Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

I am just as casual about my ability as everyone is about having eyesight. Sorry about that.

Ah but that is a little disingenuous isn't it? Who sets up a website or visits forums to claim that they have eyesight? Nobody.
The initial claims are anything but casual - there is then a subsequent attempt to make the claims sound trivial.
They are not and the claims that you consider them so doesn't seem entirely consistent.

I'm not sure I fit the description you make of these typical persons who claim to have an ability.

So far you do. Only if you demonstrate actual ability under acceptable protocols will the difference be evident.

I worked hard to suggest a test protocol to the IIG that would eliminate any sources of error and I've stated over and over again that I welcome finding out that it is not the case of ESP. I have no reason to favor having ESP over having just an unusual but wordly ability. No matter what the test results are or what label the ability gets, the ability stays the same and not much changes in my life. I have not put myself into a situation where I would depend on it being ESP. I have not claimed it as being ESP, I do not charge people money for observations, etc.

I have not said you are lying - it is not uncommon for people to believe they genuinely have these abilities.
And that is exactly my concern - they often do set up tests (some have ven be happy to do them on TV, they believe in their abilities that strongly). Strength of belief has no correlation with actual ability (as with so many aspects of life).
No-one has ever shown any paranormal ability.

And what is often seen when there are a variety of abilities being claimed is a reluctance to demonstrate the most clear cut ones, because they (intentionally or unintentionally) want to leave some room for interpretation.
They have already emotionally invested in having this 'ability' and are uncomfortable with confronting the possibility that it may not be real.

In these ways you are entirely consistent with previous claimants of such abilties.

I can't tell you how I look forward to having the test with the IIG and being given the chance to detect health information in a controlled setting. I am very curious to finding out what I can do.

And I wish you success with that. You are to be commended for agreeing to tests.
I hope you are 100% successful for reasons I indicate below.

I apologize if I am not entitled to feel the way I feel about my ability. It is just a normal part of me. Thank you for writing.

A little passive agressive there, but again not uncommon. On this website we do not treat people as special or gifted just because they claim to be. Until demonstrated otherwise you are a normal human being with the same abilities or lack of them as anyone else.

Nobody is telling you how to feel, but cautioning against investing too heavily in an untested belief in your own claimed but unverified abilities.

The casual attitude is again inappropriate - it's hard to imagine you could not think that the world's first positive scientific indication of such abilities would affect almost every branch of science and begin research in a fantastic number of exciting areas. This would be amazing and everyone here would be massively excited.

But to quote your earlier post

I am less interested in the other types of observations that I make since they are less frequent and less interesting.

Less interesting - hmmm. Obviously interesting enough for you to claim thm on the internet.
Overturning the accepted laws of physics not being "interesting" enough is a very strange way of putting it.

Still I'm sure it will all come out in the testing.

One question - if the testing showed inconclusive or no results above chance, would this lead you to begin questioning whether you may be mistaken in some way?
Or to put it another way, what level of results would lead you to assume you were mistaken about your ability?

You liken the ability to the mundanity of eyesight - we can easily test for that. Below a certain point we consider people to be blind. If a person is completely blind we don't let them fly a plane, drive a car etc. They cannot simply claim they can see, but their ability let them down that day.
What is your similar level of success/failure to indicate you don't have the claimed ability?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And that's why there's encouragement to test it. Why, on a site that promotes www.stopsylvia.com and the 'what's the harm' site, and the MDC, would you tell someone to indulge in such a thing?

Of course s/he should set up practice if s/he can prove that this is anything other than fantasy. But to tell someone to just go and open a clinic and charge people for 'medical' advice, and dismiss their efforts here to at least consider testing what they claim, is not what this forum is here for.

I think you may have misinterpreted my remark:

And we, in turn, apologize for thinking that this seems patently absurd. Open a clinic. Diagnose sick people. Take only a small fee for your services. Change the world.

as a sincere apology and a serious suggestion. I was just wondering out loud how someone can take so nonchalantly what appears to be a miraculous gift.

~~ Paul

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I have not seen a new thread about the results of the test of VFF's testing -- neither astounding success or abject failure so I though I would drop by and read the posts in this thread since I last posted.

Why am I reminded of the scene from the Wizard of Oz that starts with, "I am the Great and Powerful Wizard of OZ" and ends with "Ignore the little man behind the curtain"?

 

[SezMe]

According to the IIG web site, they are still negotiating protocol.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ah. OK. I'll put my green goggles on and go back to lurking.

Bonus points for the "green goggles" reference.

 

[SezMe]

Demerit points as the green goggles whoosh over my head.

 

[Ashles]

According to the IIG web site, they are still negotiating protocol.

From the IIG homepage

Most people who inquire about our challenge do not end up being tested, usually because they will not agree to the protocols designed for the test.

*sigh* this is why the non-medical abilties would be much easier to test. They are much more clear-cut so there would be many simple protocols, so many ways of testing.
Health related claims are usually problematic and open to interpretation.

Do we know what the current proposed details are of the IIG test?

(And it's probably worth reminding VfF or any visitors at this moment that all the comments on this thread are of course in no way indicative of the opinion or stance of the JREF - they are all entirely the opinion of the individual posters)

 

[SezMe]

Do we know what the current proposed details are of the IIG test?

I don't but as noted upthread I've asked someone from IIG to join this thread. I'll email them asking for the current protocol and ask permission to post it here. Stand by ......

ETA: BTW, this is the group that Edge was going to test his dowsing capabilities with but they apparently gave up trying to establish a protocol. Now there's a news flash, eh?

 

[Moochie]

People are usually amazed by the thing that is in the extreme minority, not the other thing that is common. People are usually amazed by the thing that defies physics as we understand it, not the other thing that is mundane.


I didn't say that you said you would. I said that you should.


It is if she can do what she thinks she can do.

~~ Paul

Whether or not the "ability" proves to be real, VFF should continue with her studies and perhaps become a medical doctor. Even if the "ability" isn't real, whatever it is might help her empathize with patients more, and that can't be bad. If it is real, all the better.


M.

 

[Locknar]

Seems to me a "health test" is to open ended and overly complicated...especially given:

I had never seen such a bright, bright white vibrational aspect of something little and roundish, with such a clearly defined outer casing, such an intensely bright vibrational aspect, and sitting inside a cereal box! I picked up the box and read carefully - turns out it contained Lactobacillus. Who would have known.

So why not line up 50 boxes, some containing Lactobacillus and others not, and test from there...similar to how JREF (and others) have tested dowsers before?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Locknar:
Not exactly. It is difficult for me to describe the cases of observations I've had so that suitable subjects (ie. persons with health problems) could be selected by others for the test. What is a strong ailment that I sense clearly isn't always obvious as strong to others, therefore I have suggested that I be the one who selects the subjects. What this means is that the IIG will have at least 15 persons with a health problem, available for the test, and I select the ones in which I claim to observe a health problem. Now, as soon as I have claimed to observe a health problem, that observation is checked and considered an answer and there is no room for making excuses afterwards such as that the person was not adequate for the test after all if I lost a point. And I am prepared for this. If I fail a test there is no "out".

In addition most of the ailments that may be part of the test are not ambiguous or open for interpretation.

According to the preliminary testing protocol, each subject fills in an ailment form where they answer as to which of the listed ailments they have. Each person is associated with a diagnosis form, in which I check for one ailment which I claim to observe in the person. A correct observation is when my observation matches with how the person answered to their form. An incorrect observation is when my answer does not match with theirs. I think this is quite clearly defined in the protocol so far.

I will post the preliminary test protocol here later this evening.

calebprime:
I have bought the materials for the cereal test and will have it this afternoon. I was unable to yesterday since the person I am doing this with had other plans before I could ask and arrange it with him.

Locknar:
I would not let anything get between my test with the IIG, which is what I refer to as the formal, or sometimes as the official, test, which involves health information. As for the other tests on chemical identification, I do not take those as seriously since I make such observations less frequently and since it does not involve my official test. I will have some of these other tests anyway, and on the side, mostly to satisfy these Forum members. But I arrange them without a skeptical- or testing organization and that involves some work for me and my resources in terms of people and materials are limited.

chillzero:
I am working towards a career in medical science and will be applying my ability heavily as a source of inspiration and ideas for new treatment technologies, to which I of course apply full and professional scientific judgement.

JWideman:
In the test, my observations will be possible to confirm as being either accurate or inaccurate. The reason I can't always confirm my observations in real life situations is because I can not approach a person and ask them if they have cancer, or diabetes. I don't understand what the subconscious clues were for bacterial supplement, having eaten pancakes for breakfast, cysts in the reproductive system, a permanent dark area in the field of vision which I described exactly in size, appearance and placement, and many other observations I've made that do not seem to carry externally detectable signs that I could think of. This makes me interested in having the test.

I do perceive vibrational information, that is my experience of it. What then is the true cause and origin of that perceived vibrational information is the question. Let's just see what the test results indicate and then we can better speculate on this, you and I.

roger:
Let's just see if the ability works or not. The fact that I can not see into a leather purse is not a miss. It is simply among the many things that I do not experience detecting, and there is no reason why that multitude of things should discredit the reasons to test for the things that I do see. When I make accurate observations that can not be found to have explainable origins, it should constitute a successful observation. When I make an incorrect observation, that should constitute a miss.

When I say "ability" I refer to being able to detect and make observations on health information when others, applying ordinary senses, can't. The ability works and exists. The question is simply what the origin of it is. I have never claimed to see into a leather purse at inanimate, non-living things, nor has it ever been part of my claim. The majority of my claim is to detect health information, and a leather purse is not equivalent to a living human body.

Ashles:
I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it and how I have access to real and useful information, but I am not overly excited about it as some here might think I should be. Sorry if there is inconsistency. I don't see why how I feel about my ability should be of such concern. I don't come after any of you expecting you to be excited or not excited about it. Each is entitled to feel exactly the way they feel about it.

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. Whether the ability is truly ESP or something wordly I can not claim to know, it is something that needs to be answered by an impartial other person. Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.

I want to demonstrate my strongest skill, which is detecting health information. I agree that for test purposes it is more complicated to test, yet a suitable test protocol that fits both my claim and the requirements of a scientific test is on its way.

I have no emotions invested in my ability. My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says. If the tests say that I have no ESP what so ever I still have a fascinating way of perceiving that I enjoy and benefit from, if not for anything else than for inspiration and ideas. I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed. There is nothing embarrassing about undertaking a test of scientific standard to want to understand something. I've failed many chemistry experiments and I was never embarrassed.

Being criticized here for not being excited about the ability, as well as being accused of having invested emotionally in the ability, is a contradiction. I am not overly excited about the ability, and I have not invested emotionally in it. Let's let me feel the way I do and let's see what the test results say.

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

If I make claims on observations during the test that show to be inaccurate and I statistically fail the test, I will doubt my ability of course. It would then probably be the case of a creative mind and not ESP. What level of results would lead me to assume my ability is not real? Well since I have so far not made a single incorrect observation I don't know. It is not like I am already allowing myself to have a certain percentage of incorrect answers. I think someone else who understands the statistical significance of this should answer this question and I believe I could rely on their judgement.

And we can test my ability as well as we can test eyesight.

I do not know what percentage of incorrect answers should lead to the conclusion that there is no ability. The IIG suggests that 10% incorrect observations constitutes a failed test, so since I have limited statistical background I suppose I would trust in that number as being it? Thanks for comments.

Paul:
I am also not wanting to be too excited about having a possible ability since we might find out that there is no ability but just a bunch of impressions. I am also humble and there is nothing wrong with that.

SezMe:
Yes the IIG and me are still in the process of designing the test protocol.

Ashles:
Unfortunately as much as you skeptics are doing a very good job at analyzing my claim sometimes what you comment on just does not apply to me. Not to criticize the IIG since they are doing a wonderful job on my claim, but I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the test arrangement. They were quite pleased with my suggested test protocol, and the protocol version that they sent me was almost identical to the one I made, so very few and minor changes were made. The only thing I had a problem with was that they wanted to have music on the test and I do not feel that it is necessary and it might distract me.

I am definitely not the type of applicant that has problems during the protocol formation. Our protocol negotiations have been going very nicely.

SezMe:
I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the protocol negotiations. I am not making up this ability so I make no difficult conditions or requirements for the test. The test protocol I wrote was for most part approved by the IIG, and also I have approved of all of their suggestions with the exception of having music on the test, which I feel is both unnecessary and would distract me. The protocol negotiations are going nicely.

Locknar:
The health test involves a diagnosis form which lists 20 ailments. If I sense one of them in the person I mark it as my answer and have thus made a very specific claimed observation which is not open for discussion or interpretation after that. The ailment either is or isn't.

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.

 

[Soapy Sam]

... I am fully entitled to feel the way I do about the way I perceive the world which is normal to me...

Indeed.

Me too.

I feel you are either deluded or lying.
Now either prove me wrong or stop wasting everybody's time.
You have already had many perfectly viable test suggestions.
Get on with it.

 

[Locknar]

If I fail a test there is no "out".

In addition most of the ailments that may be part of the test are not ambiguous or open for interpretation.

According to the preliminary testing protocol, each subject fills in an ailment form where they answer as to which of the listed ailments they have. Each person is associated with a diagnosis form, in which I check for one ailment which I claim to observe in the person. A correct observation is when my observation matches with how the person answered to their form. An incorrect observation is when my answer does not match with theirs. I think this is quite clearly defined in the protocol so far.

I will post the preliminary test protocol here later this evening.

Of course this is ambiguous, and there is a "out".

You guess someone has something, and they don't...you can claim "that's wrong...they do, science has simply missed it". You don't guess someone has something, its "they didn't have enough for me to sense".

That aside, you've already stated a "failure" on your part won't change your mind as to your Superman like power...so what is the point?

The health test involves a diagnosis form which lists 20 ailments. If I sense one of them in the person I mark it as my answer and have thus made a very specific claimed observation which is not open for discussion or interpretation after that. The ailment either is or isn't.

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.

20 ailments...and who decided any of the people you will "test" with have any aliments at all, or they have enough of a aliment that you can detect?

 

[JWideman]

What happens if you are unable to make enough observations for the test? Let me make a prediction here: you'll call that "inconclusive", right?
I'm not holding it against you that you often can't confirm your observations. It's quite reasonable that you can't simply walk up to a stranger and say "Hi, you have to go to the bathroom." But it does present a whole lot of very likely misses. By only looking at the clock at the right time, you've convinced yourself that you're never wrong, ignoring all the times you simply don't know for sure.
As for those times you've made impossible diagnoses, well, that's YOUR claim. You're not entitled to the benefit of a doubt when making impossible claims here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There are three very simple explanations:
1) Pure coincidence. History is full of staggeringly remarkable coincidences that make your observations look commonplace. If, out of the thousands of observations you must have made over the years, a handful of them were impossible, then that's an easy coincidence.
2) Self-deception. Take it from me, it's very easy to fool oneself, to remember things the way you'd like them to have occurred, and it is very hard to accept reality once you've got yourself fooled. You may have forgotten the times you've been wrong, forgotten about being told someone had an ailment you later observed, and so on. And you won't be aware of it, or able to control it.
3) Dishonesty. I don't believe you're lying, or I wouldn't waste my time.

You can't "perceive vibrational information" because there's no such thing. You might as well claim to have angels sitting on your shoulders. You do seem to have synesthesia though. You really should see a neurologist.
Finally, I find it interesting that you can't see through a leather purse, but can see through a cardboard box. Very interesting.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it

That is an interesting turn of phrase. You are getting enjoyment from this 'ability'.

and how I have access to real and useful information,

That is yet to be confirmed.
At the moment you are merely the latest claimant in a long line with similar claims. If your ability is genuine it will be confirmed.

but I am not overly excited about it as some here might think I should be. Sorry if there is inconsistency. I don't see why how I feel about my ability should be of such concern. I don't come after any of you expecting you to be excited or not excited about it. Each is entitled to feel exactly the way they feel about it.

But as explained by myself and several other posters such ambivalence about a potentially incredible ability appears unconvincing.

We didn't go searching and stumble across you, you obviously felt your ability was unique and noteworthy enough to set up a website, solicit independent testing and post on this website.
All of this is your effort to display your abilities. So you clearly do not think it is uninteresting or not exciting.

Of course if it is genuine then you are absolutely correct to feel this way, and so would we.
But the attempt to then play this down casually is unconvincing, and also (and I know you don' like this but it is true) entirely consistent with previous claims.

To make the claims, set up the website, seek scientific testing and post on the world's foremost skeptic website and then make out "I don't know why you think it's such a big deal, it's normal to me" is entirely disingenuous.

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't.

No, that is what you claim. The reality is yet to be demonstrated.

That is my ability. Whether the ability is truly ESP or something wordly I can not claim to know, it is something that needs to be answered by an impartial other person. Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.

Again this is a little slippery. I have not said you do not have this ability - the passion of the claims comes from you.
I only want objective testing - the strength of your personal belief on your claimed ability is entirely irrelevant.
You have repeatedly likened this ability to eyesight - I could happily demonstrate such an ability tomorrow in many ways. There would be no protocol issues.

I want to demonstrate my strongest skill, which is detecting health information. I agree that for test purposes it is more complicated to test, yet a suitable test protocol that fits both my claim and the requirements of a scientific test is on its way.

I sincerely hope so.
I do not understand why the testing of a possibly weaker skill that would yield more convincing results would not be desirable to you.
You do not have to get 100%, merely significantly greater than chance. What is the point of demonstrating a near perfect score in a test that is ultimately inconclusive and open to interpretation, as opposed to 60% in a test where a score of 20% or higher would be so statistically unlikely as to be incredibly significant?

I have no emotions invested in my ability.

That clearly is not true.
Aside from the attitude you have taken in this thread you yourself wrote above: "I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it"
Could you honestly say that if it were demonstrated that you did not have such an ability it would not bother you?

My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says.

We immediately see the answer. It is inconceivable to you that you are mistaken. There is no doubt you are emotionally attached to the concept of having such an 'ability'.

If the tests say that I have no ESP what so ever I still have a fascinating way of perceiving that I enjoy and benefit from,

Again you agree there is an emotional element to this.

if not for anything else than for inspiration and ideas. I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed. There is nothing embarrassing about undertaking a test of scientific standard to want to understand something.

In my opinion there should be if you claim to undertake a test to dicover a fact, then wilfully choose to ignore that fact.
If you test for something and it is absent, what about that imaginary concept are you 'understanding'?
When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian physics was incorrect, what 'understanding' did he gain of it, other than it was wrong?

I've failed many chemistry experiments and I was never embarrassed.

I'm confused - is that supposed to convince us of your scientific background?

Being criticized here for not being excited about the ability, as well as being accused of having invested emotionally in the ability, is a contradiction.

No it isn't. The term "having emotionally invested in" means that your emotions are tied up in something to the extent that anything affecting that thing will affect your emotions.

I am not overly excited about the ability, and I have not invested emotionally in it. Let's let me feel the way I do and let's see what the test results say.

I agree - let's see what the results say.

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

Again you wish to distance yourself from other claimants when you have displayed very similar traits.
In fact, ironically, the desire to feel special is one of the most common traits. It's interesting in itself how many times you have appealed that you are different from other claimants.
As I said earlier, only the test results will show a difference.

If I make claims on observations during the test that show to be inaccurate and I statistically fail the test, I will doubt my ability of course. It would then probably be the case of a creative mind and not ESP.

That's fair enough and again I commend you for that.

What level of results would lead me to assume my ability is not real? Well since I have so far not made a single incorrect observation

It is important to distinguish that, at the moment, it is only in your perception that you 'have so far not made a single incorrect observation'.
Objective testing has been very lacking in your results.

I don't know. It is not like I am already allowing myself to have a certain percentage of incorrect answers. I think someone else who understands the statistical significance of this should answer this question and I believe I could rely on their judgement.

Fair enough.

And we can test my ability as well as we can test eyesight.

It should in theory be perfectly possible.

I do not know what percentage of incorrect answers should lead to the conclusion that there is no ability. The IIG suggests that 10% incorrect observations constitutes a failed test, so since I have limited statistical background I suppose I would trust in that number as being it?

Well you must agree with them in order for the protocal to be acceptable. But surely you don't need to be an expert in statistics to have an understanding of what would be significantly above chance.
I thought you had a scientific background?

Ashles:

Unfortunately as much as you skeptics are doing a very good job at analyzing my claim sometimes what you comment on just does not apply to me. Not to criticize the IIG since they are doing a wonderful job on my claim, but I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the test arrangement. They were quite pleased with my suggested test protocol, and the protocol version that they sent me was almost identical to the one I made, so very few and minor changes were made. The only thing I had a problem with was that they wanted to have music on the test and I do not feel that it is necessary and it might distract me.

I am definitely not the type of applicant that has problems during the protocol formation. Our protocol negotiations have been going very nicely.

Great. We look forward to the test.

Good luck, and I genuinely mean that. If you have the abilities you claim I will be on the internet day and night to see how it affects scientific knowledge. It would be extremely exciting.

 

[Zep]

I have a simple question for VfH, and I hope to receive some honest reply:

If you do prove your ability, do you intend to make a living (and income, or charge fees, etc) from that ability?



Personally I think you are fooling yourself about your abilities, and I suspect you are coming to realise this too, but can't admit it here. But time and results may prove me wrong...

 

[catbasket]

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. <snip> Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.

So we are not allowed to speculate that your claimed ability is imaginary or has a mundane explanation but you are allowed to proclaim with certainty that you do have the ability?

I have no emotions invested in my ability. My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says. <snip> I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed.

Your claimed ability allows you to feel "special". What if the test shows you have no ability at all? Will you be content to no longer be "special" or will you make excuses for failing the test and continue to believe?

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

Thus far you sound very much like a typical claimant.

If you have the claimed ability you will be atypical. If you fail the test and accept that you do not have the claimed ability you will be atypical.

If you fail the test and continue to believe in your ability you will continue to be just another typical claimant.

Good luck with the test.

 

[calebprime]

on perceiving things that others can't

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. --VisionFromFeeling

an absurdist list, but I'm serious.

Soapy Sam looks at a rock and perceives things that others can't.
R.Mackey looks at some equations and perceives....
Gumboot sees a plane and....
Hok looks at a bug....
Blobru reads a book...
Saizai thinks about logic...
Moby thinks about logic...
Shemp makes a joke...
Unrepentant Sinner disses Libertarians...
Dr. Adequate....barely capable of putting two coherent words together...
AppleCore raises his bong...
JihadeJane contemplates suffering...
Someone says: welcome to the asylum
Slingblade cuts to the chase
Pomeroo calls an idiot an idiot
IchVoneunumonwaspTheUnchunkable discusses bible, brain...
ChickenPotPie invites me to be a friend....!
Jeri, I think, looks at some temples, and imagines....
ExtremeSkeptic plugs a cable into his Johnson....
Dr.K makes a distinction finer than a human hair...

how about the offensive lumping together of cranks and geniuses?

anyone I haven't insulted, yet?

Oh,


CP makes a list....

 

[EHocking]

Why are you going to IIG with a test of the one "skill" that is difficult to control in a test when you claim you can spot chemicals, cereals and bacilli.

The following claim is easier to test than your claimed health diagnosing "skills" and also by your claim below, easier for you to do than finding chemicals or coins.

...
I once looked at an unknown pill. ...it might be a diuretic. And surely it was.

...Medicines have very strong vibrational aspects compared to most naturally occurring substances ... I can make additional observations that provide strong clues as to what they are. This is something that is more difficult to do with other chemicals or materials such as coins.

Why not propose to determine, from a range of prescription pills and placebos, what pill is what.

A straightforward test would be to get a selection of different prescription pills (sleeping, diuretic, blood pressure, valium, codiene etc) and throw in one or two placebos.

You are then given list of pill types.
All you have to do is match the description to the pill.

1 trial of 10 or 12 pills would be sufficient for you to pass the preliminary stage of the MDC and would take little to set up.
The result is self evident and the test itself is very easily controlled for clues, like that which you may get from a human subject.

 

[Locknar]

Why are you going to IIG with a test of the one "skill" that is difficult to control in a test when you claim you can spot chemicals, cereals and bacilli.

<snip>

The result is self evident and the test itself is very easily controlled for clues, like that which you may get from a human subject.

I have suggested the same thing, but VVF won't do it; after all who wants a test that is self evident, controlled, and indisputable?

A ambiguous test with people, poorly defined controls, and convenient outs is the "woo woo" way after all.