VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Akhenaten]

The test will involve detecting which of persons is missing a kidney, and I need to be allowed to see the person's back. I will not do a remote viewing test, I have never experienced remote viewing and I have never claimed to be able to remote view.

You don't appear to be in a position to dictate which test will take place since it is beyond your resources to arrange testing without the assistance of agencies such as the JREFF.

Have you considered the test proposals for your other claims?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Stop the games with this, Anita. The simplistic test proposed by multiple posters on here does not test any remote viewing claim, nor would it expect you to perform remote viewing. If you REALLY have the supernatural powers to look inside people then you would have absolutely no problem with looking through a barrier and finding a human there. All you would have to do is use your supernatural powers to look through the barrier and see if you find flesh.

My claim is not to be able to look through a screen and see if there is a human behind it. Such a claim is called remote viewing. My claim is that when I see a person, I perceive images that depict internal tissues and organs, and I want to test to see whether I they accurately describe information that one should not be able to know just by looking, such as how many kidneys a person has.

You refuse to do this because you know this is the most simplistic test possible and requires you to make definitive proclamations (human is there, human is not there.) The test would stop you from making all the excuses you will make on the kidneys (I got lost at the heart, there is a small chance volunteers would naturally have 1 kidney or more than 1 kidney and not know it, etc.).

I can not remote view through a screen to see whether there is a person there or not. In the test I did at home with an opaque full-body screen, the person was leaning against the screen so I knew they were there and I knew where they were. My claim requires that I have a clear sense of the distance to the person, that is why I believe I need to see the person, unless it is to unintentionally pick up external clues about a person, but what those would be for missing a kidney I fail to see.

And you already know that there can be no excuses on the kidney detection test. I won't get lost in the body when I get to see the back of the person, and I will involve an ultrasound at my expense to verify the number of kidneys in a person.

It would be, quite simply, the easiest test of your supernatural powers which would falsify your claim because you don't have these powers. Which is why you will never, ever, submit to such a test.

My claim is not remote viewing so yes I would fail such a test and of course we would verify that I can not remote view. Why would I waste everyone's time to prove that I don't remote view when I already know I don't remote view?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anita, in your Survey Notes you wrote, "I confirm that black people are harder. They have fewer health problems and their tissues & internal chemicals chemistry etc. is different. I'm less experienced."

Whoah!

She actually said black people have fewer health problems? And that their tissues & internal chemistry is different?

Holy FSM! Not only is she dead wrong, but her racism is showing as well.

Anita, if and when you're ever in a situation where you need a blood transfusion, you'll doubtless refuse it because blood from black donors is not kept separate from that of white donors!

 

[Ashles]

The test will involve detecting which of persons is missing a kidney, and I need to be allowed to see the person's back. I will not do a remote viewing test, I have never experienced remote viewing and I have never claimed to be able to remote view.

My claim is not to be able to look through a screen and see if there is a human behind it. Such a claim is called remote viewing.

Do you still claim an ability to detect the medical ailments of celebrities via TV?

A reminder

I have to see the person to receive information. I detect information about the health of celebrities when I see them on television, but I'd prefer to meet with a person.

Do you still make those claims, or not any more?


This is the fourth time I have asked you about this claim - are you going to ignore my question yet again?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My claim is not to be able to look through a screen and see if there is a human behind it. Such a claim is called remote viewing.

No it's not. Remote viewing is remote. (In

Your claim is what is typically called "x-ray vision". Seeing through a screen is no different than seeing through clothes and skin.

 

[Ashles]

No it's not. Remote viewing is remote. (In

Your claim is what is typically called "x-ray vision". Seeing through a screen is no different than seeing through clothes and skin.

I would say the celebrities claim was more akin to Remote Viewing - she is somehow detecting information about somebody many miles and obstacles away.

If she was claiming it was from the information actually transmitted by the TV picture... I don't know what we would call that.

(Okay, I know what we would call that, but I mean what such an ability would be referred to as)

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

No it's not. Remote viewing is remote. Your claim is what is typically called "x-ray vision". Seeing through a screen is no different than seeing through clothes and skin.

How many times do I need to say this? In order for my medical perceptions to occur, I need to have an accurate sense of distance to the person. I need to see the person. When I tried an opaque full-body screen at home I had a sense of where the person was because they were leaning against the screen. It did distort my sense of orientation in the body quite a bit though since I was having a hard time finding the kidneys. I will not do a remote viewing test to detect whether there is or is not a person behind a screen. My claim is not remote viewing.

 

[Ashles]

How many times do I need to say this? In order for my medical perceptions to occur, I need to have an accurate sense of distance to the person.

How do you have "an accurate sense of distance to the person" when detecting celebrities claims via the TV?

Or do you no longer make that particular claim?

Please Anita, it's a perfectly polite and relevant question.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles, my claim is medical perceptions from people I see who are in the same room as me and at a distance of about 3 feet away.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles, my claim is medical perceptions from people I see who are in the same room as me and at a distance of about 3 feet away.

I'm not asking for you to perform the celebrities test, simply asking if that ability is still one you claim to have.

ETA - you must understand the relevance of the question to your current claim.

Even if you don't, surely it's a simple question you could answer with one word. Yes - you do still claim that ability, No - you don't still claim that ability.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

How many times do I need to say this? In order for my medical perceptions to occur, I need to have an accurate sense of distance to the person. I need to see the person. When I tried an opaque full-body screen at home I had a sense of where the person was because they were leaning against the screen. It did distort my sense of orientation in the body quite a bit though since I was having a hard time finding the kidneys. I will not do a remote viewing test to detect whether there is or is not a person behind a screen. My claim is not remote viewing.

How about a person standing right behind a screen with a person drawn on it, so that their arms, legs etc are in the corresponding place.

 

[Ashles]

I find it very interesting you refuse to confirm whether a claim you yourself made is still a claim you make today.

It seems like you are not answering precisely because you do see the relevance to this claim.

 

[Locknar]

Thus far, this thread has "stood on its own" due to the specific nature of the OP. However, now thread is starting to drift...at which point it is just more general VFF claims discussion and destined to be dumped into the Moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Ashles]

Surely this is directly relevant to the specific thread which is the creation of an agreeable protocol for Kidney Detection?

This is all related to Anita's medical detection claim, this is directly related to her claims about what she can and can't detect through.

If other parts of her medical claim contradict her claimed abilities in this thread, is that not on topic?

How are we supposed to generate an agreed protocol without clarifying the specifics of the ability?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I can not remote view through a screen to see whether there is a person there or not. In the test I did at home with an opaque full-body screen, the person was leaning against the screen so I knew they were there and I knew where they were.

Basically, you just said that you know you can't do something because you haven't actually tried it. That makes no sense.

 

[Audible Click]

I know that VfF does not want this thread to be dumped into the moderated thread so lets try, once again, to design a protocol. If she has problems with it, again, then I guess we can say we gave it out best shot and let the thread die a natural death.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It looks like you are at an impasse, whether by design or chance.

Having a person live in front of the test subject as a target for 15 or even 5 minutes means the test probably cannot be double-blinded (given the nature of the condition being searched for), and there is simply too great a chance for sensory leakage. Combine that with obtaining enough people, the time involved, the expense (if VFF cannot pay for over the counter drugs for testing, travel to California and a sonogram seem . . . optimistic).

Even if you possed all those hurdles, you end up with a test that cannot be statistically valid, and which cannot be effectively scaled up to make it so.

At this point, everyone appears to be spinning their wheels. The only thing anyone is getting from the thread is (on one side) migraines, and (on the other) attention.

 

[Uncayimmy]

To be clear, thread drift, according to the FAQ, is normal and expected.

In this case Anita has been very specific about what claims will be "falsified" should she fail in this one specific demonstration. So, suppose somebody says, "I want to devise a protocol to test ability X, and the result of this test will confirm/deny abilities A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J as well as X." Are we expected then to completely ignore A through J? If X can confirm everything, then why not A through J?

Furthermore, developing a protocol is useless if the person will not use it, not follow it to the letter, and/or not honor what a reasonable person would consider self-evident results. As we look to develop the protocol, we need to look at how Anita has handled other protocols in the past in order to avoid these types of problems. The only way to do that is to point out past conduct and ask her about it.

 

[Ashles]

The only thing anyone is getting from the thread is (on one side) migraines, and (on the other) attention.

Although ironically if you need a migraine healed...

 

[LightinDarkness]

My claim is not to be able to look through a screen and see if there is a human behind it. Such a claim is called remote viewing. My claim is that when I see a person, I perceive images that depict internal tissues and organs, and I want to test to see whether I they accurately describe information that one should not be able to know just by looking, such as how many kidneys a person has.

The more you go on about this the more you make it clear you are not interested in any test protocol that is actually doable that would debunk your delusions of supernatural powers.

You have just stated you can "perceive internal tissues." You have tested yourself (and failed, although you don't admit it) doing this at a skeptics meeting where everyone had their clothes on. There is absolutely no reason - none (except for the fact that you don't have powers) - why you could not do this with a cloth barrier and perceive the existence of tissue or no tissue on the other side.

I can not remote view through a screen to see whether there is a person there or not. In the test I did at home with an opaque full-body screen, the person was leaning against the screen so I knew they were there and I knew where they were. My claim requires that I have a clear sense of the distance to the person, that is why I believe I need to see the person, unless it is to unintentionally pick up external clues about a person, but what those would be for missing a kidney I fail to see.

You calling this remote viewing doesn't change the fact that its not - its what you've already done and claimed to be successful at (although you lied about the successful part). If you can see through clothes, you can see through a cloth barrier. Its not remote viewing, and you've already been told that someone could draw an outline on the sheet and you could be told that the person would be standing within a inch of it.

And you already know that there can be no excuses on the kidney detection test. I won't get lost in the body when I get to see the back of the person, and I will involve an ultrasound at my expense to verify the number of kidneys in a person.

Your right, there will be no excuses because its never going to happen. You've made sure of that one.

My claim is not remote viewing so yes I would fail such a test and of course we would verify that I can not remote view. Why would I waste everyone's time to prove that I don't remote view when I already know I don't remote view?

Again, this is not remote viewing. Placing someone within a few inches behind a cloth barrier and making you identify whether you "perceive tissue" using your powers would be the most simple and obvious test of your own claimed abilities. Which, again, is why its never going to happen. Somehow you can see a kidney through a cloth layer (their clothes), but can't detect the presence of a human being with all their tissues and organs behind a cloth barrier. Why? Because your powers are make believe and you want to only advocate for tests that are extremely expensive and time consuming.

By the way, Anita, you going to the moderators and reporting everyone because your upset that we keep pointing out easy ways to test your medical perceptions claims just verifies that you are here for attention. So far the entire thread has been on topic.

To recap:
Why Anita's kidney test will never happen:
1) It is unreasonable to expect anyone to go out and find the appropriate
number of volunteers AND ensure that they have the right number of kidneys
2) When Anita gets it wrong, no volunteer is going to agree to have a ultrasound to prove that they have the specified number of kidneys.

Why Anita will not agree to simply perceiving whether or not she "sees" tissues/organs on the other side of a cloth barrier:
1) This is a feasible test that would be easy to design and falsify her claims.