VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[BenBurch]

I proposed a method that wasn't even commented on. So much for the claimant being serious about this.

 

[Audible Click]

2) Why would somebody lean against a cloth screen? Am I the only one who thinks VfF never actually tested her ability to see her visions when the subject is behind a screen? I mean, I've seen a few cloth screens in my day, and I always make sure not to lean against them, because they tend to fall over.

As I recall she had a friend hold up a sheet and maybe he was holding it and leaning into it. She also had a friend or her boyfriend stand behind an opaque plastic patio screen. I could be wrong about the sheet thing but it's late and I'm too tired to look it up.

 

[Uncayimmy]

For a while Anita was offering on her website to sketch unborn babies in the womb, so it's certainly plausible that pregnancy might provide an avenue of approach. However, at one point Anita was also considering detecting vasectomies, but she backed out of that claim by saying she tried but couldn't do it again.

A better approach might be to guess the gender of the baby. Parents learn this pretty early on and are provided with documenation (ultrasounds). This alleviates several logistical problems. There are zero physical clues as to gender of the baby, so we don't have to worry about those types of visual cues. All of the subjects are controls, so we don't have to worry about non-verbal cues in that regard.

All that's left is controlling for the subject giving a hint as to the gender. Standing behind a screen with the belly portion removed should alleviate any concerns about subtle clues unless someone can think of a belly movement that indicates boy or girl.

Seem pretty straightforward to me.

 

[pakeha]

I've been following these threads, fascinated by this no man's land between reality and woo: the testing, or the proof of the pudding.
VfF insists on a non-screened enviornment to achieve medical perceptions.
Obviously to all the rest of us, this condition activates alarm signals.
I think the testing of Derek Ogilvie's shows
1/ just how a "wooster" is capable of justifying his failure even after repeated and recorded tests. The testers, beguiled by DO's charm, actually felt sorry for the man's 'self delusion'.
2/ the basic inability of "woosters" to admit they are extremely talented cold readers.

I reckon most posters here are perplexed by VfF's utter refusal to construct an valid test for a simple claim.
I know I was, til I read her Mall Reading notes:
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/surveynotes.html

Cold reading all the way down the line, in my opinion.
Or, if the phrase cold reading is objectionable, replace it with reading the body's micro gestures and movements coupled with good guessing.

Why is the burkha option unacceptable to VfF?
Then again why doesn't VfF understand that insisting on physically seeing the volunteers can be taken as a direct admission he/she is using cold reading?

edited to add: by non screened I meant the insistence in actually seeing the part of the body through a hole in the screen, sorry to be unclear.

 

[Agatha]

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. This is what I was trying to do in my posts last night, but it was bedtime in my part of the world!

 

[LightinDarkness]

In other words, one reason this approach has been dismissed after careful consideration is that it is a logistical nightmare. You couldn't even get six people to volunteer for a psychic reading with the help of the F-A-C-T group, and that took weeks for you to organize. Your second study failed to produce any results whatsoever.

Yet you think this scenario stands a remote chance of being executed?


My website will ensure that never happens.

And this is why, even through a few JREF trolls and conspiracy mongers have given you hell about your site, I think it is an absolutely wonderful public service you are performing and am so glad you put that site up.

 

[volatile]

You do realise, don't you Anita, that you'll never, ever get a job in a scientific field now? One google of your name, as most employers do these days, and your CV is in the trashcan. You've literally torched your career.

 

[Sean84]

You do realise, don't you Anita, that you'll never, ever get a job in a scientific field now? One google of your name, as most employers do these days, and your CV is in the trashcan. You've literally torched your career.

[MS paperclip] You seem to be making an appeal to logic... You are firing blanks. [/MS paperclip]

ETA: Sorry if that was confusing, my dispute is with VFF's capacity for logic.

 

[volatile]

Did no-one like my burqa ABX protocol?

 

[pakeha]

I liked it very much, Volatile, especially after having read reading VfF's mall watching notes, where VfF looks at a youth with spikey hair and comes up with a sensation "something" is amiss with his eardrums, if my memory serves me. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Given the extraordinary remark VfF makes about blacks, it wouldn't surprise me that VfF would refuse the burkha option, alleging an allergy to henna.

 

[EHocking]

If I describe the medical perceptions I have of you and those are incorrect I will admit that I was incorrect and that it is evidence against my claim.

In that case, please respond to my post of a couple of days ago:

...If my perceptions were imaginary, wouldn't I form images of kidneys just as before? I find it interesting that while I was doing my very best attempt of perceiving the kidneys under these conditions, instead what I saw was the yellow fat tissue. This, to me, indicates that there is more than just imagination going on. Or that the imagination is complex.

I'm going to go with complex imagination and preconception by you.
Human body fat is generally clear or white in appearance.

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

 

[Senex]

Liar, liar. If you can "perceive" things through clothing - which you claim to have successfully have done before (although in reality you failed it), then you would be able to detect flesh through a barrier made of the same material. You don't want to do this because it would be too simple and there could be no arguing about your results - you could only say "human behind the curtain, human not behind the curtain." There would be no arguments about extra kidneys or anything else - which is why you will not do this.

Her claim states that she needs to see the surface of the body whether they are clothed or not. A flat screen does not give her an exact sense of distance to the person. Also, a screen does block the "vibrational information" that she claims to detect, which is why a partially see-through screen that does allow the outline of the person to be seen, also greatly reduces the quality of the perceptions. Isn't this clear?

She can not detect a person or not behind an opaque full-body screen.

She will not do a remote viewing test to detect whether a person is or is not behind a screen. Why don't you rascals stop asking her to?

No - you said you can see through a shirt. This is most clearly NOT "looking at the surface of the person".

I wish I had a dime for how many times I got caught trying to do this very thing

However, the shirt is very close to the surface of a body. A flat vertical screen is not against the surface of the body. Within the few extra millimeters that is between such a screen and the surface of the body, the vibrational information become undetectable. She has said this before.

You kept refusing to use Zener cards. I asked how you knew that they wouldn't work. You said that you had tried them before. Please do not lie anymore.

Hey, let's lower the stress level and move off calling someone a liar.

You're the one who told VFF to try them. She said that she don't want to use flat images and could do better with 3-dimensional things that have color and texture. You are the one that should lie no more.

If I have followed events accurately, the claim is currently:

VfF can detect which person(s) of a group of people has a missing kidney, by looking at their backs for a period of time.
*The people can be clothed
*They must not be hidden behind a screen

Is this correct? Are there any other limitations on the claim?

Just because VFF doesn't outline obvious limitations to her claim doesn't mean that we can suggest things and then complain when she she didn't see this particular crazy issue coming.



You nay sayers are such a drag. This is my first time rebutting and I'm tired. I wouldn't blame Anita if she left this thread to go on some sort of a spooky vacation.

 

[Ashles]

Also, by this protocol as described above if you pass on ANY subject you will have automatically have failed the test and will by default have falsified all the other claims indicated.
Can you confirm this?

Oh that is tough to agree to. See I'd really like to verify or falsify the claim based on the perceptions, and so if a perception does not occur - which is unlikely - I would be hesitant to let that conclude on the claim since it does not represent an accurate or an inaccurate perception. Do I absolutely have to agree to this condition?

You were the one who suggested it and agreed to to:

I suggested a pass be considered equivalent to you declaring 2 normal kidneys

You were the one who defined a pass as a miss in this post

Alright, moving on. A pass is a miss.

So you need to clarify, is a pass to be considered you declaring you can detect nothing abnormal therefore we should treat a pass as equivalent to you stating 2 normal kidneys,
or is a pass simply a miss (i.e. an incorrect reading)?

I'm only going by your posts here.

 

[GeeMack]

1) I like the idea of adding a mannequin into the mix, as a possibly decoy from behind the screen.

There's no reason to limit the subjects to actual people, or to actually existing for that matter. Test using something with just one kidney and something else, or nothing, without just one kidney. If Anita balks at that idea, it's just more evidence to support the notion that she's a liar and a fraud.

2) Why would somebody lean against a cloth screen? Am I the only one who thinks VfF never actually tested her ability to see her visions when the subject is behind a screen?

You're not the only one who thinks that, no. Anita has proven herself a liar. Her credibility is in shambles, so you can toss out pretty much anything she says that sounds suspicious.

You do realise, don't you Anita, that you'll never, ever get a job in a scientific field now? One google of your name, as most employers do these days, and your CV is in the trashcan. You've literally torched your career.

And for that we can be thankful.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Her claim states that she needs to see the surface of the body whether they are clothed or not. A flat screen does not give her an exact sense of distance to the person. Also, a screen does block the "vibrational information" that she claims to detect, which is why a partially see-through screen that does allow the outline of the person to be seen, also greatly reduces the quality of the perceptions. Isn't this clear?

She can not detect a person or not behind an opaque full-body screen.

She actually in fact has claimed on this very thread that she can indeed see the insides of a person behind a full screen. She said she immediately saw fat tissue, then later saw the liver, spleen and heart, but had a difficult time finding the kidneys because she was disoriented.

She also does not claim that she needs to see the surface of the body. She claims she can see someone's insides right through clothes.

The reasons some of us are still harping on a full screen test are: 1) it would stop a major source of potential information leakage (or as UncaYimmy points out, at least a potential source of skewing the odds significantly), 2) the full screen test is consistent with her claims, and 3) finding volunteers with just 1 kidney will be difficult if not impossible, thus further skewing the odds.

She will not do a remote viewing test to detect whether a person is or is not behind a screen. Why don't you rascals stop asking her to?

It's not a test of remote viewing. It's a test of her claims of some form of "x-ray vision". It is entirely consistent with her claims.

ETA: Information readily available with the screen-with-a-hole-in-it-showing-the-back-of-a-seated-t-shirt-wearing-volunteer: 1) the person's girth around the middle and 2) how still and quiet the person can sit for 15 minutes.
1) Might also correlate well with age which is another bit of information that might skew the odds.

 

[volatile]

Forget the screen. Burqas. That gets rid of all the "remote viewing" objections, but remains stubbornly consistent with the claims as stated, and can be done with two volunteers. ABX.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm going to go with complex imagination and preconception by you.

I agree with you, but. . .

Human body fat is generally clear or white in appearance.

We're not dealing with regular vision. Little to no light penetrates through the skin, so there's no normally reflected light to give fat any particular color. Whatever process she claims is happening, it's not vision in the normal, optical sense. (I think she said she sees nitrogen as a cool neon blue or some such.)

On the other hand, given that she thinks black people have different physiological chemistry and fewer health problems, I think it's likely that she thinks fat tissue is yellow in appearance to normal vision.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm against the idea of a mannequin, particularly if there's a hole in the screen. She's still making each subject sit there for 15 minutes (inexplicably and contrary to her claim "When I look at someone,. . ."). I don't care how still you sit, you can't sit as still as a mannequin. That'd be a flat out giveaway.

 

[Senex]

She actually in fact has claimed on this very thread that she can indeed see the insides of a person behind a full screen. She said she immediately saw fat tissue, then later saw the liver, spleen and heart, but had a difficult time finding the kidneys because she was disoriented.

She also does not claim that she needs to see the surface of the body. She claims she can see someone's insides right through clothes.

Since when don't people on this site recognize what a metaphor is?

It's not a test of remote viewing. It's a test of her claims of some form of "x-ray vision". It is entirely consistent with her claims.

Says you.

If I was Anita I would walk away from thread and go on vacation. Who needs to be subjected to this rubbish?

 

[Christian Klippel]

[OT]

ETA: Just a quick story. Years ago in the dial-up, ANSI BBS days, there was a poker game on the MajorBBS platform.

That's funny. Here in Germany we were the main distributor of exactly that BBS software, and i was in charge of installing it, giving service, testing modules, etc. It was a really decent system, with all the available modules and stuff. We even had a X.25 dialout on ours.

[/OT]

Greetings,

Chris