VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack tells us to start all over. (If I do something, it's wrong. If I don't do it, it's wrong.)

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you suggesting that I can not have a test unless it involves a full-body screen? Is that what this is all about? What else is a problem with the protocols so far? Ashles, please post a complete protocol. I know you could conjure up one just like that. Let me see what you suggest, rather than criticizing me when I'm not quite sure at this point what specificly I'm doing wrong.

There are, at this time, 340 posts in this thread, 70 of which are yours. Has each of your posts, on average, been in response to 5 other posts?

No. It's much closer to one post=one response.

That could well leave 270 posts that you may have missed. Maybe you should go back and check to see whether the answers you seek are concealed therein.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I don't want to go back and read all those posts, I skimmed through some of them because they were full of false accusations against me. I am now waiting for GeeMack and Ashles to each suggest a test protocol.

Akhenaten, if you were to design a test protocol based on my claim and its limitations, what would that be like? Please?

ETA: Let's play a game. Everyone posts a test protocol and we see whose is the best. The winner gets a free psychic reading with VFF, or, if the winner doesn't like me, I promise to not do a psychic reading with them.

 

[Kariboo]

GeeMack tells us to start all over. (If I do something, it's wrong. If I don't do it, it's wrong.)

Great. You started this thread as the 'curious scientist', then the 'dodging student', developed into a hissy fit and are now at the 'martyr stage'. Guess we've come full circle again.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack, please post your suggested test protocol, I am very eager to read it. I have put aside all past protocol drafts and am ready to read your suggestions.

Since you're still clearly trying to negotiate a protocol based on your worthless starting point, then you're obviously not ready to start from scratch. Note: That makes you a liar. But please let us know if you ever acknowledge that your existing notion is crap and you're willing to abandon it in its entirety.

 

[Kariboo]

I don't want to go back and read all those posts, I skimmed through some of them because they were full of false accusations against me.

Mine were full of questions for you. Since you seem to have missed the previous 2 postings I'll generously copy them for you. If you would actually try to answer them you would maybe get somewhere.

1. How will you find volunteers? Since it has to be a double blind study, you cannot be involved in this, nor can anyone of your friends.

2. Where will the test be?

3. How will you get the room set up: i.e who is going to buy curtains and hang them?

4.How will you find a space?

5. How will you fund all of this?

6. How will you find skeptics to help you?

7. How will you prove that people have 1 or 2 kidneys?

8. How do you know you won't get so tired that you cannot do the test. Especially since this is a forced choice test and according to you:
Quote:
The cereal tests required that I make forced attempts to detect the bacteria, rather than detecting it on its own as is normally the case, and also to make forced detection repeatedly over a period of several minutes up to an hour. I started to develop strong headaches and nausea <> I am however reluctant (or even fearful) of having more cereal type of tests, including coin detection and other chemical detection tests of this type since they make me very uncomfortable.

9. What will you do with the volunteers before/during/after the test? Since it has to be double blind they can not talk to you/friends/each other etc

10. How will you exclude any excuses after the fact?
11. How will you exclude any excuses during the fact?
12. How will you exclude any excuses before the fact?

As you can see there are no false accusations against you herein, so no reason not to address these.

ps. please don't respond that you will not answer these because Geemack asked you to start "all over again".

 

[Ashles]

Are you suggesting that I can not have a test unless it involves a full-body screen? Is that what this is all about? What else is a problem with the protocols so far? Ashles, please post a complete protocol. I know you could conjure up one just like that. Let me see what you suggest, rather than criticizing me when I'm not quite sure at this point what specificly I'm doing wrong.

I cannot on this thread suggest what would be a very good protocol to test your claims overall without you making a complaint to the moderators about it being off topic. You have deliberately made that difficult.
If you really genuinely want that question answered simply click on this link:
Far, far better, easier, more conclusive protocol to test VFF's claims

Bottom line, your kidney protocol is one of the worst tests of all the things you have claimed to be able to do/see/perceive.

But, since you will refuse to make things easier...
Within the limitations of the kidney test you should allow subjects to be behind a curtain.
You have rejected that for seemingly illogical reasons (illogical within the parameters and previous desciptions you yourself have descibed for this claim).

So... within the parameters of the no-curtain claim, you should absolutely have nothing to do with volunteer selection (I'm pretty sure I've already explained this) and not know the number of volunteers with one kidney.
No more than one ultrasound will be necessary as Unca as statistically demonstrated.

You see the whole 'No you come up with a better protocol' defense doesn't work, because we actually can.

 

[Ashles]

GeeMack tells us to start all over. (If I do something, it's wrong. If I don't do it, it's wrong.)

I seems like Anita is annoyed now because for a moment there was the delicious possibilty of a paying audience watching her perform, and that has been cruelly snatched away by the meanie skeptics.

Now we are back to boring test protocols with annoying restrictions and inconvenient references to previous claims and supposed abilities.

 

[GeeMack]

In the study I had three successful reading with FACT Skeptics and was able to determine that I claim to be able to detect which of persons is missing a kidney.

No, Anita. No, you didn't have successful readings. Not by any accepted definition of the term successful, you didn't.

 

[GeeMack]

You see the whole 'No you come up with a better protocol' defense doen't work, because we actually can.

And we have. But ignorance prevails!

 

[wardenclyffe]

Alright. And yes, 3 feet away or more, with their entire body hidden from view except for their back with that section of their back covered with a thin shirt. Finally, we are getting somewhere.

Hasn't she said in the past (on more than one occasion) that she needs to see some skin for this to work? What skin would she see with this protocol that she's agreeing to? Or maybe she no longer needs to see skin. Like everyone else, I'm just trying to keep it all straight in my head.

Ward

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Since you're still clearly trying to negotiate a protocol based on your worthless starting point, then you're obviously not ready to start from scratch. Note: That makes you a liar. But please let us know if you ever acknowledge that your existing notion is crap and you're willing to abandon it in its entirety.

"GeeMack, I'm ready to start from scratch. I acknowledge that my existing notion is crap and I'm willing to abandon it in its entirety."

 

[Ashles]

Hasn't she said in the past (on more than one occasion) that she needs to see some skin for this to work? What skin would she see with this protocol that she's agreeing to? Or maybe she no longer needs to see skin. Like everyone else, I'm just trying to keep it all straight in my head.

Ward

That was why I was trying to get that aspect absolutely clear (which appeard to be lost on her judging by her response).

It's a rather bizarre aspect to her protocol that its okay for her to view someone sitting wearing a shirt made of thin material over their skin, but it's not okay to view someone standing just behind a curtain made of the same material.

That inch of air must make all the difference.

This leads to new issues - namely, if the claimant sits in such a way that allows an inch of air between their back and the shirt, presumably Anita wil no longer be able to view correctly (as she apparently wouldn't if the subject was behind a curtain).

 

[Ashles]

"GeeMack, I'm ready to start from scratch. I acknowledge that my existing notion is crap and I'm willing to abandon it in its entirety."

Anita please keep your temper. Try to stay focussed on responding to the protocol modifications being suggested to you.

 

[GeeMack]

"GeeMack, I'm ready to start from scratch. I acknowledge that my existing notion is crap and I'm willing to abandon it in its entirety."

Define your claim. Describe the conditions that you believe might affect the outcome of a test of your claim. And be specific. Seems last time you tried to do that you left out some critical information.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

1. How will you find volunteers? Since it has to be a double blind study, you cannot be involved in this, nor can anyone of your friends.

First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test.

Once I have a Skeptics group the first thing to do is to ask whether any of the Skeptics know of persons who are missing a kidney and several other persons who have both kidneys. At best, for a 1 in 10,000 odds we would need 4 one-kidney persons and 36 two-kidney persons. Even if the best we could arrange is a 1 in 10 test, then I would falsify the claim with that 1 in 10 test and have it over with, or pass the test and not provide evidence in favor of the claim since I could have guessed, but proceed to have the official IIG test. As the claimant I can not have any involvement with the volunteers, however I would advertise for both one-kidney and two-kidney volunteers but they would not be given my contact information, but instead be referred to contact the Skeptics if they are interested in participating.

If all else fails, and between me and the participating Skeptics we can't find any persons who are missing a kidney, then how about having a preliminary test where I am not told how many one-kidney persons there are. Then perhaps, even if we had for instance only two volunteers and both have two kidneys, then if that's the best we can do that is better than nothing for a preliminary testing before I have my IIG test. My Skeptics can tell me whether we've arranged 1 in 10 trials, or whether for any reason we have a test where I am not told how many have what. We should try to make this the perfect test, meanwhile if that can not be arranged because we can't find plenty of volunteers, then we take what is available and make the best out of it.

2. Where will the test be?

I will pay for and book a conference room. That should give a nice, convenient room without distractions. Yes, I have to pay, but I am very interested in investigating my claim so I think it is worth it. Besides, it just costs about what I'd spend shopping anyway.

3. How will you get the room set up: i.e who is going to buy curtains and hang them?

I will buy material for the screen and build and place the screen. Participating Skeptics may help with that if they want to.

4.How will you find a space?

I will look for conference rooms on the internet, then call and check for availability and pricing. Set the date between me and the Skeptics well in advance and choose a room that is available on that date.

5. How will you fund all of this?

By not going clothes- and shoe shopping once or twice.

6. How will you find skeptics to help you?

I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested.

7. How will you prove that people have 1 or 2 kidneys?

The one-kidney volunteers have had a kidney removed and so they should have some medical papers that prove that. I will pick one in ten volunteers as the one I think is missing a kidney. If we are doing 1 in 10 trials:

*If the person I pick is not the one who has had a kidney removed then I automatically fail the test and we don't even need to check with ultrasound whether the person I chose is one of those few who was born with one kidney, because there was a person with one kidney and I failed to detect that.

*If I think there are two persons that have one kidney and I assume that one had it removed and the other was born with one then at my own expense, the two-kidney person I picked can have an ultrasound so we can prove how many kidneys they have. If it shows that they have two kidneys I have failed the test?

8. How do you know you won't get so tired that you cannot do the test. Especially since this is a forced choice test and according to you: (...)

I don't know that. Meanwhile before having the preliminary test, I will practice with various people I know to put myself through looking at kidneys for the amount of time that will be required for the test. If I do get tired or believe that there were any other conditions that reduced my ability I must clearly state that in advance before I receive the results. I have to promise that my ability was working as it should before I can be told what the results were, and, I will have incentive to want to receive the results because I am spending money on this test. And because I am investigating something here.

9. What will you do with the volunteers before/during/after the test? Since it has to be double blind they can not talk to you/friends/each other etc

The volunteers will only have contact with the participating Skeptics and I will not have any contact with the volunteers until I see each of them at the test when my 15 minutes to see them begins.

10. How will you exclude any excuses after the fact?
11. How will you exclude any excuses during the fact?
12. How will you exclude any excuses before the fact?

I sign a statement that my claimed ability was working as it should and that there is nothing I can make excuses on before, during, or after the fact.

ps. please don't respond that you will not answer these because Geemack asked you to start "all over again".

As far as GeeMack is concerned I am ready to hear his wonderful protocol suggestion now.

 

[Giggywig]

"GeeMack, I'm ready to start from scratch. I acknowledge that my existing notion is crap and I'm willing to abandon it in its entirety."

Think of any and all paranormal abilities you think you have.
1) Do you have any that can provide a result in a short amount of time, say 5 minutes? That is so that you can do a series of 10 and still have the test take under an hour.
2) Can your ability be tested in a way that determining if the result is positive or negative requires no interpretation (Yes/no, left/right up/down, etc)?

 

[Ashles]

First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test.

Once I have a Skeptics group the first thing to do is to ask whether any of the Skeptics know of persons who are missing a kidney and several other persons who have both kidneys. At best, for a 1 in 10,000 odds we would need 4 one-kidney persons and 36 two-kidney persons. Even if the best we could arrange is a 1 in 10 test, then I would falsify the claim with that 1 in 10 test and have it over with, or pass the test and not provide evidence in favor of the claim since I could have guessed, but proceed to have the official IIG test. As the claimant I can not have any involvement with the volunteers, however I would advertise for both one-kidney and two-kidney volunteers but they would not be given my contact information, but instead be referred to contact the Skeptics if they are interested in participating.

If all else fails, and between me and the participating Skeptics we can't find any persons who are missing a kidney, then how about having a preliminary test where I am not told how many one-kidney persons there are. Then perhaps, even if we had for instance only two volunteers and both have two kidneys, then if that's the best we can do that is better than nothing for a preliminary testing before I have my IIG test. My Skeptics can tell me whether we've arranged 1 in 10 trials, or whether for any reason we have a test where I am not told how many have what. We should try to make this the perfect test, meanwhile if that can not be arranged because we can't find plenty of volunteers, then we take what is available and make the best out of it.

I will pay for and book a conference room. That should give a nice, convenient room without distractions. Yes, I have to pay, but I am very interested in investigating my claim so I think it is worth it. Besides, it just costs about what I'd spend shopping anyway.

I will buy material for the screen and build and place the screen. Participating Skeptics may help with that if they want to.

I will look for conference rooms on the internet, then call and check for availability and pricing. Set the date between me and the Skeptics well in advance and choose a room that is available on that date.

By not going clothes- and shoe shopping once or twice.

I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested.

The one-kidney volunteers have had a kidney removed and so they should have some medical papers that prove that. I will pick one in ten volunteers as the one I think is missing a kidney. If we are doing 1 in 10 trials:

*If the person I pick is not the one who has had a kidney removed then I automatically fail the test and we don't even need to check with ultrasound whether the person I chose is one of those few who was born with one kidney, because there was a person with one kidney and I failed to detect that.

*If I think there are two persons that have one kidney and I assume that one had it removed and the other was born with one then at my own expense, the two-kidney person I picked can have an ultrasound so we can prove how many kidneys they have. If it shows that they have two kidneys I have failed the test?

I don't know that. Meanwhile before having the preliminary test, I will practice with various people I know to put myself through looking at kidneys for the amount of time that will be required for the test. If I do get tired or believe that there were any other conditions that reduced my ability I must clearly state that in advance before I receive the results. I have to promise that my ability was working as it should before I can be told what the results were, and, I will have incentive to want to receive the results because I am spending money on this test. And because I am investigating something here.

The volunteers will only have contact with the participating Skeptics and I will not have any contact with the volunteers until I see each of them at the test when my 15 minutes to see them begins.

I sign a statement that my claimed ability was working as it should and that there is nothing I can make excuses on before, during, or after the fact.

As far as GeeMack is concerned I am ready to hear his wonderful protocol suggestion now.

Okay fine, assume everyone accepts all of this.

Off you go.

Come back when you have completed the test.

 

[GeeMack]

As far as GeeMack is concerned I am ready to hear his wonderful protocol suggestion now.

No, you're not. You're still tying to iron out a crappy original design. You can't make it work. Forget it. And if you ever actually want to test your claim to see if you've got magic powers or if you're just a deluded attention monger, let us know.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So... within the parameters of the no-curtain claim, you should absolutely have nothing to do with volunteer selection (I'm pretty sure I've already explained this) and not know the number of volunteers with one kidney.
No more than one ultrasound will be necessary as Unca as statistically demonstrated.

If necessary for the protocol and for test arrangements, I whole-heartedly agree.

I don't need an audience on the test.

No, Anita. No, you didn't have successful readings. Not by any accepted definition of the term successful, you didn't.

GeeMack, the objective of the study - and these readings were part of the study - was to identify a specific, testable claim and to learn more about the perceptions. In terms of this definition, the study and these readings has been successful.

It's a rather bizarre aspect to her protocol that its okay for her to view someone sitting wearing a shirt made of thin material over their skin, but it's not okay to view someone standing just behind a curtain made of the same material.

The problem is orientation and sense of location in the body.

Anita please keep your temper. Try to stay focussed on responding to the protocol modifications being suggested to you.

Again you misunderstand. My temper is fine, I was just writing in large font so that GeeMack will see it.

Define your claim. Describe the conditions that you believe might affect the outcome of a test of your claim. And be specific. Seems last time you tried to do that you left out some critical information.

Already done. What critical information was left out?

Think of any and all paranormal abilities you think you have.
1) Do you have any that can provide a result in a short amount of time, say 5 minutes? That is so that you can do a series of 10 and still have the test take under an hour.
2) Can your ability be tested in a way that determining if the result is positive or negative requires no interpretation (Yes/no, left/right up/down, etc)?

The claim that will be tested is detecting which of persons is missing a kidney. And I won't be rushed through a test. How about 5 seconds? And the underground bunker? And yes, a person either has one or two kidneys. It requires no interpretation.

Guys, I finally have a testable and falsifiable claim! Let's work with that! A kidney detection test is really good!