Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Je conviens.
VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread
- Thread starter VisionFromFeeling
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
If she fills out the paperwork for the MDC and agrees to the prodical, and ponies up the money to fly back to America. How can the JREF NOT test her for the MDC? She has all the requirements. I can't think of anything they can say to defer her.
The "agreement" between the IIG and JREF (If they fail the IIG test then they fail the MDC and have to wait a year) does not seem binding. Apparently that was an informal agreement.
Banachek says that things are going to be changing, and possibly that loop-hole is going to be filled, but in the mean time...
Not necessarily. Sure, if they just do crappy "demonstrations" like the JREF did then it's all too likely. But if they go with properly controlled tests with reasonable (say, 1/1000) odds of passing by pure chance, she's unlikely to ever pass a test. She's been going for how many years now? With how many years of applying and negotiating for challenges? And she's managed one real test and one JREF farce. I don't know how long Arcturians live, but I don't see her passing any competent tests within a human lifespan.
Obviously this doesn't provide any reason to keep lending credibility to such an obvious fraud, but I don't think there's any need to worry about her winning prizes and being launched as a big woo celebrity.
derekcbart
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 86
Hello.
I just wanted to clarify this point. When the IIG has done the preliminary for the MDC, like we did with Achau Nguyen, then the claimant has to wait for one year before reapplying for both organizations. When the MDC has done the preliminary for someone who is also an IIG claimant, like Connie Sonne, then the claimant has to wait for one year before reapplying for both organizations. When the IIG does the preliminary for someone who is not an MDC applicant, like Anita Ikonen, then there is no delay between the IIG preliminary and the MDC preliminary.
Thanks.
-Derek
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Probably not. But nothing good seems to be coming from indulging her narcissistic fantasy either. On the other hand, maybe some good could come if more people would stop coddling her like a spoiled child and start recommending, firmly and consistently, that she get a thorough mental health analysis. And they should take that tack any time she wants to do another demonstration, study, IIG-like theatrical presentation, or JREF style entertainment event. And notwithstanding the opinions of people like Jeff Wagg and organizations like the JREF who are under the wholly mistaken impression that there's something interesting going on which merits further testing.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
You're right, it was in 2008.
The suggestion:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4274952&postcount=598
"Actually could that be a test? Could you identify the gender of a person covered in a sheet? Or from a small area of visible skin (say the side of the waist perhaps?)
"
VfF's reply:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4285740&postcount=727
"Some of the questions regarding under what conditions the perceptions can perform will be answered in a study I am planning. I do not expect to put the volunteers through the test though to answer this question."
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Maia
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,259
Well she always has two guesses sometimes even three!
Target one is a man My second choice is a woman. or 3rd choice a mannequin?
I think she'll do really well on this set up
I agree, with just one small change... they all have to be taking a nude Zumba class at the time. Anita might actually pass that one.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
This gets funnier and funnier...
Space cadet said she never saw Hals right kidney but yet she marked his right kidney down twice in her game of noughts and crosses and then crossed it out ...
And she really, truly didn't do that after the fact. Really, truly, rooly.
Honestly.
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
My last video shows her walking off the stage with notes in her hand. Pen posed near the paper. I only follow her for about ten seconds as she stopped in front of my camera. Then she walks off frame and I pan to Banachek who was still on stage. It would have taken no time at all to make marks on that paper. Not saying that she did, but the opportunity was clearly there.
Not that it means anything as it was a non-test and she got Hal wrong when her odds were only one in five. (The same odds that Mark Edward gave her at BoHo's when he asked her how many fingers do I have sticking out under this cloth, at least one finger is out) [see videos]
This gets funnier and funnier...
Space cadet said she never saw Hals right kidney but yet she marked his right kidney down twice in her game of noughts and crosses and then crossed it out ...
I'm the photographer that took those photos she is linking I don't think Anita has powers (or “experiences” or whatever she wants to call them). I don't even think she experiences synesthesia. But I do not think she altered her notes.
She was not in possession of them while sitting discussing her performance:
She was not in possession of them after submitting her results to the podium, she placed them unaltered on the table at the sitting area. She returned her pen to the table where she got it from. I won't bore you with pictures of limited photographic value (although I have many). She retrieved her notes and pen as she left the stage:
She was immediately surrounded by Joe Nickel, several videographers, and I. That's when I took a few photos (previously posted in this thread). The time between my shots of her leaving the stage (where she was covered and couldn't alter the notes) and when the subject of her notes came up in conversation was approximately 7 minutes and 18 seconds. If she did alter them, it's almost certain that I, Joe, or the videographers caught it. She was under a LOT of observation.
Is it possible she found a way to quickly make the scribbles? Maybe. But I think there is a far simpler explanation: her notes are total gibberish. I don't see any rhyme or reason to how they're laid out, and I doubt anyone else can really get meaning from them. Anita could say anything she wanted about these notes and her notation and we really can't say she's telling us the truth; especially if we take her claim of synesthesia at face value.
Anita can make all the complaints she wants but the fact is: she was wrong. She was wrong and she said she was very certain she was right. She even laughed out loud when she inspected #3.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
For any future testing by any skeptical organisation, would it be feasible to contractually demand that when she fails the test she will declare her claim(s) falsified .... on video?
Perhaps such a contract could be enforced with a healthy deposit to be payed by Ikonen.
Considering the blatant dishonesty she has displayed until now this sounds reasonable to me.
Ofcourse after receiving back her deposit, she may still backtrack on such a falsification statement but this would show her dishonestly quite clearly.
Ikonen claiming that she would falsily make such a statement to get her deposit back would as well.
If such a contractual demand and deposit were to be unacceptable to Ikonen, tough luck, no test then.
All this considering her blatant dishonesty until now, would something like the above be feasible?
Perhaps such a contract could be enforced with a healthy deposit to be payed by Ikonen.
Considering the blatant dishonesty she has displayed until now this sounds reasonable to me.
Ofcourse after receiving back her deposit, she may still backtrack on such a falsification statement but this would show her dishonestly quite clearly.
Ikonen claiming that she would falsily make such a statement to get her deposit back would as well.
If such a contractual demand and deposit were to be unacceptable to Ikonen, tough luck, no test then.
All this considering her blatant dishonesty until now, would something like the above be feasible?
Last edited:
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
She says that the upcoming test will not be livecast. I hope whoever's doing it at least has good video coverage. The IIG test and the JREF demo are both well documented. It makes it harder (but obviously not impossible) for Ikonen to try and spin things in her favor. That must be frustrating for her, so she probably insisted that this next test is not broadcast live because then she can say anything she wants about it and there'll be no evidence to the contrary. That sounds dangerous.
Ward
Ward
bookitty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5,732
I love this idea. It's such a perfectly simple "put up or shut up."
But I don't think it'll happen. The groups that test claimants get tons of applicants. They're offering a cash prize, right? Most of the claimants have no idea what a scientifically rigorous test entails. They think they'll show up, do that thing that impressed their friends ("I can feel that you're a people person."), made sense when they were stoned ("I totally knew that guy was gonna say that! Whoa!") or works on the marks ("This dowsing rod has been in my family for two generations.") The group of skeptics will accept it immediately, fall to the ground in awe and fork over the money.
Then they start the application process. They're asked exactly what it is they do and then asked to come up with a test that has a statically significant result. It's too hard, too smart or too "skeptical" so they vanish.
This leaves the group with another meeting about the one that got away. For all their hard work, they only get the fun of testing 1 in 100 or maybe 1000 applicants.
It's very exciting to get a live one, to plot out the challenge, consult the statisticians, figure out the flaws, loopholes and possibility for cheating. It's why the group was formed. Setting an obstacle in the way, especially one that is related to the personality of the claimant and not the actual claim, wouldn't be worth it.
Maia
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,259
After seeing those photographs, my deep thoughts are as follows:
The expression on the face of the woman sitting to Anita's left is just priceless.
Anita is going to fall right over on her face if she keeps wearing those heels, because they're about eight feet high.
If I were her, I would not wear that dress.
I don't care what anyone says, that hair color is not 100% natural.
(yawn)
Is the second season of Jersey Shore on yet?
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,527
Watch from 5:47 - 5:55 on this video. Dr. Kurtz was the first person to approach her when it was over and he didn't go to her until the show was over and Banachek was finished talking. So imagine the whole rest of that segment no one filming her. My attention was also somewhere else. NOT THAT IT MATTERS ABOUT THE NOTES (just from a testing point of view it was a major flaw)
The real priceless expression is Anita's within 15 seconds of learning she was wrong (click spoiler to see, I don't want to drive us too far offtopic making fun of her outfit and dismay):
Maia
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,259
Not a happy look. But because she kept backtracking afterwards, this clearly was not a come-to-Jesus moment for her (this is not a phrase with any religious significance, btw.) It's the same old question: is she actually continuing to fool herself into thinking that she's right even when she keeps failing the tests?
Now, what makes this an intriguing question, I think, is that it's the same thing you could ask about psychics who charge lots of money. Do they continue believe what they say, even when there's undeniable proof they've failed?