• 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.

VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

Attention passengers...this train will not be stopping at Derail-ville but may make a unscheduled stop at either Merger-town or AAH-Burg if the passengers in the back won't calm down...yes you, the tall short one with the top hat. Your cooperation is appreciated. /Mr Conductor

In other words...this thread is not about who lied, school, etc. but about developing a kidney test protocol as defined in the OP. Please stick to that topic in THIS thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
I have been discussing the test protocol for the kidney detection test at VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test and based on some of their suggestions here is a new and improved version of the suggested test protocol:

The IIG needs to decide what will be the odds of passing the test by guessing. Some have suggested that it should be 1 in 1000 and I accept that.

Two different types of test setups were suggested:
1) Either the IIG does not tell me how many one-kidney volunteers are among a group of two-kidney volunteers and I am asked to identify the number of kidneys in all volunteers. If such a test would involve 10 volunteers, and a chance of 1 in 2 of guessing each correctly, then the total odds of such a test would be 1 in 1024 with only ten volunteers.
2) Or I am shown for instance 10 volunteers and I am told that one of them has one kidney. Or it could be 1 out of 5 persons has one kidney, or any other distribution. With 1 in 10 persons that have one kidney, it would require three trials with 10 people each, a total of 3 one-kidney persons and 27 two-kidney persons for a 1 in 1000 odds of guessing all three trials correctly.
It was also brought to my attention that about 1 in 700 people are born with one kidney so we have to deal with the issue that a two-kidney volunteer might without them knowing it have been born with one kidney. It was suggested that an ultrasound can be used to verify the number of kidneys in a person. And that is the reason I recommend that we try the setup outlined in 2) and not the one outlined in 1), because if we do 1), we would need to have 10 ultrasounds performed since I identify the number of kidneys in 10 people, whereas if we do 2) we only need to perform 3 ultrasounds, one for each of the three trials. But a benefit of 1) is that it involves a fewer number of volunteers, and that with 1) you can either,
a) Determine before-hand and randomly how many one-kidney volunteers and how many two-kidney volunteers to find. For instance, I tried a random generator and it gave me four one-kidney persons and six two-kidney persons. Then you try to find that number of each kind of volunteer.
b) Or, setup 1) also permits that you simply take what ever ten volunteers you were able to find and make a test out of it. Either way I would not know what volunteers you have found.
I leave it at your discretion to choose either of the methods 1) or 2) or to suggest something else in terms of how many volunteers are involved in the test and how many volunteers I need to describe.

I previously asked that the head and neck of the volunteers are screened off. I now add that not only the head and neck is screened off, but also shoulders, arms, and from hips and down including the legs. That will help me focus on the target area with fewer distractions and will also eliminate some of the unnecessary visual material. I still ask that I get to see the back of the volunteers with no kind of screen, but the volunteers are wearing a shirt, preferably cotton but if that can't be arranged other materials also work. Please let me know what the IIG thinks about me being allowed to see the clothed back of the volunteers. I fail to see what kind of external clues would be available from seeing a person's back as to the number of kidneys that a person has. My claim strictly requires that I get to see the person with eyesight for the medical perceptions to form. I have tested at home with opaque and partially opaque full-body screens and the perceptions fail. Let me know what the IIG suggests.

I would strongly prefer to see all volunteers at a time, but since that is impractical and requires complicated screens to be made and requires that all volunteers have to sit for a long time at the test, I allow that I see one volunteer at a time if the IIG prefers. That way we only need one screen, and that way a volunteer only needs to sit for a much shorter amount of time.

I would like to ask for up to 30 minutes of time to see each volunteer. I do not expect to need that much time, but I could finish early and then see the next volunteer. I do not want time to be a factor in determining whether I can accurately describe the number of kidneys in persons. Otherwise we can agree to a much shorter amount of time but I may ask for more time if I were to need an extension. Obviously with three 10 person trials the test would have to take place over two days. That is another reason why setup 1) has benefits over 2), so if we can overcome the issue of several ultrasounds, setup 1) would definitely have to be chosen. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of test arrangements.

I use no speaking or touching, no prior knowledge or feedback, and no materials. I only require pen and paper to write down my impressions.

Please consider these improvements to the test protocol, and I look forward to hearing from you again. I have contacted three Skeptical organizations, the FACT Skeptics, Southern Skeptical Society and The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI formerly CSICOP) and even the not-so-skeptical Rhine Research Center about arranging a preliminary test as preparation for our official IIG test. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to verify or falsify my claim, I could not do this on my own.
Click to expand...

That's not a protocol, it's just more negotiations on the way to a protocol. A workable protocol is still a long way off if this is as far as you have got.
 
Senex said:
Pssfff... I have a master's degree.
Click to expand...


Such a shame you can't tell a metaphor from a misused word.

You claimed she said she needs to see the surface of the body. She in fact has claimed that she can do her thing for subjects wearing normal clothes.

A metaphor is figurative language where a comparison is made without using words such as "like" or "as". For example, "Love is a rose." No way can the word "surface" be seen as figurative language for something else, like "outline" or "orientation".

You're just wrong.

The point is, the full-screen, person-there or not-there test is completely compatible with the claims she's made.

Senex said:
Not only do you not know what a metaphor is you think you can block me. You aren't the first who failed.
Click to expand...
Whoa! Block you? What are you talking about? Did you forget to take your meds today?
 
Last edited:
This is not a protocol, it is musings around what you think. Can you imagine sending something similar off to get lab time or funding for a scientific experiment? The only thing you have to do is : I can do x under y circumstances. I define success as a and failure as b.

Quote:
August 18 2009
Re: VFF Test Protocol
Dear Jim Newman and the IIG,

I have been discussing the test protocol for the kidney detection test at VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test and based on some of their suggestions here is a new and improved version of the suggested test protocol:

The IIG needs to decide you need to decide, not them. They can agree or disagree with your protocol what will be the odds of passing the test by guessing. Some have suggested that it should be 1 in 1000 and I accept thatyou can accept that? You need to state if this is what you want.

Two different types of test setups were suggested:
1) Either the IIG does not tell me how many one-kidney volunteers are among a group of two-kidney volunteers and I am asked to identify the number of kidneys in all volunteers. If such a test would involve 10 volunteers, and a chance of 1 in 2 of guessing each correctly, then the total odds of such a test would be 1 in 1024 with only ten volunteers.
2) Or I am shown for instance 10 volunteers and I am told that one of them has one kidney. Or it could be 1 out of 5 persons how did you now arrive at 1 in 5? has one kidney, or any other distribution no, you state what you can do. This is not a multiple choice test for the IIG . With 1 in 10 persons that have one kidney, it would require three trials with 10 people each, a total of 3 one-kidney persons and 27 two-kidney persons for a 1 in 1000 odds of guessing all three trials correctly.
It was also brought to my attention that about 1 in 700 people are born with one kidney so we have to deal with the issue only if you state that that is what you wantthat a two-kidney volunteer might without them knowing it have been born with one kidney. It was suggested that an ultrasound can be used to verify the number of kidneys in a person.that is what you want And that is the reason I recommend that we try the setup outlined in 2) and not the one outlined in 1), because if we do 1), we would need to have 10 ultrasounds performed since I identify the number of kidneys in 10 peopleno. you think that if you get the number wrong it is due to a volunteer having a different number of kidneys than they think they have and you want to check that . Also do you think that you would get it wrong 10 times so you would have to check that?, whereas if we do 2) we only need to perform 3 ultrasounds, one for each of the three trials. But a benefit of 1) is that it involves a fewer number of volunteers, and that with 1) you can either,
a) Determine before-hand and randomly how many one-kidney volunteers and how many two-kidney volunteers to find. For instance, I tried a random generator and it gave me four one-kidney persons and six two-kidney persons. Then you try to find that number of each kind of volunteer.
b) Or, setup 1) also permits that you simply take what ever ten volunteers you were able to find and make a test out of it. Either way I would not know what volunteers you have found.
I leave it at your discretion to choose either of the methods 1) or 2) or to suggest something else in terms of how many volunteers are involved in the test and how many volunteers I need to describe.this is a protocol. you say what you can do, IIG has the option to address any issues they see. It is not up to them to make a test for you based on these vague possibilities

I previously asked that the head and neck of the volunteers are screened off. I now add that not only the head and neck is screened off, but also shoulders, arms, and from hips and down including the legs. That will help me focus on the target area with fewer distractions and will also eliminate some of the unnecessary visual material. I still ask that I get to see the back of the volunteers with no kind of screen, but the volunteers are wearing a shirt, preferably cotton but if that can't be arranged other materials also workare you sure? what if those materials don't work. State what you need. Please let me know what the IIG thinks about me being allowed to see the clothed back of the volunteers. I fail to see what kind of external clues would be available from seeing a person's back as to the number of kidneys that a person has. My claim strictly requires that I get to see the person with eyesight for the medical perceptions to form. I have tested at home with opaque and partially opaque full-body screens and the perceptions fail. Let me know what the IIG suggestsnot their job.

I would strongly prefer do or don't there is no preferto see all volunteers at a time, but since that is impractical and requires complicated screens to be made and requires that all volunteers have to sit for a long time at the test, I allow that I see one volunteer at a time if the IIG prefersno you say what you want or need. That way we only need one screen, and that way a volunteer only needs to sit for a much shorter amount of time.

I would like to again with the preferences. How much time do you need ?ask for up to 30 minutes of time to see each volunteer. I do not expect to need that much time, but I could finish early and then see the next volunteerso all 30 can hang around and wait?. I do not want time to be a factor in determining whether I can accurately describe the number of kidneys in persons. Otherwise we can agree to a much shorter amount of time but I may ask for more timeso you either need 15 or 30 minutes or more or less. yeah that narrows it down if I were to need an extension. Obviously with three 10 person trials the test would have to take place over two daysno, why?. That is another reason why setup 1) has benefits over 2), so if we can overcome the issue of several ultrasoundswell then just drop that requirement. Your protocol remember?, setup 1) would definitely have to be chosen. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of test arrangements.

so what is a succeed or fail? where is the whole passing on a subject issue? can you only use people who got a kidney or also the ones that lost one? since you didn't want to use sick subjects. Can you see if the left and/or right kidney is missing. Why don't you specify that here ?

I use no speaking or touching, no prior knowledge or feedback, and no materials. I only require pen and paper to write down my impressions.

Please consider these improvements to the test protocol, and I look forward to hearing from you again. I have contacted three Skeptical organizations, the FACT Skeptics, Southern Skeptical Society and The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI formerly CSICOP) and even the not-so-skeptical Rhine Research Center about arranging a preliminary test as preparation for our official IIG test. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to verify or falsify my claim, I could not do this on my own.

Anita Ikonen
www.visionfromfeeling.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Such a shame you can't tell a metaphor from a misused word.

You claimed she said she needs to see the surface of the body. She in fact has claimed that she can do her thing for subjects wearing normal clothes.

A metaphor is figurative language where a comparison is made without using words such as "like" or "as". For example, "Love is a rose." No way can the word "surface" be seen as figurative language for something else, like "outline" or "orientation".

You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

This will be my immedeate concern this holiday weekend ;)

Whoa! Block you? What are you talking about? Did you forget to take your meds today?
Click to expand...

Who needs meds anymore! I have a date this holiday weekend ;)
 
I would like to ask for up to 30 minutes of time to see each volunteer. I do not expect to need that much time, but I could finish early and then see the next volunteer. I do not want time to be a factor in determining whether I can accurately describe the number of kidneys in persons. Otherwise we can agree to a much shorter amount of time but I may ask for more time if I were to need an extension.
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding. You want 30 minutes per test. If not, you will accept a shorter period of time so long as you are allowed to exceed that time limit? Huh?

My investigation is an open documentary there are no secrets.
Click to expand...
It has been publicly disclosed multiple times that you and I have had numerous private conversations. I can state for a fact that there are things that you have told me that have not been disclosed publicly and are relevant to explaining the nature of your claims. Ever since I told you that I would no longer keep the contents of further conversations private, you have not contacted me privately. We went from multiple chats per week (initiated by you) to zero in the month since that announcement.

If you give me permission, I will reveal those things that are relevant to your investigation. If not, then please retract your claim that there are no secrets.
 
Anita - no comment on the burqa proposal or an answer as to whether yu really can see through steel or not?!
 
volatile said:
Anita - no comment on the burqa proposal or an answer as to whether yu really can see through steel or not?!
Click to expand...
Yeah, you and me both.

Originally Posted by EHocking
In that case, please respond to my post of a couple of days ago:
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
...If my perceptions were imaginary, wouldn't I form images of kidneys just as before? I find it interesting that while I was doing my very best attempt of perceiving the kidneys under these conditions, instead what I saw was the yellow fat tissue. This, to me, indicates that there is more than just imagination going on. Or that the imagination is complex.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go with complex imagination and preconception by you.
Human body fat is generally clear or white in appearance.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling ..Just some thought. Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...
 
Well, it's a bit hard to know what could be On Topic in this thread now that the claimant has left and ignored all the On Topic advice.

All I can say is, if anyone from the IIG is still reading... good luck.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Other than one F which I have because I refused to attend a class where the professor hits students and calls them names and tells them he hates them, I have a perfect 4.0 GPA.
Click to expand...

But that was over a year ago. Why don't you appear on the Chancellor's List now?
Chancellor's list, Spring 2009. The people with I as their initial
Idol, Jordan Elizabeth Igras, Katarzyna
Imbriano, Tianna Marie Irey, Priscilla Macedo
Irvine, Lindsay Tate Isgett, Erin Kristina
Isom, Robin Light Izquierdo
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
But that was over a year ago. Why don't you appear on the Chancellor's List now?
Chancellor's list, Spring 2009. The people with I as their initial
Idol, Jordan Elizabeth Igras, Katarzyna
Imbriano, Tianna Marie Irey, Priscilla Macedo
Irvine, Lindsay Tate Isgett, Erin Kristina
Isom, Robin Light Izquierdo
Click to expand...

I can shed some light on this. She was supposed to retake the class in spring 2009. She did, but she dropped it again. According to my private investigators and informants Anita, she was told by her new advisor that she couldn't say she had a 4.0 on her letters of recommendation and that she couldn't give the explanation she gave us about it. She had to say that she had "personal problems that lead to the F." This upset her very much, so much so that she dropped that class again. If you recall, the first time she dropped she was suicidal.

There's more to both stories, contrary to Anita's claim of being open and honest in her investigation.

Last she told me she was retaking it over the summer and already had 110% on the first exam. Give me three tries, and I bet I could get 110% as well.

Now, before somebody gets all miffed about how this does or does not relate to the kidney test, one issue is credibility. Clearly she lies and says things like "I have a 4.0" when in reality it's only her subjective view of an otherwise objective statement.

Another issue is reliability. When things don't go her way, she quits and blames others. When told to take responsibility for her actions, she freaks out. This is a serious issue when establishing a protocol. She needs to be given as little room as possible. While she likes to come off as compliant, in reality she never gives an inch before a test and changes the rules during and afterwards.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I can shed some light on this. She was supposed to retake the class in spring 2009. She did, but she dropped it again. According to my private investigators and informants Anita, she was told by her new advisor that she couldn't say she had a 4.0 on her letters of recommendation and that she couldn't give the explanation she gave us about it. She had to say that she had "personal problems that lead to the F." This upset her very much, so much so that she dropped that class again. If you recall, the first time she dropped she was suicidal.

There's more to both stories, contrary to Anita's claim of being open and honest in her investigation.

Last she told me she was retaking it over the summer and already had 110% on the first exam. Give me three tries, and I bet I could get 110% as well.

Now, before somebody gets all miffed about how this does or does not relate to the kidney test, one issue is credibility. Clearly she lies and says things like "I have a 4.0" when in reality it's only her subjective view of an otherwise objective statement.

Another issue is reliability. When things don't go her way, she quits and blames others. When told to take responsibility for her actions, she freaks out. This is a serious issue when establishing a protocol. She needs to be given as little room as possible. While she likes to come off as compliant, in reality she never gives an inch before a test and changes the rules during and afterwards.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Credibility and reliability are both important considerations for any legitimate scientific endeavor. As are honesty and objectivity. These all go hand in hand with establishing (or in so many instances here, the claimant refusing to establish) a protocol for a test which might produce some kind of meaningful results. After a certain point it doesn't matter anymore if she starts to take the project seriously. Once she's damaged her credibility beyond repair, demonstrated a willingness to lie, refused to be even remotely objective, and shown that she can't be counted on to carry through, she's pretty much washed up. Anita is fast approaching the end of her road, kidney counting game or not, and regardless of how she spins the results if it ever does happen.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I can shed some light on this. She was supposed to retake the class in spring 2009. She did, but she dropped it again. According to my private investigators and informants Anita, she was told by her new advisor that she couldn't say she had a 4.0 on her letters of recommendation and that she couldn't give the explanation she gave us about it. She had to say that she had "personal problems that lead to the F." This upset her very much, so much so that she dropped that class again. If you recall, the first time she dropped she was suicidal.

There's more to both stories, contrary to Anita's claim of being open and honest in her investigation.

Last she told me she was retaking it over the summer and already had 110% on the first exam. Give me three tries, and I bet I could get 110% as well.

Now, before somebody gets all miffed about how this does or does not relate to the kidney test, one issue is credibility. Clearly she lies and says things like "I have a 4.0" when in reality it's only her subjective view of an otherwise objective statement.

Another issue is reliability. When things don't go her way, she quits and blames others. When told to take responsibility for her actions, she freaks out. This is a serious issue when establishing a protocol. She needs to be given as little room as possible. While she likes to come off as compliant, in reality she never gives an inch before a test and changes the rules during and afterwards.
Click to expand...

Credibility is the issue. When someone is claiming a number of things, I look for the easiest to check. That's why I went for her original 4.0 claim and found it to be false, even though some people thought I was wrong. Her assertion on that verifiable claim is still false. Just as false as the first day she made it. She knew it was false, because she had earned an F. She kept on insisting it was true, until I showed it wasn't. Then came the excuses, which were bizarre at best.

She is good at providing excuses,
 
Also, isn't her story potentially libellous? It wouldn't be hard to ascertain which course she originally failed and therefore the name of the teacher of said class.
And in this thread she has clearly accused that teacher of assaulting students.
I am not aware of any formal charges being brought.
Just worthy of mentioning as I don't know what the JREF's position is regarding possible libel in a thread. And I'd hate to think Anita was unable to carry out the Kidney Test due to being in court.
 
Ashles said:
Also, isn't her story potentially libellous? It wouldn't be hard to ascertain which course she originally failed and therefore the name of the teacher of said class.
And in this thread she has clearly accused that teacher of assaulting students.
I am not aware of any formal charges being brought.
Just worthy of mentioning as I don't know what the JREF's position is regarding possible libel in a thread. And I'd hate to think Anita was unable to carry out the Kidney Test due to being in court.
Click to expand...

I recall the original statement was that the professor threw papers at her, but it is too much bother to try to track it down. Actual assault witnessed by a whole class would result in charges being brought in any university that I know of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom