VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

This is a lie. A flat screen can give you the exact distance to the person - all we have to do is place people a few inches from it. How is a screen blocking "vibrational information" but not cloth made from the same material? If you are going to make up supernatural powers, please be consistent with them.

A few inches of uncertainty in the distance is not an exact distance.

Actually, you just stated you can detect someone behind a screen. All we have to do is provide an outline of where they would be placed and set a uniform distance to place the volunteer between the cloth. This fulfills all of the conditions that you claim your power works on, but you won't agree to them because it would provide a easy way to debunk your powers.

I can't agree to that because my perceptions don't work under those conditions and they never have.

Thats lovely, but no one is proposing a remote viewing test. People are proposing you use your superpowers to detect organs/tissue/whatever from behind a screen made of the same material that clothes are made from.

You are proposing a remote viewing test. It is not about the material alone. I need to see the person to know exactly where they are.

By the way, you just typed up another lie - you earlier claimed that you were able to see organs through a screen, although you claimed it was hard because you were "disoriented" (your standard excuse when you fail).

And in that at home test the person was leaning against the screen so I had some sense of where they are and I knew that they were there. What you are suggesting is not the same setup. Don't lie.

Copying and pasting the same rant isn't going to change any of the facts - that you refuse to do the most simple and easy to set up protocol to test your medical perceptions claim. Its not remote viewing, and you know this. You know, months ago I thought you were just someone with delusions - severe delusions - but I thought you were at least sincere. You've revealed yourself to be a liar and a fraud over and over again though, so I won't make that mistake again.

I am not copying and pasting I type everything all over again, don't lie. I do not have medical perceptions if the person is behind the screen and I don't know exactly where they are, and a few inches of uncertainty in distance will throw off the perceptions. You are asking me to remote view. I am not delusional, the perceptions do occur and if they do not depict reality then they are synesthesia and that by definition is not a mental illness. I am entirely sincere. I am not a liar or a fraud.

No, you are setting up "preliminary tests" where you have a 1/10 chance of getting it right, very good odds. You are also setting them up in ways that are not scientific (not double blind) and that do not follow any reasonable research protocol. You could very well pass it using all the skills other woo con artists use.

I am not setting up 1 in 10 tests. I am setting up 1 in 1000 tests. What skill do you suggest would reveal the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their clothed back?

No, it won't. Because you'll never set up a test that actually does this, nor will you agree to a simple test that falsifies the larger amount of your supernatural powers.

My claim is not remote viewing so I can not agree to a simple remote viewing test because I already know that I would fail that and it would not be testing my claim of medical perceptions.

No amount of your ranting is going to change the fact that using your superpower xray vision to detect flesh is not "remote viewing". Conditions have been proposed that would meet all of your claimed limitations of your superpower, but you have declined to test under such conditions because you are a fraud.

I can not remote view through an opaque full-body screen. I am not a fraud.

No its not. Your claims have been all over the place, have changed daily, and you have not submitted any reasonable protocol.

My claim has consistently been that I see images that depict internal tissues and organs and that I need to look at the person to form the images.

Nope, were not done. I'm going to keep pointing out your lies and fraud attempts until you start another thread and go through all this again as you do every few months here. And then I'm going to keep debunking you until you put yourself through a real test that proves you have supernatural powers, which is never going to happen.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Mr. Carr, your suggested test where a person has or does not have a fist against a screen, and the use of a decoy with random movements, has far more clues that reveal whether a person is or is not there, than the clues that might be available from looking at a person's clothed back to try to detect whether they have one or both kidneys.

Such as? Be very specific. In case you haven't figured it out yet, saying something is so doesn't make it so.

The obvious is that your suggested test protocol is far more complicated than mine, and yours reveals far more clues to the answers than mine could.

What a load of bovine excrement. See the above.

If you don't like fists, we can use a table with a bald person person strapped down so they are immobile. The head is pushed against the screen. Mannequin heads are easy to come by for the control. You don't need to "orient" yourself. Just say "Brain" or "No Brain".

Be very specific about the external clues so that we may attempt to overcome them. So far, nothing I have suggested goes against your claims in this thread.

You're the one who told me to try them. I said that I don't want to use flat images and I do better with 3-dimensional things that have color and texture. Do not lie anymore.

Sweetums, I never said I didn't tell you to use them. When I suggested them, you said you had already tried them before. So, where did I lie? Or are you playing copycat again?

I did detect that a FACT member was missing a left kidney. My confidence is very relevant, because I am willing to test the entire claim of medical perceptions on kidney detection and I am willing to conclude on that claim based on the outcome of that test. Please do not lie, Jim.

Where did I lie? Or are you playing copycat again? I said you "allegedly" detected a kidney - that's not a lie.

I know that I can not perceive medical information through an opaque full-body screen when the person is not leaning against it to show their outline, and that even at that the orientation is thrown off. Stop lying, Jim.

Where did I lie? Or are you playing copycat again? When exactly did you test with an opaque screen without a person leaning against it? You told us you had only tested with someone leaning against the screen.

Calling someone a liar and pointing out the specific contradiction is acceptable behavior. Calling someone a liar without evidence is just a personal attack.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

How close do you need to be?

I don't know how close, but LightinDarkness's test with "a few inches" of uncertainty in the distance would definitely not work.

 

[volatile]

Yes. I need to look at the surface of the person.

What do you mean by surface?

What? When?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4259812#post4259812

"When I look at the air with my ability I see neon green nitrogen. I also see it in nitrogen gas tanks at the college chemistry department."

There. Then. 9th December 2008.

Maybe we could do a simple tank test? One with oxygen in, one with nitrogen. ABX, which is which. Another easy test. Reckon you could do that, Anita?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am not setting up 1 in 10 tests. I am setting up 1 in 1000 tests. What skill do you suggest would reveal the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their clothed back?

Quit being an idiot by ignoring what you have been repeatedly told. The proper questions are

* What skill can be used to make educated guesses based on appearance that a person is more or less likely than another to be missing a kidney? Answer: Observation.

* What skill can be used to make educated guesses based on personal conduct that a person is or is not the target in a group? Answer: Observation.

As I told you before, if you want to compete against random chance, then chance needs to be random.

I can not remote view through an opaque full-body screen. I am not a fraud.

My claim has consistently been that I see images that depict internal tissues and organs and that I need to look at the person to form the images.

Liar. You told us that you were able to do it when the person was leaning against an opaque screen. Therefore, you could not see them.

 

[volatile]

I need to see the person to know exactly where they are.

A test can be arranged where you will know exactly where the person would be, if they were there. This can be, literally, as close to the screen as my shirt is to my chest right now.

What's the problem? The "orientation" can be easily fixed, and I don't see where you're explained why an outline, and a fixed standing point, are unacceptable. You clearly don't need to be able to see the body itself, as your perceptions work through clothes (and through nitrogen tanks). You don't need to see the "surface" - the surface of the body is the skin. So I still don't understand. You can get perfect orientation and still be tested.

 

[GeeMack]

I am not a liar or a fraud.

There's certainly a substantial body of evidence to support the idea that you are. Compare that with the wholly nonexistent body of evidence supporting the idea that you have some kind of super secret magical x-ray vision.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

What do you mean by "surface"? You cannot, after all, mean you need to see bare skin. What do you mean by surface?

I don't need to see bare skin. Clothing that is thin enough and close to the surface of the body still permits the perceptions.

And presumably "close" doesn't mean you have your face pressed to the small of their back - you "saw" this missing kidney from, what, a foot or so away, at minimum? Probably as much as 2 or 3 feet? You weren't peering at him with your face inches from his skin, were you?

I don't have to be that close to the person, but I have to be able to see a part of the person that is close to the surface of their body.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you think you could tell two different people apart? We could still do a 1-2 test, then - you look at the subjects, A and B, in plain sight for as long as you want. Learn their bodies, inside out.

Then we put one or the other behind the screen - an ABX test. They can even lean against the screen.

How about that? That seems consistent with your claim.

I don't want to do a remote viewing test.

 

[LightinDarkness]

A few inches of uncertainty in the distance is not an exact distance.

I can't agree to that because my perceptions don't work under those conditions and they never have.

Liar, liar. Clothing - especially when people are sitting down - could easily be a inch or more from their skin in many areas (particularly if its casual clothing). You have made no indication before now that this ever caused any problem, you are just making things up as you go along.

You are proposing a remote viewing test. It is not about the material alone. I need to see the person to know exactly where they are.

Another statement providing further evidence that you are a fraud. No one has proposed a remote viewing claim, although we have noted that this among the supernatural powers you have claimed.

And in that at home test the person was leaning against the screen so I had some sense of where they are and I knew that they were there. What you are suggesting is not the same setup. Don't lie.

Liar, liar. As its already been stated, we can easily provide an outline of where we could place volunteers to test your perceptions. You've read this and ignored it because you think you can lie your way out of this one.

I read through the rest of your trolling and propaganda and honestly it was a repeated of things I've previously debunked. Keep it up - the more you post on here the more you expose yourself for who you really are.

I am not copying and pasting I type everything all over again, don't lie. I do not have medical perceptions if the person is behind the screen and I don't know exactly where they are, and a few inches of uncertainty in distance will throw off the perceptions. You are asking me to remote view. I am not delusional, the perceptions do occur and if they do not depict reality then they are synesthesia and that by definition is not a mental illness. I am entirely sincere. I am not a liar or a fraud.

No one is proposing a protocal that involves putting people behind something where you would not know where they are. Are you just making things up as you go along now?

I am not setting up 1 in 10 tests. I am setting up 1 in 1000 tests. What skill do you suggest would reveal the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their clothed back?

Liar, liar. You know that it would be impossible to do a kidney test with 1 in 1000 odds because you know very well that the number of volunteers required would never materialize. No one would ever agree to get a ultrasound because you got their number of kidneys wrong.

By the way, stop abusing synesthesia. You not only have provided no evidence you have it - more than likely its a condition you discovered when trying to find backup for your supernatural power claims that you retroactively ascribed to yourself - but synesthesia does not operate in the way you claim and never has. It would never give you the images you currently claim - those are arriving to you due to your overactive imagination and desire to be special.

Keep it up, Anita. All you are doing is providing a wealth of internet information about you that will serve to ruin your professional life and distance yourself from any rational people in your personal life. You are exposing yourself for who you really are.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You need to be much more precise. How close do you need to be to the person? When you say "surface of the body" do you mean naked or clothed? If clothed, are there restrictions on number or thickness of layers of clothing?

I have been precise. I can see the person from 3 feet away, the person is wearing a cotton shirt.

 

[Akhenaten]

The specific test is detecting the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their clothed back. I have already contacted four skeptical organizations and one woo organization to arrange a test.

And others, it seems. What was the result of this correspondence?

7 nov 08

Just a few minutes ago I wrote to a medical doctor at a university who had conducted a similar study of psychic medical diagnose asking him whether he would be interested in testing my ability with me. So what I am saying is that it is only recently that I have begun to want to test my ability to find out what it really is.

 

[volatile]

I don't want to do a remote viewing test.

This isn't "remote viewing".

And anyway - you won't do this easy-to-conduct test even though you say you can, easily? You did this in the past, remember - sensed peope through a screen when they were leaning against it?

Two people. Learn their bodies. For as long as you want. "Download" it, as you have told us you can do. Then, through thin material, do an ABX test of which person is leaning against the screen. You'll even be able to see their orientation!

What's the problem with this?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You won't be doing any kind of legitimate test. If you did you'd have to face the fact that there's some explanation other than magic for your compulsive lying and hallucinating. Quite likely the thought of finding out that you're mentally ill scares the crap out of you, and you don't have the courage to do it. Kidney counting test? Not if you can help it.

GeeMack, I am doing all I can to have a test take place. The test needs to respect the limitations of my claim. One is not supposed to be able to see the number of kidneys in a person through a clothed back. I am not lying or hallucinating. I saw that a left kidney was missing and it turned out to be correct. And if the claim is not a real ability, all it is is synesthesia, and that by definition is not a mental illness. You pessimist you.

 

[volatile]

Did you forget that you said you could see inside nitrogen tanks, Anita? Why did you just claim that your vision didn't work through metal?

Can you do an ABX test of which gas - nitrogen or oxygen - is inside a cylinder? Again, much easier than this silly kidney test!

 

[GeeMack]

I don't need to see bare skin. Clothing that is thin enough and close to the surface of the body still permits the perceptions.

Good, then you'll agree to a protocol that utilizes a screen as close to the skin as typical clothing and made from material as thin as typical clothing. Done deal? Or will you be doing some more weaseling to avoid ever testing your inane claim?

But we already know you're a liar and a fraud, don't we? Or if you really don't think you are, maybe you're a victim of environmental toxins, or mentally ill, as all the evidence suggests? Are you just as scared to test for those things as you are to test your silly claim about magical kidney vision?

 

[Uncayimmy]

A test can be arranged where you will know exactly where the person would be, if they were there. This can be, literally, as close to the screen as my shirt is to my chest right now.

What's the problem? The "orientation" can be easily fixed, and I don't see where you're explained why an outline, and a fixed standing point, are unacceptable. You clearly don't need to be able to see the body itself, as your perceptions work through clothes (and through nitrogen tanks). You don't need to see the "surface" - the surface of the body is the skin. So I still don't understand. You can get perfect orientation and still be tested.

She promised to try this, but she has not reported any results of that testing.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If you don't like fists, we can use a table with a bald person person strapped down so they are immobile. The head is pushed against the screen. Mannequin heads are easy to come by for the control. You don't need to "orient" yourself. Just say "Brain" or "No Brain".

Be very specific about the external clues so that we may attempt to overcome them. So far, nothing I have suggested goes against your claims in this thread.

Jim Carr I can't believe you are suggesting this. Strapping down a bald person on a table and not allowing them to move? That is the most ridiculous test protocol I have ever come across. Besides, the person is breathing, or do you suggest we not only stop their moving but also stop their breathing for a while? How about dead corpses strapped on a table and under a cloth? Jim Carr no more of this nonsense, my test will involve detecting the number of kidneys through a clothed back. This is ridiculous.

 

[Akhenaten]

10 Dec 08

When I look at the air with my ability I see neon green nitrogen. I also see it in nitrogen gas tanks at the college chemistry department. I also detect the presence of nitrogen in molecules.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

* What skill can be used to make educated guesses based on appearance that a person is more or less likely than another to be missing a kidney? Answer: Observation.

Really? One can tell the number of kidneys in a person by observation?

* What skill can be used to make educated guesses based on personal conduct that a person is or is not the target in a group? Answer: Observation.

This can be addressed in a number of ways. For instance by lying to the volunteers. If we have one one-kidney person and nine two-kidney persons, for instance we can lie to the one-kidney person that there are nine one-kidney persons and one two-kidney person and that way they don't think they are a target. Or lie and tell them that they are all a target and I am detecting the number of kidneys (one or two) in all of them.