• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JENENE LEHMAN, Physical Imbalances

Cuddles

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
18,840
Application thread here.

It seems that a small prick (insert giggle here) is not enough to be detected over the noise of other equally minor ailments. However, major chronic illnesses have have a variety of ethical and logistical problems, not least of which is finding enough of them. Would broken bones be sufficient? There are an awful lot of people who have broken bones in the past, and they almost never heal perfectly. It would seem relatively easy to find people who have broken things in the past but are not healed enough that there is no obvious way to tell. It also seems that this is a fairly major thing and should therefore stand out from any little scratches that might also be present.

My only concern with this is that while it is easy to prove that someone has broken a bone, it could be tricky to prove that they have not. I would suggest a test where all subjects have broken either an arm or a leg in the past and Jehene has to identify which limb was broken. In this case no control group would be required.
 
Imbalances, eh?

How about identifying people with missing teeth,

or people who are inebriated,

or people who have been anaethetised?
 
Can't you treat Ms. Lehman's diagnoses like horoscopes? Let her diagnose ten random people, using whatever vague "imbalances" language she wants; she can mention distinctive features as she sees them. ("I see a once-broken left leg, something imbalanced about the jaw, and a caring Libra-like nature"). Then show each person all ten "diagnoses" and ask them to find the right one.

Other than that:

Mild dehydration or hunger; I dare say that "not having had a drink in 5 hours" is an imbalance easily created, but big and systematic enough to be dowsable.

With the patient hidden by something more substantial than a sheet, can Lehman tell the difference between a man, a woman, and a mannikin?

A largeish fraction of women (what, 20%+ of 40-year-olds?) have undergone Cesarean sections; an even larger fraction have undergone childbirth. A largeish fraction of older women (10%+ of 60yos) have undergone hysterectomies. According to a link from Wikipedia, autopsies show that a 80% of 70yo men have undiagnosed prostrate cancers, if that does any good.
 
The horoscope idea would be testable, but I think it is more compliated than having a set of known injuries/illnesses and identifying the location or picking out sufferers vs. controls. Given that sticking a needle in someone is too small and that there are apparently many different imbalances in everyone, I doubt mild thirst or hunger would be acceptable.

As for hysterectomies or c-sections, I think these sound at least as reasonable as broken bones. They would certainly be easier to find a control group for, since while it is possible to not know about broken bones it should be fairly hard to miss having a major operation. In fact, these might be a better suggestion since apparently the length of time for a reading is an issue. Presumably reading only the abdomen would be faster than the whole body, and probably faster than reading all limbs.

I don't really see how undiagnosed conditions would be of any help. The whole point is that the test is entirely confirmable.
 
Has this applicant submitted two affidavits, or has the demand for affidavits been dropped?
 
ben m said:
Can't you treat Ms. Lehman's diagnoses like horoscopes? Let her diagnose ten random people, using whatever vague "imbalances" language she wants; she can mention distinctive features as she sees them. ("I see a once-broken left leg, something imbalanced about the jaw, and a caring Libra-like nature"). Then show each person all ten "diagnoses" and ask them to find the right one.

Other than that:

Mild dehydration or hunger; I dare say that "not having had a drink in 5 hours" is an imbalance easily created, but big and systematic enough to be dowsable.

With the patient hidden by something more substantial than a sheet, can Lehman tell the difference between a man, a woman, and a mannikin?

A largeish fraction of women (what, 20%+ of 40-year-olds?) have undergone Cesarean sections; an even larger fraction have undergone childbirth. A largeish fraction of older women (10%+ of 60yos) have undergone hysterectomies. According to a link from Wikipedia, autopsies show that a 80% of 70yo men have undiagnosed prostrate cancers, if that does any good.
Click to expand...

Your protocol is a very good idea, for the horoscope type thing. However, Ms. Lehman takes quite a bit of time in reading each body, and it takes even longer if she doesn't have an idea what she's looking for.
 
RemieV said:
Affidavits are not required from every applicant. Only if the JREF requests them.
Click to expand...
I take it that the JREF has not demanded affidavits in this case. Which is OK, I just wonder why, because it is quite a hassle to set up a suitable test, and without the affidavits there is no guarantee that this applicant has ever successfully detected physical imbalances before.
 
I like the C-section vs. no C-section idea. It shouldn't be too hard to find people for that test (in my readings, at least 20% of women have C-sections, and in some places in the US, it's up to 30%). And it's a major surgery that leaves internal scar tissue, so I would think that's a "major imbalance".

They would have to be covered in such a way as to not convey information through facial expressions (maybe if there were a screen that prevented the dowser and the subject from seeing each other's faces. I like the idea of "something more substantial than a sheet", also. You could easily rig up a large cardboard half-box, I would think, that could be placed over the person's lower body, with a curtain that would cut off the subject/dowser view of one another and not subject the subject to any possible claustrophobic feeling of being under a full box.

I also like the idea of simply determining whether the object under the cover was a human or a mannikin. I think that this could be a pretty easy test to design, especially if the goals were simply "determine whether what's under the cover is alive or not" or "whether this person has had a C-section". You could even throw in the odd dude into the mix (although I don't know if this dowser has suggested she can tell the difference between males and females through dowsing).

Somebody better than I at numbers would need to figure out how many runs someone would have to do, with a 20-30% chance for each test subject, to show an ability to determine whether a person had a C-section at greater-than-chance values, tho (or 50-50 if it's decided to dowse for male vs female)....
 
JENENE LEHMAN, Physical Imbalances: Possible Criteria

Hi,

I have an Idea of a good severe disorder that should be able to be detected by Mrs. Lehmann's Ability.

Plantar Fasciitis is a sweelling of the Plantar Fascia onthe bottom of the foot. It is very common in Athletes esp. runners and basketball players. It is a chronic condition and can be unbelivably painful although there are no outward signs of the condition.

This should give you a large enough group to test and the condition should be severe enough to be detected by someone claiming to find "physical imbalances" as it is definately physical and a severe imablance.

Hope this helps.
 
Back from the dead?

Hi all,

Sorry to resurrect this ancient thread, but I've discovered something odd. It seems the JREF was notified back in 2009 that Ms Lehman had died, and her application was therefore closed. But if you Google her name now, you'll find evidence that she's still very much alive.

I was going to post specific links, but I'm too new a contributor here (I think I might hold the record for time elapsed between signing up and posting). But if you check out the first few hits that aren't JREF-related (and in particular the site for her reiki business, The Wellness Shop), you'll see what I mean.

Now, either reiki has truly amazing healing powers, or that's the greatest length anyone's ever gone to to avoid the Challenge!

Just thought people might be interested.
 
Innnnnteresting. Can anyone speak to how the death information came to JREF and where things were in the testing process when they were told she was dead?

Ward
 
Perodicticus Potto said:
But if you Google her name now, you'll find evidence that she's still very much alive.
Click to expand...

I can't find any evidence for that. There's this that may be her, but doesn't seem to contain any useful information or evidence that she's actually doing anything. Nothing else on the first three pages of Google seemed to be particularly relevant. A search for The Wellness Shop turns up several websites based in various countries, but none that mention Jenene or seem to have anything in particular to do with her.

If you want to post links, you can miss out the "www", or just put spaces in the url.
 
Cuddles said:
I can't find any evidence for that. There's this that may be her, but doesn't seem to contain any useful information or evidence that she's actually doing anything. Nothing else on the first three pages of Google seemed to be particularly relevant. A search for The Wellness Shop turns up several websites based in various countries, but none that mention Jenene or seem to have anything in particular to do with her.

If you want to post links, you can miss out the "www", or just put spaces in the url.
Click to expand...
I think this is what Perodicticus Potto was referring to, and if you look here you can see it has been updated within the last ~9 months.
 
Not sure if I can give any further info - but I will say that there would've been no reason to check and make sure that she had died. People can withdraw their applications for whatever reason they choose, even if that means pretending to be dead (assuming she isn't).
 
RemieV,

Does that mean that there is no more information to give or does it mean that you cannot give any information because you no longer have access to it or there's a privacy concern or something else?

I mean, do you recall being told that she was dead? Do you remember how you received that info?

This is a great story if the version currently being told here is true. I just don't want to repeat it and find out that no one ever said she was dead and that she's still waiting for someone from JREF to return a phone call she made three years ago.

Ward
 
Last edited:
wardenclyffe said:
RemieV,

Does that mean that there is no more information to give or does it mean that you cannot give any information because you no longer have access to it or there's a privacy concern or something else?

I mean, do you recall being told that she was dead? Do you remember how you received that info?

This is a great story if the version currently being told here is true. I just don't want to repeat it and find out that no one ever said she was dead and that she's still waiting for someone from JREF to return a phone call she made three years ago.

Ward
Click to expand...

I do not know to what degree I am permitted to discuss JREF business.

And no, I don't have to recall anything. I can just search my e-mail. ;)

Challenge discussions, at the time I was working for the JREF, took place via e-mail. She isn't waiting for a response to a phone call, because that isn't how she would've tried to get in touch with anyone.
 
I was kidding about the phone call. Do you know who it would be appropriate to ask at this point? Would Banachek have any answers? At this point, he's probably never even heard of Jenene Lehman. I know none of this is your job and I don't want you to get in trouble with your former employers, but the potential deliciousness of this story compels me to probe further.

Thanks,
Ward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom