VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

(...) The floor is marked where the subject will stand - little pictures of shoes. Both subjects are of the same build. There kidneys will be in the same spot every time. If it makes you happy, we can draw a little outline of a human in chalk and mark with a big X where each kidney should be.

I did think about trying something like this. Drawing the outline of a person to assist me in orientation. But that would never be nearly as exact as what I get from simply looking at the person. Meanwhile, it is also a depth problem. It seems I need to know exactly how far away the target area is. I will do some more testing with screens tomorrow. Thank you for your suggestions, I do realize that you put a lot of thought into this.

If you were sincere, you would practice this until you could do it quickly. You tried it one time and actually succeeded. Try it a few more times and learn how to do it better.

Alright I will practice, just in case I get good at it. Of course if a test could be arranged without a full-body screen, it would be in my interest to have it that way since it makes a tremendous difference in my performance. No matter how good I would get at full-body screens, I will always be much better without the full-body screen. So you see why I am being difficult and *trying* to get away without the full-body screen.

How about I explain why the body screen is not solely designed to prevent you from getting visual cues? The screen means the test will require 1/20th the number of people and 1/3 the amount of time. You're much more likely to get two volunteers than 40.

Understood.

Suppose I am asked to pick out a gigging rock guitarist guitarist from a group of 10 people. If I draw a number out of a hat and say, "Number 4", that's random. In reality we know that more men than women play guitar in rock bands. We also know guitarists get calluses on their fingertips. We also know bands play in smoky bars. If I can see and smell the person, the knowledge I gleen can increase my chances of guessing from 1 in 10 to maybe 1 in 5 (obviously, it varies).

I absolutely understand this concern, that allowing me to see the volunteers throws off the statistics into numbers that we can't predict. But what might be the clues that a person has donated a kidney? Taking the example of the one case I had, I could never have known (unless I had "vibrational vision", allegedly) and I am sure no one else could have guessed either.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, what on earth is wrong with you?

I'm sore from my nephrectomy. Couldn't you tell?

I contacted the IIG two years ago about testing my medical perceptions. The problems we ran into

We? The only person who had a problem is you. The IIG didn't have a problem.

...was that I had to pick a specific ailment but I had very little experience to know which one I would like to pick, and that I did not have experience with having medical perceptions under test conditions, for instance people aren't often wrapped around in screens when they are out walking.

Uh, no, that's not accurate. There were lots of problems with your protocol such as wanting to be able to "pass" on people you couldn't read. You know, silly constraints that made it impossible to construct a protocol.

Then when I met with the FACT Skeptics they helped me realize that I need to study my claim to learn more about what exactly it is that I can and can not do. So I begun the study.

Uh, no, that's not accurate either. Dr. Carslon flat out said that there is nothing worth studying.

In the study I had three successful reading with FACT Skeptics and was able to determine that I claim to be able to detect which of persons is missing a kidney.

Uh, no, that's not accurate either. Your readings with FACT members were not a success. We don't need to rehash it, but suffice to say Dr. Carlson concluded that your results did not even warrant further investigation beyond curiosity.

I was going to have a second study to learn more and to have more experience with the medical perceptions, but setting up a study is a lot of work so I decided to take the best of what I had so far - the kidney perceptions - and end the study.

Uh, no, that's not accurate either. You didn't study missing kidneys. It was a one-time chance encounter. That's it. A one-time chance encounter is now your "strongest claim".

As for your second study, on June 30 you told me via Skype that you had already designed it and that it was very different. Then on July 13 you told me via Skype, "Now I'm off to town to try to begin my second study. Just like that." I was under the impression that you had done it but had not shared the results.

I am not doing this for attention, in fact, I hate the attention this is giving me.

So says the woman whose face adorns the website where she goes into excruciating detail about her abilities. So says the woman who keeps coming back to people who don't believe her. Oh, you like the attention. Your actions speak louder than your words. Do you not recall offering me a picture of yourself to put on the StopVFF website?

 

[Audible Click]

Best case scenario: Anita tries the thin opaque paper screen with the correct lighting and can see the kidneys without difficulty. She's going to try this tomorrow, so if it does work out then a protocol with a screen will be possible and that should simplify and speed things along considerably.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, what are you offering up in return for all this effort you are childishly demanding requesting from people? I asked you already what claims your failure would falsify, but you ignored that post. BTW, you should stop ignoring posts. It;s very rude.

If you fail the kidney detection test, what claims will you declare officialy debunked? Please be very specific.

You said you would sign a paper saying you wouldn't make excuses. Fine, what is the penalty if you do? Will you put money in escrow to be forfeited if you break your word?

If you fail the kidney test, will you put in big bold letters on your website "My Claim Has Been Falsified" and rewrite the site so that it is very clear to everyone that you don't have any ability nor do you believe you might have any ability? We could write up an agreement that if you fail, the domain is transferred over to me or you pay me $10,000.

Do you see what I am driving at here? You're risking nothing. For all we know you will treat this like you treated your failure at reading photos - you'll just move on to another claim. You'll say, "I only ever detected a missing kidney one time. This does not falsify my ability. It just shows that I'm not good at detecting missing kidneys. I need to study why I was able to do it before but not this time. My Main Claim has not be falsified."

The beauty of it is that when I allegedly detected that a kidney was missing, it was one of the strongest and most certain medical perceptions I have had, and I agree to let this kidney detection test represent the entire medical perceptions claim.

The kidney test will only falsify the medical perceptions claim. The other "claims" I don't really care about. I don't promote them, although they have been brought up in discussions. And you probably won't hear about them again. I already consider most of them as probably synesthesia.

What happens if I break my promise? I guess that would make me a woo I guess? Unfortunately I don't have any money to promise to give you.

Yes, if I fail the kidney test I put in big bold letters that I've falsified the claim. That is exactly what the website is for. And the whole website will be rewritten to describe how the investigation falsified a paranormal claim.

Under no circumstances, whether I do the right thing or I do the wrong thing, would I transfer my beloved domain over to you or pay you $10,000. This is just too much to ask, UncaYimmy.

The medical perceptions claim has been my main claim throughout. Everything else is of less importance, of hardly any interest to me, not the center of my investigation, and only been distractions off the main claim. I apologize since I know this is not good enough.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

As for your second study, on June 30 you told me via Skype that you had already designed it and that it was very different. Then on July 13 you told me via Skype, "Now I'm off to town to try to begin my second study. Just like that." I was under the impression that you had done it but had not shared the results.

I did go to town that day and it wasn't very productive despite my attempts.

So says the woman whose face adorns the website where she goes into excruciating detail about her abilities. So says the woman who keeps coming back to people who don't believe her. Oh, you like the attention. Your actions speak louder than your words. Do you not recall offering me a picture of yourself to put on the StopVFF website?

Well shucks, even James Randi has a picture of himself on his website!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I sincerely thank all of you for helping me with test design. The best way I can prove that my intentions are genuine and that I do want a reliable result even if it means falsification is by hurrying along and getting the test together. I thank you all for your patience and endurance with paranormal matters, I know it can't be easy at all times. I'll be back tomorrow after I've completed some tests with the screens as suggested.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I looked at the questionnaire and contemplated writing down "missing left kidney" on it. I double-checked many times again and again and was absolutely certain of what I was feeling. But then I thought, what if I were wrong? My logic was telling me I must be wrong. I would never hear the end of it. I chose not to write it down. But I was absolutely certain, one of the most clear and significant health information I have come across in a person, especially so because this one has a difference between two sides.

How is that one specific reading different than any other reading you've ever done? None of it is logical. None. You could substitute any other thing you have claimed (vasectomy, heart tissue, neck pain), and your explanation would not read any differently.

Surely you don't believe being wrong about a missing kidney is somehow less subject to ridicule than claiming that you can smell the urine inside a human body.

After the reading he announced that he has had his left kidney removed. I wanted to kick myself, but I said nothing. I knew that I couldn't say it after the fact. Later I e-mailed him and confessed,

Wait a sec...you say you knew you couldn't say it after the fact, but then you went and said it after the fact. Huh? And look at how you phrased it: you "confessed" it. What does that mean? Please don't pretend you were reluctant. Nobody needed to know this. You said it because you wanted credit and attention. That's why you told all of us about it instead of keeping it between you and Dr. Carlson.

You knew you would be ridiculed for making a postdiction, but that didn't stop you. Your story doesn't pass the sniff test.

I know that I have no evidence, but what I do have is a personally very compelling experience.

Even if what you say is 100% true (I don't believe it is), you are still faced with the fact that this was a one-time, chance event. You have never done it before or since, yet you want us to believe that this is your strongest demonstration of your paranormal claim? And you waited six months to tell anybody that it was your strongest claim?

On that basis you expect 40 people to volunteer their free time? I'd like to see that invitation letter:

Dear Friend,

My name is Anita Ikonen, and I believe I have a paranormal ability that allows me to see inside the human body. I intend to prove this by detecting if a person is missing a kidney or not and need your time to help me perform a test. I have performed this feat one other time in my life. However, during that one test, I actually failed to write down that I detected a missing kidney. I only mentioned it after I was told that the person was missing a kidney. Trust me, though, I really did detect it.

I would appreciate your time and effort to help me prove to the world that I have this ability. If you believe you have both kidneys and I pick you as the person with one kidney, you will be required (at my expense) to visit a medical clinic to undergo an ultrasound to prove that you, in fact, have both kidneys. My one experience is so compelling that I cannot fathom being wrong.

I look forward to working with you!

VFF

 

[Uncayimmy]

The kidney test will only falsify the medical perceptions claim.

What does that mean? Does it mean you cannot heal migraines? Does it mean that when you look at food and medicines you can't really predict their medical benefits?

The other "claims" I don't really care about. I don't promote them, although they have been brought up in discussions. And you probably won't hear about them again. I already consider most of them as probably synesthesia.

Synesthesia leads you to believe you can talk to ghosts? You do have a sense of humor.

Yes, if I fail the kidney test I put in big bold letters that I've falsified the claim.

Specifically, what will you write? You keep using the word claim when you mean demonstration. Your medical perceptions claim involves numerous demonstrations of the ability.

Under no circumstances, whether I do the right thing or I do the wrong thing, would I transfer my beloved domain over to you or pay you $10,000. This is just too much to ask, UncaYimmy.

You have repeatedly failed to keep your word. You cannot be trusted. You need to offer something concrete. Right now you are offering nothing except to say that if you cannot detect a person with a missing kidney you will say that you cannot detect a person with a missing kidney.

Big whoop.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I did go to town that day and it wasn't very productive despite my attempts.

So you didn't abandon it because it was too hard to arrange. You designed it, went to town to try to do it, and found it not very productive. Why didn't you say so? And during this second study, what specifically were you planning to do about "studying" your missing kidney detection skills?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Sounds to me like VFF is so scared of failure (ie, failing to notice Dr Carlson's missing kidney) that she will go to huge lengths to 'prove' that she didn't fail:

Skeptics: Ah, but, VFF, you didn't notice Dr Carlson's missing kidney, and he said he doesn't think you have an ability worth studying ...
VFF: I did too! In fact I saw it so much that I'm going to do a test just about missing kidneys! So there!!

Sad.

 

[Ashles]

Do I have your blessing? Are we all set?

</p>
No you don't have 'my blessing' but as it is very, very obvious we will never agree on a protocol you might as well go ahead with whatever rubbish protocol you have.
It will be interesting watching you make excuses for failing to carry out even that.
So I challenge you to go ahead with that protocol (even though NOT ONE SKEPTIC IN THE WORLD has accepted your protocol.)
Off you go. We'll be interested to see how IIG respond to this waste of their time.
And I stand by my prediction that this will not have happened by November 01.

 

[Ashles]

What do you want me to say? That it didn't happen? That I was lying? That I made it all up? I just can't say that, because then I would be lying.

Looks like we have to repeat this yet again.
We DO think you are lying. That is exactly what we think. Your repeated claims that it is true are irrelevant. A lie repeated 1,000 times is still a lie. You would appear more honest if you spent more time taking tests (go ahead and do this or any test) and less time repeating a story that NO-ONE BELIEVES or will ever believe unless you actually perform successfully in a meaningful test.
Just do a test.

You haven't even provded the scans from the last failed test from months ago - how seriously do you expect to be taken when you demand massive input to your protocols, which you ignore, then fail even to properly carry through even with all stages of the test you actually do. It sems ke the creation of a new exciting test is the only part of this you enjoy. Not the actual carrying out of the test (unless there is an audience) and CERTAINLY not the raw data and results porting. Tha appears far too boring for you.

Odd, a real sciece fan should love that bit.

 

[Ashles]

I did think about trying something like this. Drawing the outline of a person to assist me in orientation. But that would never be nearly as exact as what I get from simply looking at the person. Meanwhile, it is also a depth problem. It seems I need to know exactly how far away the target area is.

It appears you have again forgotten about your claim of being able to diagnose celebrities ailments from the TV!
Do you now withdraw that claim?
If not, how can it be okay to diagnose somebody simply from an image with no distance or even exact time information but you can't from someone right by a curtain in front of you because you don't know the exact 'distance and orientation' (even though you have been given methods by which youu WOULD know these)?
Is the celebrity claim withdrawn?

 

[Farencue]

I HAVE NOT LIED ABOUT ANYTHING! AND I'M NOT CRAZY.

Yeah right, whatever you say Anita.

 

[Drs_Res]

It seems that we have overlooked probably the easiest test that could be done.
Use a full screen and VfF has to tell if there is someone on the other side or not.
10 trials and only once in the 10 trials will there be no one behind the screen.

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bravo !


Anita ?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sounds to me like VFF is so scared of failure (ie, failing to notice Dr Carlson's missing kidney) that she will go to huge lengths to 'prove' that she didn't fail:

Skeptics: Ah, but, VFF, you didn't notice Dr Carlson's missing kidney, and he said he doesn't think you have an ability worth studying ...
VFF: I did too! In fact I saw it so much that I'm going to do a test just about missing kidneys! So there!!

Sad.

Horse -> Mouth -> Us

 

[Giggywig]

Absolutely not. <snip>

Ok, so you are unwilling to deviate from your test protocol. So much for starting from scratch?

And don't say I'm being complicated. I think your test suggestion was a bit complicated! By the way. I see that you are in North Carolina. Interested in participating in the test?

I would be willing to participate if I felt you were acting in good faith. I feel that you are not, and as such I am of course unwilling to participate. There is absolutely no point in doing a 1 in 10 test. At all.
Would you like to show some good faith? You have in the past said that you could taste the salt in the urine in the kidneys or some such. Get 2 small semi-opaque identical containers with lids. Fill both with water. Stir a spoon full of salt into one. Try to distinguish between them with your "vision from feeling." If you can, ask somebody to assist you with a blinded test (as in, you don't know which container has the salt, you would not be wearing a blindfold.) Report the results here. I could do such a test in under one hour with things I have in my kitchen.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What about using a reference point in the body? You said you sensed the heart, so why not go there first and then find kidneys? That should help with determining the person's position.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dupe