VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

Okay fine, assume everyone accepts all of this.

Off you go.

Come back when you have completed the test.

Do I have your blessing? Are we all set?

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.

GeeMack! Give me your suggested test protocol!

ETA: Ten thread pages in five days. What do you think about that, GeeMack? Do you have a protocol for me?

 

[Apology]

Is anyone else having a real problem with believing that she can see a brain through a skull or a vas deferens through a man's pants, but she can't see a kidney if it's behind a sheet of cotton, and she can't see a tonsil at all?

I assure you, a vas deferens is MUCH smaller than a tonsil, and equally surrounded by similar tissues.

 

[Farencue]

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.

Again, it looks like the jig is up Anita. Geemack, Ashles, UncaYimmy, Miss Kitt, Pixel42 and every other qualified person on this forum has been subjected to what I find particularly revolting - and that is your contempt.
Sure, you can continue to play the game sweetheart, but you might find everyone else has packed up their bat and ball and gone home. Dont you feel lonely?

I will also say again that I find it unbelievable that threads about VFF are moderated for what seems to be her protection and yet Anita can barely disguise her troll like behaviour. I find it particularly interesting that Anita, when backed into a corner, shows her nasty streak for all to wonder at instead of having the decency to listen, research and learn. The onus is on YOU Anita to prove your so called magical abilities, not the people on this forum.

There are starving, abused people in this world that could do with a tenth of the attention you garner for yourself Anita. I hope we have all helped you achieve your not so subtle purposes for coming onto this forum.

 

[Giggywig]

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!

You said:

"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."

It is clear that "abandon in its entirety" does not mean what I thought it meant. So we are limited to the kidney thing. What is the minimum amount of time you'd be comfortable with for deciding whether a single person has one or two kidneys?

 

[GeeMack]

Do I have your blessing? Are we all set?

GeeMack! Give me your suggested test protocol!

ETA: Ten thread pages in five days. What do you think about that, GeeMack? Do you have a protocol for me?

Woohoo! I think if you're an Internet attention whore, you're very, very successful! Woohoo!

But I think if you give a crap about learning whether you have magical powers or if you're just another plain old dumb kid suffering from delusions of grandeur, you're a miserable failure.

 

[Audible Click]

VfF was busy posting in the Carina Landin thread by offering to translate Ms. Landin's website so should we assume that this thread is over and one with?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Is anyone else having a real problem with believing that she can see a brain through a skull or a vas deferens through a man's pants, but she can't see a kidney if it's behind a sheet of cotton, and she can't see a tonsil at all?

I assure you, a vas deferens is MUCH smaller than a tonsil, and equally surrounded by similar tissues.

I feel like I have answered this question many times already. The problem with the screen seems to be that I do not know where the outline of the person goes, so when I feel through the screen and into the body, I arrive at a random point in the body and at a random depth. That is for instance why I first saw the fat tissue and obviously hadn't been able to go straight to the depth that I know the kidneys are at. And then when I begun searching around in the body, the first organ I found was the heart! So clearly I had lost my sense of orientation in the body. Whereas if I can see the back of the person, by looking, I can immediately discern whereabouts the kidney should be and I can also determine the distance to the person and have easier to go straight to the kidneys.

If medical professionals, whom I have e-mailed about this, state that a person can not see the kidneys, or determine the number of kidneys, in a person just by looking at them and through their clothes and back, then we must allow a test that does not involve a full-body screen. Would you like me to answer this question one more time?

 

[Audible Click]

What if the screen was of an opaque material that, with the proper lighting, would allow you to see a clear outlined shadow of the person?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Again, it looks like the jig is up Anita. Geemack, Ashles, UncaYimmy, Miss Kitt, Pixel42 and every other qualified person on this forum has been subjected to what I find particularly revolting - and that is your contempt. (... )

How absolutely rude of you. I am here to get help in designing a test protocol. Meanwhile you say that I am not cooperating because I won't allow a full-body screen on the test? When my claim does not function with one, and when one should not be necessary in the first place? I am not the one who shows others contempt. I am the one who is constantly under attack by several Forum Skeptics.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It is clear that "abandon in its entirety" does not mean what I thought it meant. So we are limited to the kidney thing. What is the minimum amount of time you'd be comfortable with for deciding whether a single person has one or two kidneys?

I fail to see why we can't design an acceptable protocol around the claim of kidney detection. No one should be able to know the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their back. Yes we are limited to the kidney thing. And I have already said 15 minutes. I won't go below 15 minutes, because I really don't want time to be a factor in determining whether I can do this or not.

 

[Audible Click]

Would something like this work? It's a paper screen.

 

[GeeMack]

If medical professionals, whom I have e-mailed about this, state that a person can not see the kidneys, or determine the number of kidneys, in a person just by looking at them and through their clothes and back, then we must allow a test that does not involve a full-body screen. Would you like me to answer this question one more time?

I'd like you to answer these question. You stated clearly that you've abandoned that crappy protocol you were screwing around with, so why is it you haven't abandoned it? And is there something about lying that somehow works into your crazy notion about having super x-ray vision? It seems to run common in your discussions about your various claims, but I'm not finding a direct correlation. Is all that lying connected to your alleged magical powers or just something in your general character that isn't related to your wacky claims?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Woohoo! I think if you're an Internet attention whore, you're very, very successful! Woohoo!

But I think if you give a crap about learning whether you have magical powers or if you're just another plain old dumb kid suffering from delusions of grandeur, you're a miserable failure.

GeeMack, listen to yourself. Why do you have to say these things? I'm actually here, because I truly do see images of tissues in my mind, and believe it or not, I claim to have detected that a kidney was missing. Therefore, as a paranormal claimant, I am here to get help from skeptics to design a test protocol, so that I can go ahead and have a paranormal test and find out, conclusively, whether I can see kidneys or not.

Yes, I know what that sounds like. And trust me it is not easy being all alone in this. I went to the Skeptics meeting, and I had a reading with one of the members. I had brought with me a health questionnaire that I had made, and that I was trying out in case a version of it would be used later in the official test. It listed about 100 different ailments, but it did not list "missing kidney". He was sitting and watching a television program, and I was sitting behind him and going through my questionnaire. I looked at each ailment I had written down, then constructed in my mind an idea of what that ailment would "feel" like and applied it on top of the vibrational feeling I had of his body to see whether there was a match in resonance. At one point I realized that there were too many ailments to go through, and each specific to an area of the body, so I did a head-to-toe reading where I simply go through the body and feel and look for anything that seems out of ordinary.

I felt into his back and was surprised. I had never felt this before and it was very distinct and not subtle. On the right, I felt clearly his right kidney, that was dark, firm, heavy, but on the left side there was no equivalent feeling. In contrast to the kidney on the right, there was a great difference on the left side. I looked at him and thought that he doesn't look like the person who has had a kidney disease, and at that time kidney donation did not cross my mind. Logically, I could not believe that he would have had a kidney removed.

I looked at the questionnaire and contemplated writing down "missing left kidney" on it. I double-checked many times again and again and was absolutely certain of what I was feeling. But then I thought, what if I were wrong? My logic was telling me I must be wrong. I would never hear the end of it. I chose not to write it down. But I was absolutely certain, one of the most clear and significant health information I have come across in a person, especially so because this one has a difference between two sides.

After the reading he announced that he has had his left kidney removed. I wanted to kick myself, but I said nothing. I knew that I couldn't say it after the fact. Later I e-mailed him and confessed, but I admitted that there is no evidence that I would have detected it. All I can take from this is that I have chosen this as the specific claim to test and that I was so certain of the perception that I will allow this test to be conclusive in the entire claim of medical perception.

I know that I have no evidence, but what I do have is a personally very compelling experience. I wish you could respect that, GeeMack, and others. I am being attacked here for telling the truth. What do you want me to say? That it didn't happen? That I was lying? That I made it all up? I just can't say that, because then I would be lying. I truly did detect the missing kidney, and I absolutely must have a test. The only reason I am here, is to get help in test design. I really do not want attention, and the attention I am being given is starting to be a bit hurtful.

Just because you're behind a computer screen, GeeMack, doesn't mean you can say things that you probably (hopefully) wouldn't say to me in person. Help me design a test protocol, or please just don't come back to this thread. I really don't need this negative treatment. I am a person who sees medical images in my mind, and I've detected that a kidney was missing. And I want to have a test to prove that or to falsify that. And that is no reason for you to attack me like this.

Just imagine - for one moment - if what I have said is true.

 

[Giggywig]

I fail to see why we can't design an acceptable protocol around the claim of kidney detection. No one should be able to know the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their back. Yes we are limited to the kidney thing. And I have already said 15 minutes. I won't go below 15 minutes, because I really don't want time to be a factor in determining whether I can do this or not.

Ok then, how about this. You need 20 volunteers, 10 with both kidneys and 10 with one kidney. Somebody else will randomly select 10 of these people and assign a time when they will be seen. You will see these 10 people one at a time, and for each one you will say if you can see one or two kidneys. They will be clothed at all times and you will only see them from behind. You will not speak to them or touch them. They will be seated on a comfortable chair for 15 minutes. You will have to supply an ultrasound machine or pay for ultrasounds for the 10 volunteers you viewed. You will pay for your own transportation.

 

[Audible Click]

Two things:
Do you think a screen as pictured above might work?

Secondly: If you really saw the kidney and you were wrong it doesn't follow that "you'd never hear the end of it". You might have felt embarassed but weighed against being right about the missing kidney it, logically, was a chance worth taking. You would have amazed the FACT skeptics and shut the rest of us up rather quickly.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I feel like I have answered this question many times already. The problem with the screen seems to be that I do not know where the outline of the person goes,

I already covered this about 100 posts ago. The floor is marked where the subject will stand - little pictures of shoes. Both subjects are of the same build. There kidneys will be in the same spot every time. If it makes you happy, we can draw a little outline of a human in chalk and mark with a big X where each kidney should be.

If you were sincere, you would practice this until you could do it quickly. You tried it one time and actually succeeded. Try it a few more times and learn how to do it better.

If medical professionals, whom I have e-mailed about this, state that a person can not see the kidneys, or determine the number of kidneys, in a person just by looking at them and through their clothes and back, then we must allow a test that does not involve a full-body screen. Would you like me to answer this question one more time?

How about I explain why the body screen is not solely designed to prevent you from getting visual cues? The screen means the test will require 1/20th the number of people and 1/3 the amount of time. You're much more likely to get two volunteers than 40.

BTW, nobody ever said that just looking at a person in clothes could one determine if they were missing a kidney. That said, there are visual cues that could increase the odds beyond random. I know this for a fact. Since you have difficulties with math, let me splain.

Suppose I am asked to pick out a gigging rock guitarist guitarist from a group of 10 people. If I draw a number out of a hat and say, "Number 4", that's random. In reality we know that more men than women play guitar in rock bands. We also know guitarists get calluses on their fingertips. We also know bands play in smoky bars. If I can see and smell the person, the knowledge I gleen can increase my chances of guessing from 1 in 10 to maybe 1 in 5 (obviously, it varies).

Sure, I cannot "know" that a person plays guitar just by looking at them, but I can make educated guesses. Your "test" is predicated on trials with a 1/10 chance of guessing randomly. If your guess is not random but based on other knowledge, then it's no longer a 1 in 10 chance.

Three 1 in 10 trials translates to a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting all three right. What are the odds with three 1 in 5 trials? It's not 1 in 500 - it's 1 in 125. If you just eliminate one person in each trial via educated guessing, then the odds become 1 in 729.

Having visual cues increases your odds. Without a screen, working around those visual cues can be cumbersome if not impossible. The only solution past that is increasing the number of subjects per trial, which is already too high to begin with.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

What if the screen was of an opaque material that, with the proper lighting, would allow you to see a clear outlined shadow of the person?

I will test that first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you it is a wonderful suggestion. Because I do feel that the problem is not the screen itself, the problem is losing orientation in the body. Well I should know by tomorrow.

I'd like you to answer these question. You stated clearly that you've abandoned that crappy protocol you were screwing around with, so why is it you haven't abandoned it? And is there something about lying that somehow works into your crazy notion about having super x-ray vision? It seems to run common in your discussions about your various claims, but I'm not finding a direct correlation. Is all that lying connected to your alleged magical powers or just something in your general character that isn't related to your wacky claims?

GeeMack, the claim itself can't be abandoned, even if previous protocols around it are abandoned. The claim is detecting number of kidneys, and the limitation of that claim is that a full-body screen can't be used. (But Audible Click's suggestion will be tried tomorrow.) I really don't see where I have lied? I thought you were asking me to abandon previous protocols, but the claim is and remains kidney detection without a full-body screen?

I HAVE NOT LIED ABOUT ANYTHING! AND I'M NOT CRAZY.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ok then, how about this. You need 20 volunteers, 10 with both kidneys and 10 with one kidney. Somebody else will randomly select 10 of these people and assign a time when they will be seen. You will see these 10 people one at a time, and for each one you will say if you can see one or two kidneys. They will be clothed at all times and you will only see them from behind. You will not speak to them or touch them. They will be seated on a comfortable chair for 15 minutes. You will have to supply an ultrasound machine or pay for ultrasounds for the 10 volunteers you viewed. You will pay for your own transportation.

Absolutely not. First of all, to find 20 volunteers but only use 10 of them? Finding volunteers is a lot of work, and then to discard half of them? What ever distribution of one-kidney or two-kidneys would result in the 10 chosen volunteers could be assigned to 10 volunteers from the start. For instance if randomization says that 8 would have one kidney and 2 would have two kidneys then just find that number of each type of volunteer!

Heh. I will be clothed at all times too. Of course I can't supply, ie. bring, an ultrasound machine. And we can't expect me to pay for 10 ultrasounds. I still think it is better if I pick one out of ten volunteers as the one person who I think has one kidney, and that way there won't be more than one ultrasound.

ETA: Let's just forget about the ultrasound. I mean, if there is one person among ten who can be verified as having had a kidney removed, then if I fail to detect that person then I have failed that 1 in 10 trial. Look, I simply won't try to pick several persons who I think has one kidney, with the hopes that I manage to guess the one who had a kidney removed and hope to have expensive ultrasounds for the rest whom I've picked in the hopes that they would be one of those few that were born without a kidney. I pick one person. I really don't expect to pick more than just one. If I pick several, I'll just think about the ultrasound then and there. At this point I just don't think I will pick more than one. So let's just not worry about the ultrasound for now.

And don't say I'm being complicated. I think your test suggestion was a bit complicated! By the way. I see that you are in North Carolina. Interested in participating in the test?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Two things:
Do you think a screen as pictured above might work?

Secondly: If you really saw the kidney and you were wrong it doesn't follow that "you'd never hear the end of it". You might have felt embarassed but weighed against being right about the missing kidney it, logically, was a chance worth taking. You would have amazed the FACT skeptics and shut the rest of us rather quickly.

1. I will try it first thing tomorrow.
ETA: Oh, do I think the screen will work? I will first try a fabric sheet and use strong lighting to illuminate the outline of the person. I will go shopping and find some thin paper screen and do the same. I honestly can't say whether I think it will work or not. All I can say is that I hope it works just as well as without the full-body screen because it seems that it would be good for the test protocol.

2. Yeah... Well, done is done and let's see if I can manage to dazzle the Skeptics with the preliminary test.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, what are you offering up in return for all this effort you are childishly demanding requesting from people? I asked you already what claims your failure would falsify, but you ignored that post. BTW, you should stop ignoring posts. It;s very rude.

If you fail the kidney detection test, what claims will you declare officialy debunked? Please be very specific.

You said you would sign a paper saying you wouldn't make excuses. Fine, what is the penalty if you do? Will you put money in escrow to be forfeited if you break your word?

If you fail the kidney test, will you put in big bold letters on your website "My Claim Has Been Falsified" and rewrite the site so that it is very clear to everyone that you don't have any ability nor do you believe you might have any ability? We could write up an agreement that if you fail, the domain is transferred over to me or you pay me $10,000.

Do you see what I am driving at here? You're risking nothing. For all we know you will treat this like you treated your failure at reading photos - you'll just move on to another claim. You'll say, "I only ever detected a missing kidney one time. This does not falsify my ability. It just shows that I'm not good at detecting missing kidneys. I need to study why I was able to do it before but not this time. My Main Claim has not be falsified."