The VFF Test is On!

And as mentioned, a test (or "demonstration") can't be kind of conclusive. It either is or it isn't conclusive.

(But mostly I want to know how the 6 subjects are chosen. I suspect that's what keeping the protocol secret was about, but I don't know how.)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And there's the CYA catch-all (since the set up makes information leakage possible):


Again, this tells me that the results are inconclusive. Either or both sides may choose to consider the results conclusive, but they certainly don't have to.

Who decides whether there is a procedural problem during the test that has to be addressed? Can it be solved by putting the subjects behind a sheet (a protocol element that Anita has specifically rejected)? Who decides whether she made a conscious attempt to cheat?

Again, this is not bad if it were just a test the claimant was doing on her own to verify her own suspected powers to herself. But it's not that, is it?

And what if she does pass? There is nothing agreed upon for a final protocol (other than the fact that this one isn't it).
Click to expand...


I think that the IIG must have found it necessary to make a number of compromises in order to get this far. It seems obvious to me which parts of the protocol were written/insisted upon by Anita.

I think, in part, today is intended to demonstrate a number of things, and is valid for reasons other than just falsifying the Kidneyvision claim.

And I'd have to agree with you that there's no way the IIG would be risking its money on a protocol like this.
 
Last edited:
Hello.

One member of the IIG recruited the various test subjects and only that person knows who is missing a kidney or not missing a kidney. He will be in a separate location and will never have contact with Anita.

-Derek
 
derekcbart said:
Hello.

One member of the IIG recruited the various test subjects and only that person knows who is missing a kidney or not missing a kidney. He will be in a separate location and will never have contact with Anita.

-Derek
Click to expand...

The various test subjects also know who is and who is not missing a kidney, and they will have contact with Anita. She may read clues that have nothing to do with kidneys in order to spot the targets. I was very glad to see the right/left designation in the protocol as that would be harder to spot with cold-reading.

It would also be interesting to have an experienced cold reader on-site to see if he or she could spot the prime targets in each group of six (ignoring the left/right designation).
 
It's on... this is exciting, finally seeing this happen.
 
How exciting!

"I think I do" aint so great for the calibration, is it?
 
I will predict, based on the note-taking, that she will miss at least one of the guesses regarding kidneys, but be amazingly accurate with a completely unrelated guess, therefor she does too have the ability to see internal organs. So there.
 
I guess we now know that any claims that the vision comes "immediately" and "with no effort" is at best an exaggeration.

I predict a "it doesn't work under pressure" or "I was nervous so it didn't work" or some usual cop-out...

BTW: 12, left.
 
Well, now we are going to find out that the fields overlap. See, she will pick 12, and it will be 13, but that will really be a hit because of the overlapping fields. Then maybe in the next trial she gets the right person but the wrong side. That's because the fields from the person next to that one overlapped and obscured the missing kidney. The last trial will be a total failure, but of course she really did now that one was missing, she just didn't write it down.
 
Akhenaten said:
I think that the IIG must have found it necessary to make a number of compromises in order to get this far. It seems obvious to me which parts of the protocol were written/insisted upon by Anita.

I think, in part, today is intended to demonstrate a number of things, and is valid for reasons other than just falsifying the Kidneyvision claim.
Click to expand...
Such as?

Again, IMO an inconclusive test is not better than no test. If it's just a PR stunt, it shouldn't be done.

ETA: If they're billing this as part of a $50,000 challenge, I find it despicably misleading, since the $50,000 is not at risk on this protocol, and no protocol has been agreed to that will risk the $50K. I predict the resulting YouTube video will be posted with a title that includes "$50,000". I do hope I'm wrong.

derekcbart said:
One member of the IIG recruited the various test subjects and only that person knows who is missing a kidney or not missing a kidney. He will be in a separate location and will never have contact with Anita.
Click to expand...
First, that is not part of the protocol, and second:

Sun Countess said:
The various test subjects also know who is and who is not missing a kidney, and they will have contact with Anita.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is actually quite hauntingly tragic to watch. I legitimately feel sorry for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom