VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Akhenaten]

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.

It's not that we're trying to force you into things, but the claim you've presented is going to take considerable resources to conduct. Just finding the volunteers is going to be a nightmare.

What we're trying to do is find some simple way for you to demonstrate that it's worthwhile going ahead with the effort that will be required to do more complex tests.

Remember, we have no vested interest in the success or otherwise of your tests, so it's up to you to sell us on the idea. So far, you really don't seem to have been able to do that.

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

the simple crushed pill protocol.

Yes, this test seems to me to be a much better starting point. I don't know why VfF is avoiding it so much when it could go a long way towards convincing us skeptics that her ability is worth further investigation.

 

[Akhenaten]

How much more straightforeward can you say this?

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.

 

[Audible Click]

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.

Do you mean you no longer want anyone in this thread to try to design/refine a protocol for you?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

How do we feel about the Rhine Research Center?

Dear Skeptics, there is what seems to be a research center for the study of paranormal phenomena called the Rhine Research Center right here next door in North Carolina. How about I ask them whether they would like to arrange a preliminary test of my claim with me? Surely they are interested in an objective and scientific analysis of paranormal claims and if all we would accomplish were the falsification of my claim, then that should also be within their objectives.

However I am somewhat skeptical about them. For instance, they have something called "psi games for kids". They do not describe what it involves, but I sure do hope that it is kind of a "aha, it doesn't work after all!" for kids. Encouraging kids to abandon science and rational thought could have harmful consequences.

Would you consider them credible to conduct a test with me? Are they Skeptical enough of paranormal claims to be reliable observers? Another problem is that they are located at Duke University and I had been considering taking my Ph.D. in Medical Physics there, and as you all know I am trying to maintain a clear distinction between my professional life and this paranormal investigation. However, Duke already seems to be tolerant of paranormal research.

Should I contact them?

 

[Giggywig]

Dear Skeptics, there is what seems to be a research center for the study of paranormal phenomena called the Rhine Research Center right here next door in North Carolina. ...snip...
Should I contact them?

You go do that. From looking at their current "research" I think you'll get along with them famously.

 

[Audible Click]

Dear Skeptics, there is what seems to be a research center for the study of paranormal phenomena called the Rhine Research Center right here next door in North Carolina. How about I ask them whether they would like to arrange a preliminary test of my claim with me? Surely they are interested in an objective and scientific analysis of paranormal claims and if all we would accomplish were the falsification of my claim, then that should also be within their objectives.

However I am somewhat skeptical about them. For instance, they have something called "psi games for kids". They do not describe what it involves, but I sure do hope that it is kind of a "aha, it doesn't work after all!" for kids. Encouraging kids to abandon science and rational thought could have harmful consequences.

Would you consider them credible to conduct a test with me? Are they Skeptical enough of paranormal claims to be reliable observers? Another problem is that they are located at Duke University and I had been considering taking my Ph.D. in Medical Physics there, and as you all know I am trying to maintain a clear distinction between my professional life and this paranormal investigation. However, Duke already seems to be tolerant of paranormal research.

Should I contact them?

Anita you can't be serious! You're flailing around and grasping at straws. Surely you can see that the Rhine Research Center is a woo organization. Look at the website as a science student and not a paranormal claiment. However, if you want to go ahead and test with them, why ask us? You know what the answer would be.

 

[Chimera]

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.

This makes SO much sense.

The "there/not there" test would show whether Anita is just imagining tissues and organs or truly sensing information. It's perfect. I know she's stomping her feet and crying every time it comes up again, but it's a great idea.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita you can't be serious! You're flailing around and grasping at straws. Surely you can see that the Rhine Research Center is a woo organization. Look at the website as a science student and not a paranormal claiment. However, if you want to go ahead and test with them, why ask us? You know what the answer would be.

That's what I thought.

 

[Paul2]

VFF, it is within your rights to insist, albeit against all logic, that your claim must only be detecting a kidney in living person, but in doing so you suffer a complete lack of credibility.

The way that you describe your ability, there is no apparent reason why you couldn't detect a person, regardless of number of kidneys, behind a full-body opaque screen (other than your mere insistence to the contrary).

Exercising your right to define a test how you want to doesn't mean you can't also lose credibility, acting against all logic.

 

[Chimera]

The way that you describe your ability, there is no apparent reason why you couldn't detect a person, regardless of number of kidneys, behind a full-body opaque screen (other than your mere insistence to the contrary).

If you can't even tell whether a real person is standing behind a screen or not, your "abilities" are useless anyway.

 

[desertgal]

Encouraging kids to abandon science and rational thought could have harmful consequences.

Oh, the irony.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Letter to Rhine Research Center

Dear Rhine Research Center,
I am a paranormal claimant and live in Charlotte. When I look at people I experience seeing images that depict internal tissues and organs. I have experienced interesting correlation between my perceptions and with actual health information of persons. Some of that could be explained as unintentional cold reading, and I also have other forms of synesthesia that automatically translate one type of information into another. However there have been cases where I fail to see what cold reading would have been available. That is why I am investigating my experience and preparing to have a test to determine first of all whether my perceptions have the accuracy as they have seemed, and secondly whether I am detecting information that should not be accessible to the ordinary senses of perception. I have chosen to test the claim on detecting which of persons is missing a kidney. I have been working on test design. I would ask to see the back of the person, the person is wearing a shirt. All other parts of the person, head, neck, shoulders, arms, and from hip and down, are screened off. I use no speaking, touching, or prior knowledge, and I use no materials. All I would do is look at the person and describe how many kidneys I perceive. I am writing to ask whether the Rhine Research Center would be interested in arranging a test for my claim. This test would only need to suffice as a preliminary test. If I pass the test it would not be regarded as evidence in favor of the claim but merely warrant further testing. And if I fail the test it would falsify this paranormal claim that I have. See more on my website about this www.visionfromfeeling.com

Please let me know if the RRC has the resources and interest to test my claim. Thank you for considering

There it is. Even if a preliminary test is questionable for various reasons, at the very least it offers the chance of falsifying a claim. Let's see what happens.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

They will welcome you with open arms...

You have a new home...

P.S.

Be prepared to pay a fee for whatever services they offer..

 

[Audible Click]

I'm sure the IIG will be very happy that you chose the Rhine Research Center for your practice test.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

VFF, it is within your rights to insist, albeit against all logic, that your claim must only be detecting a kidney in living person, but in doing so you suffer a complete lack of credibility.

The way that you describe your ability, there is no apparent reason why you couldn't detect a person, regardless of number of kidneys, behind a full-body opaque screen (other than your mere insistence to the contrary).

Exercising your right to define a test how you want to doesn't mean you can't also lose credibility, acting against all logic.

All I know is that a full-body screen, whether I can see the outline of the person through it or not, severely blocks the "vibrational information" that I feel and that I use to form images that depict internal tissues and organs. The claim clearly states that I need to see the person. The question of whether a person might somehow reveal clues on their clothed back as to the number of kidneys is one that we can address at a formal test, but I contend that a preliminary test offers the opportunity of falsifying the claim even if certain aspects of the test design are questionable.

After all, Natasha Demkina was allowed a test that had much more serious flaws in it than mine, and

We wanted to make the test as comfortable and nonstressful for Natasha as possible. I made sure not to rush or pressure her in any way. I gave her all the time she wanted to make each match.

Throughout this process I repeatedly asked her if she was comfortable and if we could do anything to make the process more agreeable to her.

she was given a very convenient, comfortable, preliminary test that successfully falsified the claim.

Do you people seriously think that I can detect some sort of twitches on a person's back that reveal the number of kidneys? If I pass a preliminary test then we must investigate that concern then.

If you can't even tell whether a real person is standing behind a screen or not, your "abilities" are useless anyway.

How do you suggest that my "vision from feeling", if a real ability, should be made useful? I would not become a psychic medical diagnostician anyway. I am headed toward a career in conventional medicine and I would rather invest all of my skills into developing new imaging technology for the medical field. After all, I only live a lifetime, but technology lives on forever.

 

[GeeMack]

Dear Skeptics, there is what seems to be a research center for the study of paranormal phenomena called the Rhine Research Center right here next door in North Carolina. How about I ask them whether they would like to arrange a preliminary test of my claim with me? Surely they are interested in an objective and scientific analysis of paranormal claims [...]

Yeah, too bad you're not. If you were, you'd understand exactly why people here have made each suggestion they have, and you'd be willing to cooperate with virtually every one of them. You'd understand why everyone here thinks you're just a stubborn, demanding child. You'd recognize that your antics do indeed make you appear to be just another troll or Internet attention whore, and you'd make a genuine effort to avoid rather than cultivate that. If you were, you wouldn't be so adamant about keeping the useless garbage components of that so-called test you've been babbling about.

If you were interested in a scientific analysis of a paranormal claim, you would have undergone such a test a long time ago and more than likely found out that there's nothing to any of the crap you spew.

If you had any concern at all about an objective analysis, you would have realized that something else causes you to see things that nobody else sees, or causes you to say you see them. You might have, as a rational person would probably do, tried to determine if some kind of mental illness was responsible (okay, yes, I do see the dichotomy in that ), or some sort of environmental toxin, or some other Earthbound, totally mundane explanation. Or maybe you'd be working with a competent psychologist to resolve a compulsive lying issue. You'd be taking some kind of honest, forward moving action that you've so far been resisting with every fiber of your being.

But if there's one thing we are all pretty certain of, it's that you definitely aren't interested in an objective and scientific analysis of your paranormal claim. If you were, you almost surely wouldn't be here continuing to yammer about your nonsensical, unsupportable claim of having magical powers and pursuing what is, at best, a stupid attempt to legitimatize a child's guessing game. I'd venture to guess even you know it, Anita.

If you were interested in an objective and scientific analysis of your paranormal claims, you'd read the many comments in this thread that are much like this...

If you can't even tell whether a real person is standing behind a screen or not, your "abilities" are useless anyway.

... and you'd say, "You're goddamned right, Chimera. I've been a complete idiot. It's time to crap or get off the pot."

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Yeah, too bad you're not. If you were, you'd understand exactly why people here have made each suggestion they have, and you'd be willing to cooperate with virtually every one of them.

I have outlined the claim and its limitations. I will not do a remote viewing guessing game of people behind a full-body screen.

You'd understand why everyone here thinks you're just a stubborn, demanding child.

Oh, Skeptics! I've been so stubborn! I have to give up on all my requirements right this once and I have to have the people behind a full-body screen! And in an underground bunker! Oh how stubborn of me to ask that the test would actually be testing my claim!

You'd recognize that your antics do indeed make you appear to be just another troll or Internet attention whore, and you'd make a genuine effort to avoid rather than cultivate that. If you were, you wouldn't be so adamant about keeping the useless garbage components of that so-called test you've been babbling about.

Mr. GeeMack, my claim has its limitations. I can not have a full-body screen, because the claim fails with a full-body screen.

If you were interested in a scientific analysis of a paranormal claim, you would have undergone such a test a long time ago and more than likely found out that there's nothing to any of the crap you spew.

I only quite recently decided to have the test on kidney detection.

If you had any concern at all about an objective analysis, you would have realized that something else causes you to see things that nobody else sees, or causes you to say you see them.

I saw that a kidney was missing and I have no idea how I could have known that. So I will have a test to see whether I can do it again.

You might have, as a rational person would probably do, tried to determine if some kind of mental illness was responsible (okay, yes, I do see the dichotomy in that ), or some sort of environmental toxin, or some other Earthbound, totally mundane explanation.

I looked at Dr. Carlson and I saw that the left kidney was missing. How is that a mental illness?

Or maybe you'd be working with a competent psychologist to resolve a compulsive lying issue. You'd be taking some kind of honest, forward moving action that you've so far been resisting with every fiber of your being.

I am not lying.

But if there's one thing we are all pretty certain of, it's that you definitely aren't interested in an objective and scientific analysis of your paranormal claim. If you were, you almost surely wouldn't be here continuing to yammer about your nonsensical, unsupportable claim of having magical powers and pursuing what is, at best, a stupid attempt to legitimatize a child's guessing game. I'd venture to guess even you know it, Anita.

I am going to have the test and it won't be a guessing game. It will bring up odds of 1 in 1000 of passing by guessing. Why don't you look at people and guess how many kidneys they have, GeeMack?

GeeMack, I looked at a person and I saw that the left kidney was missing.

 

[Farencue]

I love the circle of life idea I really, really do.
Let me just find where *I* mentioned the Rhine Research Centre MONTHS AGO.
Not a new idea at all Anita.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I love the circle of life idea I really, really do.
Let me just find where *I* mentioned the Rhine Research Centre MONTHS AGO.
Not a new idea at all Anita.

Wow, you did? Thank you! If anything good comes out of it, I give you all the credit then. Here, have a kidney in a box, I won't be needing it:

 

[Farencue]

No Anita, I dont need any credit - here is my post where I suggested YOU are nothing but a scammer. Remember the discussion about Dr Leon Curry? No? Well it WAS way back in February.

3rd February 2009, 08:57 AM #2149
Farencue
Scholar


Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 94 Good question Desertgal.

From the Rhine Research Center (which is located in Durham NC) webpage:
“An Integrative Center for the Study of Consciousness. Now independent of Duke University, the Rhine Research Center is still located near Duke’s West Campus and Medical Center. We aim to meet the great need for information about the depth and breadth and potential of human consciousness. We will continue to present in various formats the best and most instructive current thought on these things. And we will continue to add to the body of scientific knowledge about the nature and power of the mind.
Generating scientific knowledge about consciousness and presenting a wide array of speculative ideas about consciousness and its enhancement might seem to be different and even contradictory things. They are potentially complementary, and we attempt to integrate them.
If anyone wishes to make a truly independent study of any subject, and not simply learn of the prior opinions and findings of others, there are two basic paths for exploration. We may study something empirically, and rely upon the methods of science: theory and hypothesis, objective measurements, control of variables, mathematical analysis of results, and peer-review of conclusions. Still, not all important questions are readily amenable to these methods. The other path for study is more personal and informal. We may find an interesting idea and tentatively adopt it, and try it out in the “laboratory” of our own experience. If we find that it is useful, and adds to our sense of understanding important things and enhances our personal sense of efficacy, then we may keep it and build upon it as a basis for testing other new ideas. If it does not prove to be very useful, hopefully we will be clear-headed and independent enough to toss it out, and look for something better. Most people carry out this sort of informal “research” all their lives. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but each has its unique advantages and disadvantges. Personal, informal research permits us to test out ideas that we find difficult or impossible to squeeze into the structure of empirical study. The downside is that our personal perspective is always limited and potentially biased in unwitting ways, and our range of experience is relatively narrow. We may reach conclusions that are wrong, or only very narrowly true, and never know it. Empirical research is painstaking and often slow-going, and may be somewhat narrow in terms of the questions it can manage. It may seem to miss some of the richness and immediacy of ongoing experience. Its advantage is that with it we can know something for sure, and integrate it with the rest of scientific knowledge. It is with scientific knowledge, after all, that our culture has constructed our modern world, with all its advantages. Certain knowledge is powerful knowledge.”

From Leon E Curry MD webpage under heading "Upcoming Appearances" and I believe it is 2008: October 24 - Duke University, Stedman Auditorium, presented by Rhine Research Center and also on the good doctors page: "What if you discovered a powerful diagnostic machine that could read the human body like an MRI, and identify disease? What if that machine was another human being?" which I believe is a reference to his book titled: "The Doctor and the Psychic" which is about Greta Alexander who died around 10 years ago. Anita has posted on the good doctors webpage 27th November 2008 and he on hers 28th November 2008. Apparently the doctor was also going to be making an appearance with Sylvia Browne in Georgia in 2008. I dont believe that this a NEW delusion at all, I believe it to be a resurrection of an OLD scam. But, I could be wrong.