The punchline of your unnecessarily longwinded reply therefore boils down to more misrepresentation.

So far I have spent in excess of $2,500 of my personal funds for this hobby of mine of paranormal investigation, sacrificing both car and a great deal of shopping. Meanwhile I have earned none in return for any forms of expression of my claims.

I once was a foremost proponent of the Breatharian woo. I did write a book which is highly coveted. It, along with a series of tours and lectures could have earned me some easy millions, but I gave it all away. The book did not get published, and I retreated from the movement. The reason being that I discovered the scientific study of light, optical physics, which to me had all the answers that I was trying to form on my own with the pseudoscience.

Also I ran into two unforeseen circumstances at the IIG test that impaired on my performance. One was that in the first trial I found that different people are differently difficult for me to feel into, and the particular set of people in this trial was difficult. That is why after the first trial I told all the IIG members there about how I knew my answer would be wrong. It did not represent my claim.

Second trial went so well, I produced an answer I was so confident in that I declared that if it be wrong the whole claim is falsified. But it was the right answer. So it’s not like I’m not willing to falsify this thing, just that I want it to be falsified by being wrong in an answer that represented its most clear and confident perceptions.

In the third trial I was exhausted and nearly cancelled that trial. I made sure to write this down in my papers during the trial so that no one would say that I made the excuse after the fact.

In real scientific research, which skeptical challenges are not, best efforts are made to construct a viable testing procedure theoretically before conducting the first series of tests. Yes, I said series of tests, because science rarely concludes on a hypothesis after only one single test or with three simple trials. Thereafter the test is conducted, and after that the scientists, which skeptics are not, assess the test results and look back at the test and determine whether any new unforeseen factors may have been identified that may have affected the outcome of the test. Thereafter new test designs are made, each that address one of the new parameters.

If my IIG test were a scientific test with the intent to determine the capabilities of my claim, my two excuses that different people vary in how easy it is for me to feel into them, and that three 27 minute trials in a row are too much, would have both been considered especially since they were made during the test and not after the fact. It is similar to if you run a test and only after running the test you realize that lights had an effect on the outcome. If you did not realize that in the protocol planning stage you do not say “too bad, you should have thought of that”. You go back, adjust the protocol, and determine whether lighting had any effect on the outcome.

Real research is tedious, it is iterative, and it rather conducts too many tests than too few. A simple hypothesis may require hundreds of repeated trials before the answer begins to become clear, and a good scientist is proud to consider additional affecting parameters and to test each of those in its own additional sets of testing.

Skeptics are not scientists. A skeptic wants a quick yes or no answer, all or nothing, 100% psychic or not at all. Meanwhile I am conducting this out of scientific curiosity, I want to determine what the claim can do and under what conditions. Not to prove that I’d be psychic, but to fully explore this experience which most who experience it would misinterpret as a paranormal ability.

This adaptation you talk about is a natural and essential part of scientific research.

Really bad form suggesting the JREF ought refuse to test anyone simply because they are less than honest or are self promoting.

As I understand, the JREF says, “Here’s how someone might cheat and how you can control for that.” In other words, the JREF takes on cheaters.

Cheaters by definition are bad people. Okay some may be forgiven for being less conscious of their deception. But condescension does not equal respect.

If the JREF can’t handle bad people, shut it down. There’s no point.

Refusal to deal with any claimant needs to be based on verifiable facts –e.g., the claimant misrepresented statements by JREF agents to falsely imply endorsement, or the claimant threatened to file suit against the JREF. Presenting such facts ought not require lengthy drama.

Contrast the above statement with the statement below, which she made with respect to the IIG test, on her site:

VfF/Anita Ikonen about the IIG test:
“I feel really good about the test I am about to have, but most importantly of all, I know that it is the best type of test design for my claim of medical perceptions and I can never expect to be able to design a test that would be any easier for me to pass. Therefore the results of the paranormal test will conclude on the claim, and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is
falsified.”

Misrepresentation and adaptation.

Whatever she says about her claims at any time, has no value after that.

“the claims” page on your website was enlightening, to say the least.

although, i must say — even if she can’t really see missing kidneys, she must find “getting high off of photos of drugs” to be rather…entertaining? useful?

used too much??

are you doing this in a skeptical/scientific manner?

more importantly (to me), do you now or have you ever profited from your (extremely odd kidney-viewing, alien-being) claims in any way?

@JREF – This is a demonstration not a test.

Just a reminder that as far as I understood it, all parties agreed this was a simple demonstration and not a “test” and certainly not the Million Dollar Challenge.