The VFF Test is On!

[Akhenaten]

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.

So was Bernie Madoff, from the reports I've read.

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.

You do not understand peer review.

My next test will be top secret.

Have you considered shutting up about it? Silence is often a big help in maintaining secrecy.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Anita, do you have anything to say about chillzero's recent post?

yes, anita, please read chillzero's post carefully. it may help you.

 

[snoop_doxie]

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".

oh no, she di'int! holy smokes batman, better bring out the white cloaks.
what a waste of time and talent for everyone who tried to help this person.

 

[bookitty]

This is dreadful! I absolutely did not notice subject 24's leg brace! My choice was purely based on my perception of his left kidney being missing, and I was highly confident in my answer because I clearly detected all but two kidneys being present!

bookitty, thank you so much for volunteering yourself and your friend for my IIG test. But you have just disqualified the test results and kind of ruined it. You knew that this would be an issue beforehand, I highly doubt that this is an issue you would have identified only after the test had taken place. Still, you willingly signed yourself up and your friend, and knowingly ruined my test.

I paid close to $1,000 to arrange the whole thing. How could you?

This is why it took me days to decide whether to offer this information. I had a feeling that VFF would spin it into a pity party and away from the more interesting question of hot/warm/cold reading.

To be clear, I did not knowingly ruin your test. I didn't know enough about the protocol to know that you would be able to recognize him, or that he would still be in a leg brace. My primary concern was the tattoos because it was mentioned that he was a musician. But this is LA, many of the subjects will have tattoos, right? Wrong, as it turned out. He was the only one with full sleeves.

But there is no possible way that getting one right gives you the basis for another test. Legbracegate* is a flaw but the results still stand. You failed. Not only did you fail but you have proven that you can not see a missing kidney. All of your excuses boil down to that simple fact. Your new test illuminates that fact. Your description of what you saw/felt/etc during the demonstration proves that fact.



*awesomesauce.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Your test, your protocol (which you loved), your responsibility.

Gøøgle is your friend. Do a search on 'weasel words'.

For what ever reason, I must see the person to have the perception.

Yeah, we know exactly how it works:

I was pleased to find that not only do the perceptions work if I see the person from behind, but that I would actually prefer that. I learned that I only need a few seconds to form and conclude on the perceptions.​

Linky


Except that it doesn't.

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.

Off topic.

Those clues will be eliminated from the next test. I do not feel like I need those clues. If you watch [redacted] 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".

Completely irrelevant.

I don't expect to have some special ability,

Then your expectations align with reality. Stop now.

but I do know that there were issues with this test . . .

Yes, you failed it. I can see how that would be an issue for you. Deal.

. . . 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.

Your next test, your continuing education and your goals are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

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

What ruined it for you is that it was part of your overall failed test.

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.

Waaaaahmbulance despatched. Hang in there.

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.

It's just around the corner. Can you hear the siren?

There won't be any larger subjects in the next test. That way, if I still fail, it proves those excuses as meaningless.

You don't like the topic of this thread at all. do you?

You can't blame me for being curious whether it would make a difference.

Nobody blames you for anything, Anita. That's probably your saddest misinterpretation of what's going on here.

 

[Akhenaten]

<I was gentle>

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

Verily, thou hav'st ye meane.

 

[bookitty]

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

You seem to be missing something here. Even if there was no problem with the second trial, it is meaningless. Getting one right, even without any visual clues, is too close to chance.

Now you are going on about another kidney test with different controls. Why? You failed. You proved, especially in trial number 3, that you do not see missing kidneys. There is no reason to test this again.

The most important thing we've learned from legbracegate is that humans are difficult subjects for an investigation. If you truly want to learn, then pick one of your many claims that use inanimate objects. The results will be definite.

If you continue to insist on another test with human subjects, I will be forced to conclude that you only want the pageantry and care nothing for the science. Please, don't restate your usual muck about "strongest perceptions" and "main claim." The eye-rolling gives me a headache and I've already suffered one migraine while helping you out.

 

[Uncayimmy]

To be clear, I did not knowingly ruin your test.

You didn't ruin the test. What you did (well, the IIG) was make it *easier* for Anita because she knew in advance that there was a person in the Los Angeles area who was recovering from a major accident and was missing a kidney. This person directly connected to someone who knew about the test (you), and after the test was announced, you got kinda quiet.

This could only help her. It could not possibly hurt her. It didn't hurt the lady with the sonogram, did it? Nothing she [Anita] describes could possibly affect someone who can do what she claims.

This simple fact continually gets lost in these discussions. The protocols are designed so that the *only* way to get "right" answers is if the ability exists. The "faults" are almost always in favor of making it easier to guess or otherwise arrive at answers through ordinary means.

Replace "missing kidney" with "missing limb" and think about how easy the test would be for Anita.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If you truly want to learn, then pick one of your many claims that use intimate objects. The results will be definite.

Count me in as a judge for this one !

 

[bookitty]

Count me in as a judge for this one !

Wow, that is my best typo ever.

 

[jhunter1163]

That is THE best typo ever.

 

[Akhenaten]

Last edited by bookitty; Today at 09:15 AM. Reason: Wee bit of a typo

Oh yeah, that's fixed it just fine.

 

[bookitty]

Oh yeah, that's fixed it just fine.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Ask us to spend time and effort helping you again? After everyone here explained problems with every protocol you've suggested already, and after you ignored every piece of legitimate criticism? And when the things you now claim were wrong with the IIG protocol were exactly the things we suggested you fix? And after you said the IIG protocol was perfect and went ahead anyway? Help you again only so you can crap on us again? Really?

Have you set that appointment with a competent mental health professional yet? Do remember to ask him/her about psychopathic personality disorder.

 

[bookitty]

Well now, this is interesting. VFF links to the Natasha Demkina test on her website and says this about it (bolding mine):
Anyhow, I am a great supporter of the Demkina test, because at the expense of some of the rigour of a test, it allowed for Natasha to be comfortable with the procedure, and she failed to meet the agreed upon criteria for success and the claim was concluded on as falsified.

Natasha Demkina got 4 out of seven correct. The protocol required five out of seven and so she failed.

More info here:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_natasha/

 

[GeeMack]

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.

"... and when I fail the test I will announce to the world that my paranormal claim to medical perceptions has been falsified."

... or take a crap on every single person who works with her in good faith and spends any amount of time and effort helping, and bitch and moan for weeks, and refuse to take responsibility for her own actions, and blame everyone for her troubles, and cry persecution a lot, and demand yet more help with yet another test when she fails the next one.

Bets anyone?

 

[desertgal]

Have you set that appointment with a competent mental health professional yet? Do remember to ask him/her about psychopathic personality disorder.

Better yet, Anita, ask him/her how narcissists deal with psychopathic personality disorder AND fictitious synesthesia.

 

[Maia]

You didn't ruin the test. What you did (well, the IIG) was make it *easier* for Anita because she knew in advance that there was a person in the Los Angeles area who was recovering from a major accident and was missing a kidney. This person directly connected to someone who knew about the test (you), and after the test was announced, you got kinda quiet.

But so did Anita. My considered opinion is that she knew at least something about what was going on and kept quiet about it for the express purpose of a.) making it easier for herself to pass the test and b.) giving herself an "out" if/when she failed the test. That's my opinion; nobody has to agree with me, but I have seen many a con pulled in my day and this has all the earmarks of one. Considering everything else that we know has gone on here, it doesn't seem too farfetched to believe.

P.S.: Hey, desertgal-- let's not forget about antisocial personality disorder! That REALLY would be my vote. And it's not true that more men than women are affected, either.

 

[Marcus]

That's incorrect. The "claim" is false from the very start because she says she can do something no other human has ever demonstrated using means completely unknown to science. There is nothing to "falsify". It is up to her to demonstrate that something is happening that's worth investigating. She has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that informally or formally.

Please don't fall into the trap of using her "falsify" terminology because it lends an air of legitimacy that is undeserved. She's simply unwilling to let go of her fantasies.

I'm not quite following you. How can a claim be proven false if it hasn't been tested? I would go with "very unlikely" , but if the claim was proven false before the test, there would be no point in having the test.

 

[Kariboo]

So in an earlier thread we had this exchange of sorts

So I would suggest that you start working on setting up a test yourself. Leaving you with a very unspecified claim (you don't know under which circumstances you can detect a kidney; you don't know if you will get sick after reading 2 people, similarly to the lactobacillust test;

And before you test all that and are certain what you can do under which circumstances doing a test with IIG is pointless, since at that test you can claim anything is getting in the way of your 'ability' because you don't know how it works. That would mean they could spend an enormous amount of time setting this up just to find out you can only function at a waxing moon or with people below a certain weight.

To which you replied

Before starting the test I sign a statement that I find the conditions of the test such as lighting, room temperature and my breakfast agreeable.

LAter:

How do you know this beforehand? 1. There are no conditions that are averse to you. 2) there ARE conditions that are averse to you and then the test will have to be canceled, not a great idea. 3) You are ok in the beginning but get tired/nauseous during the test. The test will have to be canceled. Since this has happened before how do you know it won't happen again? If you know beforehand that you are able to sign this declaration then why include it? Also how can you be sure beforehand, excluding just wishful thinking.

You again:

I will sign a statement before beginning the test, and then before seeing each person and after seeing each person, and then again after having seen all ten persons. It's ok, all it takes is a signature and a statement.

Claim: Detecting whether a person has one or two kidneys.

Conditions: All I do is look at the person with my eyes. The distance between me and the person is 3 feet. I only see the back of the person. The person's head, neck, arms, and body beneath pelvis are screened off. The person's back need not be bare and the person is wearing a shirt of their choice. The person is seated during the test and I am seated during the test.

I require normal room temperature and not heavily air conditioned. The test will take place indoors and with normal lighting. I require no speaking with the person or other interaction such as touching. I need no prior information about the person. I ask for 15 minutes of time to see each person. Pen and paper so that I can take notes on my perceptions.

There are no other conditions that would affect the performance of my claim. I have no additional requirements other than those given here.

So why reneg on that now with your claims about weight and nausea???