Dear Jim and Steve,
As the co-authors of the IIG report of my test (which I have not bothered
to read yet), I know from other sources you are quoted as saying that my
correct answer in trial 2 was nothing but a lucky guess. Quite frankly, I
am quite furious at the two of you for saying such a thing, and it takes a
whole lot to tick me off even the slightest.
It should be absolutely clear from my draft papers that I confirmed with
myself repeatedly and consistently that I was not feeling the kidney in
either of the two subjects, in the one side each in them which I marked
with several question marks for absence of kidney. The markings I made is
not consistent with guessing, rather it displays a repeated process which
is yielding the same conclusion each time.
But above all, what I was saying during the break following immediately
after trial 2 is absolutely not consistent with your assertion that my
answer in trial 2 would have been simply a guess. Please bother reading my
page about the test http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/paranormaltest.html
and especially reviewing the UStream test video excerpts and reading the
log of what I was actually saying about trial 2, immediately after the
trial, to see that my answer in trial 2 was absolutely not the case of a
guess, but an answer which I was tremendously confident in.
Sorry to proceed with my ranting, but. I made two excuses during the test,
one that larger persons take longer for me to feel into, which led me to
not do well in trial 1. I was absolutely sure that my answer in trial 1
would be wrong. This is absolutely evident in the test video, especially
if you review the other cameras.
I know the distinction between when my claim kicks in and when it doesn't.
When I see and when I don't. When I am confident and not. I did not have
that confidence after trial 1, and I knew it and told everyone at hand
that I was very unhappy and that I had now failed the test.
I was VERY confident in trial 2, to the point where I KNEW I could never
do better; the claim had done its very best that it could ever do, and
would this be wrong, the claim would definitely be over. You see, I would
never say this of a guess. In trial 2 my claim did the very best it could
do, and this is evidenced both by my notes in the draft papers of trial 2
and on the test video. Unequivocally and requiring no interpretation, my
answer in trial 2 was no guess.
By trial 3 I was exhausted, and I managed to select a person but had to
guess on the side. This is also captured on video. So in trial 3 I guessed
which side... and with a chance of 1 in 2 to get it right, would I not
show some confidence? No confidence at all (see one of the excerpts on my
webpage, the one with Mark Edward), for a 50% guess! You assert that I
guessed in trial 2, but why on earth would I have guessed SO CONFIDENTLY
in a 1 in 12 guess in trial 2!!! When I had no confidence at all in my
guess on which side in trial 3?
Furthermore, I was quite happy to admit that I had guessed the side in
trial 3. Would I not have admitted to having guessed in trial 2 as well?
Say it as you wish, write what you want, but my answer in trial 2 was NOT
the case of a guess. It absolutely wasn't. If I behaved like the mean
skeptics do to me, I'd say you are liars, but you are simply wrong.
I absolutely experience something when I look and feel into people. I
perceive images in my mind that depict internal health information. This
is similar to my experiences of synesthesia, such as when I look at
numbers I see colors.
Sometimes it kicks in sometimes it doesn't. In trial 1 I was thrown off by
the larger person (this "excuse" is proven or disproven in a next test
without larger persons). By trial 3 I was very exhausted after already
nearly an hour of intense focusing. I was having headaches and nausea and
experiencing something similar to the onset of epilepsy (never had
before). But trial 2 went beautifully. My claim did what it does, there
was nothing to obstruct it, and I was not tired. I DID NOT GUESS.
I often wonder about all the woos who try to interpret facts and data in
their favor, and how silly that all is. How they are already very
convinced of their beliefs and unable to see things for what they are when
those things point in another direction than what their beliefs and
expectations are.
I thoughts Skeptics were my superheroes, people who can always see the
truth no matter where it is or what it is, regardless of their own
beliefs, prior experience, or expectations or desires. I always thought
that Skeptics would always choose the truth, even if it means they have to
lose something they wanted to believe in. But you, Steve and Jim, are a
disappointment.
Not because I want to find evidence in favor of my claim, or because I'd
want to prove a paranormal claim, but because quite frankly my answer in
trial 2 was not a guess. I was describing what I was seeing and feeling.
It was very clear and consistent. And this is not ad hoc, something I say
after the fact simply because I was right. I said this right after the
trial as soon as it was ok to speak again once the subjects had left.
You are just as biased and inclined to see things as subjectively leaning
toward your own beliefs and expectations, as the woo is who interprets in
the opposite way.
No matter what anyone writes, says, or thinks, trial 2 was not a guess.
Anita Ikonen
