VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[roger]

For the preliminary test, would it be good enough to say that as long as I detect the person who has had a kidney removed I may proceed to the official test, and if I fail to detect the one person who has had a kidney removed I have clearly failed the test. Regardless of if I mention possible others who were born with one kidney. Comments?

Terrible. Just say 5 people have 1 kidney, and you have a 50% chance of winning.

I don't see the point of this test. How are you going to scale it up to use it for JREF to get 1/1,000,000 odds? You're just wasting a lot of good people's time if you can't. Meanwhile you can't even tell from which side of a body a kidney was removed, a point I can confirm with a passing glance.

Meanwhile you can't do something as simple as see a piece of raw meat in somebody's closed hand (a protocol suggested long ago). You won't run tests that would take 15 minutes to run and would definitively prove/disprove your claims. Your claims don't add up. Stop wasting people's time.

 

[Tricky]

Please remember to keep it civil and do not make personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[GeeMack]

That's easy: place an X on either side of the screen; the subject stands on the X on one side of the screen, and you know that the subject is on the other side of the screen, right at the X.

Yes, but Anita doesn't want easy. We've worked through easy many, many times. If it were ever to come down to being easy, she might be expected to actually perform the test/study. Her whole objective here seems to be to avoid performing any kind of test/study. To confirm this, take a few minutes to glance through the commentary at this web site. You'll get a pretty good idea of the history of her antics and understand that she likely has no intent of carrying through with any sort of test.

Oh, and before this post gets moved to some less relevant location, or before this thread goes to moderated status to help protect Anita's claims from actual scrutiny, I'd like to state, for the record, that to consider the likelihood that this kidney test will never be performed is relevant to the discussion. Some people are making a genuine investment of their time and effort to assist Anita here. It's only reasonable that they know their investment will probably be for naught, as it has been Anita's habit to reject or ignore pretty much all advice that might help facilitate any legitimate testing of her claim.

There. Civil. Germane. Clearly explained. And destined for removal.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling :

The sweater also forms vibrational information and I had to penetrate through the thick jungle of sweater fibers to search for the body beneath.

Hey, we can make this whole thing a lot easier..

How about a few people put sweaters on under wind-breakers, and have other subjects just wear wind-breakers alone.

Then Anita can detect the sweaters..

Let the excuses begin ...

 

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling :


Hey, we can make this whole thing a lot easier..

How about a few people put sweaters on under wind-breakers, and have other subjects just wear wind-breakers alone.

Then Anita can detect the sweaters..

Let the excuses begin ...

How about I can do that without magic powers.

 

[desertgal]

Her whole objective here seems to be to avoid performing any kind of test/study.

At least, any kind of unequivocal study where she can't manipulate the resulting data.

Oh, and before this post gets moved to some less relevant location, or before this thread goes to moderated status to help protect Anita's claims from actual scrutiny, I'd like to state, for the record, that to consider the likelihood that this kidney test will never be performed is relevant to the discussion. Some people are making a genuine investment of their time and effort to assist Anita here. It's only reasonable that they know their investment will probably be for naught, as it has been Anita's habit to reject or ignore pretty much all advice that might help facilitate any legitimate testing of her claim.

There. Civil. Germane. Clearly explained. And destined for removal.

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[GeeMack]

Hey, we can make this whole thing a lot easier..

How about a few people put sweaters on under wind-breakers, and have other subjects just wear wind-breakers alone.

Then Anita can detect the sweaters..

Let the excuses begin ...

As I noted above, Anita doesn't want easy.

But... if spending a few minutes looking at a dude in a sweater makes it so much easier to see his kidneys after he removes the sweater, then I say sweaters for everyone!

 

[Apology]

Let's see, VFF wants us to:

1. Write the protocol
2. Find the volunteers
3. Arrange the test

VFF, since we're basically doing everything, would you like us to go ahead and fail the test for you too?

 

[Kariboo]

Then I will try to arrange a Preliminary test here locally and advertise for persons who have had a kidney removed. I don't have to have a Preliminary test, but was recommended to by the IIG. If no Preliminary test can take place, I will simply wait for the official IIG test to take place.

Well, whether or not it takes place is up to you. I am pretty sure that no one will be willing to set up a whole preliminary test for you. Especially after how you treated people in the past that have tried to help you and put considerable time into that. After which you ignored them and their work.

So I would suggest that you start working on setting up a test yourself. However reading your above quote leads me to believe that you will not actually do so. Leaving you with a very unspecified claim (you don't know under which circumstances you can detect a kidney; you don't know if you will get sick after reading 2 people, similarly to the lactobacillust test; you don't know how and which screens work; you don't know how much time you need etc).

No amount of people pointing that out to you will change that if you don't actually test yourself. And before you test all that and are certain what you can do under which circumstances doing a test with IIG is pointless, since at that test you can claim anything is getting in the way of your 'ability' because you don't know how it works. That would mean they could spend an enormous amount of time setting this up just to find out you can only function at a waxing moon or with people below a certain weight.

It is up to you to determine what you can do. Not us. And until you show that you are actually willing to do some serious testing on your own I don't see this going anywhere.

 

[GeeMack]

VFF, since we're basically doing everything, would you like us to go ahead and fail the test for you too?

Oh, give the poor girl a break. She's already shown that she's quite capable of doing that part for herself!

 

[Senex]

Anita, there is a reason for the many ghost chasing TV shows and lack of kidney chasing shows. Mention a body part and everyone becomes an amateur statistician. Why engage with these wannabe mathematicians when you and I and a video camera can go off on ghost chasing. I'll even let you bring a thingamabob ambient room temperature recorder if you find it necessary

 

[Farencue]

Looks like the jig is up Anita.

 

[Farencue]

Thankyou Skeptical Greg for your kind invitation, however I must pass on it.
You see, I have read the thousands upon thousands of words Anita has written and it is thanks to her that I registered here to express my disbelief and indeed disgust at her antics, rather than remain silent.

Senex, you have me in laughter when I read your posts re: the haunted motel test, as it reminds me of a particularly funny stage play written by David McGillivray and Walter Zerlin Jr called "The Haunted Through Lounge and Recessed Dining Nook at Farndale Castle".

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

(...) As for my wife actually participating in your experiment, she did say she would be interested, so I guess we are open to the idea. However, as others have pointed out, four hours is a lot of time to expect someone to sit for something like this. Even if you did as has been suggested and have each person sit individually for a much shorter period of time, wouldn't all participants have to wait around for the entire length of time it takes you to examine everone? That still adds up to a couple of hours, or more.

While we may be willing to fit your test into our schedule, we are not interested in rounding up other volunteers, or doing other leg work. We live in San Diego, Ca. If you , or someone else wants to put this whole thing together we are open to the idea of helping you out.

*Note: While I've chosen to call this the "Preliminary test", it is by no means the same as what the JREF refers to as a Preliminary test. Depending on the level of involvement by the IIG, this Preliminary test will not necessarily be endorsed by the IIG, and rather, this Preliminary test should instead be thought of as a "Practice test". The results of this test will be taken seriously, just that it is not necessarily an IIG test.

I would have referred your wife to participate in the official IIG test, since the IIG test will be held in California, however now that you and I have been in contact she would be disqualified from an official test. Because what's there to say, that you wouldn't have sent me a picture of her to help me cheat on the test. Meanwhile, I would be very happy to work on arranging the Preliminary test to take place in San Diego. I will contact two Skeptic groups local to your area, the San Diego Association of Rational Inquiry, and the San Diego Skeptics and see whether they would be willing to take part in the Preliminary test. The IIG will also be offered to assist, and at the very least they will be welcome to attend the test. You and your wife will not be assigned with anything other than to show up for the test and I will deal with the other assignments.

I will see one volunteer at a time and I now suggest a time of 30 minutes per volunteer. That should give me plenty of time so that time will not be a factor in determining whether I can see kidneys or not. What does everyone think about sitting for 30 minutes?

With ten volunteers, 30 minutes each would make it five hours. The volunteers can arrive to the test site when it is approaching their time to be seen, and that way none of them will be required at the test for five hours. We can also arrange for two sets of Skeptics so that no Skeptics need to be present for five hours. I however don't mind being given plenty of time and would love to sit there and watch kidneys for five hours.

I thank you and your wife ever so much for willing to participate in a Preliminary test of my claim. I need to emphasize that you and I must keep our communication at a minimum and preferably only on this Forum, and I must have no contact with your wife before the test. If I am able to involve Skeptics local to your area, you and I should cease having anything to do with each other until after the test and you would deal with those Skeptics instead. Do Forum Skeptics agree?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I have several. All involve giving this nonsense away before you do any more harm, either to yourself or someone else.

Miss Kitt suggested to consider ultrasound to verify the number of kidneys if necessary. This is not nonsense, I swear I have detected that a left kidney was missing even when it greatly contradicted with my logical expectations and that I was extremely sure of what I was seeing. I will have the test. Also I am setting a valuable example into the woo community, and I am convinced that my investigation is a contribution to skepticism.

You should have had the quite simple answer to that before you even suggested this rubbish. For all you know, people who have had kidneys removed might have zippers in their abdomens.

Please suggest a probable means for detecting the number of kidneys by ordinary vision rather than saying something funny. Besides the zippers would not be visible from under their clothes.

If you go to a real doctor and ask him to determine whether you have only one kidney, would you say that the doctor's subsequent actions constituted a diagnosis? I would. I wonder what the law says.

I am quite sure that the law allows me to conduct a skeptical test of my claim of detecting whether a person has one or two kidneys. I see no ethical concerns nor dangers involved with this test.

VFF, are you claiming that you DON'T HAVE kidneys??!

No. I have two kidneys.

I would certainly mind if it was me. Plus it means 5 hours of testing to meet a 1 in 10 success criteria, 15 hours of testing to meet 1 in 1000.

20 minutes each for a total of 3 hours and 20 minutes? Or 15 minutes each for a total of 2 1/2 hours? I really don't want time to be a factor so I am asking for a generous amount of time, while I also need to be reasonable and consider what is practical to others who are involved in the test.

Then how are you going to determine whether the volunteer who comes forward at the end to prove that they are the person with one kidney is or is not the one you identified? Remember, in my protocol he/she simply turns around to show the number on their shirt. You'll need a completely different protocol to the one I suggested if the number is put on the floor instead.

For my protocol to work, the volunteers need to be wearing distinguishing marks on the bit of them that you can see (their backs) which they have no opportunity to change. They could have a number pinned to their ordinary clothing, but those would be much easier to swap than shirts. The idea of the volunteers wearing garments with differents numbers pre-printed on them is to guarantee that the test is fair, with no opportunity for the adjudicator and/or a couple of unfriendly volunteers to cheat you.

Could we draw a number on their skin with a pen that leaves a mark that lasts for a few days? (ie. that can't be washed off and altered)

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Basically, as we do not know the alleged mode of operation (I gather VFF does not pretend to know herself), we cannot really say whether or not one thing or another would throw off the alleged ability.

There will always be countless of parameters, such as lighting, room temperature, air humidity, what I ate for breakfast, etc., so it is important that just before having the test I confirm that I am happy with the conditions.

For instance, if VFF really uses telepathy, one of the many people who don't even know they were born with one kidney would escape detection. Likewise, a person with two healthy kidneys, who were led to believe he/she has only one, would give a false positive. And how about an existing, but non-functional kidney (also relatively common)?

The solution to this is that my claim is to see tissues. My claim is not to interpret tissues based on a person's perception of themselves. Therefore this should not be an issue.

(...) Preslecting canditates of same sex and similar size and build would help further.

Of course, and for the Preliminary test with JPL's wife, all volunteers need to be women and with similar characteristics.

Now, with only access to view test subjects from behind and in the kidney area, VFF should first be presented to the test subjects, knowing which one is missing a kidney, in order to confirm that she can detect it. When a test group is found where VFF confirms that she can see one missing a kidney, they should be presented in a random order, probably several times each and she should show she can recognize the person with the missing kidney with sufficient certainty. Safe numbering for identification afterwards is easily arranged. (...)

I remain skeptical to this approach of re-using the same volunteers in repeated trials. Maybe for a Preliminary test it might be ok, but for an official test it would definitely not be ok. What if there are subtle clues that distinguish one from another?

O rly?

As part of gaining some kind of academic acknowledgement of your abilities, I would be interested in reading the comments of a university biology professor on the above passage, just as it is written.

Do you know any university biology professors?

I will strictly not involve my own university in the paranormal investigation especially not at this stage. Feel free to send the passage to a Biology professor at a university near you and ask to share their comments here with us.

That's easy: place an X on either side of the screen; the subject stands on the X on one side of the screen, and you know that the subject is on the other side of the screen, right at the X.

Maybe. Let's see if we can agree to a test without such a screen first. I mean, I wish I could just go ahead and agree to have the volunteer locked beneath an underground chamber that is impenetrable to sound and radiation but we have to work from what I think I can do first.

 

[Paul2]

Let's see if we can agree to a test without such a screen first. I mean, I wish I could just go ahead and agree to have the volunteer locked beneath an underground chamber that is impenetrable to sound and radiation but we have to work from what I think I can do first.

Why do you think that a thin but opaque screen (with bathing suits that won't be covering their kidneys) won't work but you can see through clothing that is actually thicker? This makes no sense.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Terrible. Just say 5 people have 1 kidney, and you have a 50% chance of winning.

I don't see the point of this test. How are you going to scale it up to use it for JREF to get 1/1,000,000 odds? You're just wasting a lot of good people's time if you can't. Meanwhile you can't even tell from which side of a body a kidney was removed, a point I can confirm with a passing glance.

Thank you roger, you are right we can't agree to the suggestion I made that I would be allowed to list more than one person as having one kidney. Since I claim to be able to detect which of persons has one kidney, if any of the persons who were meant to have both kidneys, without knowing it were born with one kidney, I should be expected to detect more than one person with one kidney. I would then have to make a choice of one person, regardless of how many persons with one kidney I claim to detect. Miss Kitt suggested that an ultrasound can be used after the test to verify the number of kidneys in a person and that it is non-invasive and quick.

So, for the Preliminary test, I may only choose one person who has one kidney. If that happens to not be the target person, I may go through the expense of arranging the chosen person to have an ultrasound to verify whether I was right or wrong. All volunteers who were meant to have two kidneys are prepared that one of them may be asked to have an ultrasound after the test. How does that sound?

Meanwhile you can't do something as simple as see a piece of raw meat in somebody's closed hand (a protocol suggested long ago).

I never saw this protocol but it sounds interesting. But human tissues are easier for me to detect than are other things and I will go ahead and arrange this kidney detection test.

But... if spending a few minutes looking at a dude in a sweater makes it so much easier to see his kidneys after he removes the sweater, then I say sweaters for everyone!

Why on earth would you say "sweaters for everyone" after I've clearly explained that I can't have that on a test?

ETA: Oh, I got it. Because it tuned up my senses.

(...) It is up to you to determine what you can do. Not us. And until you show that you are actually willing to do some serious testing on your own I don't see this going anywhere.

I submitted an initial suggested test protocol which was a protocol I would have agreed to and would have had a test based on it. That is the starting point. Skeptics then suggest changes and improvements to the protocol so that it also works from a test point of view and is practical, and I allow for changes and make compromises as far as I can, so that we arrive at a protocol that both claimant and skeptics are happy with. I am soon submitting a revised suggested protocol that takes into account the changes made so far.

 

[Pixel42]

Could we draw a number on their skin with a pen that leaves a mark that lasts for a few days? (ie. that can't be washed off and altered)

You will be sitting several feet away looking at a volunteer sitting on a stool with his/her back to you, wearing (you have specified) his/her ordinary clothes, with (you have specified) everything above their back screened off from you.

1. Exactly which patch of bare skin big enough to have a number written on it which you can read from that distance do you think will be visible to you?

2. How many volunteers do you think will be willing to not only sit still for 30 minutes, but have a large number written on their skin in the sort of ink which won't wash off?

3. What was your reason why the volunteers could not wear football shirts with a number pre-printed on it again? They're apparently made of polyester these days rather than cotton - i.e. exactly the sort of material that many of your volunteers "ordinary clothes" will be made of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_shirt

This will be my last post on this thread, because I agree with the posters who said anyone who tries to help you is wasting their time.

 

[chillzero]

I'd like to see you address Paperskaters kind offer Vff?

I'd suggest the topic for this thread is clearly the kidney test. Any discussion of drug identification testing or any other test than identifying people with/without kidneys should really be on another thread.