if I still produce the same inaccuracy I will be able to conclude that those excuses were meaningless. Also, internet Skeptics are questioning the accurate results, pointing out various visual information such as scars or age, and that is another reason to simply have another test that does not allow any such visual information.

Another test can only add to the results of the IIG Preliminary, and if there is nothing interesting to my claim, then the next test will only show that once more.

And of course you understand, that after bookitty disqualifying the results of trial 2, you will have to wait until after the next test for your peer review. I am already working on setting it up.

Either start a new thread about your new...ahem...test, or I will continue to report you for being off topic. This thread is about the IIG demo.

you will have to wait until after the next test for your peer review.

Lex wasn't offering to conduct a peer review. Learn. to. read. carefully.

It will not involve woo organizations.

It likely won't involve skeptic organizations, either.

And of course you understand, that after bookitty disqualifying the results of trial 2,

Pathetic and desperate, as noted in posts above. Your behavior is truly repugnant.

 

[Maia]

No, the subject was a friend of bookitty's, and not a member of this forum. Anita could not have contacted him directly via PM. He came up in the context of a discussion about the commonality of people who have only one kidney. The discussion was not related to the IIG demonstration-it was prior to the IIG agreeing to hold the demo. Anita wanted to 'examine' him for her 'investigation', and displayed an appalling lack of sensitivity, but it was not an attempt on her part to contact someone she knew might be a subject in the demo.

Thanks for clarifying more of the details-- it's hard to know what to think about anything around here!! But I've known a LOT of con artists and I've seen their methods from my earliest childhood, and I have got to say it: I think that the whole situation smells very fishy. Based on everything that's been posted, there is too much about this setup that would have enabled Anita to get prior info and take advantage of the people involved. Getting ahold of the person who was actually the test subject would have been totally unnecessary for that project and would in fact have been counterproductive. It would have made the entire tactic too obvious, whereas the way it was (reputedly) done left Anita's hands clean and made bookitty seem to be at fault. It also left a perfect out ("oh, I have an excuse for why the test was failed!') I don't want to sound so mean, but I have seen this kind of thing before.

 

[Sun Countess]

I would like to do one more thing here though. I would like to post the protocol for the next test here and ask you to identify any issues that you see with it beforehand.

You mean like the 7 or 8 page thread that you created before this test, and where you ignored every suggestion? Why should anybody believe that you would listen to legitimate protocol issues?

You said that you couldn't read people seated behind a cloth screen because you couldn't orient yourself to their bodies quickly enough. Of course, when you're able to hover five feet away from people who are completely unhidden, you pick up on clues that don't have anything to do with kidneys. Like the fact that the woman in the third trial was 20 years older than everyone else. You basically admitted here that you thought she was a plant to trick you into picking her, and were trying to NOT pick her, even though you sensed an emptiness on the completely wrong side of her body.

Do you understand now why people were concerned about your ability to pick up on non-kidney-related cues, like age, general health, or fidgetiness? So now you agree that you need some better screens for your next test. Yet you argued so vehemently against them for this most recent test. You can't make up your mind about anything, but are just searching around for reasons that you still have some special ability that nobody else can understand, and that other people keep ruining for you in some way or another.

My goodness, you accused bookitty of ruining your test because you got your one hit with her friend. Who's fault is it that you missed in the first and third trials? Oh, that's right. The fat guy they allowed in for round one, who took so much of your energy that you got fatigued.

Now you want screens for your next "test." And when you fail that one, I predict you'll claim that the organizers tricked you by allowing fat people and black people to sit behind the screens, even though everybody knows how difficult it is to see inside of them.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thanks for clarifying more of the details-- it's hard to know what to think about anything around here!! But I've known a LOT of con artists and I've seen their methods from my earliest childhood, and I have got to say it: I think that the whole situation smells very fishy. Based on everything that's been posted, there is too much about this setup that would have enabled Anita to get prior info and take advantage of the people involved. Getting ahold of the person who was actually in the test would have been totally unnecessary for that project and would in fact have been counterproductive. It would have made the entire tactic too obvious, whereas the way it was (reputedly) done left Anita's hands clean and made bookitty seem to be at fault. It also left a perfect out ("oh, I have an excuse for why the test was failed!') I don't want to sound so mean, but I have seen this kind of thing before.

I did not know that bookitty or her acquaintance subject 24 would be in the test, and so I can't be held responsible. All the more reason to have another test without the involvement of you guys. I am quite disappointed.

Also see my comment above:
Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

My next test will be top secret.

 

[desertgal]

I did not know that bookitty or her acquaintance subject 24 would be in the test, and so I can't be held responsible.

Duh. That's what we were pointing out. I know you have trouble reading carefully, but do try to keep up.

All the more reason to have another test without the involvement of you guys. I am quite disappointed.

Aw. Woo is disappointed. B-o-o H-o-o.

Also see my comment above:
Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

Sleazy attempt to shift responsibility, even for you. In any case, Lex wasn't offering to conduct a peer review. Learn. to. read. carefully.

My next test will be top secret.

Then go away.

 

[Anthem]

I did not know that bookitty or her acquaintance subject 24 would be in the test, and so I can't be held responsible. All the more reason to have another test without the involvement of you guys. I am quite disappointed.

Also see my comment above:
Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

My next test will be top secret. I did not know that bookitty or her acquaintance subject 24 would be in the test, and so I can't be held responsible. All the more reason to have another test without the involvement of you guys. I am quite disappointed.

Yup, disappointing, as disapointing as learning about your knowledge in advance (ref. the aftermath of the test) concerning the left kidney being preferred for removal which might have played a role in you choosing the sides of the missing kidneys.

 

[roger]

Am I right that there were 37 persons guessing at home in each of the trials of the IIG Preliminary? And some of the 37 persons got some of their guesses correct? Using a simple randomizer, randomizing numbers 1 through 12, and using 1 as the correct answer, I randomized numbers 1 through 12, 37 times in a sequence, and using the number that appears on the top of the randomized list as the answer, number 1 showed up on top of the list three times.

You can not equate my answers, me being a single person, with two or three correct answers made by 37 persons guessing at random. I have not taken statistics at college, but I do know that you just can not do that.

The probability of one person guessing correctly, is not the same when 37 persons are doing that. So, if 2 persons out of 37 got the same accuracy as I did, does that suggest a 2 in 37 chance of guessing correctly to that extent? That is 5.4%.

I don't know what to make of it. But I do know I am having another test. Especially since bookitty disqualified the test. None of you Forum Skeptics will have anything to do with my next test. I won't even announce when it is taking place, until it has happened and is over.

How can you possibly be confused about the odds? The odds of your performance was given right after the trial was done - 23%. I posted the odds again higher in this thread - 23%. I wrote a program that ran the experiment 1 million times, posted the code, and ran it multiple times - the odds of success for the program to match your performance was 23%.

What you did was no different than calling a coin flip correct twice in a row.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You mean like the 7 or 8 page thread that you created before this test, and where you ignored every suggestion? Why should anybody believe that you would listen to legitimate protocol issues?

What are you on about? Several vital components of the test protocol was based on suggestions from the JREF Forum! I was just reluctant to have a remote viewing test, if that's what you're referring to.

You said that you couldn't read people seated behind a cloth screen because you couldn't orient yourself to their bodies quickly enough. Of course, when you're able to hover five feet away from people who are completely unhidden, you pick up on clues that don't have anything to do with kidneys. Like the fact that the woman in the third trial was 20 years older than everyone else. You basically admitted here that you thought she was a plant to trick you into picking her, and were trying to NOT pick her, even though you sensed an emptiness on the completely wrong side of her body.

For what ever reason, I must see the person to have the perception. And those clues will be concealed in the next test, only the backs of the subjects will be visible. Tattoos, leg braces, fresh scars, gender, and age won't be visible in the next test. You are trying to disqualify the correct answers I made in the test. And you don't like when I similarly question the incorrect answers in the test. Both your concerns, and mine, will be addressed in the next test.

Do you understand now why people were concerned about your ability to pick up on non-kidney-related cues, like age, general health, or fidgetiness? So now you agree that you need some better screens for your next test. Yet you argued so vehemently against them for this most recent test. You can't make up your mind about anything, but are just searching around for reasons that you still have some special ability that nobody else can understand

Those clues will be eliminated from the next test. I do not feel like I need those clues. If you watch Part 2 of the test and begin watching exactly 1 hour into the video you see when an audience member asks me about visual information I actually refer to those as "distractions".

I don't expect to have some special ability, but I do know that there were issues with this test that I will have addressed in the next test and so that way I can learn more. My goal is not to become a verified psychic, my goal is to learn more about what I can do, under what conditions, and how.

and that other people keep ruining for you in some way or another.

Oh, so you don't think that bookitty's information leakage before the test has ruined trial 2 for me? Ok. Thanks.

My goodness, you accused bookitty of ruining your test because you got your one hit with her friend. Who's fault is it that you missed in the first and third trials? Oh, that's right. The fat guy they allowed in for round one, who took so much of your energy that you got fatigued.

No. She is questioning the integrity of the second trial because she made information leakage before the test. How are you turning this against me? She is the one who talked.

And why are you misrepresenting what I actually say? The larger person did not make me tired, it just took me longer to see his kidneys. And I was tired in trial 3 because of trials 1 and 2 combined.

Now you want screens for your next "test." And when you fail that one, I predict you'll claim that the organizers tricked you by allowing fat people and black people to sit behind the screens, even though everybody knows how difficult it is to see inside of them.

There won't be any larger subjects in the next test. That way, if I still fail, it proves those excuses as meaningless. You can't blame me for being curious whether it would make a difference.

 

[Maia]

I did not know that bookitty or her acquaintance subject 24 would be in the test, and so I can't be held responsible. All the more reason to have another test without the involvement of you guys. I am quite disappointed.

Also see my comment above:
Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

My next test will be top secret.

Nobody will ever be able to prove that you knew. But I'm entitled to my opinion about the subject, based on the facts that we do know and also my far-more-extensive-than-I-ever-would-have-wanted-it-to-be knowledge of ASPD (and that's my opinion about what's really going on here with Anita, although I'm not going to elaborate because it's offtopic.) I have seen exactly this kind of behavior way too many times. I have known many con artists much better than I ever would have chosen to if I'd had any choice, and I know how they operate.

Top-secret sounds like a great idea, although my superpsychicpowers prediction is... (whips out crystal ball) that it won't be.

 

[desertgal]

Now you want screens for your next "test." And when you fail that one, I predict you'll claim that the organizers tricked you by allowing fat people and black people to sit behind the screens, even though everybody knows how difficult it is to see inside of them.

It's not just that black people are harder to 'read'...it's also that, according to Anita (and the KKK, among others), black people are biologically "different".

 

[Akhenaten]

I disagree. I identified two issues with the IIG test that will both be addressed and will not be an issue in the next test. Therefore, if I still produce the same inaccuracy I will be able to conclude that those excuses were meaningless. Also, internet Skeptics are questioning the accurate results, pointing out various visual information such as scars or age, and that is another reason to simply have another test that does not allow any such visual information.

You were the one who dictated the amount of visual information available for THIS test.

You don't get another chance with the IIG and you blew it on the first attempt. Why do you think people have been telling you for months and months that you need to test this thing for yourself before attempting a formal test. You refused, you failed.

Another test can only add to the results of the IIG Preliminary,

Absolutely not. What do you think the first 'I' in IIG stands for?

. . . and if there is nothing interesting to my claim, then the next test will only show that once more.

No. Just no.

And of course you understand, that after bookitty disqualifying the results of trial 2, you will have to wait until after the next test for your peer review. I am already working on setting it up.

Your pontifications are meaningless here.

ETA: It will not involve woo organizations.

Off topic

ETA: Peer review only works when peers don't disclose test sensitive information that is going to disqualify the results of that test.

You do not understand peer review.