VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[volatile]

Hey - here's an idea for something which we don't even need a screen for.

A two-person ABX test. VFF examines these two people, the same height and build, "in the clear", and "downloads" their info, as she says she can.

Then:

(Image from Wikipedia entry "Burqa" - Creative Commons Attribution)

VFF must then identify which of the two is wearing the burqua... this is clothing, close to the body, gives an outline of the body, but should, if the volunteers are picked wisely, make telling them apart impossible by normal means.

No "remote viewing", no screens, no orientation problems, no kidneys.

Objections?

 

[volatile]

10 Dec 08

I posted that an hour ago, dude.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Alright people, the test will involve detecting how many kidneys a person has just by looking at their clothed back. Does anyone have real evidence that this is a skill anyone of us could be able to do by ordinary senses of perception?

I have already explained that we can confuse the volunteers as to who is the target, so the issue that the target person might reveal who they are by body language may not be a concern.

What are the real concerns of the suggested test protocol?

I will not address further questions about full-body screens, strapping bald people on a table and under a cloth (I think Jim Carr just wants to be a subject on the test), shoes, kidneys in a box, or remote viewing. I have outlined the claim and its limitations. Can we work out a protocol for that claim?

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack, I am doing all I can to have a test take place.

Anita, no you're not. Not even close. In fact you're running resistance at every turn.

The test needs to respect the limitations of my claim. One is not supposed to be able to see the number of kidneys in a person through a clothed back.

So? You don't give a crap about legitimacy. You're a demanding, insolent child. The limits of your claim are... well...

I won't agree to test conditions under which my claim fails.

... and that's not rational, intelligent, or sane.

I am not lying or hallucinating.

There is much evidence to suggest you are. And still no evidence that suggests you can see people's innards. None. Fancy that.

I saw that a left kidney was missing and it turned out to be correct.

Liar. We've gone through that too many times for you to still be trying to pull that crap. Knock it off.

And if the claim is not a real ability, all it is is synesthesia, and that by definition is not a mental illness. You pessimist you.

Synesthesia, or environmental toxins, or who-knows-what. You'd have to consider mental illness until you've been thoroughly checked by a competent mental health professional. So far you can't eliminate that, the most likely and best supported explanation for your problem.

 

[GeeMack]

Can we work out a protocol for that claim?

We have been able to work out several acceptable protocols. There's only one person here who's so scared of finding out the truth that she's unwilling to consider legitimate scientific testing. But no surprise there, eh, Anita? After all, it's been reliably determined, by way of skeptical analysis, that you're a liar and a fraud.

 

[volatile]

Really? One can tell the number of kidneys in a person by observation?

If you have actively advertised for people with one kidney - as you must do - then yes, the one-kidney person will be able to be cold-read.

That's been the problem all along.

Forget the kidney test. It cannot happen. It literally cannot and will not happen. So let's try and salvage something from this mess.

Can you tell two people's internals apart, Anita? What do you think about the burqa test? Or how about a simple ABX test on what gas is in a cylider?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Jim Carr I can't believe you are suggesting this. Strapping down a bald person on a table and not allowing them to move?

This coming from the woman who wants to require a person go to a medical clinic, have jelly smeared all over their back, and sit still while a doctor does an ultrasound? This from the woman who wanted to write on a person's body with permanent marker?

We only need one person to volunteer. I would gladly do it. How about other folks? Would you do it if you were local? If you're not bald, you can wear a swimming cap.

Since you were willing to pay for multiple ultrasounds, why not pay for a massage for the person for their troubles? While they are waiting, they get a rub-down.

That is the most ridiculous test protocol I have ever come across. Besides, the person is breathing, or do you suggest we not only stop their moving but also stop their breathing for a while? How about dead corpses strapped on a table and under a cloth? Jim Carr no more of this nonsense, my test will involve detecting the number of kidneys through a clothed back. This is ridiculous.

So what if the person is breathing? A little white noise generator can handle that. Best of all, here's a free one.

Your continued evasion is obvious to everyone. You're not Natasha. You're not a cute young girl who can stomp her feet to get her way. You're not famous. You will never be famous because any reporter looking to feature you will find www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com as well as all of these threads and realize that you are a fraud. Your claims are dead in their tracks. You will never get a foothold in the woo community.

Unlike CSICOP, we skeptics have no reason to give you special treatment. To use a metaphor, we may never be able to yank your claims out by the roots, but we can make sure they never grow beyond a tiny weed in a barren field.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Alright people, the test will involve detecting how many kidneys a person has just by looking at their clothed back. Does anyone have real evidence that this is a skill anyone of us could be able to do by ordinary senses of perception?

Well, no test is going to occur that actually (1) has odds that mean you couldn't do it by chance and (2) follows a reasonable scientific protocol. So we can play these games for months, but everyone knows a real test is not the object here.

I can't believe a self-proclaimed skeptic and "science student" cannot figure out why your protocol fails. People will give out cues, unintentionally, if they know they are the target. You can't hide it from them when you advertise for people with one kidney, everyone will know they are the target.

What MAY work is some sort of barrier with a 2x2 foot square cut out of it that a person can sit down and you can see their shirt only (all volunteers wearing the same color/style of tshirt). But since it may work and debunk you...your never going to go with it.

I have already explained that we can confuse the volunteers as to who is the target, so the issue that the target person might reveal who they are by body language may not be a concern.

You aren't fooling anyone with this one. Finding people with one kidney is hard enough that you have to advertise specifically for that, which would mean they would know they were selected on the basis of that and give off clues. You know this, which is why you suggested a protocol that will not work.

I will not address further questions about full-body screens, strapping bald people on a table and under a cloth (I think Jim Carr just wants to be a subject on the test), shoes, kidneys in a box, or remote viewing. I have outlined the claim and its limitations. Can we work out a protocol for that claim?

Thats fine, I'll keep bringing it up over and over again: no one has asked you to remote view anything, you said yourself the shoe test was a good idea (until you figured out that this would show you don't have supernatural powers and was easily doable). You were given numerous alterations on a simple test to see if your xray vision was real. You don't like them because it would show you aren't special and would actually be doable.

 

[volatile]

Look, this isn't some kind of claim of X-ray vision that penetrates through steel,

"When I look at the air with my ability I see neon green nitrogen. I also see it in nitrogen gas tanks at the college chemistry department."

Which is it, VFF?

Can we consign another claim of yours to the dustbin? Is it the case that, once more, your powers do not really work in the way you perceive your "ability"?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear LightinDarkness,

Since you live somewhere near Durham, NC. would you like to attend the next FACT Skeptics meeting which is held this Thursday the 20th the day after tomorrow? Unless you are already a member of FACT, under disguise.

You'd be more than welcome to attend, it's always a lot of fun, in a skeptical kind of way. It is held in Winston Salem and the distance is only 75 miles. I can attempt to read your health and you can tell everybody that I failed and I won't dispute that.

 

[Kariboo]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
Look, this isn't some kind of claim of X-ray vision that penetrates through steel,

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
"When I look at the air with my ability I see neon green nitrogen. I also see it in nitrogen gas tanks at the college chemistry department."

So Can you or can you not see through steel?

Amazing this subtle ability to not respond to this question.

 

[GeeMack]

I can attempt to read your health and you can tell everybody that I failed and I won't dispute that.

As opposed to anyone else from FACT whose health you tried and failed to determine, who said you failed (notably Wayne and Dr. Carlson), but whose statements you did dispute?

 

[Ashles]

Okay time for a bit of a recap.

Anita, is your proposed test as it currently stands as follows:

• You will view a subject sitting down in a chair with the back cut out.
• You will be no closer than three feet from the subject.
• You will view the person for no longer than 15 minutes.
• All of the subject's body will be hidden behind a screen with a small square cut out which will reveal only the area of the subject's back where the kidneys will be located.
• This screen could consist of a curtain (and we can choose a pattern/colour for this curtain without restriction)
• The subjects will be wearing a thin cotton shirt (and we can choose a pattern/colour for this shirt without restriction)
• The shirt and screen may be of the same colour/pattern.
• You will at the end of the 15 minutes declare one of the following -
  • Subject has two kidneys
  • Subject has only a left kidney
  • Subject has only a right kidney
  • Could not make a valid reading
• This will be repeated with 10 subjects
• You will not be aware prior to the test how many subjects have less than 2 kidneys
• You will not be aware prior to the test if the test adminstrators are using the same subject more than once
• You will be marked as either a hit (subject has 2 kidneys correctly stated, or subject has one kidney correctly stated as left or right present) or miss (incorrect number of kidneys stated, or single kidney stated on incorrect side)
• When you declare you cannot make a valid reading this will be declared a miss
• Please specifiy what score will be considered by you agreeable to falsify this claim
• A falsified claim will also falsify all the other claims you have defined in this previous post on this thread
• A passed claim carries no weight with regards validity of the claim other than the claim has not been falsified

Does that sound correct as it stands at the moment?

Anythng I have got incorrect/have omitted?

ETA:
Can noise be played during the reading?

 

[Audible Click]

What MAY work is some sort of barrier with a 2x2 foot square cut out of it that a person can sit down and you can see their shirt only (all volunteers wearing the same color/style of tshirt). But since it may work and debunk you...your never going to go with it.

Anita, would this be acceptable? If it is then the next step would be the process of finding enough subjects for the test.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Dear LightinDarkness,

Since you live somewhere near Durham, NC. would you like to attend the next FACT Skeptics meeting which is held this Thursday the 20th the day after tomorrow? Unless you are already a member of FACT, under disguise.

You'd be more than welcome to attend, it's always a lot of fun, in a skeptical kind of way. It is held in Winston Salem and the distance is only 75 miles. I can attempt to read your health and you can tell everybody that I failed and I won't dispute that.

Anita, I would let you read me and gladly tell you that you failed if you dropped your delusions of grandeur and supernatural powers claims and lived a normal life. But that isn't going to happen, is it? Do you know why? Because even though you have failed at your own (very unscientific) tests again and again, you still are in denial about this.

Please see the above post by audible...is that idea going to work for you?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Okay time for a bit of a recap.

Anita, is your proposed test as it currently stands as follows:

• You will view a subject sitting down in a chair with the back cut out.
• You will be no closer than three feet from the subject.
• You will view the person for no longer than 15 minutes.
• All of the subject's body will be hidden behind a screen with a small square cut out which will reveal only the area of the subject's back where the kidneys will be located.
• This screen could consist of a curtain (and we can choose a pattern/colour for this curtain without restriction)
• The subjects will be wearing a thin cotton shirt (and we can choose a pattern/colour for this shirt without restriction)
• The shirt and screen may be of the same colour/pattern.
• You will at the end of the 15 minutes declare one of the following -
  • Subject has two kidneys
  • Subject has only a left kidney
  • Subject has only a right kidney
  • Could not make a valid reading
• This will be repeated with 10 subjects
• You will not be aware prior to the test how many subjects have less than 2 kidneys
• You will not be aware prior to the test if the test adminstrators are using the same subject more than once
• You will be marked as either a hit (subject has 2 kidneys correctly stated, or subject has one kidney correctly stated as left or right present) or miss (incorrect number of kidneys stated, or single kidney stated on incorrect side)
• When you declare you cannot make a valid reading this will be declared a miss
• Please specifiy what score will be considered by you agreeable to falsify this claim
• A falsified claim will also falsify all the other claims you have defined in this previous post on this thread
• A passed claim carries no weight with regards validity of the claim other than the claim has not been falsified

Does that sound correct as it stands at the moment?

Anythng I have got incorrect/have omitted?

ETA:
Can noise be played during the reading?

Thank you Ashles that is exactly correct. I would prefer for the shirt and screen to not have a distracting pattern, preferably a plain one-color material. As for the score I need to acchieve, I have seen it suggested by others and I accept a 1 in 1000, meaning that in this test I would have to get all 10 correctly.

ETA: No noise.

 

[volatile]

Anita, would this be acceptable? If it is then the next step would be the process of finding enough subjects for the test.

What's wrong with my burqa test? That only needs 2 participants, of similar height and build.

 

[Audible Click]

Thank you Ashles. Do we now have an agreed to protocol?

 

[Audible Click]

What's wrong with my burqa test? That only needs 2 participants, of similar height and build.

For me, there is nothing wrong with it, Anita would have to address your question, volatile.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thank you Audible Click for bringing this post to my attention. The one post by LightinDarkness I skipped and it ended up having some interesting material rather than the same old remote viewing/not remote viewing discussion.

Well, no test is going to occur that actually (1) has odds that mean you couldn't do it by chance and (2) follows a reasonable scientific protocol. So we can play these games for months, but everyone knows a real test is not the object here.

If the odds of guessing whether a person has one or both kidneys is 1 in 2, then in a test with ten persons the total odds of getting all correct by guessing is 1 in 1024.

I can't believe a self-proclaimed skeptic and "science student" cannot figure out why your protocol fails. People will give out cues, unintentionally, if they know they are the target. You can't hide it from them when you advertise for people with one kidney, everyone will know they are the target.

If I weren't at least something of a Skeptic I would be out there and charging $5,500 for a head-to-toe Vision From Feeling^TM psychic reading and going to woo conventions rather than talking with you fine Skeptics and submitting my claim to a falsifiable, yet possibly not verifiable, test.

I already said that we can confuse the volunteers as to who really is the target by lying to them! GeeMack thinks I should be able to lie to the volunteers.

What MAY work is some sort of barrier with a 2x2 foot square cut out of it that a person can sit down and you can see their shirt only (all volunteers wearing the same color/style of tshirt). But since it may work and debunk you...your never going to go with it.

But for goodness sakes, LightinDarkness! It is exactly what I have been wanting to do!

You aren't fooling anyone with this one. Finding people with one kidney is hard enough that you have to advertise specifically for that, which would mean they would know they were selected on the basis of that and give off clues. You know this, which is why you suggested a protocol that will not work.

The test also advertises for people with two kidneys, so they should all feel like the target.