VFF and the Diaphragm Test

[pakeha]

VisionFromFeeling contacted me via Skype last Friday to ask me what I thought of a test where she detects whether a woman has a diaphragm in her vagina or not. The story she related is "I saw a diaphragm!! I really saw it! I have never seen one before! <snip> A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear. It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that."

She wanted to know what I thought about a test protocol where "...I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "

It should be noted that VFF did not actually confirm that the person she saw was, in fact, wearing a diaphragm. This is also the first time she has ever perceived a diaphragm. She said, "This is actually once again one of my strongest perceptions. So I would definitely consider a test with this, if it could be arranged." Of course, this seems to contradict her claims that she puts no faith in perceptions being real and that it's her "apparent accuracy" that she is investigating.

A diaphragm test would not be a "diversion from the IIG kidney test" but something she can do during the time she waits for a reply from IIG ("the ball is in their hands now, so to speak").

For those who are wondering whether I should be revealing what she sent to me privately, I already told VFF that I would no longer consider any communications from her to be private.

It's interesting that VfF imagines that's a protocol.

She wanted to know what I thought about a test protocol where "...I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. "

And even more interesting that she immediately jumps to publicise what may simply be a one off.

 

[desertgal]

No, he had a tired shoulder and an Adam's apple I believe.

He had had a 'severed diaphragm' in the past - and Anita completely missed that, scars and all. Anita only 'perceives' surgical scars when she already knows they are there.

 

[Apology]

Complete and utter nonsense. Desertgal is right about the use of the diaphragm. It's inserted shortly before sexual activity and left in for a set period of time afterwards (6 to 8 hours) and then removed. Even if you were able to identify a number of diaphragm users, it's unlikely that they'd actually be wearing the thing at the time that you met them.

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.

 

[bookitty]

Since I sport two beautiful titanium hips, you ought to see my pelvic x-ray. Pretty scary. So if VFF can see anything foreign in the body, a large hip joint replacement unit should be it. And they are pretty common.

I am sorry you went through whatever happened but I really want to see those X-rays. The workings of titanium hip replacement would be very interesting. Plus x-rays have a certain art to them.

A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck). The more I think of it, the more people I know who have some sort of permanent foreign material in their bodies.

I am guessing that VFF is young, in her early 20's. If she is faking then it makes sense that she would "see" a diaphragm rather than any of the more common implants. In your 20's you don't know many people with replacement parts. It seems like a one in a million chance that someone would have metal in their body. Something related to to sex would seem more possible.

Of course, if she does read the threads, we should see an upward trend in titanium reporting within the next few weeks.

 

[blue sock monkey]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

With her super powers she'd be able to clearly see such a thing in someone's gob even.

 

[bookitty]

Maybe we could get VfF to guess which of 100 people we forced to swallow a penny.

ETA: Seriously. Why not?

The list of possible foreign material in the body is pretty large - mercury or composite dental fillings, dentures, titanium in their body, piercings, various types of implants and replacements, IUD, pacemaker, port for chemotherapy, glass eyes.

With one exception, I know people who have or have had all of the above at some time. It seems if someone was capable of getting spontaneous images of foreign material in the human body, that they would be a bit overwhelmed.

 

[blue sock monkey]

The list of possible foreign material in the body is pretty large - mercury or composite dental fillings, dentures, titanium in their body, piercings, various types of implants and replacements, IUD, pacemaker, port for chemotherapy, glass eyes.

With one exception, I know people who have or have had all of the above at some time. It seems if someone was capable of getting spontaneous images of foreign material in the human body, that they would be a bit overwhelmed.

Your objection is perfectly reasonable. However, VfF has now claimed to be able to use her X-ray vision to spot a scrap of silicone or latex when directing her attention to a specific part of the body. Surely a nice coin in the stomach would be at least as easy?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.

But what if she was wearing one? The fact that it's so rare makes this perception even more extraordinary. Only 1 in 500 women of child bearing age even use one these days. And when they do, it's only in for a relatively short period of time. How astounding that VFF was able to detect this with just a glance. Let's not confuse the issue with the fact that VFF doesn't actually know that the woman was wearing a diaphragm. It was a "strong" perception, so that's sufficient, right?

The diaphragm perception sums up VFF's claims quite neatly. She applied for the IIG test because she had "apparent accuracy" that she believed was worth testing. Despite all these perceptions she supposedly got right, she never could come up with anything to test. A full year and a half after applying for the IIG Challenge, she had her first and only (alleged) perception of a missing kidney. Six months later this becomes the holy grail for falsifying her claims.

And now she has her first and only perception of a diaphragm, only she has no idea of she was even correct. She's willing to use this for a test. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be crystal clear now that her belief in her super powers comes first. She's not just misguided about "apparent accuracy" and trying to investigate her experiences. She's operating from the premise that what she "perceives" is real.

I'll leave the concluding statement to GeeMack.

 

[Madalch]

I'd hate to try swallowing a penny. I managed when I was a kid, but I think I'd choke now.

 

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH.

Keep on-topic from now on please.

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

 

[shuttlt]

I'm sure this has been covered in one of the thousand and one VFF posts, but is she only able to use her x-ray vision through living flesh? You couldn't just stick a diaphragm inside a frozen chicken?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm sure this has been covered in one of the thousand and one VFF posts, but is she only able to use her x-ray vision through living flesh? You couldn't just stick a diaphragm inside a frozen chicken?

She has made claims about detecting chemicals, but she insists her "strongest" claims are about detecting medical conditions in living humans, and that's all she says she wants to test.

 

[shuttlt]

She has made claims about detecting chemicals, but she insists her "strongest" claims are about detecting medical conditions in living humans, and that's all she says she wants to test.

Is a diaphragm really a medical condition? What's the difference between a diaphragm in some womans vagina and a penny under my tongue (at least from the perspective of any test)? If you scrunch up a diaphragm and conceal it in one of your fists, would she be able to tell which fist it was in?

 

[pakeha]

Nice one, UncaJimmy

Let's not confuse the issue with the fact that VFF doesn't actually know that the woman was wearing a diaphragm. It was a "strong" perception, so that's sufficient, right?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Is a diaphragm really a medical condition? What's the difference between a diaphragm in some womans vagina and a penny under my tongue (at least from the perspective of any test)? If you scrunch up a diaphragm and conceal it in one of your fists, would she be able to tell which fist it was in?

I would agree that a diaphragm is not a medical condition. As she describes it, the vibrational patterns are disturbed, whatever that means. Understand that in her "Survey Notes" she pondered whether her eyes sent out something that caused the molecules in a person to vibrate, which she in turn "downloads" and uses to construct 3-D images. This theory could explain why she believes she needs to see the person in order to do her thing.

To respond to the "meta-message" in your post, the whole thing doesn't make any sense to anyone except her. We have pointed out dozens and dozens of inconsistencies. She tries to rationalize most of them. For the rest she just stomps her feet and says that she's only going to test what she wants to test - her abilities are what they are, and she's just trying to find out why there is an "apparent accuracy" that needs to be explained.

 

[volatile]

Maybe it wasn't a diagphram? Maybe it was a moon cup? Women wear those all day...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Maybe it wasn't a diagphram? Maybe it was a moon cup? Women wear those all day...

True, but VFF already told us that she has detected menstruation. Surely as a woman she has been made aware when other women around her were menstruating, so I doubt very seriously that she would confuse the two given her astounding powers of perception and the opportunity for confirmation.

Then again, I have this theory that it's all just a product of her fanciful imagination and has no basis in reality. Crazy, I know, but somebody has to say it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...............

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I am sorry. This is an inappropriate conversation topic. There are plenty of intimate and uncomfortable perceptions that I would not want to involve in a public discussion, so, sorry guys! I really thought this would stay between UY and me.

The idea of suddenly seeing into a random stangers private parts seems quite incodceivable to me.

Seriously though what would even trigger that thought? It's almost dream like isn't it, just the randomness of it seems odd. Aside from whether you believe that what are perceiving is actually real or not.

I have been having medical perceptions of these areas all the time. One of my earliest and most clear perceptions was female cysts. Another was when I saw a "bloody uterus" in a woman who was having her menstruation. I've also perceived genital herpes in a young woman. Just to mention a few. Again, things I don't think are appropriate for discussion in a public Forum. Children could be reading.

However while I wouldn't object to answering a survey about sanitary protection, I would find it embarrassing to be asked "and do you have your mooncup in place right now?" in a public setting.

UY conveniently (for him, to make his point), forgot/omitted certain sections of what I said to him. Here is the entire conversation:

Jim! Guess what I saw!

I saw a diaphragm!! I really saw it! I have never seen one before!

Well? How about that for a test?

Hm. But I wouldn't want to think about how to confirm who has and hasn't... 8/

A woman walked past in the hallway and I was sitting in class and the door was open, so I only saw her as she walked by. But the perception I had was instantaneous and clear. It took me by surprise. I would never have expected to see that.

The reason I saw it is because it produced a feeling of imbalance in the vibrational information of the body, like something that is not natural.

Of course I can not confirm my anecdotal account of this. It is not like I could approach the woman and ask her about it, although I did give it serious consideration whether there was any ethical way to do such a thing, and I concluded that there is no way I can ask.

This is actually once again one of my strongest perceptions. So I would definitely consider a test with this, if it could be arranged. 8/

Jim, can I ask for your opinion on something?

If I were to pretend to be doing a survey on how many women, of a certain age for instance, use a diaphragm, would that give me a way to check for my accuracy before an actual test? For instance: I look at a woman and if I perceive that she is, I write a small mark somewhere on a card, and if I perceive that she does not have, I write a different kind of mark on that card, and that card is a small questionnaire that simply asks for her age group and whether she is using a diaphragm. The questionnaire is anonymous and is placed in an envelope and the envelope is then sealed. Afterwards, the envelopes are opened and the answers are quickly checked by comparing the mark that I made with the yes/no answer made by the woman that was asked. What do you think?

Should be simple, shouldn't it? Not as a diversion from the IIG kidney test, but at least as something I can do during the time I wait for a reply from IIG (the ball is in their hands now, so to speak).

Good, isn't it? Yes?

UY omitted/forgot to mention the obvious reasons why I did not check for accuracy of the perception, and that the cards would be placed into envelopes and that would make it less awkward. Note: I will not be doing this kind of survey.

Complete and utter nonsense. Desertgal is right about the use of the diaphragm. It's inserted shortly before sexual activity and left in for a set period of time afterwards (6 to 8 hours) and then removed. Even if you were able to identify a number of diaphragm users, it's unlikely that they'd actually be wearing the thing at the time that you met them.

Diaphragms are extremely unpopular these days because they're messy and have a high failure rate. Each one must be custom made to fit the user, and if the user gains or loses as little as 10 pounds, they will need to have their fit checked by a doctor. The thing must be inspected and most likely replaced every two years (barring weight gain/loss). There are many options that have a lower failure rate, are less expensive, or are easier to acquire and use, such as birth control patches/shots/implants, vaginal film inserts, disposable sponge cups, and IUDs. Chances are that the "woman with a diaphragm" that VFF perceived wasn't wearing a diaphragm at all.

Now that I know more about it after reading your posts, I do realize that there is a high likelihood that what I think I saw was not a diaphragm at all, but some other white foreign object/implant. What else could it have been?