[Moderated] VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test - Page 27

GeeMack · 23rd August 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I know it won't be a perfect test, especially since my friend knows what that organ is and for all you know he could have told me. But I will let you know what happens and how it went. It will have credibility issues I know, but at least if I fail to detect it I will let you know and you should all be happy about that. I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed.

Big deal. You will lie again like you did about Dr. Carlson's kidney.

Quote:

At least what this does is add to my claim and experience.

More unsupported claims might as well be more lies. But all this evasion and changing the subject makes it pretty clear we've been right in assuming you're not going to follow through on that kidney counting guessing game crap you've been blathering about for so many pages.

desertgal · 23rd August 2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed.

Well, some honesty from you would make a nice change...

stanfr · 23rd August 2009, 06:05 PM

I read the first couple of posts, then skipped to the last couple. Guess what?? Through my psychic abilities (wonder if im eligible for the million...) I was able to figure out everything that happened in the intevening 27 pages! If all the skeptics who pointlessly engage in debate with Anita would spend the same time picking up some garbage on the side of the road, this Country would be a far cleaner place...

catbasket · 24th August 2009, 05:57 AM

I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney.

Ashles · 24th August 2009, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by catbasket

I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney.

There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims.

Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test.

If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable.

Her reasons will for one of the following:

It is too unreliable to test (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes)
It is not her main claim so she is not interested in testing it (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes)
She is only interested in testing it under completely uncontrolled circumstances

Anyway this thread is specifically only for her very rigid and detailed Kidney Testing protocol.

(Unless she mentions another completely different test herself, in which case this thread is about any old random test she can think of - but remember that's only if Anita comes up with a different test - if you come up with a different test, that is considered by her to be off topic and she will report you)

Professor Yaffle · 24th August 2009, 06:28 AM

Posts about the missing organ "test" have been split to a new thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151879. If you want to talk about anything other than VFF's kidney detection test, start a new thread or post in the general (moderated) thread. Any further off topic posts and derails may be dealt with more severely.

Posted By:Professor Yaffle

Pup · 24th August 2009, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ashles

There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims.

Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test.

If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable.

And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita

but I can't find it via the search function.

Edited to add: I was posting at the same time so didn't see the mod box. Not sure if this post is off topic for this thread or not... don't think so, so I'll leave it for now.

catbasket · 24th August 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pup

And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita

but I can't find it via the search function.
...

Searching for post by VFF containing the text 'boxedin' I found this has indeed been suggested previously, by Akhenaten here. Apologies, I'd completely forgotten about that (and it was less than a week ago!).

ETA - actually it was eight days ago.

Farencue · 25th August 2009, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test.

I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested.

More evidence of your lies Anita. You wrote the above post on 15th of August saying you will email - why did you not say you already had emailed?

From: Anita Ikonen
Sent on: Sunday, August 9, 2009 1:12 AM

Dear Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT),
As most of you probably know by now, I am a paranormal claimant investigating my experience of medical perceptions. When I look at people I perceive images that depict the inside of their bodies based on a feeling of a vibrational pattern across them (see more at www.visionfromfeeling.com) I have chosen a specific type of health information of whether a person is missing a kidney and submitted this claim to the IIG (www.iigwest.com) and they are arranging an official paranormal test for me that will take place in Hollywood California hopefully by the end of 2009.
Before I have the official test, the IIG have recommended that I try to arrange a preliminary test first to verify my claim or to falsify my claim so that I am better prepared for the outcome of the IIG official test. I would also like to have a preliminary test in order to get more practice in performing the official test. The preliminary test would take place here locally and should be similar to the official test but does not have to be as elaborate and can for instance only involve one trial instead of three. The preliminary test is a test and its results are significant toward my claim. If I fail the preliminary test I will still want to take the official IIG test to falsify the claim properly. If I pass the preliminary test it will not be evidence in favor of the claim since with the way I plan to arrange it there is a 1 in 10 chance of passing it by guessing.
I need help with finding one (or more) persons for the test who have had a kidney removed, and nine other persons who have both kidneys, all of whom are persons whom I have not met before. As the claimant I can not be involved in finding these persons myself. I can arrange a conference room or something similar to that where the test can take place. I can arrange the screen that is used. I also need Skeptics to bring in the ten volunteers for the test, to verify that the test rules are being followed, to collect my answer sheet and to determine the results of the test. My suggestions on the preliminary test are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/preliminarytest.html. The test procedure for this preliminary test does not need to be identical to the test procedure that will be used in the official IIG test and I will be happy to discuss it with FACT and make improvements on it with you.
Please let me know if you can help in arranging this preliminary test with me.
Thank you for considering.
Paranormal Claimant
Anita Ikonen

Hmmm, did nobody from FACT reply to you?

Uncayimmy · 4th September 2009, 02:47 PM

VFF told us in another thread that she was too busy to respond here. I guess she's not too busy to send me Skype messages, which I told her repeatedly I would make public at my discretion. Since she doesn't like it when I paraphrase and quote, here's what I recevied. Other messages not relevant to this thread are on my website (see my sig).

[9/3/2009 7:11:32 PM] Jim, I need to take new initiative and arrange a kidney detection test here locally while I wait for the IIG test to be arranged.

[9/3/2009 7:12:53 PM] Anita Ikonen: I will contact more Skeptic groups and ask around. Maybe some know at least two persons who have had a kidney removed.

[9/3/2009 7:13:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: I want my claim falsified or to pass a test and move on to more tests right away! The negative attention is getting out of hand.

[9/3/2009 7:14:06 PM] Anita Ikonen: By the way, I might be coming to Arizona some time in the near future. I know somebody there I really need to meet.

[9/3/2009 7:14:37 PM] Anita Ikonen: And it ain't you.

[9/3/2009 7:51:23 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me.

[9/3/2009 7:52:50 PM] Anita Ikonen: I told them that the test would require persons who have one kidney, but I also said that a test could be set up without any such persons, if necessary. As long as I am not given any clues about how many or if any persons with one kidney they have found for the test, with ten people in a test I would have to describe whether a person has one or both kidneys. At least as a preliminary, to try to fail my claim at least.

If you're wondering where my responses are, there aren't any.

fromdownunder · 4th September 2009, 05:32 PM

So is this a pre test, a pre-pre test, or just something that Anita can agaiin say "something went wrong on the night - it doesn't falsify my claim, after all, I am a sceptic". "I did see a missing kidney, I just did not want to say so at the time."

The volunteers should all be women. That way she could test for a diaphram at the same time.

Norm

pakeha · 5th September 2009, 03:10 AM

Interesting news, UnkaJimmy.
I wonder which skeptics groups that would be, then.

Quote:

Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me.

VisionFromFeeling · 5th September 2009, 05:23 AM

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

LONGTABBER PE · 5th September 2009, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

Your claim is already falsified- all of this is just another dog and pony show

pakeha · 5th September 2009, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. ...
I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

This is a wierd sort of post to make.

skype messages to UnkaJimmy that yet another group has been e-mailed
then
posting here to refuse to name it?

Wharever groups it is, I should hope the protocol will take into account having volunteers remove tampax so as not to befuddle VfF's impressions.

Akhenaten · 5th September 2009, 06:22 AM

OP - 10 August 2009

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Attention Skeptics Nationwide,

<snip>

The IIG have suggested that I have a preliminary test before having the official test with them so that I am better prepared for the outcome of their test.

That is why I am asking all of you if any of you would be willing to set up a preliminary test of my claim with me.

<snip>

Today

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test.

<snip>

If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not.

<snip>

One of these things is not like the other thing. Please explain.

GeeMack · 5th September 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

Oh, spare us the drama queen double talk, Anita. That's just another comment full of gibberish and bullcrap. Sounds like something a person would only say if they were mentally ill. And if you're not mentally ill, you're certainly...

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

... a liar and a fraud.

Ashles · 5th September 2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then.

Then there is absolutely no need to inform us of yet more unverifiable clims for proposed/imaginary future tests involving unspecified skeptics groups which may or may not exist.

It's fairly hard to imagine why you would keep the details of which skeptic group it is secret. I thought you wanted help in creating a protocol?
Oh wait I forgot, when you actually finally appeared to agree a protocol in this thread you then revealed you had already sent a different (and worse) protocol to IIG. Rendering a lot of the protocol disucssion here rather pointless.

Quote:

And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim,

It is. It definitely is. Okay? It is suffcient to falsify the claim (this is you 'strongest ability' remember?).
But you will refuse to accept that, so please don't pretend that you have even the slightest intention of considering the option that this test will be able to falsify your claim.

[quote]although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim./quote]

And that would be true even if it were an actually well designed test.

Which seems very unlikely this will be since it is being designed and set up by you entirely in secret.

Quote:

If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not.

Actually that should be the point where you yourself decide that there is not anything requiring further study.
It is interesting that that is not an option you are even considering.

Quote:

I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers.

If it were well designed, it would be, expecially as you have described your abilities as 'never incorrect' and of such awesome power and range as you previously have.
If you fail even this pre-preliminary 10 person kidney detection test, when this is supposedly your 'strongest ability' then this should all be considered over.

Of course it wn't be because you refuse to allow the possibility of a falsification scenario in any test.

Again, very interesting.

Quote:

I have no other updates on the kidney detection test.

But do please keep us updated regarding how you don't have time to respond to us and, keep us informed of any further kidney tests you are setting up in secret, with no revealed protocol and with an unspecified 'skeptic group'.
Because those are the kinds of in-depth updates that are really pushing this claim forward.

Quote:

Back to my Taylor expansions...

Of course you can feel free to discuss all the in depth science you are apparently learning about in the Science and Mathematics forums on this very website, with people who are highly knowledgeable in the fields.
I would have thought someone who is such a 'science fan' as yourself would be in there all the time.

I'm just wondering when we will actually start to see the tiniest shred of evidence of all of this scientific learning.

As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind...

GeeMack · 5th September 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ashles

As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind...

And the word 'never' seems quite fitting, too.

fromdownunder · 5th September 2009, 05:40 PM

I wonder if Anita is now using UncaYimmy as her conduit for the Board. She is "too busy to post" but apparently not "too busy" to contact him on a regular basis, in the full knowledge that he will reproduce what she says somehwhere on the Boards.

It may be a new way to get her daily "fix"

Norm

Uncayimmy · 5th September 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

I wonder if Anita is now using UncaYimmy as her conduit for the Board. She is "too busy to post" but apparently not "too busy" to contact him on a regular basis, in the full knowledge that he will reproduce what she says somehwhere on the Boards.

It may be a new way to get her daily "fix"

Norm

I think it's a little more complicated than that. She's been sending me instant messages since last December. At times I was getting them almost every day. Sometimes I would get multiple Walls o' Text per day. It got so annoying at times that I had to ask her to stop. When she wouldn't, I would block her account for a few days. And just a couple of days ago, VFF de-friended me on Facebook for a second time only to send me a new friend request today. Besides, she posted her today anyway.

At this point if she tells me something that I think is relevant to the audience here, I may choose to disclose it if she doesn't first. She's played this "I don't have time" game plenty of times before. If you really step back and look at everything that's transpired, it's actually deeply disturbing. She has a way of making the now so distracting that folks tend to forget the big picture. I mean, how many people remember that VFF has yet to provide the raw data she promised from the "study" she failed last March/April?

LONGTABBER PE · 5th September 2009, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

how many people remember that VFF has yet to provide the raw data she promised from the "study" she failed last March/April?

I do and I have a test protocol that maybe she will attempt for starters.

Lets see if she can use her "powers' to find her azz with her left hand at least 7 out of 10 times

Audible Click · 5th September 2009, 10:55 PM

I reminded her over and over about her promise to post the raw data here. I even went so far as to mildly chastise her for not keeping her word, not that it did any good.

desertgal · 6th September 2009, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. <snip>

Oh, for heaven's sake.

"I know something you don't know and I'm not going to te-ell..."

Could you be more childish?

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

And just a couple of days ago, VFF de-friended me on Facebook for a second time only to send me a new friend request today.

I rescind the question. Apparently you can.

Farencue · 6th September 2009, 08:30 PM

yup, the jig is up.

blue sock monkey · 7th September 2009, 06:19 AM

Any skeptics group worthy of the name will try to develop a rigorous protocol, and will certainly have members who check the JREF Forum for background info. So switching groups will do VfF no good whatsoever--except enable her to enjoy the attention from yet another prolonged round of negotiations.

Of course, what Anita defines as a group of "skeptics" and what we do may be two very different things.

pakeha · 7th September 2009, 08:49 AM

I seem to remember VfF proposing a paying public for the 'kidney' test. What happened to that idea?

Audible Click · 7th September 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

I seem to remember VfF proposing a paying public for the 'kidney' test. What happened to that idea?

She ditched that idea when many posters protested.

Roadtoad · 7th September 2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Audible Click

She ditched that idea when many posters protested.

Not to mention the fact that the only people who would be interested in watching already watch The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest.

jhunter1163 · 7th September 2009, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by desertgal

Oh, for heaven's sake.

"I know something you don't know and I'm not going to te-ell..."

Could you be more childish?

I rescind the question. Apparently you can.

Sometimes you just wanna slap someone with a steak, you know what I mean?

desertgal · 7th September 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Sometimes you just wanna slap someone with a steak, you know what I mean?

I'm in touch with that level of aggravation.

Sean84 · 8th September 2009, 01:26 AM

Has the good doctor confirmed this horse's death yet? Is Professor Koenig on call to confirm?

Roadtoad · 8th September 2009, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Sean84

Has the good doctor confirmed this horse's death yet? Is Professor Koenig on call to confirm?

We're still trying to figure out who croaked the Bishop of Westminster, and you want us to call this thread dead? Sheesh!

Some people!

Ocelot · 9th September 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Audible Click

She ditched that idea when many posters protested.

It's not the paying that I object to. To be sure trying to exploit unproven abilities for personal financial gains is about pretty tacky. However whats the point in having Anita leave the room when test subjects com in and out when there's a whole bunch of unblinded audience memebrs who could each potentially be an accomplice. It's this factor which transforms something that has the potential to be a robust test into a tacky spectacle with no scientific merit.

JoeTheJuggler · 9th September 2009, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

If you're wondering where my responses are, there aren't any.

Oh my FSM, she's totally flirting with you!

Uncayimmy · 26th December 2009, 11:27 PM

It's interesting that Anita repeatedly stated that she does not do remote viewing yet on her Alenara site she said:

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200209161..._light/me.html
New Age interests: Extraterrestrials, Star People, crystals, telepathy, remote viewing, auras, reiki healing, pranic healing, breatharianism, chakras, yoga, astral travels.

Beth · 27th December 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

It's interesting that Anita repeatedly stated that she does not do remote viewing yet on her Alenara site she said:

Those are listed as "interests". I wouldn't assume that she's claiming to be able to do everything on the list.

desertgal · 27th December 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beth

Those are listed as "interests". I wouldn't assume that she's claiming to be able to do everything on the list.

She has claimed herself capable of remote viewing here on the JREF, though.

Akhenaten · 27th December 2009, 10:07 AM

I can't see that claiming to be able to do anything on that list would be a good thing. More than one, which is indeed the case here, is quite disturbing.

Uncayimmy · 27th December 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Beth

Those are listed as "interests". I wouldn't assume that she's claiming to be able to do everything on the list.

She has directly or indirectly claimed to do every one of those "interests" she listed, and that includes remote viewing. What I was pointing out that is that 10 years ago she was into it, which makes her recent protestations even less credible.

23rd August 2009, 06:05 PM	#1043
stanfr Scholar Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 73	I read the first couple of posts, then skipped to the last couple. Guess what?? Through my psychic abilities (wonder if im eligible for the million...) I was able to figure out everything that happened in the intevening 27 pages! If all the skeptics who pointlessly engage in debate with Anita would spend the same time picking up some garbage on the side of the road, this Country would be a far cleaner place...
stanfr Scholar Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 73

24th August 2009, 05:57 AM	#1044
catbasket atheist godfather Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The naughty step Posts: 1,486	I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney.
	__________________ Mathew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

24th August 2009, 06:10 AM	#1045
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Originally Posted by catbasket I may have missed it earlier but has there been any mention of whether VFF's kidney detection ability only works for human kidneys, and only when still inside the body? I've pondered the possibility of her being able to detect whether an opaque box with a cloth cover contains a cow's kidney or a piece of steak cut to the size/shape of a kidney. There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims. Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test. If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable. Her reasons will for one of the following: It is too unreliable to test (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes) It is not her main claim so she is not interested in testing it (even if it worked perfectly in the past according to her anecdotes) She is only interested in testing it under completely uncontrolled circumstances Anyway this thread is specifically only for her very rigid and detailed Kidney Testing protocol. (Unless she mentions another completely different test herself, in which case this thread is about any old random test she can think of - but remember that's only if Anita comes up with a different test - if you come up with a different test, that is considered by her to be off topic and she will report you)
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

24th August 2009, 06:29 AM	#1047
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by Ashles There is a very simple rule of thumb regarding any of Anita's many, many claims. Ask yourself if any particular aspect of her ability would be easy to test. If it is easy to test, she will declare that ability untestable. And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita but I can't find it via the search function. Edited to add: I was posting at the same time so didn't see the mod box. Not sure if this post is off topic for this thread or not... don't think so, so I'll leave it for now.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Last edited by Pup; 24th August 2009 at 06:33 AM.

24th August 2009, 06:44 AM	#1048
catbasket atheist godfather Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The naughty step Posts: 1,486	Originally Posted by Pup And in this particular case, I swear we've actually even been through the "kidney in a box" discussion, complete with a cute emoticon from Anita but I can't find it via the search function. ... Searching for post by VFF containing the text 'boxedin' I found this has indeed been suggested previously, by Akhenaten here. Apologies, I'd completely forgotten about that (and it was less than a week ago!). ETA - actually it was eight days ago.
	__________________ Mathew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Last edited by catbasket; 24th August 2009 at 06:46 AM.

23rd August 2009, 02:47 PM	#1041
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling I know it won't be a perfect test, especially since my friend knows what that organ is and for all you know he could have told me. But I will let you know what happens and how it went. It will have credibility issues I know, but at least if I fail to detect it I will let you know and you should all be happy about that. I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed. Big deal. You will lie again like you did about Dr. Carlson's kidney. Quote: At least what this does is add to my claim and experience. More unsupported claims might as well be more lies. But all this evasion and changing the subject makes it pretty clear we've been right in assuming you're not going to follow through on that kidney counting guessing game crap you've been blathering about for so many pages.

23rd August 2009, 02:58 PM	#1042
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,250	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling I mean, you would love it if I come here and said that I failed. Well, some honesty from you would make a nice change...

25th August 2009, 07:30 PM	#1049
Farencue Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Far NQ Posts: 309	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test. I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested. More evidence of your lies Anita. You wrote the above post on 15th of August saying you will email - why did you not say you already had emailed? From: Anita Ikonen Sent on: Sunday, August 9, 2009 1:12 AM Dear Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT), As most of you probably know by now, I am a paranormal claimant investigating my experience of medical perceptions. When I look at people I perceive images that depict the inside of their bodies based on a feeling of a vibrational pattern across them (see more at www.visionfromfeeling.com) I have chosen a specific type of health information of whether a person is missing a kidney and submitted this claim to the IIG (www.iigwest.com) and they are arranging an official paranormal test for me that will take place in Hollywood California hopefully by the end of 2009. Before I have the official test, the IIG have recommended that I try to arrange a preliminary test first to verify my claim or to falsify my claim so that I am better prepared for the outcome of the IIG official test. I would also like to have a preliminary test in order to get more practice in performing the official test. The preliminary test would take place here locally and should be similar to the official test but does not have to be as elaborate and can for instance only involve one trial instead of three. The preliminary test is a test and its results are significant toward my claim. If I fail the preliminary test I will still want to take the official IIG test to falsify the claim properly. If I pass the preliminary test it will not be evidence in favor of the claim since with the way I plan to arrange it there is a 1 in 10 chance of passing it by guessing. I need help with finding one (or more) persons for the test who have had a kidney removed, and nine other persons who have both kidneys, all of whom are persons whom I have not met before. As the claimant I can not be involved in finding these persons myself. I can arrange a conference room or something similar to that where the test can take place. I can arrange the screen that is used. I also need Skeptics to bring in the ten volunteers for the test, to verify that the test rules are being followed, to collect my answer sheet and to determine the results of the test. My suggestions on the preliminary test are found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/preliminarytest.html. The test procedure for this preliminary test does not need to be identical to the test procedure that will be used in the official IIG test and I will be happy to discuss it with FACT and make improvements on it with you. Please let me know if you can help in arranging this preliminary test with me. Thank you for considering. Paranormal Claimant Anita Ikonen Hmmm, did nobody from FACT reply to you?
	Last edited by Locknar; 27th August 2009 at 09:05 AM. Reason: Fixed QUOTE (added the missing [/ in the end tag)

4th September 2009, 02:47 PM	#1050
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	VFF told us in another thread that she was too busy to respond here. I guess she's not too busy to send me Skype messages, which I told her repeatedly I would make public at my discretion. Since she doesn't like it when I paraphrase and quote, here's what I recevied. Other messages not relevant to this thread are on my website (see my sig). [9/3/2009 7:11:32 PM] Jim, I need to take new initiative and arrange a kidney detection test here locally while I wait for the IIG test to be arranged. [9/3/2009 7:12:53 PM] Anita Ikonen: I will contact more Skeptic groups and ask around. Maybe some know at least two persons who have had a kidney removed. [9/3/2009 7:13:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: I want my claim falsified or to pass a test and move on to more tests right away! The negative attention is getting out of hand. [9/3/2009 7:14:06 PM] Anita Ikonen: By the way, I might be coming to Arizona some time in the near future. I know somebody there I really need to meet. [9/3/2009 7:14:37 PM] Anita Ikonen: And it ain't you. [9/3/2009 7:51:23 PM] Anita Ikonen: Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me. [9/3/2009 7:52:50 PM] Anita Ikonen: I told them that the test would require persons who have one kidney, but I also said that a test could be set up without any such persons, if necessary. As long as I am not given any clues about how many or if any persons with one kidney they have found for the test, with ten people in a test I would have to describe whether a person has one or both kidneys. At least as a preliminary, to try to fail my claim at least. If you're wondering where my responses are, there aren't any.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

4th September 2009, 05:32 PM	#1051
fromdownunder Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,095	So is this a pre test, a pre-pre test, or just something that Anita can agaiin say "something went wrong on the night - it doesn't falsify my claim, after all, I am a sceptic". "I did see a missing kidney, I just did not want to say so at the time." The volunteers should all be women. That way she could test for a diaphram at the same time. Norm

5th September 2009, 03:10 AM	#1052
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010	Interesting news, UnkaJimmy. I wonder which skeptics groups that would be, then. Quote: Alright, I've e-mailed another local Skeptics group asking whether they would be willing and interested to set up a preliminary kidney detection test with me.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010

5th September 2009, 05:23 AM	#1053
VisionFromFeeling Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina, United States Posts: 1,363	Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers. I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions...

5th September 2009, 05:31 AM	#1054
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers. I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions... Your claim is already falsified- all of this is just another dog and pony show

5th September 2009, 05:50 AM	#1055
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. ... I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. Back to my Taylor expansions... This is a wierd sort of post to make. skype messages to UnkaJimmy that yet another group has been e-mailed then posting here to refuse to name it? Wharever groups it is, I should hope the protocol will take into account having volunteers remove tampax so as not to befuddle VfF's impressions.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010

5th September 2009, 06:22 AM	#1056
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Pither Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,682	OP - 10 August 2009 Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Attention Skeptics Nationwide, <snip> The IIG have suggested that I have a preliminary test before having the official test with them so that I am better prepared for the outcome of their test. That is why I am asking all of you if any of you would be willing to set up a preliminary test of my claim with me. <snip> Today Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. <snip> If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. <snip> One of these things is not like the other thing. Please explain.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

5th September 2009, 11:19 AM	#1057
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim. If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers. Oh, spare us the drama queen double talk, Anita. That's just another comment full of gibberish and bullcrap. Sounds like something a person would only say if they were mentally ill. And if you're not mentally ill, you're certainly... Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud. ... a liar and a fraud.

5th September 2009, 12:33 PM	#1058
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Quote: Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. Then there is absolutely no need to inform us of yet more unverifiable clims for proposed/imaginary future tests involving unspecified skeptics groups which may or may not exist. It's fairly hard to imagine why you would keep the details of which skeptic group it is secret. I thought you wanted help in creating a protocol? Oh wait I forgot, when you actually finally appeared to agree a protocol in this thread you then revealed you had already sent a different (and worse) protocol to IIG. Rendering a lot of the protocol disucssion here rather pointless. Quote: And if I fail a preliminary test, it will add as evidence against the claim. I do not know whether failing a ten-volunteer test is sufficient to falsify a claim, It is. It definitely is. Okay? It is suffcient to falsify the claim (this is you 'strongest ability' remember?). But you will refuse to accept that, so please don't pretend that you have even the slightest intention of considering the option that this test will be able to falsify your claim. [quote]although I do know that passing a ten-volunteer test is insufficient to verify a claim./quote] And that would be true even if it were an actually well designed test. Which seems very unlikely this will be since it is being designed and set up by you entirely in secret. Quote: If I fail a preliminary test, the IIG can decide whether they will still arrange an official test for me or not. Actually that should be the point where you yourself decide that there is not anything requiring further study. It is interesting that that is not an option you are even considering. Quote: I'm not saying that the preliminary test doesn't count, I'm just saying that I'm not sure if it statistically speaking is enough data to falsify a claim since a preliminary test most likely will involve limited resources and fewer volunteers. If it were well designed, it would be, expecially as you have described your abilities as 'never incorrect' and of such awesome power and range as you previously have. If you fail even this pre-preliminary 10 person kidney detection test, when this is supposedly your 'strongest ability' then this should all be considered over. Of course it wn't be because you refuse to allow the possibility of a falsification scenario in any test. Again, very interesting. Quote: I have no other updates on the kidney detection test. But do please keep us updated regarding how you don't have time to respond to us and, keep us informed of any further kidney tests you are setting up in secret, with no revealed protocol and with an unspecified 'skeptic group'. Because those are the kinds of in-depth updates that are really pushing this claim forward. Quote: Back to my Taylor expansions... Of course you can feel free to discuss all the in depth science you are apparently learning about in the Science and Mathematics forums on this very website, with people who are highly knowledgeable in the fields. I would have thought someone who is such a 'science fan' as yourself would be in there all the time. I'm just wondering when we will actually start to see the tiniest shred of evidence of all of this scientific learning. As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind...
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

5th September 2009, 12:47 PM	#1059
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by Ashles As is so often the case with your claim, the word 'eventually' springs to mind... And the word 'never' seems quite fitting, too.

5th September 2009, 05:40 PM	#1060
fromdownunder Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,095	I wonder if Anita is now using UncaYimmy as her conduit for the Board. She is "too busy to post" but apparently not "too busy" to contact him on a regular basis, in the full knowledge that he will reproduce what she says somehwhere on the Boards. It may be a new way to get her daily "fix" Norm

5th September 2009, 07:14 PM	#1061
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by fromdownunder I wonder if Anita is now using UncaYimmy as her conduit for the Board. She is "too busy to post" but apparently not "too busy" to contact him on a regular basis, in the full knowledge that he will reproduce what she says somehwhere on the Boards. It may be a new way to get her daily "fix" Norm I think it's a little more complicated than that. She's been sending me instant messages since last December. At times I was getting them almost every day. Sometimes I would get multiple Walls o' Text per day. It got so annoying at times that I had to ask her to stop. When she wouldn't, I would block her account for a few days. And just a couple of days ago, VFF de-friended me on Facebook for a second time only to send me a new friend request today. Besides, she posted her today anyway. At this point if she tells me something that I think is relevant to the audience here, I may choose to disclose it if she doesn't first. She's played this "I don't have time" game plenty of times before. If you really step back and look at everything that's transpired, it's actually deeply disturbing. She has a way of making the now so distracting that folks tend to forget the big picture. I mean, how many people remember that VFF has yet to provide the raw data she promised from the "study" she failed last March/April?
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

5th September 2009, 10:54 PM	#1062
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy how many people remember that VFF has yet to provide the raw data she promised from the "study" she failed last March/April? I do and I have a test protocol that maybe she will attempt for starters. Lets see if she can use her "powers' to find her azz with her left hand at least 7 out of 10 times

5th September 2009, 10:55 PM	#1063
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	I reminded her over and over about her promise to post the raw data here. I even went so far as to mildly chastise her for not keeping her word, not that it did any good.
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum

6th September 2009, 04:52 PM	#1064
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,250	Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling Unfortunately I am not ready to reveal which Skeptics groups I am contacting about a preliminary test. If arrangements are made to have a test, I will disclose that information then. <snip> Oh, for heaven's sake. "I know something you don't know and I'm not going to te-ell..." Could you be more childish? Originally Posted by UncaYimmy And just a couple of days ago, VFF de-friended me on Facebook for a second time only to send me a new friend request today. I rescind the question. Apparently you can.
	Last edited by desertgal; 6th September 2009 at 04:56 PM.

6th September 2009, 08:30 PM	#1065
Farencue Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Far NQ Posts: 309	yup, the jig is up.

7th September 2009, 06:19 AM	#1066
blue sock monkey Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: strumming my ukulele by Ol' Man River Posts: 1,954	Any skeptics group worthy of the name will try to develop a rigorous protocol, and will certainly have members who check the JREF Forum for background info. So switching groups will do VfF no good whatsoever--except enable her to enjoy the attention from yet another prolonged round of negotiations. Of course, what Anita defines as a group of "skeptics" and what we do may be two very different things.
	__________________ Find Dr StrangeOlympics, or How I learned to stop worrying & love the squirrel at http://bluesockmonkey.deviantart.com...38979?offset=0. And still more cartoons at: http://bluesockmonkey.stripgenerator.com/gallery/

7th September 2009, 08:49 AM	#1067
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010	I seem to remember VfF proposing a paying public for the 'kidney' test. What happened to that idea?
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,010

7th September 2009, 11:26 AM	#1068
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	Originally Posted by pakeha I seem to remember VfF proposing a paying public for the 'kidney' test. What happened to that idea? She ditched that idea when many posters protested.
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum

7th September 2009, 02:48 PM	#1069
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Audible Click She ditched that idea when many posters protested. Not to mention the fact that the only people who would be interested in watching already watch The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest.

7th September 2009, 03:49 PM	#1070
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,603	Originally Posted by desertgal Oh, for heaven's sake. "I know something you don't know and I'm not going to te-ell..." Could you be more childish? I rescind the question. Apparently you can. Sometimes you just wanna slap someone with a steak, you know what I mean?

7th September 2009, 04:29 PM	#1071
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,250	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 Sometimes you just wanna slap someone with a steak, you know what I mean? I'm in touch with that level of aggravation.

8th September 2009, 01:26 AM	#1072
Sean84 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Georgia Posts: 969	Has the good doctor confirmed this horse's death yet? Is Professor Koenig on call to confirm?
	Last edited by Sean84; 8th September 2009 at 01:27 AM.

8th September 2009, 04:15 AM	#1073
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Sean84 Has the good doctor confirmed this horse's death yet? Is Professor Koenig on call to confirm? We're still trying to figure out who croaked the Bishop of Westminster, and you want us to call this thread dead? Sheesh! Some people!

9th September 2009, 07:44 AM	#1074
Ocelot Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 3,016	Originally Posted by Audible Click She ditched that idea when many posters protested. It's not the paying that I object to. To be sure trying to exploit unproven abilities for personal financial gains is about pretty tacky. However whats the point in having Anita leave the room when test subjects com in and out when there's a whole bunch of unblinded audience memebrs who could each potentially be an accomplice. It's this factor which transforms something that has the potential to be a robust test into a tacky spectacle with no scientific merit.
	__________________ EDL = English Disco Lovers

9th September 2009, 07:47 AM	#1075
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy If you're wondering where my responses are, there aren't any. Oh my FSM, she's totally flirting with you!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

26th December 2009, 11:27 PM	#1076
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Split From: VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test It's interesting that Anita repeatedly stated that she does not do remote viewing yet on her Alenara site she said: Quote: http://web.archive.org/web/200209161..._light/me.html New Age interests: Extraterrestrials, Star People, crystals, telepathy, remote viewing, auras, reiki healing, pranic healing, breatharianism, chakras, yoga, astral travels.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485