Vision From Feeling

[Moochie]

No, he just knew how to play one.

Yes, that's what I should have made clear. Thanks.


M.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Four ailments? We are all under the impression, via Anita, that Wayne listed only ONE thing on his list - past surgery to the diaphragm, which she failed to detect. Interesting that she forgot to mention that it was multiple choice.

Not all of us, can't remember who wrote it, but I'm quite sure I read it from this thread some pages ago.

EDIT: tried to find it, but couldn't, it's very possible I just had a false memory triggered by godofpies recent post. Sorry about that desertgal!

 

[Locknar]

"Ms. Iknonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim. She asserts that she can detect medical ailments by examining people, but in fact, there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even high, efficiency. The one test we have performed with her involved her looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked it with a low level of confidence. Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect. He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."

If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best.

BOLD added by Locknar

The quote from Dr Carlson is spot on - she has yet to make a specific testable claim. That aside, when she tried her ability (and btw, breaking the protocol she had set by talking with the individual she was evaluating) she got a total 100% miss. She missed the scar (she has more then once claimed to be able to "see" scar tissue), she identified a aliment the claimant did not have/confirm (ie. the throat/thyroid mentioned by Dr Carlson), when given a list of 4 ailments to choose from she was unable to do so.

Vff will counter with "I never claimed to have 100% accuracy all the time...I am simply never wrong when i sense something" (to paraphrase). This is obviously not true/correct since she DID claim to sense the throat/thyroid issue (albeit with low confidence), and this is just one of numerous misses she fails to count/consider/acknowledge.

We have folks trying to develop tests for her, offering her help, etc. - all of which she is ignoring. And why shouldn't she - she has no specific testable claim. For that matter, given her attitude and behavior she seems less then sincere thus far.

Thus far, all she has is very vague/nondescript "study" protocol that virtually anyone on the planet (even Sylvia Brown or Uri) could score high on through nothing more then random chance.

At this point I suggest the entire discussion thus far, related to her test/study, is moot and will continue to be so until SHE states a specific, testable claim.

 

[dirtygreek]

dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us do

Heh, thanks - just to be clear, I'm a veteran of internet boards, and I've been attacked before. I have read around 20 pages of this thread overall, I'd say. And anyway, so far, the responses to what I said aren't the least bit hurtful to me or anything I wouldn't expect from the internet.

What I was referring to, mainly, was the people who have been downright MEAN to Anita, when she hasn't shown any malice towards them. I can understand their being skeptical of her, maybe poking fun of her, etc, but I don't think that just because you're on a message board it's ok to be mean.

Don't expect it to change, of course - that's the net for ya - but I know for a fact that people who act mean and vile online are usually not that way in person. It's easy to be rude and mean when you don't have to look a person in the eye.

Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it. However, I salute her bravery in coming to a skeptics board and coming in person to a skeptics meeting. If she was trying to scam skeptics, that would be really stupid, and I don't believe for a second she's stupid.

 

[steenkh]

Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it.

That is also how I see it.

However, as the pages grow in this thread, and Anita is not showing any improving understanding of her failures, or simply showing a willingness to be tested in reality, her claims and trying to bring them to the test is becoming less and less interesting. I salute those who can still manage to take Anita seriously!

 

[dirtygreek]

dirtygreek - what were your impressions of Anita's friend Chris?
Was it her boyfriend? Was was he like?

He's not here and not really a part of this discussion, but either way my impressions of him were very limited. He said only a few things, mainly making some suggestions as to how the testing could proceed. I can't say whether they were dating - I have no reason to think they were or weren't from the limited time I saw them together.

 

[EHocking]

Well, I'd think that most scammers would not waste time trying to convince skeptics. They usually go for those who already believe their abilities are real. Delusional people, however, "know" that their abilities are real so there is no reason to avoid skeptics.

It is my opinion that Anita is attempting to use sceptics, sceptical societies and JREF as a way to legitimise her scam.

Excerpts from her "study":

The involvement of skeptics is crucial in order to raise the quality of the outcome of the study.

Appeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
[

When person approach who are intereste in volunteering...

Scam part. There is absolutely no control over her "salting" the volunteers with people she knows.

"COntrol" by skeptic

Appeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
Will be used as a "see I'm better than a SKEPTIC

Skeptic is encourage to attempt any skills of cold reading or guessing to form his/her answers.

Appeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
Will be used as a "see I'm better than a SKEPTIC.

Why not use a doctor skilled in diagnosis?

..or even produce random anwers, so that a a very fough and probably even useless estimate of the type of correlation between the answers of someone who is not a paranormal claimant and the answers of the vol78nteers can be estimated at the end of the study and kind of "subtracted" from the apparent correlatioin with the claimant's answers.

Scam part. Fiddle the figures in order to make the results match the claim.

The practical part of the study is considered finished either when the claimant has a reason for it,... or for any other unforeseen reasons.

Scam part. When Anita realises that the number of unknown volunteers is more than her stooges, she'll call a halt so as not to ruin her chances of success.

The claimant reserves the right to have plenty of say in who is assigned what position, and the right to decline a person from participating or even attending the study.

Scam part. Cherry pick your volunteers and subjects.

Goals:
To try out various test conditions, such as seeing the volunteer from behind...to establish the average time it takes for the claimant to finish viewing a person.

Scam part. She already claims that she can visualies a 3D model of the insides of a person, from any angle, with only a glance.

We are being used as dupes in a scam.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Whether a person claiming paranormal ability is a knowing fraud , delusional, a joker or an idiot (or any combination thereof) should be, at most, a secondary concern for JREF or the forum members.
The primary question of interest is this:-"Can this person do what he/ she claims to be able to do?"

Is there anyone active in this thread who feels anything in the thread leads them to think the answer is "yes" in this case? If not, I suggest it has run its course.

 

[desertgal]

What I was referring to, mainly, was the people who have been downright MEAN to Anita, when she hasn't shown any malice towards them.

In all fairness, I'm, not sure that is accurate. Before this thread degenerated into whatever it is now, three people here, in an effort to show Anita where we were drawing our conclusions about her pattern of delusional thinking, shared highly personal information about our own battles with psychosis, depression, and a schizo disorder. Believe me, when you have battled a mental illness, sharing it with strangers, even in the interest of helping someone, isn't the easiest thing to do.

She then turned our experiences around and began attacking the original three and several other posters as being mentally ill. She did it repeatedly, often without just cause at posters who hadn't written a word about their opinion of her state of mind.

I'd say that was pretty malicious.

 

[Belz...]

It is my opinion that Anita is attempting to use sceptics, sceptical societies and JREF as a way to legitimise her scam.

That's a real possibility, of course. But personally I'm inclined to think she's just deluded. Either way, nobody here believes that she has an ability, so she hasn't made any progress...

 

[desertgal]

And the other ideas canvassed are, c) a psychological field study of some kind; and d) hoax.

I'm leaning toward the "woo entrepreneur" -- the "Amazing Anita," if you will.


M.

But, as I've been trying to point out to Anita, "hoax" and "woo entrepeneur" can be just another delusion.

Look, if I sit here and think that elephants can be pink and they can fly, that's a delusional thought. Harmless in itself, but still delusional.

If I take it further, and convince myself that it is fact, and create false memories to prove that 'fact' to myself, and attempt to sell people that bit of my delusional reality, that's a pattern of delusional thought.

If I take it in another direction, and acknowledge the fact that there are no pink flying elephants, I could still attempt to perpetuate another delusion: that I can convince logical people that there are, with invented anecdotes and the like. A different delusion, but still exhibiting a delusional pattern. Especially if it is accompanied with delusions of believing that I can win the Nobel Prize with such a claim, and become the most heralded woman on Earth.

As I said before, I think a lot of woos are delusional, to more or less degree. Especially if they come here and try to sell their claims-because it is deluded, in itself, to think that skeptics will buy that there are flying pink elephants.

I don't think Anita is pulling a cold blooded scam. She's too irrational and illogical for that. Whether she believes her claim or not, I'm not sure - I believe she did at the beginning, but is starting to see the light - she still appears to be clinging to the delusion that she can sell it here.

Very different from, say, Sylvia Browne-whom, I believe, doesn't think for one second that she is truly psychic, and who purposely targets only the woo audience to sell her claim. She knows skeptics aren't going to buy it - and she doesn't delude herself into thinking they will.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bottom line:

If Anita really wanted to submit to a legitimate test of her claims, she could have done so long, long ago ..

That's what she claims to have come here for, yet she has failed to submit to any number of simple tests that would verify her abilities if they existed.

So, what is she really here for ?

Since her purpose is clearly to not be tested in any meaningful way, she has some other purpose ..

The only thing we can say without a doubt, is that she is a liar.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And we know this, how?

When I say that she hasn't scammed anyone yet, by definition it's "that we know of." If she's done it under the VisionFromFeeling brand that she's setting up to be the next great psychic doctor, there's no evidence of it on the web.

 

[desertgal]

Not all of us, can't remember who wrote it, but I'm quite sure I read it from this thread some pages ago.

EDIT: tried to find it, but couldn't, it's very possible I just had a false memory triggered by godofpies recent post. Sorry about that desertgal!

No problem.

For the record, Jim said, in his previous post about the meeting: "I then asked the person that had held the paper what had been written on it ( I personally never saw the paper) and they told me that Wayne had written down that he had a scar on his chest from surgery on his diaphragm but other than that, he was healthy." There's no indication in his post, though, that he was aware that Wayne had written down four things and asked Anita to choose one of them. Considering the locale, and the fact that Jim was talking to other skeptics about other things, he may not have been.

Anita says, on her website: "After checking again and again, logically expecting there to be a list of interesting and significant ailments, since, after all, he was so eager to volunteer then surely he would "have something" for me to find, and after all he had made a list!...He did write one information on his paper, which was a severed diaphragm from an accident. Knowing what was there to find, I still couldn't find it and I said so."

Anita, this is a good example of why so many of us have pointed out to you that your "anecdotes" and your alleged apparent accuracy should not be used as evidence, by you, to move forward with testing. ALL human memory is flawed - apparently, in this case, in favor of your paranormal ability. Your 'accuracy' is completely subjective.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it. However, I salute her bravery in coming to a skeptics board and coming in person to a skeptics meeting. If she was trying to scam skeptics, that would be really stupid, and I don't believe for a second she's stupid.

Somehow, these two notions don't jibe, IMO.


M.

 

[Moochie]

When I say that she hasn't scammed anyone yet, by definition it's "that we know of." If she's done it under the VisionFromFeeling brand that she's setting up to be the next great psychic doctor, there's no evidence of it on the web.

As I've said before, I do not believe a single thing this poster has said. I do, however, suspect that someone's perpetrating a giant leg-pull. I'm not sure if it's a humorous leg-pull or not.


M.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Kinda like you posted earlier, this is all our "opinions" based on experience.

Well, that's your opinion. Seriously, though, I'm going to argue and challenge you on this, but it's just my opinion. I'm genuinely interested in learning from your experience.

well, we really dont know where the true "starting point" is but the fact she came here is evidence she wants publicity. She initiated the act and that indicates a premeditated purpose and intent. Now she demonstrates a pattern of deliberate lies and ducking. This is a test for "something"- just dont know what yet.

The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.

youth and inexperience but shes "smart enough" to test her strategy before she launches her career.

Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?

I can see patient and I can give you a loose parallel. Its Roger Patterson and the famous PGF ( bigfoot film). He was a scammer who devoted YEARS to "searching" and wrote books before he got a suit and made what can be argued as a very controversial film. He made some decent money.

Was he delusional or "slick"

I don't even think he was slick. He also produced a movie about Bigfoot narrated with "circus-like prose" a full year before the famous PGF. It was a for-profit movie marketed to Bigfoot believers. I don't like this comparison because it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Whether a person claiming paranormal ability is a knowing fraud , delusional, a joker or an idiot (or any combination thereof) should be, at most, a secondary concern for JREF or the forum members.
The primary question of interest is this:-"Can this person do what he/ she claims to be able to do?"

The answer to that has been a resounding "no" since the beginning. The E in JREF stands for educational. The discussion of her motivations is educational for all of us. Frauds, deluded persons, jokers, and idiots (and combinations thereof) require different techniques not only in detection but in how they are dealt with.

And just to clarify once again, Anita does not have a specific claim. That's something else that needs to be taught or exposed or whatever based on what you think is behind her continued insistence.

Is there anyone active in this thread who feels anything in the thread leads them to think the answer is "yes" in this case? If not, I suggest it has run its course.

Yes. Her name is Anita. If she's a fraud, she should be exposed. If she's deluded, she should get help. If she's an idiot, she should be taught. If she's a joker, she should be ignored.

 

[dirtygreek]

Somehow, these two notions don't jibe, IMO.

You don't think intelligent people can be fooled by subconscious thoughts? Have you MET any human beings? Perhaps we're referring to a different species.

 

[Ashles]

Okay Unca, from the point of view of the Hit:Miss falsification analysis I agree that any ailment suffered more one month prior to testing should also be ignored. Also in any instance where the volunteer has not specified a time frame the answer should be ignored.

Anita has not, as far as I am aware, stated she can tell an entire life's worth of medical history (although maybe she has somewhere) and all of her claimed strongest ailities and experiences describe current health issues, or permanent remnants of previous activities (scars, vasectomies etc.)

So my proposed falsification scenario is:

Only the answers where the ailment is described 'Now', 'Past Week' or 'Month' are eligible for analysis for the purposes of the Falsification Analysis.
All possible responses by Volunteer and Anita are listed below.
The purple text describes Anita's personal view of acuracy. This is only of relevance to Anita herself.
The Red/Green text describes how we will treat the answers for the purposes of falsification analysis.

Volunteer: N Anita: N
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis: 0% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 1 Anita: N
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 1
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 4
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 5
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 2 Anita: N
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 2
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 4
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 5
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: N
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 1
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 3
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 5
Analysis: 60% H- Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: N
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 1
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 4
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 5
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: N
Analysis: 0% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 1
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 2
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 5
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

​

Assumptions:
No conclusions (except for the Falsification Scenario below) are to be drawn from this Study by either Anita or Skeptics. This study is entirely for Anita to learn more about the limitations of the ability for her own purposes and so that if a proper test is ever done Anita will finally be able to detail what the ability actually specifically claims, to within what tolerances and under what conditions, and pass/fail details provided.
Falsification Scenario - If the ratio of Hits:Misses is 1:5 or worse this Study will be declared to have falsified the likelihood of any ability (whatever method is claimed) existing. It can be concluded there is no ability present so no further investigation is required.


Any major objections to any of this?