VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

The first time I met her was at TAM-8 ... at that time I had no idea who she was (I'm still new to the forums) ... she pointed to the "VisionFromFeeling" name or her badge and then waited for me to react ... but in my case (with no knowledge), I just went blank, the name was just a name, and carried no baggage ... so she then proceeded to launch into her claim about what she could do and cited a few skeptics who had earlier politely listened (as proof that they had been impressed).

My take ... messed up? ... no ... but, attention seeking and loving it ... yes. My evidence ... she turns up at TAM and actively engages any passing stranger (myself) with a detailed account of her claimed powers ...

She said that she was willing for her power to be proven fake ... and it has been, yet she keeps going ... and as long we we keep giving attention, she will be right there to step up and make silly claims that she knows are not real.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forums, and. . .

WanderingSkeptic said:
She said that she was willing for her power to be proven fake ... and it has been, yet she keeps going ... and as long we we keep giving attention, she will be right there to step up and make silly claims that she knows are not real.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
Despite over a dozen times having told Anita Ikonen, aka VisionFromFeeling aka Alenara not to ever contact me unless it's through a lawyer and threatening a restraining order, she e-mailed me yet again. The first line reads, "First of all, no lawyer would consider this e-mail to you as a form of harassment." I guess "no" doesn't mean "no" in her book. That's only expected since "falsify" doesn't mean "falsify" either.

Anyway, she rambled on for about 700 words about her new test. She's inviting me along with other skeptics to join her on her forum to discuss the "protocol" for her latest unwarranted test. I, for one, am not going to participate. I hope no one else does either. It's an obvious grab for attention from someone who deserves nothing more than, "You've failed repeatedly. Go away."

Furthermore, there are literally thousands of posts where people have tried to help her create a decent protocol, but she only pays lip service to wanting assistance. She rationalizes away all reasonable suggestions and implements utterly stupid conditions. Even then, she doesn't keep her word. Most importantly, failure means nothing to her, just like the wishes of other people.

If anyone is thinking of participating, speak up. I'm sure many of us can give you well documented reasons why you should not. She's just looking for new victims, just as any addict would. Only her addiction is attention.

ETA: Here's a blog about how Anita Ikonen has treated some people.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
Anyway, she rambled on for about 700 words about her new test. She's inviting me along with other skeptics to join her on her forum to discuss the "protocol" for her latest unwarranted test.
Click to expand...

700 words just to invite you to read hundreds more of her words about another meaningless test. What fun. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
...
If anyone is thinking of participating, speak up. I'm sure many of us can give you well documented reasons why you should not.
...
Click to expand...

Ikonen has shown to be brutally dishonest, participating equals having your input abused.

I will not participate.
 
She's inviting me along with other skeptics to join her on her forum to discuss the "protocol" for her latest unwarranted test.
Click to expand...

She's been doing that for two years now..

As Dr. Phil would say: " How's that been working for you ? "

Jeez Louise, how friggin hard is it to design a protocol to test an X-ray machine ?

  • Look at box
  • Describe contents
 
UncaYimmy said:
Despite over a dozen times having told Anita Ikonen, aka VisionFromFeeling aka Alenara not to ever contact me unless it's through a lawyer and threatening a restraining order, she e-mailed me yet again. The first line reads, "First of all, no lawyer would consider this e-mail to you as a form of harassment." I guess "no" doesn't mean "no" in her book. That's only expected since "falsify" doesn't mean "falsify" either.
Click to expand...

Engaging with a crazy attention seeker, even to tell them to go away, is exactly what they want. My advice: block & bounce her emails. Nothing could possibly infuriate a more than not getting ANY of your attention.
 
KirinDave said:
Engaging with a crazy attention seeker, even to tell them to go away, is exactly what they want. My advice: block & bounce her emails. Nothing could possibly infuriate a more than not getting ANY of your attention.
Click to expand...

The reason I don't block her is because I don't put it past her to show up at my house one day. I want that advance warning that I know she couldn't resist giving me. Lest you think showing up at my house is unrealistic, she made sure to tell me when she had layovers in Phoenix. She wanted to meet me at the airport, which I refused. Later she did make it a point to comment about how different the neighborhoods look in Phoenix, which is not something you can tell from the air or from inside the airport. The implication to me at least was that she was cruising around. I'm only a few miles north of the airport and my address is easily discovered. Creepy.

So, for my own peace of mind I won't block her e-mails. Besides, it's dirt simple to get another e-mail address. She also knows I have to read my business e-mail. So, really, it's not like blocking an address would be effective anyway. If she's willing to write a million words on the Internet about herself, I'm sure she's willing to take five minutes to get a GMail account when she feels the need to contact me.

On a Related Note:
Anita posted the following on her website a week or so ago:
I had a useless professor in the chemistry department at UNC Charlotte who hit and yelled at students he didn't like. He mistook me for some dumb blonde without knowing that I was one of this school's best students - no kidding. UNC Charlotte refused to respond to the matter responsibly, and did a massive cover up hurting me in the process. That is why I can now admit, in spite of my otherwise warm loyalty to my school, that no, UNC Charlotte is not a top school.

I sent the quoted material above and a link the page containing it to the public relations office at UNCC. Today it seems Anita has removed the passage from her website.
 
OK, I hate to bump this thread, especially since it's finally fallen to the third page in the "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" forum, but there should be news soon and we still haven't figured out what's going on exactly.

First, based on the timeline she has set up, her third test should be just a day or so away. This is the gender identification test.

I am still speculating that this test will take place in Sweden. School starts for her on Monday, August 16th (that's this coming Monday for those of you scoring at home). Assuming that she is going to complete her schooling, she'd better get that gender test finished. This makes me think that the Finnish skeptics are out. Even though Finland is close, I think it would be too much trouble to go to Finland and then back to Sweden and then to North Carolina in the remaining few days. So that leaves Sweden.

Tubba Blubba has done some research. He did not specify who he contacted, but I have no reason to believe that he did not ask around. He found nothing out.

I suggested that she might be tested by http://www.humanisterna.se/ which has a cash prize similar to the MDC. That was the only Swedish skeptical group that I had heard of. But I recently googled "Swedish Skeptics" and found this: http://www.csicop.org/resources/organizations/vetenskap_och_folkbildning_swedish_skeptics/

So they are another possibilty as a testing organization. I don't know if Tubba Blubba contacted them, but perhaps he could tell us.

But anyway, the test (if it even happens) is nigh. We figured out that the previous one was going to be at TAM. I feel weird not having figured this out yet. She's usually so transparent.

Any ideas?

For those interested in her love life (and I know you're out there), apparently her skeptical boyfriend has dumped her (or vice versa), but she's already got another one. This is based on her FaceBook posts. Her new boyfriend is also a skeptic, and I predict that he can be seen in one of her TAM videos that she has posted on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/VisionFromFeeling2

I'm not prepared to speculate on who it is specifically, but I do speculate that it's someone in those videos. Maybe we can get all those guys to come here and post "not it."

My nose is tired from all this poking around.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
OK, I hate to bump this thread, especially since it's finally fallen to the third page in the "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" forum, but there should be news soon and we still haven't figured out what's going on exactly.
Click to expand...


Nah, it's all good. I'd like to figure it out too, although I have to admit that I'm leaning towards "Made the whole thing up based on the merest spark of interest from a group that's since dumped her like a hot potato."


wardenclyffe said:
I'm not prepared to speculate on who it is specifically, but I do speculate that it's someone in those videos. Maybe we can get all those guys to come here and post "not it."

My nose is tired from all this poking around.

Ward
Click to expand...


Oh geeze, now I'm going to have to watch them again. The first time was nauseating enough, although having a guessing game to play might improve watchability.

Dum-de-dum . . .
 
wardenclyffe said:
For those interested in her love life (and I know you're out there), apparently her skeptical boyfriend has dumped her (or vice versa), but she's already got another one. This is based on her FaceBook posts. Her new boyfriend is also a skeptic, and I predict that he can be seen in one of her TAM videos that she has posted on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/VisionFromFeeling2

I'm not prepared to speculate on who it is specifically, but I do speculate that it's someone in those videos. Maybe we can get all those guys to come here and post "not it."
Click to expand...
If you mean the person in the first video, then, just, wow! It probably needs a health warning, and he's not able to come here and post anymore.

ETA: Eric Broze (who I just saw appears in the third video) has some photos of Anita, for those interested, starting here, and a couple here.

And, my, doesn't her voice become grating after a while?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
If you mean the person in the first video, then, just, wow! It probably needs a health warning, and he's not able to come here and post anymore.

ETA: Eric Broze (who I just saw appears in the third video) has some photos of Anita, for those interested, starting here, and a couple here.

And, my, doesn't her voice become grating after a while?
Click to expand...

I think they are both too young for her. Remember her boyfriend before she started dating skeptics was 69 years old. Who was the guy in the first video (I mean, who was he here and why'd he get kicked out)?

Also, she'd have to be pretty sneaky to snatch Broze away from his wife with her standing right there. I don't think subtlety is her strong suit.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
I think they are both too young for her. Remember her boyfriend before she started dating skeptics was 69 years old.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't anyone human too young for her?
Who was the guy in the first video (I mean, who was he here and why'd he get kicked out)?
Click to expand...
Oh, you don't know? That's Dr Buzz0, banned from here after one too many meltdowns.

Also, she'd have to be pretty sneaky to snatch Broze away from his wife with her standing right there. I don't think subtlety is her strong suit.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry, to you and him, I certainly didn't mean to imply in any way that Eric was a candidate for her affections; I just happened to be looking through his photos the other day and still had the tab open so I put in the link to the photos of Anita, and I was watching the video at the same time. Then he appeared in the video, too.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
wardenclyffe said:
For those interested in her love life (and I know you're out there), apparently her skeptical boyfriend has dumped her (or vice versa), but she's already got another one. This is based on her FaceBook posts. Her new boyfriend is also a skeptic, and I predict that he can be seen in one of her TAM videos that she has posted on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/VisionFromFeeling2

I'm not prepared to speculate on who it is specifically, but I do speculate that it's someone in those videos. Maybe we can get all those guys to come here and post "not it."
Click to expand...
If you mean the person in the first video, then, just, wow! It probably needs a health warning, and he's not able to come here and post anymore.

ETA: Eric Broze (who I just saw appears in the third video) has some photos of Anita, for those interested, starting here, and a couple here.

And, my, doesn't her voice become grating after a while?
Click to expand...


PHOTOGRAPHED WITH ANITA; NO, I'M NOT HER NEW BOYFRIEND
(I'm not in the videos)

I left the TAM final talk in the Ballroom on Sunday, and rushed to Baja Miguel's to attend the Independent Investigations Group's (IIG) luncheon meeting. Got there late because the TAM talks ran late.

The restaurant hostess said I couldn't be seated because there were no more chairs for the tables. I went in just to talk with Brian Hart (IIG) to arrange a time to talk with him. Told him I can't stay for the IIG luncheon because there are no more chairs.

Anita was sitting in a booth behind Brian's table. She was with Eric Broze (photographer), Mrs. Broze, and a man wearing a kilt. Anita overheard there were no more chairs, so she graciously invited me to sit with them in the booth.

Eric had his camera out, so I asked if he could take some photos of me and Brian, and me with Anita. He was nice to take some photos. Thank you, Eric!

So, Anita was polite and invited me to sit with her/others which made it possible for me to attend the IIG luncheon meeting. Photos were taken so I could have memories from TAM 8- but I'm not her boyfriend. I'm just a guy who was photographed with her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom