• 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

UncaYimmy said:
Surely there is useful information here for forming a protocol.
Click to expand...


You'd think maybe a good test would be to have several people stand behind an opaque screen, one at a time, for a few minutes each, and in some cases have nobody behind the screen. For each instance Anita could write down whether there was a person behind the screen or not, and if so, how many kidneys the person has. I mean, with all those clearly stated, confident claims about her super magical secret x-ray vision powers, a test like that should be a piece of cake!

What do you think of that, Anita? Nothing to it, eh? Unless of course...

VisionFromFeeling said:
Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...


... you're a liar and a fraud.
 
jhunter1163 said:
4,000 VfF-related posts, and no protocols, no tests, no results, and nothing on the horizon. *sighs*
Click to expand...

That's not correct. There have been tests and results:

* Lactobacillus - Failed
* Crushed Pills - Failed
* Chemical Identification over Webcam - Failed
* Reading Photos - Failed
* In-Person Readings at FACT - Failed
* Her "Study" - Failed
* Induced Information Tests - Failed

What we have learned is that nothing will convince Anita that she doesn't have a special ability. She already said that if she fails the kidney test it "falsifies" her claim of healing. And by falsify she means that she won't retract the claim because she just might be "creating a placebo effect."
 
Stop it you meanie skeptics, I believe I have found the problem on Anita's own website where she explains:

"How it works

The perceptions I have of human tissues begins as a feeling of a pattern, that then translates into clear images of photographic quality. I suspect that the medical perceptions involve synesthesia, which is when a person perceives one type of information that then becomes automatically translated into other types of information. But then wouldn't the triggering information be visual, from when I look at a person? Because is there really any vibrational felt information across a person that can be felt without touching the person? Perhaps then it is vision-to-feeling-to-vision instead of just vision-from-feeling? I have not come across synesthesia toward internal tissues mentioned in literature so I do not fully understand what it is I experience. "

We are not simply dealing with vision from feeling here anymore girls and boys, but possibly vision-to-feeling-to-vision.
So there.
 
Akhenaten said:
I took a screenshot of the original post and blotted out letters one at a time in JASC Animation Shop® then inserted the resulting .gif file into the appropriate VfF quote tags.

IOW, I cheated.

I also note that my web server has just fallen over. Hmm. A ghost in the machine, no doubt.

:)
Click to expand...

That's about what I guessed, but it was a very cool thing.

(And I of all people won't say, "You've got too much time on your hands"!)
 
Farencue said:
Stop it you meanie skeptics, I believe I have found the problem on Anita's own website where she explains:

"How it works

The perceptions I have of human tissues begins as a feeling of a pattern, that then translates into clear images of photographic quality. I suspect that the medical perceptions involve synesthesia, which is when a person perceives one type of information that then becomes automatically translated into other types of information. But then wouldn't the triggering information be visual, from when I look at a person? Because is there really any vibrational felt information across a person that can be felt without touching the person? Perhaps then it is vision-to-feeling-to-vision instead of just vision-from-feeling? I have not come across synesthesia toward internal tissues mentioned in literature so I do not fully understand what it is I experience. "

We are not simply dealing with vision from feeling here anymore girls and boys, but possibly vision-to-feeling-to-vision.
So there.
Click to expand...

All I can say is: "Huh???" :eek:
 
GeeMack said:
Plenty will have an explanation if you fail to demonstrate that you have magical powers? Jesus, finally. Maybe you'll admit that something much more common and mundane is causing you to say you see things that aren't really there. Like something compels you to lie? Or maybe you think you see those things and you'll be tootling off to visit a mental health professional to see if just maybe you have some problem in that area that explains your hallucinations?
Click to expand...
I am not lying. I already have other forms of synesthesia, for instance every time I read N I see the color green, or when I read Lithium I see a yellow. The medical perceptions of tissues and organs occur in the same way. I am not lying. And I did detect that a FACT member was missing a kidney. You are by all means entitled to question my honesty, since I did only mention it after the fact, but please allow that I am fully convinced that I detected it before it was announced and that is why I am compelled to have a test to either verify or to falsify my claim that I can perceive the number of kidneys in a person.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're talking in circles. You already said that you readily "see" subcutaneous fat from a volunteer behind a full body screen. That's plenty good to know whether or not a person is present.

You're clearly not interested in doing a test of your claim, so. . . what's the point of going on about it?
Click to expand...
I've already said that in that test with the opaque full-body screen the person was leaning against the screen so I would have known that they were there. I have never experienced anything consistent with a claim of remote viewing. I am sorry your suggestions would not work, I would definitely fail such a test and so there is no reason to even set it up. :)
 
Audible Click said:
So does this mean that you want us to stop trying to design a protocol? If so then please reply to the question so we can either keep discussing it or let the thread die.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate if we continue to discuss the test protocol for the test of detecting how many kidneys a person has. The test can not involve a full-body screen. (Or an underground bunker.) :p
 
UncaYimmy said:
Some selected quotes from the Interview thread...

VFF said:
who was not in the same room as me at that time, and was able to form the images and derive health information I had not detected in him before
Click to expand...

VFF said:
However, such perceptions can also be formed while looking away, with my eyes closed, or even being in a different room and no longer seeing the person, because these perceptions are made in a different way.
Click to expand...

VFF said:
The perceptions that form due to my choice to look closer, last for as long as I choose to keep my attention on them. I can continue to have access to the "downloaded" vibrational information even after the person leaves or I'm looking away or my eyes are closed
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That applies to persons whom I have already seen in the past. If we have a kidney detection test and there are persons behind a screen and I have never gotten a good look of those persons I will have no perceptions. All is consistent with my claim. :cool:
 
GeeMack said:
You'd think maybe a good test would be to have several people stand behind an opaque screen, one at a time, for a few minutes each, and in some cases have nobody behind the screen. For each instance Anita could write down whether there was a person behind the screen or not, and if so, how many kidneys the person has. I mean, with all those clearly stated, confident claims about her super magical secret x-ray vision powers, a test like that should be a piece of cake!
Click to expand...
That would be a test of remote viewing. I have never experienced remote viewing. When I tried the opaque full-body screen the person was leaning against the screen so I had some sense of them being there. I see tissues and organs when I look at a person, and that is how I have always described my claim.
 
* Lactobacillus - Failed Cancelled/Inconclusive (I got headache and nausea)
* Crushed Pills - Failed I never reported my answers because I was not given reference samples
* Chemical Identification over Webcam - Failed and was never even my claim I just gave it a try anyway
* Reading Photos - Failed who cares my claim is medical perceptions from people I see in person
* In-Person Readings at FACT - Failed Very successful
* Her "Study" - Failed Reached its objective of defining a specific claim and learning more about the limitations and allowances of the medical perceptions, involved a questionnaire that had flaws in it
* Induced Information Tests - Failed because I was testing the outer limits of the perceptions to determine the limitations of the claim, ie. a full-body screen does not work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom