• 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

Just admit it. It’s all about attention and you are being rewarded in spades. There are any number of simple tests you could have done to verify your extraordinary patently absurd claims but you avoid them knowing it would have put this nonsense to bed ages ago.
 
Just admit it. It’s all about attention and you are being rewarded in spades. There are any number of simple tests you could have done to verify your extraordinary patently absurd claims but you avoid them knowing it would have put this nonsense to bed ages ago.


Don't say that, Sideroxylon. That's mean.

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.


But do feel free to call her a liar and a fraud.
 
I need to see the person. Obviously that allows plenty of possibility of cold reading and clues that are difficult to control for in a test, but that is how the claim works. Also I fail to see what cold reading could suggest the number of kidneys. I want to find out what the accuracy of the perceptions are, and if they are acceptably accurate, then secondly I want to find out whether they can access information that should not be available to ordinary senses. I do demand that the test take place with the lights on, although I have formed perceptions of people in the dark on occasion. I will not take a test in the dark.

How MUCH light is required? Would a 15w bulb in the corner of the room 3m behind you be sufficient?
 
OK, here is what I propose. 25 subjects, all wearing identical white kevlar disposable "bunny suits." One subject will be a kidney donor and will have one kidney. One subject will have a kidney transplant or will be a poly-kidney person. Same panel replicated with different subjects on 4 different days. Claimant will be sequestered while panel is assembled. No words will be spoken by the claimant or the subjects during the test. Scoring is by marks on a pre-printed score sheet. Lighting will be one 15 w bulb 3m behind claimant. Time for each panel 50 minutes. Success would constitute a two failures over all four panels. A pass is a failure. Failure to correctly divine between one, two, or more than two kidneys would be a failure.
 
Last edited:
Don't say that, Sideroxylon. That's mean.

But do feel free to call her a liar and a fraud.

To do that would be offering unwarranted respect to her silly claims. This is childish fairies at the bottom of the garden stuff and she has had too many intelligent people indulging her for far too long.
 
Well it's so much easier to find volunteers with feet than it is to find ones with organs missing.
 
Well it's so much easier to find volunteers with feet than it is to find ones with organs missing.

But again, people who are present behind a cloth screen have subcutaneous fat, livers, spleens and hearts. She claimed she can discern these things, so by far the easiest test would be the person there or not there behind a cloth screen.
 
Just admit it. It’s all about attention and you are being rewarded in spades. There are any number of simple tests you could have done to verify your extraordinary patently absurd claims but you avoid them knowing it would have put this nonsense to bed ages ago.
Spot on!
 
Much of the difficulty of this test apppears to be related to the use of a screen.

It seems that VfF must at least locate her subject in space, using her normal vision, before any of the vibrational aspects can be considered. We can easily understand that a screen will block normal vision, to one extent or another.

However, vision from feeling is not normal vision. Would it not be useful to know more of the mechanism by which vibrational information is downloaded, in order to get at the heart of the screen problem?
 
Or maybe not so much . . .


6 Nov 08

Hello JREF Forum Members

My name is Anita Ikonen and I am in the process of arranging with the IIG in Hollywood to test what seems to be either true extrasensory perception or the case of something similar to synesthesia which leads me to obtain accurate information that is normally out of reach of ordinary perception.


"in the process of arranging" has taken on a whole new meaning.


"accurate information that is normally out of reach of ordinary perception" has taken a battering too.



Words, words. words . . . what are we to do with them?

Meanies.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
Agreed. And just to elaborate on this, the only thing she has to do on this test is detect the difference between the two people. If she can do that, then she'll have an equal chance of getting them all correct or all wrong. If she gets them all wrong, that would be statistically just as unlikely as getting them all right by random chance.
 
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.

You have already made it clear that nothing is going to be falsified. I mean, you say your claim of healing will be "falsified" but you refuse to withdraw the claim you made to the migraine sufferers group. You also refuse to state that your experiences have no basis in reality.

That is not falsifying anything. That is asking everyone to jump through hoops just so that you can continue on as before with your fantasies.
 
Letter to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)

Sent to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), former CSICOP, http://www.csicop.org/
Dear Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI),

I am a paranormal claimant investigating my experience of medical perceptions. When I look at people I perceive images that depict internal tissue and organs. That in itself is not of interest, since I already have other forms of synesthesia. I am investigating the perceptions since I have experienced interesting cases of correlation between the perceptions and with the actual health of people. Obviously many of those cases could be explained as unintentional cold reading of external symptoms, but some of the things I have accurately perceived should not be accessible to ordinary senses of perception and possibly not even to someone who were a skilled cold reader.

I am investigating the medical perceptions to determine whether I am in fact accurately describing health information that should not be accessible to the senses of perception. To form my perceptions I look at a person and feel what I call a "vibrational pattern" across the person, and it translates on its own into corresponding images. I use no interaction with the person such as speaking or touching, and I use no materials, prior knowledge or feedback. I do not share these perceptions with people and I do not offer psychic readings.

I do not assume that my perceptions would depict reality, and I am prepared to falsify this paranormal claim. I do feel that I have no explanation to some of my past experiences of accurate perceptions, and I believe that as the claimant I am unable to test myself and that is why I need to involve independent skeptics in my investigation.

I contacted the Independent Investigations Group IIG West two years ago about having a test but it was only recently after I had studied my claim that I was able to narrow down my claim to one specific type of health information that would work well with both me and the test. And I have decided to test my paranormal claim of medical perceptions on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys.

The IIG and I are still in protocol discussions. I live in North Carolina and the IIG are in California and they have recommended that I try to arrange some preliminary testing so that I am better prepared for our test and for the outcome of our test, and I admit that a preliminary test would also offer me a chance to practice before the official test. I have contacted the local Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) Skeptics Group, and the Southern Skeptical Society, and have even gone so far as to contact the Rhine Research Center in hopes of arranging some form of preliminary test. I am still waiting for their replies.

I would now like to ask whether the CSI has the resources and willingness to arrange a preliminary test of my claim of kidney detection with me. In 2004 the CSI performed a test of Natasha Demkina. Her claims were similar to mine, however the test protocol I have in mind is already better than hers was. I would only get to see the back of the subject, and the subject is wearing a shirt. Head, neck, shoulders, arms, and from hips and down are screened off. Meanwhile Ms. Demkina's test had obvious flaws. Some of the ailments she was asked to identify could have been detected by carefully watching for external clues. Meanwhile I fail to see what clues a person's clothed back could reveal as to the number of kidneys they have.

Although not flawless, Ms. Demkina's test succeeded in falsifying her claim and I believe that my preliminary test would also not need to be perfect in design. If I were to pass a preliminary test it would by no means provide evidence in favor of the claim but only warrant further testing. And if I fail the test it falsifies the claim that I have of medical perceptions and would set a valuable example of the application of the scientific and skeptical method to unexplainable experiences.

Regardless of the outcome of my own test, having involved myself in skepticism, once my investigation has reached a conclusion, I intend to become a skeptical investigator of paranormal claims that are similar to mine. I am an undergraduate student majoring in both Chemistry and Physics and headed toward a career in Medical Physics. I have not chosen to experience perceptions of internal tissues and organs, but I have chosen to investigate them.

Please let me know if the CSI is interested in working with a preliminary test with me and if you have further questions. I am willing to assume all costs associated with the test and to travel to the test site.

Paranormal claimant
Anita Ikonen
www.visionfromfeeling.com
There are now three skeptical organizations (FACT, Southern Skeptical Society, CSI), and one paranormal organization (RRC) that I have contacted about arranging a preliminary test of my claim.
 

Back
Top Bottom