• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

Uncayimmy

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
7,345
I saw this on VisionFromFeeling's website:

www.VisionFromFeeling.com
I will be making a guest appearance on the Radio Show at the Rational Alchemy, starring Skeptics Jeff Wagg, Brian Walsh, and Nigel Aves. We discuss my IIG test for an entire hour!

I can't see how this type of interview advances skepticism. In my mind once a claimant fails the test, they should be granted no more publicity at the expense of skeptics. We've seen post hoc rationalizations from VFF and pretty much every claimant who has failed a test. The idea behind these challenges is to get them to stop talking and start proving. On the rare occasion we get one to step up to the challenge, what good can come from giving them a platform for talking again?

Her IIG test has been talked to death. The video tape is there for those who missed it. The IIG has been interviewed about it. What is the purpose of giving her a platform, especially when the interviewees seemingly don't participate in the discussions here? That's just the type of thing that can be exploited.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't understand why she is being interviewed on a skeptics program especially one that involves Mr. Wagg. IMO that is playing right into Ms. Ikonen's new modality of being a premier skeptic. This is a woman who has advocated and given lectures about Breatharian principles and who peddled this woo on a website and YouTube videos. This person failed the IIG test and yet broke her promise to falsify the claim if she failed. She's also broken her promises to the posters on this board who spent a large amount of time helping her with writing a protocol (which she blithely discarded) This is a person who posted private information about members, harassed an admin and several posters via PM and, to top it all off, put a fake link in her signature which would have meant instant banning on many other forums. At the moment Ms. Ikonen is suspended again. I really have to wonder why anyone would want to promote her and her failed ideas. Sorry for the rant but I find this whole situation ludicrous.
 
I saw this on VisionFromFeeling's website:



I can't see how this type of interview advances skepticism. In my mind once a claimant fails the test, they should be granted no more publicity at the expense of skeptics. We've seen post hoc rationalizations from VFF and pretty much every claimant who has failed a test. The idea behind these challenges is to get them to stop talking and start proving. On the rare occasion we get one to step up to the challenge, what good can come from giving them a platform for talking again?

Her IIG test has been talked to death. The video tape is there for those who missed it. The IIG has been interviewed about it. What is the purpose of giving her a platform, especially when the interviewees seemingly don't participate in the discussions here? That's just the type of thing that can be exploited.

What are your thoughts on this?

It seems the more they fail her the more they hail her
 
VFF will surely benifit from Jeff Wagg's presence.His acceptance to debate openly with her on Radio convinces outsiders that VFF is maybe worthy of celebrity status.
 
At first blush, I must say this news royally ****** me off. Giving her yet another platform for her nonsense only implies a sense of legitimacy to any listeners who are unaware of her history. It could be that they are planning to confront her in an attempt to convince her that her claim has been completely falsified. But anyone who has followed the train wreck that is Anita Ikonen on these pages knows such attempts are worthless. Why have her on? Why not just speak about the test, and how clearly she failed?

I am open to changing my mind given proper explanations as to why she is appearing, but I confess at the moment I cannot think of any rational reason for this, and I find this news infuriating.
:mad:
 
Last edited:
I don't know the reason she is on. I have a suspicion, however. Despite my repeated requests to only contact me through a lawyer (she has threatened lawsuits and police action over my website), she again e-mailed me. Somehow, this time it ended up in my spam folder, so I didn't see it until after I posted this.

In this e-mail she asked me to speak with her over Skype (I have refused all such requests to speak with her and told her never to ask again) to explain to her why her claim was falsified. She wanted to record the conversation, which she implied would be interview style, so she could post it on her website. She's made noises about being willing to listen and that since everybody is telling her she's wrong, maybe she is wrong.

Of course, there were key phrases that indicate to me that this is nothing more than an attempt to prolong discussing her claim. She told me, "TELL ME the truth! Show me the evidence!" What have we all been doing for the last 18 months? What was the point of the test? And notice that burden is on me to present evidence that something doesn't exist.

She tried to manipulate me by writing, "Isn't that what you're trying to do? With your website? To "stop" me? Well, now is one of those times when that could happen." You see, if I would only talk to her so she could record it and post it on her website, "Everyone who stumbles upon my website would thus for sure have access to your opinions about my claim."

The reason I am confident this relates to the interview is that she told me that she has already had a similar conversation with Jeff Wagg and recorded it. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put two and three together.

I am also confident that is just another grab for attention. Last year in one of our early Skype chats she asked me, "Do you really think I am mentally ill?" I had just made a long post going symptom by symptom listed in the DSM-IV and giving examples of her behavior. Did she think I was joking? The conversation went nowhere. She insisted she had no money to get professional help (the school has free counseling) and didn't need it anyway. Several months later I learned from her that these statements were far more misleading than I first imagined.

Then over the holidays I received an e-mail from her (again, long after being told not to contact me) saying in effect that if she disappears on-line it's because she is dead. She told me she was being checked for heart problems at the hospital, but they could find nothing wrong. They said it was a panic attack, but she knew it wasn't. She felt obligated to express her appreciation and love for me in case she died.

I see this latest request from her as nothing more than the same. She's acting like she's going to come around on her claims, but let's not forget she said the IIG test would "falsify" her claims if she failed. If you watch the video, she failed on the very first trial. However, she conveniently had in her notes that two people might be missing a kidney. She was very excited and began telling the audience that she actually did get it right because of her other guess. That is, until it was pointed out that the target was actually a third person and not her alternate.

This is why I don't believe it's a good idea to interview her. It's going to be more of the same old routine where she pays lip service to falsifying her claims. Noticeably absent from her request for an interview with me is what she would do if I convinced her (as if I have anything new to add). There was no offer to take down her site or post a retraction. The offer was what she would want - to post my voice for the world to hear.

And, of course, there was no indication of what it would take to convince her. As skeptics we should always be able to offer a scenario of "if you show me this evidence, I will change my position." She made no such offer. I was just invited to give my opinion and allow her to respond. Having dealt with her extensively, it was quite transparent.

She desperately wants to keep talking about her claims. It's been almost a decade now since she started with Alenara. Nothing has changed.
 
This is a woman who has advocated and given lectures about Breatharian principles and who peddled this woo on a website and YouTube videos.

And still is. That website remains up, despite Anita's claim that she has "begun taking it down". (Begun taking it down? She either takes it down or she doesn't. It's not an extensive procedure.)

Heck, she tried to peddle breatharianism here, even before the 'Alenara' information came to light, by reviving a five year old thread.

At first blush, I must say this news royally ****** me off. Giving her yet another platform for her nonsense only implies a sense of legitimacy to any listeners who are unaware of her history. It could be that they are planning to confront her in an attempt to convince her that her claim has been completely falsified. But anyone who has followed the train wreck that is Anita Ikonen on these pages knows such attempts are worthless. Why have her on? Why not just speak about the test, and how clearly she failed?

I am open to changing my mind given proper explanations as to why she is appearing, but I confess at the moment I cannot think of any rational reason for this, and I find this news infuriating.
:mad:

Ditto here. I'm not holding my breath for an explanation, though. :(

Audible Click said:
IMO that is playing right into Ms. Ikonen's new modality of being a premier skeptic...

Yep. Unless Jeff Wagg and the others on the program intend to make the point that Ms. Ikonen's new modality as a premier skeptic would only have validity after she performs a detailed critical examination of all her own claims. But, I'm not holding my breath for that, either. :(
 
The episode is up at the Rational Alchemy website. Listening now.
 
The episode is up at the Rational Alchemy website. Listening now.

I got 40 odd minutes into it.

This is what Anita told Jeff Wagg:

"I recently had an experience where I tried to heal a man who is having devastating migraines, and he thinks it worked so now I'm having to investigate whether I'm a healer"

Jeff Wagg didn't pull her up on it, he wanted her to tell him about her ghosts claim. I don't know if he said anything about her above statement later, because I stopped listening in disgust.

Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.

What would James Randi say?
 
Last edited:
snipped

This is why I don't believe it's a good idea to interview her. It's going to be more of the same old routine where she pays lip service to falsifying her claims.

She desperately wants to keep talking about her claims. It's been almost a decade now since she started with Alenara. Nothing has changed.

I know you aren't so stupid as to "interview" her.
She refers to the radio gig as "starring Jeff Wagg".
Says it all really.
 
Farencue said:
Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.

:confused:

She should be given credit towards her claimed paranormal ability for admittedly guessing half right?
 
Last edited:
Well, heck, they should just give her credit for Trial 2, then. I mean, she guessed wrong, but, hey, one of the subjects was missing a kidney.
 
When will the circus ever end?

Anita has FAILED every single test. She has harassed and threatened forum members and has made several attempts to practice her woo that clearly violate multiple ethical guidelines.

The podcast describes her as a paranormal claimant - NO - her claims have been debunked. Why anyone would give her the time of day by putting them on a podcast amazes me. The interviewer was not even the least critical and asked no hard hitting questions. Nothing even as simple as "Did you consider alternatives to your medical perceptions powers - like that you may have mental images that are the product of your imagination?"
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of a quote:
"Just because the monkey is off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town" :boggled:

I was thinking more along the lines of "Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”.
 

Back
Top Bottom