• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

Regarding the cost of an ultrasound. A couple of years ago when Mrs Ocelot was pregnant with our little boy, we of course had plenty of ultrasounds. They were as is the norm in my neck of the woods, free at the point of delivery. However we also had the option to pay for an additional 3D/4D Ultrasound with big glossy prints and a DVD. This services is available for prices ranging from £50 to £100.

Now I've turned around, touched the ground and sprinkled salt over my left shoulder to ward off the terror of this thread being infected with the "NHS as a model for US health care reform" debate.

Personally I don't think that the ultrasounds are a necessity, but if Anita (VFF) has a couple of thousand dollars to burn then it should be possible via one of the many private clinics set up for these baby scans. She might even get a bulk rate.
 
I did set a date:

" As for when I can come down to California to take the test, I am free for the remainder of July and until August 24 when classes begin again. I will take the test on a weekend during the semester if necessary. Please take the time you need to arrange the test and do not let my schedule place stress on your arrangements. Do let me know when we are ready to take the test and I will adjust my schedule according to that. "

No Anita, you didn't.. ( set a date )

You offered a window that you know will be impossible for IIG to set up a proper protocol within.
 
From the VfF website:

Preliminary demonstration and test
I think the IIG will ask me to travel to Los Angeles to have a preliminary demonstration of my claim, after which if I pass it the test can be held. At one point the IIG asked me to prepare a video where I demonstrate how the claimed ability takes place. I have not done that, but I still might.

Gosh, what a shame that Anita didnt think to video her "at home kidney detection test":rolleyes:
 
I could care less about what benefits the claimant. But as to what benefits the general public? You bet your ass, I'm interested.

As a trucker you know I have dibbs on the bottom in question.

VisionFromFeeling:
Also, if I fail the 1 in 10 chance test, that would be evidence. Don't you think? The Preliminary test just can't prove the claim. If I can't pass a 1 in 10 test then how on earth would I pass a 1 in 1000 test? So let's go ahead and have it done. Don't you all Skeptics think I will fail? So does it matter if i fail it with a 1 in 10 chance or with a 1 in 1000 chance?

I'm willing to risk four days of hard work against a sore bottom.

Randomness gives you a one in ten chance. If you really have some sort of insight you are assured of my slave labor ;)
 
Last edited:
Or am I misunderstanding and the test you did with your friend was not the preliminary test, but just a preliminary test for the preliminary test for the IIG test (which as we all know qualifies as a preliminary test for the MDC)?

Actually, with 1 in 10 odds, the IIG would not qualify as a preliminary test for the MDC, but only a preliminary to the preliminary.
 
Second Version Preliminary test protocol

The first preliminary test protocol is now revised and here is the 2nd version, still a draft and open for more improvements. Changes have been made based on our productive discussions here on the Forum.

*Several Forum members pointed out that a total viewing time of four hours is too much.
*Checking for scar won't be part of verifying number of kidneys.
*1 in 700 is born without a kidney.
*10 minutes to see each volunteer is suggested.
*The volunteers will be seen one at a time.
*The curtain can be adjusted to the height of each person. Head and neck of volunteers is not seen.
*Ultrasound to check for number of kidneys.
*Volunteers wear their own clothing, preferably a cotton shirt.
*I pick only one volunteer as the one I think is missing a kidney.
*If I pass it is not evidence but makes me ready for the official IIG test.
*JPL's wife is willing to participate as the person who is missing a kidney.
*The test will take place in San Diego, California.
*Not all volunteers need to arrive at the same time. They can arrive closer to when it is their time to be seen.
*Volunteer's number written on their wrist.
*Involve local Skeptics in the test, contact two San Diego Skeptics groups and invite IIG to take part in this test.
*Two sets of attending Skeptics if the test is too long for them to attend.
*I will have minimal contact with JPL and his wife before the test. If San Diego skeptics are involved, JPL and his wife will be in contact with them about the test.
*Before beginning the test I confirm that the conditions around the test are acceptable to my performance.
*All nine two-kidney volunteers are women and should be similar to JPL's wife.
*The nine are prepared that one might have an ultrasound after the test.


The second version of the preliminary test protocol:

The Preliminary kidney detection test will take place in San Diego, California, on a date and in a location to be determined later. The claimant contacts San Diego Skeptics to ask if they would like to be involved in the test, and the IIG can be involved as much as they want.

The test uses ten volunteers: one of whom is JPL's wife who is missing a kidney, and nine other volunteers who all to their knowledge have both kidneys. The nine two-kidney volunteers are all women and if possible they have similar characteristics to JPL's wife in terms of age and appearance.

Each of the ten volunteers is randomly assigned a number from 1 to 10. A permanent marker is used to write that number on the wrist of each person.

The volunteer numbered 1 takes a seat at the volunteer's area. An opaque fabric screen is attached to the ceiling and its height is adjusted to the height of the seated volunteer so that the head and neck of the volunteer can not be seen. The volunteer's chair is turned sideways so that the back rest is facing to the left and the back of the volunteer can be seen from behind.

Volunteers are wearing their own everyday clothing however this should be a thin shirt, preferably made of cotton. Once the volunteer is seated and settled in, the claimant enters the room and has a seat a few feet behind the volunteer. There may be no speaking during the test.

The claimant has 30 minutes to look at the volunteer and has paper and can take any notes that she wishes during the test. Regardless of which of persons she detects might be the one missing a kidney the claimant will look at all ten volunteers. If she finishes seeing a volunteer earlier than 30 minutes and wishes to proceed to the next volunteer, she will announce that. That way, the viewing part of the test will take at most five hours but will most likely be significantly less than that.

The claimant leaves the room once she has finished with looking at a volunteer, the first volunteer leaves and the next volunteer takes their place.

Claimant keeps all papers of all ten volunteers until after all ten volunteers have been seen. Once all ten have been seen, the claimant is then given 30 minutes to review her papers and to transfer an answer onto an answer sheet. The answer sheet is collected by a skeptic.

JPL's wife should bring medical documentation that she has had a kidney removed, otherwise we can simply confirm that she is married to JPL. All nine volunteers who are meant to have both kidneys are prepared that one of them might be asked to undergo an ultrasound examination to verify the number of kidneys, if they are the person chosen by the claimant, since some people are born with one kidney without knowing it.
 
Last edited:
Some mean, cynical people might be led to suspect this "at home kidney detection test" did not really take place at all.
The screen test did take place.

Still I'm sure all questions will be answered when this test without a date or protocol takes place with specific volunteers jetted in from around the country wearing their experimental unifom jumpers or written on in marker pen while waiting for the portable ultrasound unit and technician on standby.
All volunteers will be from the San Diego area. They will be wearing their own clothing and simply have a number written on their wrist. One volunteer might be asked to have an ultrasound at my expense and it will take place at the facility where ultrasounds are normally done.

ETA: Directly relevant to this claim - there are obviously simpler and quicker was of doing this Kidney test (which Anita has already rejected), but there seems to be a repeated pattern whereby the testing itself apears secondary to the drama and the circus around the claim.
Anita is apparently a high scoring science student. Why are all the protocols she suggests so complex and unworkable? Why does Anita not listen to feedback when supposedly that is what she is posting here for? Why do all suggestions to tighten the protocol or simplify potential problems get rejected?
Please design a test protocol for this claim. What specific suggestions have I rejected?
 
Actually, with 1 in 10 odds, the IIG would not qualify as a preliminary test for the MDC, but only a preliminary to the preliminary.
This is where it gets confusing. This is my understanding of where we are -

The subject of this thread is VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test and indeed it has odds of 1 in 10. We're not discussing test protocol for the real IIG test but for a preliminary-to-the-IIG-test. A sort of 'go away and see if you can do it, it will be embarrassing if you fail' kind of test. Eventually, when this preliminary-to-the-IIG-test test has produced a result where VFF can claim success, she can move on to an IIG test. Not necessarily at odds suitable for it to qualify as a full-on preliminary test for the MDC, maybe just 1 in 100 odds. A kind of stepping-stone to the IIG test which would qualify as a full-on preliminary test for the MDC with odds of 1 in 1,000 (or whatever the odds need to be).

When VFF first appeared on the scene here at JREF people were helping her design a protocol for an IIG test. Now, nine months later, it is important to remember we're helping her design a protocol for a preliminary to an IIG test test aka VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test not the actual IIG test (nor even any old IIG test for that matter).

Progress ain't what it used to be.
 
Yep, bog standard Anita. Making a protocol which will never work. Do you guys think she's going to let up on the 4 hour requirement? I guarantee you she won't.

Then, when none of this happens, she'll blame it on the lack of volunteers.

How many times have we been here before?

Might I suggest that the requirement for hours of sitting could be meant to ensure that it will not be possible to recruit the necessary number of volunteers, and hence impossible to conduct the test? This would enable VFF to say: "I suggested a scientific protocol, but they did not want to go throught with it."

Hans

ETA: Oh, Skeen beat me to it, heheh.

...

Let me be the first to predict this test will never take place..

I can only refer you to Matthew 20:16
 
<snip>

The second version of the preliminary test protocol:

The Preliminary kidney detection test will take place in San Diego, California, on a date and in a location to be determined later. The claimant contacts San Diego Skeptics to ask if they would like to be involved in the test, and the IIG can be involved as much as they want.

This sounds like a plan to meet some people for drinks "one day". Without the explicit and detailed participation of the IIG, it's not a test, it's a stage show.


The test uses ten volunteers: one of whom is JPL's wife who is missing a kidney, and nine other volunteers who all to their knowledge have both kidneys. The nine two-kidney volunteers are all women and if possible they have similar characteristics to JPL's wife in terms of age and appearance.

You can't hand-pick your volunteers like this.

Where are the rest of them going to come from anyway?



Each of the ten volunteers is randomly assigned a number from 1 to 10. A permanent marker is used to write that number on the wrist of each person.

This is silly. You claim to be doing this to eliminate "cheating" while ignoring huge exploitable gaps everywhere else in your "protocol".


The volunteer numbered 1 takes a seat at the volunteer's area. An opaque fabric screen is attached to the ceiling and its height is adjusted to the height of the seated volunteer so that the head and neck of the volunteer can not be seen. The volunteer's chair is turned sideways so that the back rest is facing to the left and the back of the volunteer can be seen from behind.

Sideways? Left? Relative to whom, or what? Musical chairs has better rules than this.

"the back of the volunteer can be seen from behind" is gibberish.



Volunteers are wearing their own everyday clothing however this should be a thin shirt, preferably made of cotton. Once the volunteer is seated and settled in, the claimant enters the room and has a seat a few feet behind the volunteer. There may be no speaking during the test.

What if they turn up in a something else? Have you predicted the weather for [date to be fixed] yet?

Or there may be. Who can tell? Previous performances speak to this problem.


The claimant has 30 minutes to look at the volunteer and has paper and can take any notes that she wishes during the test. Regardless of which of persons she detects might be the one missing a kidney the claimant will look at all ten volunteers. If she finishes seeing a volunteer earlier than 30 minutes and wishes to proceed to the next volunteer, she will announce that. That way, the viewing part of the test will take at most five hours but will most likely be significantly less than that.

Yeah, whatever. Filler. Way too long anyway.


The claimant leaves the room once she has finished with looking at a volunteer, the first volunteer leaves and the next volunteer takes their place.

I have a suspicion that when you return to the room, the volunteers will have taken unilateral action to escape, although this is purely speculation on my part.


Claimant keeps all papers of all ten volunteers until after all ten volunteers have been seen. Once all ten have been seen, the claimant is then given 30 minutes to review her papers and to transfer an answer onto an answer sheet. The answer sheet is collected by a skeptic.

Yeah, OK, you're going to shuffle some papers and give them to a passing skeptic. This is not in the least bit scientific-sounding, you know, and people will notice.


JPL's wife should bring medical documentation that she has had a kidney removed, otherwise we can simply confirm that she is married to JPL.

r u srs?


All nine volunteers who are meant to have both kidneys are prepared that one of them might be asked to undergo an ultrasound examination to verify the number of kidneys, if they are the person chosen by the claimant, since some people are born with one kidney without knowing it.

Meant to have? What the hell does that mean?

You do realise that you're asking people to undergo a medical procedure as part of a "paranormal claim" don't you? Do you think this might impact the number of volunteers you are likely to get?


This protocol is childlike in it's concept and utterance. Resubmit please.
 
The screen test did take place.

Well if you say so.

All volunteers will be from the San Diego area. They will be wearing their own clothing and simply have a number written on their wrist. One volunteer might be asked to have an ultrasound at my expense and it will take place at the facility where ultrasounds are normally done.

I predict this test will not have take place by November 01.

Please design a test protocol for this claim. What specific suggestions have I rejected?
The curtain (which now you can't see through although you have seen through thicker layers previously), shorter time for the test (the length of the test allows you to revert to previously used 'tiredness' defence if the desired results are not achieved), the fact that 1 in 10 odds renders the test almost completely pointless (if you pass it is not particularly high odds so doesn't really indicate anything and if you fail you will continue investigating it anyway so it won't indicate anything that way either).

What will this experiment actual tell anone about your ability? What can we learn from this?

You can claim all sorts of perceptions, experiences etc. but we have no way of knowing whether any f them are real or made up. Utimately it's just a 1 in 10 guess which is statistically far too low to really be of use (nad may not even be that if you pick up any hints about JPLs wife's age, identity etc.).

2 people with one kidney would at least increase the odds.
 
Last edited:
Also, given that JPL's wife is presumably a woman, and of marrigeable age (so, say, over 18), that's already a huge hint. Plus whatever info VFF could find about him on here which might well give further clues about his wife.
 
Yes, it's absurd to use JPL's wife at this point.

who knows what a forum search would reveal about JPL and/or his wife?
 
(Delurking from simply reading these threads) I'm wondering how you propose that the ten volunteers are properly randomized and marked on their wrists?

If everybody presumably must be together to do this, say at 10am, what happens to the volunteers who have their "readings" at 2 or 3 pm? Are they allowed to go home? What if they decide they don't want to come back? Do you really think it will be easy to find ten women who will agree to drive to a central location to be stamped, then kill whatever time they have until their random turn comes up (can't be known in advance), sit for half an hour while someone stares at their back, and then be available for an ultrasound at a later time?
 
2 people with one kidney would at least increase the odds.

A real test could include no people with one kidney ..

I think an acceptable protocol, would be for Anita to have no information about any of the subjects, including how many of them, if any, are missing a kidney ...
 
A real test could include no people with one kidney ..

I think an acceptable protocol, would be for Anita to have no information about any of the subjects, including how many of them, if any, are missing a kidney ...

That's a much better idea.

ETA: The IIG should reserve the right to insert as many/few single kidney volunteers as they wish so Anita does not know how many she is suposed to identify.

And have we ascertained whether there is any silly 'scale' judgemen or is each reading a simple one/two kidneys and marked as clearly hit/miss?
 
Last edited:
Actually, with 1 in 10 odds, the IIG would not qualify as a preliminary test for the MDC, but only a preliminary to the preliminary.


Which is exactly where Anita seems to want this whole thing to be. She proposes to the Independent Investigations Group that she will, at her own expense, fly out to California, view ten people, one of whom is a woman who is lacking a kidney. Then Anita will attempt to determine by use of her magical powers which of the ten people has the missing kidney. If the selected person claims to have both kidneys, Anita will spring for a couple hundred dollar ultrasound exam to verify the number of kidneys possessed.

And at the end of the day this will have demonstrated exactly what? That Anita can hit or miss a 10% target one time in a single round of a child's guessing game? And the IIG is going to use this game of how-many-fingers-am-I-holding-up-behind-my-back to decide if her claim of having x-ray vision warrants further investigation? Nope. Obviously Anita's suggested protocol, in its entirety, is as poorly designed and as useless as all of her previous harebrained ideas for test protocols.

Any discussion of clothing, length of sitting time, screens, or any other efforts to tweak this crappy suggestion are moot. The "protocol" might well serve the needs of an Internet attention whore, but can't possibly help determine whether someone has real magical powers, is a not-so-clever hoaxster, or is simply delusional. This entire concept needs to be scrapped lest people begin to get the wrong idea about Anita's intent or sanity. [Poll: What goes here? (A) winky (B) rolleyes or (C) boggled ?]

I have a legitimate, do-able method for developing a test, Anita. As soon as you flush this one down the toilet, the whole thing, complete, I'll let you know how you can actually create a qualified, quantified, objective test of your claimed ability to see people's innards. You could create the test in your own area for a fraction of the cost of flying to California. Nearly free in fact. The results would be informative towards your stated goal, as opposed to the inane concept you've described. (That is if you're being honest about your stated goal, which you do realize is doubted by pretty much everyone here.)

The method I'd propose for developing a test would help you learn a lot about science and the scientific method, an area in which you clearly have shown deficient knowledge and skill. And aside from getting you on the right track with your problem, it could also be beneficial to educators, students, and the general public. Additionally it would serve to get the attention of the IIG and JREF in a positive way if there was even a hint of success. They'd both be begging you to come in for a visit.

Interested? The first step is to get rid of the crappy "protocol" you're working on now. There's no fixing it in its current state. Then you can move forward to construct something that might actually be meaningful.
 
A real test could include no people with one kidney ..


Or ten... or twenty-three... or...

I think an acceptable protocol, would be for Anita to have no information about any of the subjects, including how many of them, if any, are missing a kidney ...


Yes, that goes along with my suggestion that she scrap the crap she's proposed so far and start over.
 

Back
Top Bottom