The VFF Test is On!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not true.

You have made this statement before and it is simply not true.

Just like the JREF MDC the IIG Paranormal Challenge has a preliminary round that uses easier odds of success (usually 1:10,000) and a final round that uses harder odds of success (usually 1:1,000,000). If Anita had been successful in the preliminary then we would have gone forward on doing a final round test that would have had the odds of success to 1,000,000 to 1.

What may be causing you confusion is that for this particular preliminary we used odds of success much easier than we would have normally done because of the logistical issues involved. This preliminary took 3-4 hours to do for odds at 1,728 to 1. We could have done it with our normal 10,000 to 1 odds, but we really didn't want to ask volunteers to have to spend 8-10 hours involved in this setup.

Again, IF Anita had been successful then we would have made plans to increase the numbers of test subjects and the time necessary to do the test. This would have been a logistical nightmare that would have taken 2-3 days to do with 3-5 rounds of 10 subjects per round per day, but it would have been doable.

Thank you.

-Derek

If that's so, then I stand corrected.

So you did have a signed and agreed upon protocol for the final? I hate to contradict you, but from what you say here (and what Anita has said), it doesn't sound like you do. Does this protocol say 3, 4 or 5 rounds per day over 2 or 3 days? (In other words, are there 6 rounds or 15 rounds? That's a pretty wide range.)

Also, I thought Anita said there was no protocol for the final test yet.

I think, though, you misunderstand how the JREF MDC works. It's usually the exact same test, just done a second time. The higher odds are just calculated as doing the same test twice. At any rate, that final protocol is agreed upon--every i dotted and t crossed-- before the preliminary.

I was under the impression that the IIG and Anita had not made an agreement on a final protocol, but had postponed negotiation on that until after the preliminary demonstration.

 

[lexvonrockets]

I did make one minor unrelated error, however, when I stated: "Now, if you have 1728 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else." Actually, since there were a total of 1728 unique possible picks in Anita's test, there would have to be 1729 persons picking to guarantee that someone is going to exactly match somebody else.

This is not a minor error at all. The whole point of statistics is to calculate the PROBABILITY of a hit vs. a miss. Having 1728, or even 1729 people to make picks doesn't matter. The reality is, you could still toss a coin and come up "tails" 1729 times. Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Absolutely.

The coolest thing about math is that it always works. The uncool thing about math is that most of us don't understand it.

 

[lexvonrockets]

Lex, you make me laugh!

All too often people like Anita and Rodney act like the IIG's $50K Challenge and the JREF's $1M Challenge are investigations or scientific tests. They are not. They are challenges...<trimmed>...That's why they offer the challenges. We know the claimants won't be swayed by failure, and we really shouldn't care because it's a waste of time and energy. We should spend our efforts using these challenges as levers inserted into those minds where there's already an opening.

That's such a good point, although this challenge was conducted scientifically, it is not a science experiment. There was no real anomaly to be investigated here yeah. Real science is boring, tedious everyday stuff that sometimes leads to extraordinary results. It takes patience, interest, and a willingness to be one of the team.

And yes, I'm always psyched to find new skeptics, and I guess if it takes a show like this to pique their interest, well then, so be it. It's just that I can't help being sad that nothing on Earth will convince Anita that she doesn't need to make a fool of herself to be special.

I think Anita would be heartily embraced here and elsewhere if she were to admit that she failed the challenge and that her claims are false. People admire honesty, not bravado. People enjoy fraternity, not looking up to someone who thinks they are better than everyone else, a Star Person, if you will.

I think there's no skeptic like a reformed pseudoscientist. But, alas, this ascent into the light rarely happens.

 

[Rodney]

This is not a minor error at all.

Saying -- "Now, if you have 1728 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else" rather than "Now, if you have 1729 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else" -- is not a minor error?

The whole point of statistics is to calculate the PROBABILITY of a hit vs. a miss. Having 1728, or even 1729 people to make picks doesn't matter.

That contradicts your assertion that "This is not a minor error at all." The reality is that it does make a miniscule difference whether you have 1728 or 1729 people.

The reality is, you could still toss a coin and come up "tails" 1729 times. Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Absolutely.

For all practical purposes, an impossibility except if the coin is not fair or the paranormal is at work.

 

[GeeMack]

Saying -- "Now, if you have 1728 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else" rather than "Now, if you have 1729 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else" -- is not a minor error?


That contradicts your assertion that "This is not a minor error at all." The reality is that it does make a miniscule difference whether you have 1728 or 1729 people.


For all practical purposes, an impossibility except if the coin is not fair or the paranormal is at work.

Okay, so you still don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Got it. And since you apparently don't understand probabilities and chance and such, your comments in this thread aren't really relevant to the IIG demonstration. This isn't the place for people to be teaching you these things. So how about you show some consideration for the people here and knock off the attempted derails.

Maybe go start another thread in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology to discuss what deviation from the odds should be used to determine when something is paranormal. And get a math teacher from your high school involved in the discussion. He/she can help explain your misconceptions and maybe straighten you out on some of your mistakes.

 

[paximperium]

Okay, so you still don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Got it. And since you apparently don't understand probabilities and chance and such, your comments in this thread aren't really relevant to the IIG demonstration. This isn't the place for people to be teaching you these things. So how about you show some consideration for the people here and knock off the attempted derails.

Maybe go start another thread in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology to discuss what deviation from the odds should be used to determine when something is paranormal. And get a math teacher from your high school involved in the discussion. He/she can help explain your misconceptions and maybe straighten you out on some of your mistakes.

He claims to be taking a college level statistics course. I have never seen any evidence of that.

 

[Elvis666]

Sure. Actually, since there were a total of 1728 unique possible picks in Anita's test, there would have to be 1729 persons picking to guarantee that someone is going to exactly match somebody else.

Why? You are not specifying that each of the 1729 people each make a different pick. In that many independent cases, it is almost certain that some of them will match.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

For all practical purposes, an impossibility except if the coin is not fair or the paranormal is at work.

When was the paranormal ever at work?

I don't believe in the paranormal. Either I can't do what I think I have done in the past, or there is something interesting, but not paranormal, at work.

 

[volatile]

When was the paranormal ever at work?

I don't believe in the paranormal. Either I can't do what I think I have done in the past, or there is something interesting, but not paranormal, at work.

Anita: x-ray vision is paranormal.

 

[GeeMack]

When was the paranormal ever at work?

I don't believe in the paranormal. Either I can't do what I think I have done in the past, or there is something interesting, but not paranormal, at work.

And that's why the front page of your website says...

This website is about my paranormal claim that I perceive images that depict health information and the paranormal investigation I am doing to find out what its accuracy is. The investigation continues.

​

So how about that apology to all those people you crapped on while setting up and performing the IIG demonstration? Have you started that yet? And how is it, if you're actually mentally healthy, you can screw over so many people and still claim to be comfortable with that? You do realize having no empathy and no remorse for spitting on people is a symptom of psychopathic personality disorder, don't you?

And how about that announcement you said you'd make that you've falsified your paranormal claim to having accurate medical perceptions? How's the progress on that issue coming along, Anita? You're about a week overdue on that project.

 

[desertgal]

I don't believe in the paranormal.

Liar. You've clearly stated you believe in ghosts. You've clearly stated that you believe you can see into the human body at the atomic level. You've clearly stated that you believe you can tell the biological 'difference' between Caucasians and African Americans just by looking at one or the other for a few seconds. And so on.

Either I can't do what I think I have done in the past...

Bingo.

...or there is something interesting, but not paranormal, at work.

"Interesting". Yeah. Like sooper dooper one of a kind synesthesia that will never be diagnosed by any doctor.

 

[Uncayimmy]

When was the paranormal ever at work?

I don't believe in the paranormal. Either I can't do what I think I have done in the past, or there is something interesting, but not paranormal, at work.

Quit lying. You do believe in the paranormal. That's why you took the paranormal challenge and have steadfastly refused to look for ordinary expectations. Here are some selected quotes.

"I am not opposed to failing a test and would not take it personally. Whether this is a form of synesthesia or ESP in either case it is what it is and I continue to use it and to enjoy the benefits of it, and I do not favor one label over the other."

"In case the perceptions do not involve extrasensory perception (ESP), the study will provide such a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed as such, if I claim a statistically significant amount of incorrect perceptions. The study is thus able to falsify the claim and to end this paranormal investigation."

"Good question. Perhaps since one of the possible conclusions on my list is extrasensory perception. To my knowledge, no extrasensory perception or paranormal ability has been verified as existing by science, so obviously it is not reasonable to expect a paranormal occurrence. But in the way that I experience the medical perceptions, to me I am not guessing, I am not inventing, I am not imagining, to me I am feeling vibrational patterns, and visual images form as a result, and I confirm compelling correlation with the real world. Perhaps since "paranormal" could mean so many things, since I do not quite know what hypothesis to form based on my experience."

"That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have ESP. We can say that it is unlikely that I have ESP, or that we do not expect me to have ESP, but to say that I do not have ESP did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have ESP. And I was right about that."

"Two worlds were going on at the same time. The physical world, and the ghostly one. The girl stood right beside me and started yelling at me, "Get out of my house!" "I hate you!" "Leave!" screaming on top of her lungs but without sound in the physical world, quite loud and clear to me. Her behavior was very hostile but I reckoned it was only a girl about 13 years of age. The girl started pushing on me with all her might, "Get out of my house!" And you know what? I was experiencing an actual physical push. I was holding on to the edge of my seat tightly not to fall off the chair. There is no way my expectations or a hallucination could have done this."

"One morning years ago I woke up in my bedroom and to this date the clearest image of a ghost stood in my room. I saw him as clearly as anything in this world, although I could perceive that it was not here in the sense that you and me are. "

""He saw me and I saw him. That is usually the case with ghosts. What ever ghosts are, it is an image in which I see the image of a person from the past and we can see each other and talk to each other. That's what I perceive. I realized that it was Founding Father Benjamin Franklin. "

 

[Rodney]

He claims to be taking a college level statistics course. I have never seen any evidence of that.

I could return the compliment (which also goes for GeeMack), but I'm too nice of a person. But anytime anyone here thinks my statistical analysis is in error, please feel free to set the record straight.

 

[Lanzy]

Interesting = paranormal

My vocab grows with every visit here.

 

[Ness36]

Vision From Feeling,

Do you still maintain you can see kidneys from the quantum electron probability distribution up? That would be paranormal, since it is impossible according to the laws of physics.

After you saw kidneys that weren't there, and missed kidneys that were there, do you still claim you can see the quantum electron probability distribution?

You have not mentioned quantum electron distributions or vibrations since the scientific problems with your explanations were revealed on this forum. Have you decided not to use these explanations anymore?

I experience that what is vibrating is the substance that atoms are made of.

What is this “substance that atoms are made of”? How do you know that is what you feel vibrating and not something else?

What is the approximate frequency of the vibrations? 1 vibration per minute? 1 vibration per second? 1 vibration per 0.0000000001 seconds?

I can estimate that my computer cursor on the screen goes on and off 1 time per second. A playground swing vibrates at approx. 1 vibration per 10 seconds.

If you can sense some kind of vibrations in the body, what is your ballpark estimate for the vibration frequency?

 

[Rodney]

Why? You are not specifying that each of the 1729 people each make a different pick. In that many independent cases, it is almost certain that some of them will match.

Yes, but I'm talking about a guaranteed match.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you still maintain you can see kidneys from the quantum electron probability distribution up? That would be paranormal, since it is impossible according to the laws of physics.

Could you link me to, or repeat, the discussion of how perceiving quantum electron probability distributions is impossible according to the physical laws?

 

[volatile]

Could you link me to, or repeat, the discussion of how perceiving quantum electron probability distributions is impossible according to the physical laws?

 

[Ness36]

Could you link me to, or repeat, the discussion of how perceiving quantum electron probability distributions is impossible according to the physical laws?

I am not an expert, and I was trying to make things easily understandable to everyone, so I hope I didn't misstate anything. Please correct me if I am making a mistake.

The main reasons are:

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.

Our eyes view things with reflected light from objects. Anything smaller than the wavelength of light is unable to be seen by light based eyes or light based microscopes. To see electrons, she must emit and collect particles smaller than electrons.

2.) The electron probability distribution is not really a physical object. It is the probability an electron will be in a certain spot.



Here is a picture of an electron distribution. Where the peak is high, the electron is most likely to be. It is like a bell curve for when a professor grades a test. Most people are in the middle, a few are outliers.

Also, electrons move between different energy levels with different probability distributions constantly, like trillions of times a second. So it is even more impossible for her to see them.

3.) The electron probability distribution can be calculated by hand for Hydrogen with 1 electron. Supercomputers can calculate it for atoms with a few more electrons. It becomes so complicated after that, that no supercomputer can calculate it, so the idea that VFF can see the position of every electron in a kidney is laughable.

This like the quote that you can be either a little wrong, really wrong, or "not even wrong".

VFF is misusing these ideas so much, she is not even wrong.


Here are the posts in case you want to see them:
post 1

post 2

post 3

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here's the issue: In the type of test that Anita took, the random odds of any two persons matching picks in all three rounds (including kidney locations) are 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/1728. That, in turn, means that the odds of those two persons not matching all picks are 1727/1728. Now, if you have 1728 persons or more picking, someone is going to exactly match somebody else. However, according to the statistics that Drs_Res posted, only eight persons from the Stop Vision From Feeling contingent posted picks for both the subject and kidney location in all three rounds. That means there were only 28 possible ways of two persons exactly matching picks (Person 1 could have matched Persons 2-8, Person 2 could have also matched Persons 3-8, Person 3 could have also matched Persons 4-8, Person 4 could have also matched Persons 5-8, Person 5 could have also matched Persons 6-8, Person 6 could have also matched Persons 7-8, and Person 7 could have also matched Person 8). So, the formula for no two persons exactly matching in all three rounds with a group of eight persons is 1727 divided by 1728 (equals 0.99942), raised to the 28th power. That works out to be 0.984, or 98.4%. So did McLuvin and GeeMack just happen to defy the odds and coincidentally match every pick? Was synchronicity involved? What's the explanation?

No explanation is needed. Even if it were totally random, it was a 1 in 62 event. That's not a big deal. But this was not a random event. No dice were rolled. This was a judgment based on observation. The target persons were chosen based on demographics and nonverbal cues such as fidgeting. Choosing "left" was playing the odds, so more people were inclined to go left.

Your problem, Rodney, is that you approach probability from the wrong direction. Low probability events happen all the time. In fact, we know with great confidence how often they happen. What's important is what we do with those numbers. For example, you don't make an even money bet on a 1 in 62 event happening because you will be a big loser over time.

You keep looking at low probability events hoping to find some meaning. That's not a solid approach. And quite frankly, I grow tired of listening to you prattle on about this stuff. You may be able to crunch the numbers, but you have no idea what they really mean or when and why they should be used.