• 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

So, no response to the list of your claims refered to by many people? You seem to be trying very hard to ignore it.
 
Oops, got my threads mixed up, let me restate that. Anita, are you able to do those things listed on UncaYimmy's list, even if you do not call them claims?
 
I am a psychic too! I took the test along with Anita, while watching the UStream feed, and I got all the test rounds wrong. And I knew I was wrong! On all of them! I must be a psychic too, according to Anita's definitions of such things! Yippee! ;)

Anita / VfV:

For the record, there are at least three claims being investigated, if you also include the claim that you make that you know when you are right or wrong. This is a new claim.
 
Please excuse the bump, but Anita was there for the Mr R test? But still can't afford four OTC meds for the pill test.

I'd like to see how she explains this.
 
TSR said:
Please excuse the bump, but Anita was there for the Mr R test? But still can't afford four OTC meds for the pill test.

I'd like to see how she explains this.
Click to expand...


I think I vaguely recall her saying something about the OTC medicines that Pup sent her were too similar to each other and/or not strong enough or something like that.

Since I work in a pharmacy, I offered to send her prescription-strength items for free for another test (yes, I talked to my manager about it) and it seems like she didn't even acknowledge the offer. I and several other members reposted my offer several times and I never heard a word from her.

(I'm kind of in a rush, but I'll try to find and link the original posts.)
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Anita claims she can get high from looking at a picture of Marijuana..
It is not comprehensible that the relative strength of OTCs would be a problem ..
Click to expand...


And since the beginning, in every argument that Anita has put forth there has been no consistency at all, none, and no evidence that there has been any honesty in anything she's said either. None.
 
paperskater said:
I think I vaguely recall her saying something about the OTC medicines that Pup sent her were too similar to each other and/or not strong enough or something like that.

Since I work in a pharmacy, I offered to send her prescription-strength items for free for another test (yes, I talked to my manager about it) and it seems like she didn't even acknowledge the offer. I and several other members reposted my offer several times and I never heard a word from her.

(I'm kind of in a rush, but I'll try to find and link the original posts.)
Click to expand...

There were four over the counter meds. Two had one type of effect and the other two had another type of effect. The mechanisms of the effect were different. Anita spent hours with them but claimed she couldn't differentiate the meds. She didn't even try to at least split them into the two groups. She said she needed "reference samples" and claimed she couldn't afford to buy the meds (one was aspirin) or even find anyone who could give her a sample.

It was evasion at its best. She has failed and evaded other tests as well. There is nothing here whatsoever.
 
GeeMack said:
And since the beginning, in every argument that Anita has put forth there has been no consistency at all, none, and no evidence that there has been any honesty in anything she's said either. None.
Click to expand...
,
waitwaitwait

she doesn't know when she can't see missing kidneys, even when she says she really really really did?




even *I* know when she can't



where's my million?
,
 
UncaYimmy said:
There were four over the counter meds. Two had one type of effect and the other two had another type of effect. The mechanisms of the effect were different. Anita spent hours with them but claimed she couldn't differentiate the meds. She didn't even try to at least split them into the two groups. She said she needed "reference samples" and claimed she couldn't afford to buy the meds (one was aspirin) or even find anyone who could give her a sample.

It was evasion at its best. She has failed and evaded other tests as well. There is nothing here whatsoever.
Click to expand...

If we learned anything from the IIG West demonstration, and the "I can't see through heavyset people" excuse, it is that she is completely unable to use the process of elimination to her advantage, since process of elimination would have excluded the heavyset gent in the demo as he was not one of the targets anyway.
 
TSR said:
,
waitwaitwait

she doesn't know when she can't see missing kidneys, even when she says she really really really did?




even *I* know when she can't



where's my million?
,
Click to expand...

In the first instance she knew for certain that the kidney was missing when she was told it was missing and in the test she was absolutely sure she was right or wrong when she was told she was right or wrong.

Can you do this?
 
Marcus said:
So, no response to the list of your claims refered to by many people? You seem to be trying very hard to ignore it.
Click to expand...


No, looks like we're all still waiting for the response to that.

When Anita wraps herself too far in contradictory knots on any particular subject she goes all quiet and refuses to discuss it further.

(See the Pill Test, The Shoe Test, Identifying Chemicals in jars etc.)
 
telepathy test feb 20th

Hello.

There have been a couple of comments on the web regarding Anita Ikonen's appearance at the Regen Traynor Preliminary Demonstration that I just wanted to clear up.

First, she was NOT an invited guest. I was the Chair of the IIG Meeting that day and I got a call from Steve Muscarella that she had called him to say that she would be stopping by the meeting.

The IIG has a "No Applicants" policy to our meetings. This means that anyone who plans on ever applying for the Paranormal Challenge is not allowed to sit in on our meetings. I made this very clear to Anita and she agreed to this. This means that she has forfeited any chance of ever being tested by the IIG for any ability at any time.

Next, although the IIG allows people to attend two regular meetings for free before becoming a paid member no one can be part of an investigation or attend a Paranormal Challenge event without being a paid member. Anita was resistant to this, but she paid the membership dues (well, technically she got someone else to pay for her membership dues, but that's a different story entirely) and was then allowed to attend the Regen Traynor Preliminary Demonstration.

I hope that this clears up some of the confusion regarding her appearance.

Thanks.

-Derek
 
No, no, no... Derek. Although the IIG meetings are open for the public, I chose to call Steve Muscarella that morning to ask whether it might be inappropriate for me to attend considering our past history with me as an applicant. Steve later called me back and had decided that I was technically allowed to attend, as the meetings are open to the public. Steve also raised concerns that I may be there to be up to something, and I assured him that I was not, and my behavior on the meeting is consistent with my assurance.

But no I had not been given a specific invitation or request to attend, but nor had several of the other first-time attendees there.

And Derek knows full well but forgot to specify that the reason I was having trouble paying for membership was because I had not anticipated having any chance of attending the test, nor was I expecting there to be a fee of any sort, and so thinking that I was only attending a brief meeting I did not bring any money with me this time. I had absolutely no hesitation for paying, in fact as I am sure Derek remembers, I even inquired as to how to submit a money donation to the organization as a thank you for their work and to support Skepticism.

Also, Derek, you are quite aware that I got help to pay my fee on time with a loan from a fellow member, a sum that I have already placed in the mail in excess with an additional $5 to the person who kindly offered to help me out.

So, no, Derek, your post does not clear up some of the confusion regarding my appearance, rather it fuels the misconceptions that are popularly held against me and based on the common dislike of woo and taken out on me as a person, and constructed out of prejudice and false assumptions rather than constructed with a clear mind and the objectivity and openness that we all require if we intend to present ourselves as proponents of Skepticism.
 
Last edited:
Anita, the confusion has been that people have been assuming, especially on the StopVFF website, that you were an invited guest. You were not and I wanted people to understand that.

As far as paying to be a member of the IIG, there are several banks within walking distance of the IIG, but you decided to convince someone that you hadn't met before to give you the money to join. It is good to know that you have apparently paid them back.

You are now a paid member of the IIG and your membership will last until August 2010. That is why you were able to attend the Demonstration.
 
Yet, Derek, your post could have been misleading as it seemed to imply that I had simply invited myself and barged in, when in fact I had asked for permission to attend even when no permission is formally required.

And by implying that I was somehow resistant to paying, when that was not the issue at all. And, making it sound as if I had taken money with no intent of paying it back.

I did not have my debit card with me. I had only intended to attend the meeting and to then return to my friends and had no expectation to be spending any money during what was going to be a short visit, and by habit I never carry around money or VISA card unless I plan to use it.

I also want to mention that I do not consider myself an IIG member, such would be an honorary title that I do not feel myself worthy of quite yet at least. Membership at a credible skeptical organization such as yours should be earned, and not simply acquired by paying a meager fee. I would have been happier to offer a donation and for that been given the right to attend, in the role of a sponsor, and not a member of the IIG.

Well. Skepticism aside for now, I am going ghost haunting! (Yes, haunting, not hunting. I'm gonna say boo to them little rascals. Have you seen The Others?)
 
Ashles said:
(See the Pill Test, The Shoe Test, Identifying Chemicals in jars etc.)
Click to expand...

...whether or not her powers work through clothing, whether or not they are immediate or laborious, whether or not they are easy or stressful...
 
TheSkepticCanuck said:
If we learned anything from the IIG West demonstration, and the "I can't see through heavyset people" excuse, it is that she is completely unable to use the process of elimination to her advantage, since process of elimination would have excluded the heavyset gent in the demo as he was not one of the targets anyway.
Click to expand...
What? Heavyset people can be missing a kidney also. And if I do have an ability of detecting presence/absence of kidneys, it is not a straightforward process, some individuals are not as immediate to conclude on, so for me to conclude on this person would be very helpful in a trial, which it was. I can then focus on the others.

What I mean is, that the other five subjects aren't necessarily easy to feel into, either, so if I can conclude on this person it simplifies for me the remaining five.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...
.
You claim that your perceptions are immediate and "uncannily accurate"

At 5 years old, Micah claims he can tell when his little brother Miguel has a messy nappy-- but even Juanita next door recognizes the peepee dance

we won't be applying for the MDC, unless "incredibly cute" qualifies as paranormal.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom