TSR, unless the person is aware that they are missing a kidney and that they are the target of a kidney detection experiment which may translate into possible external signals in terms of body language, the presence or absence of kidneys is not considered detectable by seeing a person's clothed back.
Nothing's changed then, has it? Not one jot or tittle.
We all knew it was impossible before you started this odyssey, and we all know it now.
Perhaps you should have listened to what you were being told and you could have saved putting yourself through this farce.
Moss, I had a long study period before submitting a test protocol and proceeding with having a test, the IIG Preliminary Demonstration.
A reasonably long period of time certainly passed. There was absolutely no indication, and there remains zero evidence, that any kind of study took place though.
And please don't bother referring us to the 'study' pages on your website, as they are drivel.
I made attempts to identify all parameters that affect my experience of medical perceptions.
my bolding
No, you did not.
You quite blatantly ignored almost all of the advice you were given in this regard, and identified absolutely nothing.
Now, as to the bolded words above, which I have repeatedly asked you about and which I will continue to ask you about until an answer is forthcoming.
Why are you referring to this non-ability of yours as 'medical perceptions' when it couldn't be classified that way even if it worked.
Remember this: An ignorant and uneducated nobody like myself using an MRI machine actually
can see inside bodies and detect missing kidneys, but there's no way this could be described as a medical perception.
Why do you persist with insisting that you, also without medical training, are capable of 'medical perceptoions'
I learned many things, such as that I need to see the outline of the person without a screen and that clothing was permitted.
What do you mean by 'many things'? The two vague things you've mentioned here are of no import whatsoever.
What are the other things you learned? Detailed list please.
I do not offer "psychic readings" to people, nor do I involve persons other than Skeptics in my investigation . . .
I'm not a skeptic, or a sceptic, with or without the initial capital, but you'd better believe that I'm involved.
'Skeptics' is not, despite your insistence, a class of people. There is no such group.
To your slight credit, however, at least you aren't the only one making this basic and obvious mistake.
. . . unless dealt with by Skeptics directly . . .
As above.
. . . so I have only a limited amount of experience with "reading" people.
Which is to say, in fact, that you have none at all. Zero.
I never came across a larger person in my study of my claim.
You never
did a study and that's the precise reason that:
So I had no way of foreseeing that larger persons would be harder to "feel" into, to form the perceptions.
See how that works, science student?
But in accordance with how I experience the claim of "vision from feeling" to take place, larger persons taking longer time becomes a valid excuse. Meanwhile, during the test itself, I was working very hard to feel into all persons, of course I had every incentive to gather my information, and were the claim merely a conscious or logical exercise, I would have overcome this difficulty rather well.
Utter nonsense, wrapped in waffle.
(ies) in any way whatsoever.
