VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[Pup]

That is not correct. Don't let her walls of text and avoidance of the subject get in the way of the facts.

Thank you for looking up those posts! That gives a much clearer picture.

I just remembered that she didn't try to post the answers. But those posts make it even more clear that she tried and failed, and then apparently concluded there was no point in posting answers.

 

[Audible Click]

I will, once again, ask the question that I've been asking Anita for months: You agreed to post the raw data from your FACT study on this forum. Now you've said,twice, that you are typing it up for your website. That is not raw data. Why are you unwilling to scan the actual papers and post them here?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have done no harm, rather the attempted treatment coincided with a dramatic improvement in his migraine condition. And this isn't about me.

Please stop with the repetition. You're not changing anyone's mind. You keep saying it's not about you, but clearly that's all it is. You started a website about yourself. You come here and talk about yourself. You have done nothing to indicate you don't want the attention. In fact you were greatly upset when you learned you couldn't win the Nobel should your claims turn out to be true. Really, just drop it.

And even if all it was was a placebo effect, if I am able to transmit a placebo effect that gives such a great improvement in their condition, I would be happy to do so.

It's not about you, but you think you might "transmit" a placebo effect? That's too funny! One does not transmit a placebo effect. You don't even know what a placebo is. Read up on it before you yack about it any further. Seriously. People have already told you about regression to the mean. I've already told you that migraines come and go on their own. Even if your story is true, which I doubt, at best it was a coincidence.

You didn't transmit any light into the guy's head. You did not "transmit" a placebo. It's pure fantasy on your part.

With migraines? I don't think so.

Your arrogance and ignorance regarding potential harm is simply astounding. You are not a medical doctor. You are not qualified to give any medical advice. Saying "but keep seeing your doctor" doesn't relieve you of your legal, ethical and moral obligations. All sorts of things could happen if people believe in your fantasies. Surely you know that.

But let's pretend it's real. If you really are sending "light" into the brain like you think you are, you could kill somebody. Experiment on rats first, not humans. If you believe in your ability to even the slightest degree, then it is unfathomable that you would use humans as lab animals.

 

[Apology]

With migraines? I don't think so.

THAT JUST SHOWS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ABOUT MEDICINE.

Improperly treated migraines can lead to brain lesions, strokes, coma, and even DEATH, VisionFromFeeling. Stop messing around before you KILL SOMEONE with your imaginary healing powers.

Migraine CAN BE LIFE THREATENING, INDUCING SUCH CONDITIONS AS STROKE AND COMA.

Migraine can induce a host of serious physical conditions: strokes, aneurysms, permanent visual loss, severe dental problems, coma and even death. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, "Migraine can sometimes lead to ischemic stroke and stroke can sometimes be aggravated by or associated with the development of Migraine."

Twenty-seven percent of all strokes suffered by persons under the age of 45 are caused by Migraine. Stroke is the third leading cause of death in this country. In addition, twenty-five percent of all incidents of cerebral infarction were associated with Migraines, according to the Mayo clinic."

I am begging you, STOP BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have asked the IIG that we use a screen that covers the heads of the volunteers. I do not know how well I can do with a full body screen, but if the IIG insists on the use of a full body screen I will find out what I can do.

Why not just find out what you can do first, rather than creating the appearance that all you're doing is jumping through hoops in attempt to pass a single test? The current approach seems more like PR spin than science.

I know people who are missing their tonsils and I am unable to figure out how to detect that. The tonsils are kind of an integral part of the throat area and not as obvious as when a kidney is missing. As for appendix, it is very small. I might be able to train myself to detect those better, but at this point I'd be more happy to proceed with the kidneys.

Anita, your ability is supposed to operate through the agency of you being able to see inside people's bodies, in hi-res, full-colour 3D.

I've seen transparent models of human bodies myself, and I could identify the tonsils and appendix.

If the IIG insists that we use a full body screen then I will determine whether I can do that or not. I would of course prefer to have the test without a full body screen.

Why?

And actually, missing a kidney should in most cases come with no external symptoms, such as a change in body posture or changes in movement or a change in body shape. I think this is the one thing we can have the test with that should be undetectable by looking at a person! You can see the full protocol negotiations on testprotocol.html

Cite please. I would have thought "external symptoms" might include scarring, at the very least.

My paranormal claim is detection of medical information through means of extrasensory perception. What you are saying here, is like asking an expert marathon runner to instead enter a swimming competition, just because they swim sometimes and because it is easier for you to stand and watch beside the pool rather than invest on covering the several mile long track. You test the claim that is submitted for testing, and not try to search for something else that is most convenient for you.

This is a verbose, accusatory and innaccurate analogy, which conveys no relevant meaning.

Detecting which of persons is missing a kidney is actually not expensive or complicated.

I don't imagine it would be. You can just ask them. For free. Or check for the scar.

I am typing them up on my website, but trust me it is a lot of work.

It's bound to get tougher once you start doing something OTHER than just typing things up.

What happened was that no one provided me with reference samples, so I had no way of labeling what I was feeling.

Visioned from?

 

[Akhenaten]

I have done no harm, rather the attempted treatment coincided with a dramatic improvement in his migraine condition. And this isn't about me.

Not yours to call. Can't have.

I do not believe I have any healing powers either. But in two out of the three healing attempts I had not told the person what I was about to do and they dramatically improved.

How can you not see that these two sentences contradict each other?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Let's assume they do think it [screen] will be necessary. Would you agree to that or would you have to do additional studies/surveys to figure out if you can do this?

I thought you already did studies with a screen or at least you wrote that you would test that. Have you done this testing?

If the kidney detection test can not be done without a full body screen then I will have to find out how well I do with a full body screen. I have not tried detecting kidneys through a full body screen yet.

VfF: This seems to me something you can very easily test for yourself, provided you build in some precautions. If you allow me, how about this informal test.

I am investigating the medical perceptions and having the test on detection of which of persons is missing a kidney. Other than that, I am busy studying for courses this Fall.

Apparently, you were so sure that you'd fail when actually put to the test, that you didn't even try.

Your assumption is false. I looked at the medicines and perceived plenty of medicinal effects based on their vibrational information. However there were two pairs whose effects were similar, since, two pairs of the compounds you provided are - similar!

You'd already identified one of the chemicals under other conditions, according to a previous post you'd made, so you were familiar with it. People suggested that since the medicines were so common, you could "look" at samples for free at any pharmacy through the containers, or friends would probably have samples. Or it was also suggested that merely naming the effect they'd have on the body would be enough to distinguish some of them from others, and that was something you said you'd done in the past.

Two pairs were similar.

You claimed you could do it, but when actually asked to, you wouldn't. Now you're scrambling for excuses when the obvious answer is: you don't have that ability.

I don't know whether I have that ability or not. It's like if I give you five colors and ask you to name them in a language that you are not familiar with. I do not know how to label what I am feeling to a label or a name unless I have reference samples.

Hoping this is not too much of a derail but:

Pup told you what they were (#1194 in the original thread)

calcium carbonate (an antacid)
phenylephrine hcl (a decongestant)
cetirizine hydrochloride (a 24 hour allergy medicine)
ibuprofen
aspirin

According to you, you should have been able to figure out what they treat, as in this on cures headache, this one unstufs your nose etc. Alternatively you could have taken them to a CVS and compared them to what is on the shelves to figure it out. Regardless you have not done so and therefore failed that test

I did look at the medicine samples and wrote down the medical effects I perceived from them based on their vibrational information. I then looked up the supposed medical effects of the given compounds and found that just as I had perceived, two pairs were similar. I have not failed a test simply because I have not completed a test.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Why not choose a simpler challenge? Why choose one with so many details that it will be hard to arrange? Why couldn't you arrange a test that involves tissue samples, some healthy, some diseased, and pick out the diseased samples? That way you wouldn't have to worry about certifying whether or not people have two kidneys or one, screens, and other details that make the test much too complicated. If the test is simple, it will be easier for the public to grasp the significance of what you've done.

The kidney detection test should be easy enough to arrange, I will wait for what the IIG have to say about that. Your suggestion however seems more complicated and I don't want to do it.

There have been several simple test suggested here, why not pick one of those? They're cheap and easy to arrange, and if you passed any one of them people would stop doubting you. Once you've passed the first test, people will be willing to go to greater lengths and greater expense for future tests. As a matter of fact, if you passed the first test, you'd probably be able to demand nearly any test materials that you wanted, and people would be frothing at the bit to provide it for you.

The IIG already seemed pleased to arrange the kidney detection test. Read our correspondence at testprotocol.html and see for yourself.

You do know that the JREF requires the applicant to pay for any materials used in the testing, don't you? I'm sure the IIG has the same requirements. Why not save yourself some money on buying the screens and opt for a simpler test involving salt, sugar, water, and a few cheap beakers? Frankly, your refusal to opt for the simpler tests confuses me.

I have more experience with perceiving medical information than with perceiving chemical information. The medical perceptions is my strongest claim and that is why I am submitting it for the test.

 

[Audible Click]

Will you answer my question from post # 342?

 

[Pup]

Your assumption is false. I looked at the medicines and perceived plenty of medicinal effects based on their vibrational information. However there were two pairs whose effects were similar, since, two pairs of the compounds you provided are - similar!
Two pairs were similar.

...(snip)...

I did look at the medicine samples and wrote down the medical effects I perceived from them based on their vibrational information. I then looked up the supposed medical effects of the given compounds and found that just as I had perceived, two pairs were similar. I have not failed a test simply because I have not completed a test.

Back at the time of the test, in this post I wrote:

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Well, GeeMack, there are five medicine samples given to me by Pup and they fall into two general categories based on their medicinal effects: allergy medicines, and general pain or antiinflammatory medicines.

Actually, three categories: two pain/antiinflammatory, two allergy and one antacid.

So please tell us which are in which categories, even if you can't tell the two allergy medicines apart, for example.

If you can do what you claim to be able to do, why can't you do that?

And you responded:

Pup, alright I'll look into the medical samples again. I'm not at that house at the moment so I'll get back with you on that.

This was a straightforward test of something you claimed you could do, and you weren't able to do it. And now we find out that you could tell all the medicines apart except the two allergy ones, but you just didn't bother to share the answers, just like the missing kidney you supposedly knew about but didn't mention.

After a few months I didn't both to keep the list of medicines and am not willing to bother with a new test, but if you could indeed tell all the medicines apart except for the two similar pairs, why not make that your claim to be tested, and just not include ones that are too similar? It seems you're just as "successful" at that as seeing missing kidneys, and it would be much easier to set up.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If the kidney detection test can not be done without a full body screen then I will have to find out how well I do with a full body screen. I have not tried detecting kidneys through a full body screen yet.

Once again you are stalling. Last November you said you needed to test yourself using a screen. Why are you dragging your feet? The claim is YOURS. Only YOU know how it works. It is up to YOU to tell the IIG under what conditions you can perform. It is up to them to decide whether those conditions sufficiently exclude known means of detection.

Of course, the rest of us find this rather silly. If you can see kidneys and vasectomies through clothes and skin (or dark spots on the brain through teh bones of the skull), why would a cloth screen make any difference?

I am investigating the medical perceptions and having the test on detection of which of persons is missing a kidney.

Actually, you're just talking about it. You haven't actually done anything to test yourself. Have you asked F-A-C-T to assist you? The one person with a missing kidney you detected is in that group. You would be foolish not to take advantage of the situation.

I don't know whether I have that ability or not. It's like if I give you five colors and ask you to name them in a language that you are not familiar with. I do not know how to label what I am feeling to a label or a name unless I have reference samples.

This coming from the woman who says about Garlic, "It looks like there is a chemical with one (or several) lone pairs of electrons that reach into structures that are on the inside of cancerous and/or defect cells, binds with those structures and then pulls them out of that cell. The compound from garlic does not itself go fully inside the cell but remains on the outside. It looks like gutting a fish."

You also say, "Components from butter that end up being built into tissues in the face, I see that they are very fragile and when bombarded by light a portion of them detaches. I think it looks like the formation of free radicals."

Besides, what is stopping you from going to the store and buying the medicine yourself? Or asking your boyfriend or flatmates if they have any? Or your boyfriend's neighbor or the migraine guy? Your fellow students? The F-A-C-T members?

Edited by Tricky: 

Moderated thread.

I have not failed a test simply because I have not completed a test.

It's not that you have "simply" not completed the test. You've had the pills for over six months. You've spent hours with them even though you claim to only need a few minutes to have a perception. In the real world that's called failing the test. You can pretend otherwise, but you're not going to convince anyone to agree with you.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have more experience with perceiving medical information than with perceiving chemical information. The medical perceptions is my strongest claim and that is why I am submitting it for the test.

How does that preclude you from testing yourself?

When you fail the kidney test, will you then retract all other claims? After all, if you think you are detecting things you cannot, then clearly you have issues with distinguishing reality from imagination.

A good scientist would start with the easiest things to test. If you fail those, then there's no reason to test anything else. Understand, of course, that a good scientist would never test you in the first place, because you have not demonstrated anything worthy of testing. That said, YOU can certainly do it yourself.

If you are making claims that are not worthy of being tested, then you should not be making them in the first place. Your "preference" for stronger abilities is irrelevant. It's a binary proposition: testable or not testable. If not testable, then don't mention it.

 

[volatile]

Isn't it bit strange that EVERY TIME you fail a test, you actually didn't fail in your mind, you just forgot to tell us?

That happened with the kidney, with Wayne, and now, apparently, with the pills. Over and over again your misses and failures are rationalised by you "knowing" but not saying out loud, for some reason known only to yourself.

 

[volatile]

I don't know whether I have that ability or not. It's like if I give you five colors and ask you to name them in a language that you are not familiar with. I do not know how to label what I am feeling to a label or a name unless I have reference samples.

Hold on; hold on.

You've told us on dozens of occasions that you can sense the effects of chemicals on the body - you even told us, remember, that you got stoned by LOOKING at cannabis, despite never having smoked it. How do square this bold assertion - that you can see and feel and experience chemicals through vision alone; a claim you have made on numerous occasions and quite clearly - with this sudden need for "reference samples"?

 

[Senex]

I wrote to the N.C. Department of Justice and described the attempted treatment I did with a migraine sufferer, described all that is and is not involved in the attempted treatment. I was referred to the North Carolina Board of Massage and Bodywork Therapy and will be contacting them before I attempt any more treatment for migraine sufferers.

I suffer from more than just from migraines... I insist I get put in front of the line.

I have done no harm, rather the attempted treatment coincided with a dramatic improvement in his migraine condition. And this isn't about me.
I do not believe I have any healing powers either. But in two out of the three healing attempts I had not told the person what I was about to do and they dramatically improved. Those that I have attempted to heal say that I have healed them. I remain skeptical and want to study it with a carefully conducted test. And even if all it was was a placebo effect, if I am able to transmit a placebo effect that gives such a great improvement in their condition, I would be happy to do so. I think these people are at a point where they will try anything, prayer, meditation, affirmation, placebo, just to find relief in their migraines.

I have no doubt you can heal my migraines...

You can try anything on me Anita... "...try anything, prayer, meditation, affirmation, placebo..."

The anything and placebo catch my interest

All I do was a visualization technique followed by a gentle massage on the head and neck. And you should know better to know that I do not express my medical perceptions.

I'd love to see you express more.

Don't let these rascals get you down

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

We know. You told us that eight months ago and several times since then. You'e promised to research it. Why haven't you done anything about it?

I will investigate how well I do with screens once the IIG asks me to. Meanwhile I am practicing by looking at kidneys without a screen.

It nothing like that at all. In fact that comparison is utter nonsense. You are not an expert at anything. You are an ordinary person making extraordinary claims about having dozens of special abilities, nearly all of which could be tested with minimal effort. You have not tested a single one of those claims in even a rudimentary manner. Instead you insist on choosing an expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome test.

I have submitted a claim for testing, and it is not up to you to choose something else for me to test. The kidney detection test is not expensive, time-consuming or cumbersome.

Are you just after the $50K?

Nonsense. If I were I'd be after the JREF MDC like everyone else.

A more apt comparison is this that you are claiming to be an incredibly wealthy person. You claim to own priceless works of art, designer clothes, expensive jewelry, exotic cars, a private jet, and a mansion with a dozen people on staff. We ask you to prove it. You could just show us a bank statement and be done with it. Or maybe you could just have your driver/bodyguard show up in a Rolls Royce to drive us to your mansion so we can see the paintings and sculptures.

Well my personal experiences are not available for a private tour by you. Nor am I to be expected to let people into my home. I have submitted a claim for testing, everything else should not concern you. I have finally submitted a testable, falsifiable claim, and all you can do is still be dissatisfied. Maybe that's just a state of mind you have?

But no. Instead you we see you getting off the bus wearing Levis, a cheap Wal Mart sweater and costume jewelry (like an ordinary person). You offer to prove your wealth by getting a nose job from the most prestigious plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills and paying in cash. Of course, you can only go when you have some free time. And when the doctor has an appointment. And after you decide on what kind of nose you want. And this assumes, of course, that you are a candidate for surgery since, you know, you might be allergic to anesthesia cuz you've never been put under before.

On the contrary, you have not been here where I live to see what I do or don't do. Your analogy is just ridiculous.

What I want to know is what happens when you fail the kidney test? Will you retract all of your other claims?

I won't say a word, because you wouldn't consider what I say anyway. You'll just have to wait and see what happens and what I do.

It depends. Will you accept a person's statement about their kidney status or will you actually require proof?

Let's see what the IIG says about this.

People who have had a nephrectomy are not the same as those who have not. How visible those clues are will depend on their circumstances (timing, why they had the surgery, overall health). It ranges from virtually impossible to detect to painfully obvious.

Kidney donors should have no accompanying external symptoms of missing a kidney.

Besides that, each person in the test knows their kidney count. It will be difficult to keep the subjects from knowing whether they are the target or not. Their demeanor can give you clues.

And that is why the test will have a screen that covers the heads of the persons. Why don't you read the test protocol negotiations before you complain?

Why haven't you scanned them like you promised? You only viewed five people, right? You have the original forms in a Word document or wherever. How hard is it to fill out the forms in Word and save them off separately? Dr. Carlson was able to sit down at the F-A-C-T meeting and analyze the data quickly enough.

I haven't scanned them because I want the data in table format. To analyze the data is quicker done than typing up the data on the computer. Besides I helped Dr. Carlson so there were two of us.

Nonsense. You told us you already had impressions. Besides, you can apparently look at a food and tell us that it can cure cancer or some other disease. Why can't you look at a medicine with a known effect and tell us what it does?

Because there were two sets of medicines with similar perceived effects and actual effects.

You failed the pill test just like you failed the test reading people through pictures. You failed the lactobacillus test. You failed the in-person readings at F-A-C-T. You failed in your "study" to be any more accurate that ordinary people doing the same thing. Several of your ghost stories, which you claim to be historically accurate, have been shown to not be accurate at all. And you failed your own "induced" information tests you posted on your website.

I did not fail a pill test that I did not take. The test with people in pictures was never my claim, I only did that to find out if I could and because all of you were insisting that I do that. I have not failed the Lactobacillus test, I stopped testing it because I got headaches. I did REALLY WELL at the in-person readings with the FACT Skeptics. The study had serious flaws in the design. The induced tests were testing situations that I had not experienced before, so they were not based on claims anyway. I was just testing.

Why can't you admit failure when it is staring you in the face? You have claimed to be open to the idea that this is all your imagination. We have several examples where that's the case, yet you deny it. Why?

There is no failure. You however see things from your perspective only.

Psychics: "Why do you say you are not psychic?"
VFF: "Because UncaYimmy said so."

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

She has tried, and she has clearly failed.

Your post does not prove wrong my statement that I was unable to distinguish between pairs of similar medicines without reference samples. It's like being asked to label the names of colors in a foreign language, and finding out that there are two shades of green and two shades of red among the samples.

But those posts make it even more clear that she tried and failed, and then apparently concluded there was no point in posting answers.

I perceived two pairs of medicines with similar effects, and when I looked up the medicines that were on the list there were in fact two pairs with similar effects. I was reluctant to conclude on the test without reference samples.

I will, once again, ask the question that I've been asking Anita for months: You agreed to post the raw data from your FACT study on this forum. Now you've said,twice, that you are typing it up for your website. That is not raw data. Why are you unwilling to scan the actual papers and post them here?

Alright, I will provide the scans. I was just thinking that data tables would be better, but since you prefer the scanned sheets I will be happy to provide these, and that will be less work for me too.

Please stop with the repetition. You're not changing anyone's mind. You keep saying it's not about you, but clearly that's all it is. You started a website about yourself. You come here and talk about yourself. You have done nothing to indicate you don't want the attention. In fact you were greatly upset when you learned you couldn't win the Nobel should your claims turn out to be true. Really, just drop it.

When I attempt to treat migraines it is not about me, it is all about the person who is suffering. Just like if you rush into a burning building to save someone's life you are not thinking about yourself at that moment. My website is a documentary about a paranormal claim and the process that is involved in investigating it. I come here and talk about my paranormal claim and investigation, I regret if I happen to be both the investigator and the claimant. If there is a Nobel prize involved with my claim then of course I would like to be entitled to it. It is my claim and my investigation. But then I might share the prize and honor with Dr. Carlson, FACT members, James Underdown and members of the IIG. But not with you, UncaYimmy.

It's not about you, but you think you might "transmit" a placebo effect? That's too funny! One does not transmit a placebo effect. You don't even know what a placebo is. Read up on it before you yack about it any further. Seriously. People have already told you about regression to the mean. I've already told you that migraines come and go on their own. Even if your story is true, which I doubt, at best it was a coincidence.

You disappoint me and you fail as a skeptic. The man had a constant worsening of his migraine condition during the past 10-15 years. Before my attempted treatment he was having a minimum of 12 migraines a month. Since the treatment he has had two migraines a month for two months now. And you, Mr. Carr, requested to call the man and check out the facts, and it was arranged so that you could, and now you come here and "doubt" that it was as was said. You're the one who was supposed to check out the facts!

You didn't transmit any light into the guy's head. You did not "transmit" a placebo. It's pure fantasy on your part.

The real results of dramatic improvement are not a fantasy. Perhaps you should call the man and see for yourself?

Your arrogance and ignorance regarding potential harm is simply astounding. You are not a medical doctor. You are not qualified to give any medical advice. Saying "but keep seeing your doctor" doesn't relieve you of your legal, ethical and moral obligations. All sorts of things could happen if people believe in your fantasies. Surely you know that.

To me this whole conversation is like arguing at someone who ran into the street to pick up an elderly lady who had fallen down because you say that picking her up might dislocate her shoulder. Or you shouldn't hug someone because you might smother them.

I know I am not a medical doctor. I told him I have no licence. I did not give any medical advice, I told him to continue with his conventional treatment and medicines just as before, and he has. Visualization and a gentle head massage are harmless.

But let's pretend it's real. If you really are sending "light" into the brain like you think you are, you could kill somebody. Experiment on rats first, not humans. If you believe in your ability to even the slightest degree, then it is unfathomable that you would use humans as lab animals.

We can stop pretending that the effects were real or not real as soon as you bother to check out the facts by calling the man and asking him for yourself. Whoa! Kill someone with my light? I don't think so. *cough* *unless I design it to kill* *cough* I am an expert from Arcturus, remember? Also, in accordance with the attempted treatment, I perceive the supposed effects immediately and if there was harm I would see it. Besides, I do my Vibrational Calculations carefully to test the light structure before applying it, duh!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

THAT JUST SHOWS HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ABOUT MEDICINE.
Improperly treated migraines can lead to brain lesions, strokes, coma, and even DEATH, VisionFromFeeling. Stop messing around before you KILL SOMEONE with your imaginary healing powers.
I am begging you, STOP BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE.

When I met with him I asked him thoroughly about what treatment he has sought and I even suggested to him that his symptoms could indicate a serious underlying condition such as a brain tumor. I emphasized that I have no evidence that my attempted treatment would have any effect and that we must consider it useless and nonsense and expect no results. Still, we both agreed that it was worth a try. If anything, then meeting with me and after what I said he would rely more on conventional medicine, not less. You weren't there, and you have no idea what was said, and you are simply acting out on your worst expectations. I honor your concerns, meanwhile no harm was done in this case.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Why not just find out what you can do first, rather than creating the appearance that all you're doing is jumping through hoops in attempt to pass a single test? The current approach seems more like PR spin than science.

I have submitted a claim and a suggested test protocol based on my past experiences. If the IIG require additional conditions to that test procedure then I will find out if I can claim to perform as well with those conditions. I am carefully considering the test protocol I will agree to and will only agree to it if I am confident that I can pass.

I would prefer to have the test without a full body screen because when I see a person I experience that it is easier for me to locate the "vibrational information". And don't forget that the vibrational information also leads to images and felt perception of health information that is entirely internal and that should come with no visually detectable symptoms, which is why this is interesting.

Cite please. I would have thought "external symptoms" might include scarring, at the very least.

I need no cite to tell you that the volunteers will not be naked during the test.

This is a verbose, accusatory and innaccurate analogy, which conveys no relevant meaning.

Then let it be sufficient that I say that I have submitted a main claim and there is no reason to ask that I test other aspects of my experience other than the one I wish to have tested.

I don't imagine it would be. You can just ask them. For free. Or check for the scar.

Wonderful! Thanks Akhenaten, you just solved the problem with how do we verify which of persons have had a kidney removed or not! You're amazing! See, every now and then you Skeptics say something that is absolutely brilliant and useful in a paranormal investigation, and I guess that's why I hang out here! I will hereby officially address you as Brilliant. You just spontaneously solved the single greatest problem in the test protocol negotiations!

It's bound to get tougher once you start doing something OTHER than just typing things up.

What? I will scan the sheets, that way it is better.

I do not believe I have any healing powers either. But in two out of the three healing attempts I had not told the person what I was about to do and they dramatically improved.

How can you not see that these two sentences contradict each other?

I do not believe that I can heal, however I have witnessed that persons whom I have attempted to heal have coincidentally dramatically improved. I am simply observing the results, yet I remain uncertain of the cause and want to see whether I can observe a consistent pattern of improvement in future attempts. *I am contacting the North Carolina Board of Massage and Bodywork Therapy before doing anything else with this.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Once again you are stalling. Last November you said you needed to test yourself using a screen. Why are you dragging your feet? The claim is YOURS. Only YOU know how it works. It is up to YOU to tell the IIG under what conditions you can perform. It is up to them to decide whether those conditions sufficiently exclude known means of detection.

Of course, the rest of us find this rather silly. If you can see kidneys and vasectomies through clothes and skin (or dark spots on the brain through the bones of the skull), why would a cloth screen make any difference?

From testing myself with my eyes closed I find that the medical perceptions form easier with my eyes open and when I can see the outline of a person or see part of their body. I would prefer to see most of the body of the person although their heads won't be seen. I await to see what the IIG decide on about screen requirements. I guess seeing the surface of the body helps me to locate the vibrational information. It's not just floating about the place to be grabbed and closed in on, it exists in a very specific region at the substance it describes.

Actually, you're just talking about it. You haven't actually done anything to test yourself. Have you asked F-A-C-T to assist you? The one person with a missing kidney you detected is in that group. You would be foolish not to take advantage of the situation.

I am considering contacting the FACT about having a local test before I head over to California to have the official test, you are right.

It's not that you have "simply" not completed the test. You've had the pills for over six months. You've spent hours with them even though you claim to only need a few minutes to have a perception. In the real world that's called failing the test. You can pretend otherwise, but you're not going to convince anyone to agree with you.

I was unable to distinguish between two compounds and another two compounds, with two pairs that were similar both in my perceived effect and also in accordance with the known effects of the compounds that were among the samples. I was reluctant to conclude on the perceptions because I had no reference samples to label them by and because some of their effects were similar and could not easily be matched with the known effects of the compounds.

How does that preclude you from testing yourself?

If you were only somewhat good at painting and only did that as a hobby and were on the level of a 5th grader, you would not want to submit your work into a professional art competition. When you could enter a cooking contest with your award winning recipe that already has tremendous potential!

When you fail the kidney test, will you then retract all other claims? After all, if you think you are detecting things you cannot, then clearly you have issues with distinguishing reality from imagination.

The kidney detection test forms the strongest claim I can make, so if I fail that test it falsifies pretty much everything below it along with it.

A good scientist would start with the easiest things to test. If you fail those, then there's no reason to test anything else. Understand, of course, that a good scientist would never test you in the first place, because you have not demonstrated anything worthy of testing. That said, YOU can certainly do it yourself.

You are approaching this from the perspective of easiest test arrangements, whereas I am approaching this based on the quality of the claims. I submit my strongest claim that I find to be most likely to pass. And just so happens it is a very testable one at that.

If you are making claims that are not worthy of being tested, then you should not be making them in the first place. Your "preference" for stronger abilities is irrelevant. It's a binary proposition: testable or not testable. If not testable, then don't mention it.

Kidney detection test is testable. I was hoping it would be to your satisfaction.