The VFF Test is On!

JoeTheJuggler said:
Why do you think there is any reason to think she has the ability to determine which person is missing a kidney but not to be able to see or otherwise detect which kidney
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. What I said is that the test Anita took was designed to determine whether she has the ability to correctly judge: (a) who is missing a kidney; and (b) the location of the missing kidney. As I have demonstrated, the joint probability of her getting by random chance two of the three people missing a kidney and one of the two locations is 5.67%. Now, it is true that the impressive part of her performance was getting two of the three people correct, rather than getting one of the two locations correct, but you shouldn't conclude that she has no ability to detect location based on her missing one of the two locations.

JoeTheJuggler said:
but you don't think there's any reason to suspect she has the ability to levitate?
Click to expand...
If her performance on a future levitation test is P=.0567, let me know.
 
Why am I having another test?

I would hope to falsify a non-ability at this point, if I were convinced that I would have nothing more to learn from my claim. Here is why I want another test:

After each trial when I had handed in the answer sheet, and the subjects had left, I confided in Karen, James Underdown, and Mark Edwards my confidence in the results. I knew that my answer in trial 1 was wrong, that my answer in trial 2 was correct, and that my answer in trial 3 was wrong. This is irrelevant to the results of the IIG Preliminary, but it does have some meaning to my own investigation to find out more about this.

In other words, when I know I am right, it is right. In everyday life, I would not have reported the answers as were in trials 1 and 3, because I knew them to be wrong.

The accuracy, then, still seems good, even though the frequency or the capability is not as good as it should be to pass.

And I did detect the missing kidney in Dr. Carlson. So that adds to my quest for further inquiry.

Joe Pingree sat on the other side of the row of subjects and said that based on his observations on the fidgeting of the subjects, he would have guessed the correct person in trials 1 and 2 (although he would not have known how to decide between left and right kidneys). Even though he did sit facing the subjects, and did have access to more visual clues than did I, I told him afterwards that his comment was the most meaningful thing that I take with me from the test.

I do wonder whether my claim is based on an unintentional and automatic cold reading ability. Some sort of signs that would indicate that a person is missing a kidney? Of course I am curious about this, because what would those signs be? Certainly, in this test I was told that one in six is missing a kidney, so that alters things a bit. But in Dr. Carlson, I had no prior way of knowing that this very specific thing would apply to him. So I must research further, because I am curious.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I couldn't possibly keep up with all of the posts here! I will see to arranging another test. Not to qualify for a paranormal challenge cash prize, not to verify myself as with psychic abilities, but just to find out more about this experience that I have.

I will not bother the IIG, JREF, or local FACT Skeptics with the next test though. The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible. The amount of time will be the same. And only two trials in one day, not three.

If statistical chance was responsible for the somewhat of a 50% accuracy I acchieved in the IIG Preliminary, then I would hope for chance to fall into a lower result in the next one. Or if there is *something* else involved, I would hope for that to be revealed again to some extent.
Click to expand...


You didn't achieve a 50% accuracy. You failed 100%. For you to claim otherwise makes you a liar.

And as for finding out what that *something* is, have you set an appointment with a competent mental health professional?
 
Excuses: In trial 1, I had to spend a lot of time seeing through subject number 12 who was a heavier-set person. It was very difficult for me to feel through to his kidneys. For the longest time, I could find neither of his kidneys. I knew that of course he has at least one. So I spent a great deal of time searching for his kidneys, making sure that I would not guess that he is missing a kidney, simply because I did not find them. First I found the right one. And to find the left one, I actually had to start at his bladder which is close by to the pelvic bone, and feel my way up towards his kidneys. The kidneys were deeply embedded, and it was difficult for me to find them. Once I had concluded that I've found both of his, I could move on to the others again. But then I did not have much time left. That is why in a future test there will be no more heavy-set subjects. :)

And in trial 3, I was very tired and had that famous "headache and nausea" that I've mentioned in past cases. I very nearly raised my hand to say that I need to cancel trial 3, but I leaned back, closed my eyes, took some deep breaths, and proceeded. And that is why in a future test there will only be two trials in a day. :)

Anyhow. I would have no further excuses after that point. And so if results are still inadequate to indicate that *something* interesting is taking place, then the claim shall be falsified. At least I can investigate further. :)

Sorry. :)
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
If statistical chance was responsible for the somewhat of a 50% accuracy I acchieved in the IIG Preliminary, then I would hope for chance to fall into a lower result in the next one. Or if there is *something* else involved, I would hope for that to be revealed again to some extent.
Click to expand...

There was no "50% accuracy" VfF. You failed. I think it's time you started to deal with reality.

VisionFromFeeling said:
I am not doing this to pass as a psychic. I am investigating an experience I have of feeling and seeing health information and organs. Needless to say, I have not yet falsified the claim.
Click to expand...

Then you are a lair. I don't like to use that term, but it applies in this case. Sorry to be blunt, but you said that if you did not pass the test you would be happy to falsify all medical perception claims.

After I have posted these comments, I will no longer respond to you until you do as you promised and proclaim you medical perceptions as falsified.

VisionFromFeeling said:
Well, carry on among yourselves. Any pressing questions can be e-mailed to me and will be answered. I am far too busy.
Click to expand...

Later.
 
Rodney said:
I didn't say that. What I said is that the test Anita took was designed to determine whether she has the ability to correctly judge: (a) who is missing a kidney; and (b) the location of the missing kidney.
Click to expand...


No, it wasn't. And your repeated insistence to the contrary won't change that fact. (Sounds like you've taken a page from Anita's own playbook.) If you intend to continue in this conversation it might help if you actually had some idea what you're talking about. From this IIG web page...

The IIG said:
In each of the three trials, one person was known to be missing a kidney. That meant that of 12 possible kidneys, one was missing. Anita had to determine which kidney was missing.
Click to expand...


In order to support your contention you'd need to show us where in the protocol it describes how much credit was to be given for guessing the person missing a kidney, but guessing the wrong kidney. You're on, Rodney.
 
What if she had guessed the correct kidney (left or right), but the wrong person. Would she still be half right? As it is, she always guessed the same kidney (the one most commonly removed). She got her one out of six guess correct once. I just happened to be the only test subject who'd had his left kidney removed. A single lucky shot.

Ward
 
Anita, you have failed every survey, study and test you have taken. Move on with your life. These desperate attempts to salvage something make you look like you are just seeking even more attention.

So, you were right about being wrong when the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of you, well, BEING WRONG! How pathetic do you have to be to try to turn that into something extraordinary?

If you want to "satisfy your curiosity" then why not do so in the quiet of your own home? I, for one, am bored, disgusted and sad, all at once.

ETA: For those interested, there was an 84% chance that Anita would be right about being wrong two out of two times. This, of course, merits more testing. I mean, who woulda thunk it?
 
Last edited:
Rodney,
I had to leave the chat room early to go to work the day of the test. I made my predictions early (before trial #1 started) and I missed every person, but I got the sides 100%. What powers do I have? The power of lucky guess when it came to the sides.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy do you or does someone from your website have the chat log of the stream? Not your chat log, but the ustream chat log. I've read yours and I'm ready for more.

Ward
 
Rodney said:
Thanks, but what we need to know is: (a) How many people from the audience guessed in each of the three rounds? and (b) What were the specific guesses? -- e.g., in Round 1, how many selected Subject 1, right side; how many selected Subject 1, left side; how many selected Subject 2, right side; etc.
Click to expand...
Unknowable. I made my guesses but in the end thought the whole thing was so silly that I just threw my scoring sheets away. I'll bet I wasn't the only one.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I very nearly raised my hand to say that I need to cancel trial 3, but I leaned back, closed my eyes, took some deep breaths, and proceeded.
Click to expand...
I sure don't remember that. I'd go back and review the tapes but I am so disgusted with your post-test behavior that I don't want to be a part of the crap from now on.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I couldn't possibly keep up with all of the posts here! I will see to arranging another test. Not to qualify for a paranormal challenge cash prize, not to verify myself as with psychic abilities, but just to find out more about this experience that I have.
Click to expand...


You don't need to keep up with the posts here. The resullts are in and and they speak for themselves.

You failed.


VisionFromFeeling said:
I will not bother the IIG, JREF, or local FACT Skeptics with the next test though. The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible. The amount of time will be the same. And only two trials in one day, not three.
Click to expand...


I thought you weren't going to bother anyone with it.


VisionFromFeeling said:
If statistical chance was responsible for the somewhat of a 50% accuracy I acchieved in the IIG Preliminary, then I would hope for chance to fall into a lower result in the next one. Or if there is *something* else involved, I would hope for that to be revealed again to some extent.
Click to expand...


There was no 'somewhat 50% accuracy'. You failed


VisionFromFeeling said:
I am not doing this to pass as a psychic. I am investigating an experience I have of feeling and seeing health information and organs. Needless to say, I have not yet falsified the claim.
Click to expand...


You never will, but the IIG did. You failed.


VisionFromFeeling said:
Well, carry on among yourselves. Any pressing questions can be e-mailed to me and will be answered. I am far too busy.
Click to expand...


I predict we'll cope.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
If her performance on a future levitation test is P=.0567, let me know.
Click to expand...
She never claimed the ability to levitate, and she was never tested for it.

She also never claimed this other ability you're asserting, nor was she tested for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom