• 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.

VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

Hi, just a quick note to say how glad I am the woman is on Bad Pychics and how amazed I am she still continues with the same tactics.
 
GeeMack said:
No. Actually you'll notice from the excuses she just presented in this thread, she failed the test, 100%, and that convinced her all the more that she might have magical x-ray vision.

Also you may recall that a handful of people who never claimed to have any magical powers got the same results on the test as she did. How? Maybe it was just blind luck. Interesting that the non-psychics could get correct answers by guessing, yet the self proclaimed possessor of magical abilities thinks her lucky guesses mean her powers could be real.

As to the follow up, rather than take the high road and be scientific about it, she chose to spit on the dozens and dozens of people who tried to help her, and she hand-waved away the failure. Her rationalization, backpedaling, and excuses can be found in this thread and on her own web site. She rejected her failure even though she had clearly stated before the test that the protocol was perfect, and she unambiguously stated that failure would end her claims of magical abilities. It was a lie.

Her response was predicted by several members of this forum. And it didn't take anyone with psychic powers to make those correct predictions. On the other hand, after having repeatedly proven herself a liar, it was easy. Nobody really expected her to carry through with any honesty or scientific integrity after the test.
Click to expand...

What can I say ? Call me an eternal optimist. I still don't get why people can't realise when they DON'T have special powers. I know how it works, I just don't understand it. I used to think I could bust clouds and such and such, and I when I forced myself to notice the misses I concluded that I couldn't, on my own. I would think that, in controled conditions under a protocol I agreed to, it would be even more damning.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
<snip>

If it weren't for a sometimes uncanny accuracy of my medical perceptions, I would never have had a reason to formulate the paranormal claim around them and to begin to investigate.

<snip>
Click to expand...

And that's where the problem lies. There is no such thing as "sometimes uncannily accurate" or (rather, there is and it is shared by every human on the planet.) You are either right all the time which would be uncannily accurate. Or you are sometimes right in the simple uncanny way of luck.

Ah, but you know when you are right? I'm afraid that's not the case. If you view the videos you can see where you make a few scattered comments which could go either way. Even on the ones in which you say you knew, one way or the other, you still expressed doubts or confidence. Your claim of "knowing" is as easily falsified as it is nonsensical.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
If it weren't for a sometimes uncanny accuracy of my medical perceptions, I would never have had a reason to formulate the paranormal claim around them and to begin to investigate.
Click to expand...
This is an outright lie and blatant attempt to draw attention back to yourself. As Alenara the Breatharian you gave lectures and wrote numerous articles where you claimed to have the same abilities you claim now. This was all several years ago and long before the VisionFromFeeling character and the IIG test.

Back then you used your "abilities" to get attention in the form of lectures and websites. There was no "doubt" about them. No investigation. You told people to accept it as The Truth that you could see things like prana. Fast forward several years and once again you are using your abilities to garner attention. This time it's from skeptics as you pretend like there's some sort of investigation.

It's the same pattern, only we skeptics are not as gullible as the people who bought into your breatharian nonsense. You have failed all of your tests, and you have made a wide variety of incredibly ridiculous claims. When taken as a whole, it is quite clear that you are engaged in little else beyond seeking attention.

It's a shame that you keep coming back here, but you probably can't help yourself. Fortunately, your antics are well documented. The chances of you getting a new audience are pretty slim until you switch to yet another identity.
 
Oh you guys. Please take the time to read www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html and www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html#IIGPreliminary before you comment on the claim being over. I don't think it's over yet. You guys said it was over before it had even begun, you all said I never detected the kidney being missing in Dr. Carlson, when in fact I did. There is an interesting claim. It has got nothing to do with me, I am not doing this for attention. I am investigating something here, and if you do not like it then just step back and don't participate. You can not discourage me from my work.
 
Anita, you know full-well that I've read every word you've ever written on the Web.

Your claim is sunk and whatever it is that you're doing, it does not qualify for the distinction of being referred to as 'work'.

It's unmitigated drivel, and the sooner you stop it, the sooner you can begin to at least claw back sufficient credibility to become some kind of science student.

Hope springs eternal, and luck's a fortune, but I'm not going to hold ny breath, just at the moment.

Give it away mate. It's so over.
 
Sorry Dave, you fall in the same category as other internet Skeptics who wouldn't believe that I am from Sweden, or that I am studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, or who simply choose to call anything I say lies and delusion even when they are fact and true.

I will have another test, one that corrects for two of the issues that I encountered in the first one, namely that larger persons take me longer time to see through and that three trials is too much in one day. If I then form perceptions that I am confident in as correct only to find out that they are inaccurate, the claim can then be falsified.

A claim is not falsified simply because you "say so". Do you not know how research is done in a chemistry lab for instance? When you have a desired chemical reaction that you want to acchieve in a laboratory setting, you begin by designing a laboratory procedure which based on your knowledge should best allow for the desired reaction to take place. But if it fails, you do not give up on the work. You then start to look at all the parameters involved and tweak one of them at a time. You can vary the concentration of reagents, the reaction time, reaction temperature, or perhaps add a catalyst, and very often only by such careful laboratory work can a delicate phenomenon or product be acchieved and observed.

If you are in the chemistry lab and you are observing the experiment take place and you find reason to suspect that the temperature was too high, you will redo the experiment at a reduced temperature.

I will alter the test procedure and make it better from both my perspective and also improved in terms of test standard.

There is nothing you can say to discourage me from my work, and yes it is work. I absolutely did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney, and it was the strongest perception I have ever had. And I was absolutely confident in the accuracy of my answer in trial 2 of the IIG test and was going to falsify the whole claim had I been incorrect.

You should encourage woos to investigate and to test themselves. And, again, a claim is not falsified simply because "a Skeptic said so". There is more evidence in favor of the claim, than against. Even if your prejudice and predetermined mind is telling you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Because the post that I've quoted below is another attempt to derail yet another thread, I've moved the quote and my response over here where it belongs...

VisionFromFeeling said:
Oh you guys. Please take the time to read www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html and www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html#IIGPreliminary before you comment on the claim being over.
Click to expand...


The claim is over. There's only one person who lacks the clarity of thinking to still believe you have magical powers, and that one person is you.

I don't think it's over yet.
Click to expand...


Well okay, Norma Desmond.

You guys said it was over before it had even begun, you all said I never detected the kidney being missing in Dr. Carlson, when in fact I did.
Click to expand...


We've been over this a thousands times. Probably literally. You detected Dr. Carlson's missing kidney the same way anyone else would. He told you it was missing. Even Dr. Carlson has said that.

There is an interesting claim.
Click to expand...


No, there's not.

It has got nothing to do with me, I am not doing this for attention.
Click to expand...


All the available evidence indicates otherwise.

I am investigating something here, and if you do not like it then just step back and don't participate.
Click to expand...


Yet you still refuse to realistically consider the very most likely, very best evidenced explanation. Your "investigation" is a sham.

You can not discourage me from my work.
Click to expand...


Or, apparently, from your incessant demand that people should accept your claim of having magical powers without a shred of evidence to support it.
 
VFF - you keep saying that you can't see through larger persons - fair enough none of us can - but in that trial the larger person wasn't missing a kidney -so why didn't you just look at the small person and note their kidney was missing?
You moved from person to person looking at them all, surely when you saw that slender person was missing a kidney you didn't have to waste your time checking and rechecking the more cuddly gent?
 
Jonquill said:
VFF - you keep saying that you can't see through larger persons - fair enough none of us can - but in that trial the larger person wasn't missing a kidney -so why didn't you just look at the small person and note their kidney was missing?
You moved from person to person looking at them all, surely when you saw that slender person was missing a kidney you didn't have to waste your time checking and rechecking the more cuddly gent?
Click to expand...


Why? Well your question is certainly off topic for this thread, and is bound to result in Anita derailing the thread to point out how wonderful she is with her magical powers and all that, but to answer the question and bring it back to the topic: Certainly many people realize now after listening to the "Skeptically Speaking" program (as all of us here on the JREF Forums already knew), she's...

VisionFromFeeling said:
Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...


... a liar and a fraud. Ain't that right, Anita?
:dl:​
 
This is another thread that will, most likely, become moderated which will serve Anita's purpose.
 
Jonquill said:
VFF - you keep saying that you can't see through larger persons - fair enough none of us can - but in that trial the larger person wasn't missing a kidney -so why didn't you just look at the small person and note their kidney was missing?
You moved from person to person looking at them all, surely when you saw that slender person was missing a kidney you didn't have to waste your time checking and rechecking the more cuddly gent?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The "density" of Subject 12 is a red herring. (And fatigue was not a factor since this was the first trial of the demonstration.)

On November 21st, 2009, Anita Ikonen SAW a right kidney in Subject 11 where there was, in fact, no kidney. Meanwhile, Anita could not see the perfectly healthy left kidney pulsing in Subject 14. These flawed observations led her to choose 14L.

Period.
 
@Anita- for the rest of us that have our degrees we refer to them as a "B.Sc.". Please, use the "c". :p
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
...
I will have another test, one that corrects for two of the issues that I encountered in the first one, namely that larger persons take me longer time to see through and that three trials is too much in one day. If I then form perceptions that I am confident in as correct only to find out that they are inaccurate, the claim can then be falsified....

....

There is nothing you can say to discourage me from my work, and yes it is work...
Click to expand...

But the first para I've quoted screams of post-rationalisation and the second indicates that whatever the result you'll simply come up with another reason as to why you failed because (as you've stated before) you know you detected the Doctor's missing kidney and nothing will change your view on that.

Why are you so obsessed with this to the point of denial of the facts / most likely explanations? You appear to be fairly intelligent, young, physically attractive... You appear to have loads going for you but come across as a sad, deluded attention seeker who's seriously missing something in her life. Note, I don't say that you are that, just that that is the impression you give. Forget chasing this Chimera - maybe you do occasionally have insight but, if so, it's not reliable enough to detect in what you yourself agreed was a fair trial so it's of no practical purpose. Split your time between your studies (which should yield more than enough intellectual stimulus) and a healthy social life, chalk the 'missing kidney insight' up as one of those bizarre things that we all experience something like now and again* and get on with your life.

Just my fatherly advice (I have 3 daughters) - feel free to ignore (they usually do ;o).

*As an example, whilst I know some people have suggested false memory for your 'missing kidney insight' I believe there's an even more likely explanation - you'd heard about his missing kidney before but didn't consciously remember it...but the thought was there in your mind. I've had something very similar happen. When I met one of my wife's friends for the first time I had a really strong impression of something (can't even remember what it was now) and told her so, much to her astonishment. We were both blown away by how I could know that particular thing as I 'definitely had never been told it'. As it turned out, my wife had told me several days before whilst talking about her friend's impending visit. I didn't recall the conversation at all but my Mother-in-Law was also present and did recall it. Even when told about it, I didn't remember that part of the conversation (probably, as my wife pointed out, because I was doing the blokey thing and not really listening, just saying 'Uh-huh' at regular intervals ;o) but it was undoubtedly where my impression came from and got triggered by a leading remark from her friend. Absolutely mind-blowing at the time....totally trivial when explained.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
three trials is too much in one day.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why you failed the first trial. Wait, no it doesn't.

And are we to take it that we should now ignore your original claims to have detected various things (all completely unverified of course) in a split second as someone walked past an open door, for example? After all, these instantaneous, involuntary perceptions sound very different from the long, tiring, deliberate ones that you pretend to want to test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom