VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

Your suggestion is making me dizzy. It is all confusing. I'll just leave it at that.

Prometheus' suggestion is a very good one and very simple.

I have no idea what the 'dizzy' comment is all about so try not to post until you are no longer 'dizzy' then reread it and let us know if that can be part of the protocol.

It really is a good suggestion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Natasha Demkina got a test, why can't I?

It could be due to the fact that you keep changing your claim.

Look here's yet another version of it.

The claim is that when I look at people I perceive alleged vibrational information that translates into felt and visual information that depicts internal tissues and organs and I want a test in order to determine whether those images depict actual information, or whether it is a subjective experience, similar to synesthesia.

The person there or not there protocol would test this claim.

If you think you're seeing internal tissues and organs when someone isn't there, we have proven that the images you think you're seeing do not depict actual information.

Good, so now we have a very simple protocol. You can do it yourself with one friend. I described how in some detail earlier. Get back to us when you have tried it. Since this is for your own edification, there's no need to worry over statistics. Try it 10 times, if you get even one false positive (where you think your volunteer is there, but he or she isn't), we have proven that the images you think you're seeing don't depict actual information. (Similarly, if you don't get the vision when someone is actually there--that is you answer "not there" when the person is "there", we've proven that you can't do what you claim.)

By the way, with this set up, you're free to pass. Just keep repeating the trial until you get 10 certain answers (person is there or not there). Then compare your answers to the record the volunteer kept.

Get back to us when you've done this.

ETA: And be sure the volunteer does a coin toss. Don't rely on anything else to randomize whether or not the volunteer is to be behind the screen. The advantage of this system is that both answers are equally likely. In your missing kidney idea, you'd have the advantage that it's safe to guess 2 kidneys just knowing that it's much more difficult to find volunteers with just one. (If it were me, I'd guess 2 kidneys every time thinking that you probably couldn't find any volunteers at all with just one kidney.)

 

[Ashles]

We might learn something from Natasha Demkina's test of a claim similar to mine. Her claim of having X-ray vision to see inside people's bodies and describe health problems was tested by CSICOP in May 2004. I apologize to the authors for liberal copying verbatim but I find that as a claimant anything I write in my own words is questioned.

Excerpts from: Natasha Demkina The Girl with Normal Eyes
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/demkina.html
by Andrew Skolnick

That is actually an excellent comparison.

I think RamblingOnwards sums it up best in this thread:

Summary:
1. The test was flawed, so we have no idea if the results mean anything.
2. The results were better than chance, but less than what she claimed she could do.
3. The program did not do a very good job of explaining why the test should be considered a failure.

Conclusion:
The test should be scrapped and repeated with better controls and a larger sample group but neither side is interested.

I can't find the other threads where this was discussed further but there were severe criticisms of the way the test was conducted (including if I remember correctly Natasha being allowed to keep her mobile phone, and contact being permitted between Natasha and the test subjects prior to the test).

Surely you want to avoid as far as possible post test criticisms that render the test entirely pointless.

More details here

Is that really a testing example you want to hold up as something you want to emulate?

 

[Ashles]

The claim is that when I look at people I perceive alleged vibrational information that translates into felt and visual information that depicts internal tissues and organs and I want a test in order to determine whether those images depict actual information, or whether it is a subjective experience, similar to synesthesia.

This is still a badly worded claim. You are deciding that it is a binary sitation - paranormal ability or synesthesia (or something like that).

In reality your claim should read as such:

The claim is that when I look at people I perceive alleged vibrational information that translates into felt and visual information that depicts internal tissues and organs and I want a test in order to determine whether those images depict actual information, or whether it is a subjective experience, similar to synesthesia not.

A failed test would allow no conclusions to be drawn about what your alleged perceptions actually were (they could still be deliberately made up, hallucinated, a form of synesthesia, misremebered events, a combination of any of these plus exaggeration...).

You can't declare it is either paranormal or synesthesia as your test would not demonstrate that.

 

[Femke]

Sorry if I'm catering to a whim, but since it looks like VfF is not interested in any other procedure than kidney detection, would this be workable?

One curtain with a hole cut out at the appropriate height.
One package of say, six identical cheap white T-shirts.
2 volunteers ?KG, one Missing Kidney Guy (MKG, heads) and one Two Kidney Guy (TKG, tails).
One openbacked chair
One coin
Paper and pen

The two volunteers each don one of the white T-shirts. If they want to change after one or two viewings, they can take a fresh one.
1. They toss a coin, record the outcome, and the appropriate ?KG goes to the curtain, and sits down with his back to the hole in the curtain.
2. VfF comes in, zooms in on the kidney area and records 1 or 2 kidneys.
3. VfF exits, then ?KG exits.
4. repeat from 1 until there are 10 recorded 1's or 2's.
5. Compare notes.
6. The test fails if........ (Statistics for the number of correct readings).


Femke

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sorry if I'm catering to a whim, but since it looks like VfF is not interested in any other procedure than kidney detection, would this be workable?

One curtain with a hole cut out at the appropriate height.
One package of say, six identical cheap white T-shirts.
2 volunteers ?KG, one Missing Kidney Guy (MKG, heads) and one Two Kidney Guy (TKG, tails).
One openbacked chair
One coin
Paper and pen

The two volunteers each don one of the white T-shirts. If they want to change after one or two viewings, they can take a fresh one.
1. They toss a coin, record the outcome, and the appropriate ?KG goes to the curtain, and sits down with his back to the hole in the curtain.
2. VfF comes in, zooms in on the kidney area and records 1 or 2 kidneys.
3. VfF exits, then ?KG exits.
4. repeat from 1 until there are 10 recorded 1's or 2's.
5. Compare notes.
6. The test fails if........ (Statistics for the number of correct readings).


Femke

I would definitely do that, since it is consistent with my claim and with the limitations of my claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

Kidney perception is the single strongest perception I experience . . .

1. Visit butcher shop. Obtain kidney.
   
   
2. Visit box shop. Obtain 10 boxes.
   
   
3. Have friend place kidney in one box.
   
   
4. Perceive kidney.
   
   
5. Profit.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now I know the answer to my above post will be "My claim is to detect kidneys in living person." and that my next question will be "Why?", so I'll cut to the chase.


Why?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry if I'm catering to a whim, but since it looks like VfF is not interested in any other procedure than kidney detection, would this be workable?

One curtain with a hole cut out at the appropriate height.
One package of say, six identical cheap white T-shirts.
2 volunteers ?KG, one Missing Kidney Guy (MKG, heads) and one Two Kidney Guy (TKG, tails).
One openbacked chair
One coin
Paper and pen

The two volunteers each don one of the white T-shirts. If they want to change after one or two viewings, they can take a fresh one.
1. They toss a coin, record the outcome, and the appropriate ?KG goes to the curtain, and sits down with his back to the hole in the curtain.
2. VfF comes in, zooms in on the kidney area and records 1 or 2 kidneys.
3. VfF exits, then ?KG exits.
4. repeat from 1 until there are 10 recorded 1's or 2's.
5. Compare notes.
6. The test fails if........ (Statistics for the number of correct readings).


Femke

I think that has been offered to her. My only concerns are 1) that there is nothing else to distinguish the two by normal means--like a difference in girth or breathing sound or some other "tell", because otherwise even repeating it 10 times you'd end up only be dealing with a 50/50 chance, and 2) she not get more than about 1 minute on each trial.

Point 1 is the most important.

A 1:2 chance (if she can tell the two apart but not know which one has the missing kidney, and she kept her guesses consistent, it'd just be a 50/50 guess) isn't very significant. We'd expect a successful outcome of the test (i.e. the entire test, since the 10 repetitions would be meaningless) half of the time just due to chance.

I don't think you can eliminate problem number 1 in this set-up. That's why I would insist on a screen.

How about a naked person behind a full screen? The volunteer could go in wearing a robe and disrobe in the privacy of the screen. Thus one layer of a sheet or whatever would be equal to the customary clothing.

I still think the person there or not there is a lot simpler and more practical, and the results will be more meaningful (see Ashles' post 583) than anything where she actually sees the person (even a portion of the person wearing an identical t-shirt through a hole in the screen).

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

1. Visit butcher shop. Obtain kidney.
   
   
2. Visit box shop. Obtain 10 boxes.
   
   
3. Have friend place kidney in one box.
   
   
4. Perceive kidney.
   
   
5. Profit.

This is an interesting idea. I am trying to remember back when I took Human Anatomy in college and was looking at a sheep's kidney. I am willing to try this idea. Meanwhile I can already identify some disadvantages with the procedure:

- I don't see people who are in boxes.
- One of the key things that help me locate a kidney in a human body is when I see and feel the rich blood flow through the kidney. A dead kidney does not have this blood flow.

Kidney in a box:

 

[Akhenaten]

This is an interesting idea. I am trying to remember back when I took Human Anatomy in college and was looking at a sheep's kidney. I am willing to try this idea. Meanwhile I can already identify some disadvantages with the procedure:

- I don't see people who are in boxes.
- One of the key things that help me locate a kidney in a human body is when I see and feel the rich blood flow through the kidney. A dead kidney does not have this blood flow.

Fair enough. I was trying to oversimplify perhaps.

Kidney in a box:

You're getting there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One of the key things that help me locate a kidney in a human body is when I see and feel the rich blood flow through the kidney.

That rich blood flow through an entire body should help you locate a person behind a screen ... No ?

I don't see people who are in boxes. ...

Only works with lactobacillus, huh ?

 

[Akhenaten]

That rich blood flow through an entire body should help you locate a person behind a screen ... No ?

Hmm. Good point. What about just some blood without the bodies?

I'm trying to think of ways to eliminate having to find volunteers, because that part is going to be really hard, no matter how the protocol ends up.

 

[Kariboo]

Hmm. Good point. What about just some blood without the bodies?

I'm trying to think of ways to eliminate having to find volunteers, because that part is going to be really hard, no matter how the protocol ends up.

I think you just described the reason VFf will insist on volunteers. Otherwise any of her other claims would have been put to the test

 

[Ashles]

Hmm. Good point. What about just some blood without the bodies?

I'm trying to think of ways to eliminate having to find volunteers, because that part is going to be really hard, no matter how the protocol ends up.

I wouldn't bother, it looks like Anita will do anything rather than have a test that doesn't involve people, but let me check.

Anita, if an agreeable protocol can be designed are you open to the possibility of a test without human volunteers?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, if an agreeable protocol can be designed are you open to the possibility of a test without human volunteers?

No. My claim is detecting the number of kidneys in human volunteers, and the claim does require that I see the clothed back of the person.

In spite of all your efforts to make me agree to something that is not my claim (such as remote viewing), I will go ahead and arrange the preliminary test based on the test procedure I have so far. As contradictory as it sounds, I do experience a difference between a full-body screen and clothing.

 

[Ashles]

No. My claim is detecting the number of kidneys in human volunteers, and the claim does require that I see the clothed back of the person.

There you go Akhenaten. I guessed as much by the way Anita is so carefully avoiding the simple crushed pill protocol.

In spite of all your efforts to make me agree to something that is not my claim (such as remote viewing),

The ability to detect a living human behand a screen is ABSOLUTELY something you have claimed. In this thread.

Or are you now admitting your post in this very thread in which you clamed to be able to actualy perceive the internal organs and fat of a subject behind a full screen, was untrue?

That claim is exactly as well evidenced as your kidney detection claim, and according to your own stories you have succesfully used that ability exactly the same number of times.
So, any way you present it, that claim could be equally as tested as the kidney detection claim.

You have never explained why you think the kidney clam is the preferred claim of these two.

I will go ahead and arrange the preliminary test based on the test procedure I have so far. As contradictory as it sounds, I do experience a difference between a full-body screen and clothing.

So you perceive differently through a thin cotton curtain and a thin cotton shirt?

So 'Vibrational Algebra' somehow now knows the differing usage of an identical material?

Would it help if the curtain was made of T-Shirts? Will this also fool your perception or not?

Incredibly these are now forced to be serious questions.

 

[chillzero]

Hey, Anita....

When the person was behind an opaque full-body screen I did perceive tissues and organs, but I had a hard time finding the kidneys.

Perfect!
Forget the kidneys part, and step back to the much easier test of detecting 'tissues and organs' - i.e. the existence of a person (or absence of one) from behind a screen.

VfV, you have yet to come up with any valid reason as to why you can't do a test to identify if a person is on the other side of a screen or not, and that protocol will be much easier to organise, design, and undertake.

Please - regain a little bit of the credibility that you are wilfully throwing away by reviewing this as a protocol.

 

[Senex]

No. My claim is detecting the number of kidneys in human volunteers, and the claim does require that I see the clothed back of the person.

How much more straightforeward can you say this?

VisionFromFeeling;
In spite of all your efforts to make me agree to something that is not my claim (such as remote viewing), I will go ahead and arrange the preliminary test based on the test procedure I have so far. As contradictory as it sounds, I do experience a difference between a full-body screen and clothing.

Full-body screen instead of clothing should be easily accomplished. Why do these rascals wish you to agree to things you never said you can do like remote viewing?

Putting this on hold until after a late summer vacation may calm your nerves and slow down these hooligans before we put out ghost hunting video on A&E.

 

[Femke]

I think that has been offered to her. My only concerns are 1) that there is nothing else to distinguish the two by normal means--like a difference in girth or breathing sound or some other "tell", because otherwise even repeating it 10 times you'd end up only be dealing with a 50/50 chance, and 2) she not get more than about 1 minute on each trial.

Point 1 is the most important.

A 1:2 chance (if she can tell the two apart but not know which one has the missing kidney, and she kept her guesses consistent, it'd just be a 50/50 guess) isn't very significant. We'd expect a successful outcome of the test (i.e. the entire test, since the 10 repetitions would be meaningless) half of the time just due to chance.

Good points, and I agree that of course any of the proposed tests would be better because of this, but for the sake of argument (and the OP) would it be impossible to find a Two Kidney Guy that more or less resembles the Missing Kidney Guy in girth?
And then maybe try to get the volunteers to act like they are a different person every time.
- A change of T-shirt after every viewing.
- Disguise general body shape with shoulder pads, or some padding on the sides (not obstructing kidney area). If you do that irregularly VfF would not be able to recognise one from the other.
- White noise or a radio to drown breathing sounds and other auditory tells.

The time restriction, you are right, I forgot. VfF, this would be the situation where your vision locks on instantly, as usual, so you would not need any longer than a few seconds to feel it, and some more to check. Right?