VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Roadtoad]

As this discussion of the kidney test continues, it's important to remember that the claimant's better interests aren't served by either the whole business dying a slow, quiet death, or by the claimant undergoing and failing a legitimate, scientific test. On the other hand, the better interests of the general public probably would be.

I could care less about what benefits the claimant. But as to what benefits the general public? You bet your ass, I'm interested.

If VFF were truly interested in benefiting society as a whole, the first thing that would have been attempted was a double blind test, based upon protocols which could be tested with a degree of certainty. This could easily have taken place at the institution where she's currently enrolled. I'm fairly certain that there would be those willing to conduct a preliminary test prior to an actual attempt with the JREF. Following that, assuming VFF could actually manage to pass said exam, it would be fairly simple for better protocols to be established, and for an actual attempt for the million made.

And once VFF fails? Does this mean she'll start living in a real world, where there are real world problems which need real world solutions? Considering how badly Sylvia failed even the simple test put before her by Claus Larsen when he and Robert Lancaster attended her show in Vegas, and yet, she's still bilking the public, I'm not betting the rent.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You won't be able to do it. No one has this ability and this includes you.

Well let's just watch. You have my permission to make fun of me when I fail the test.

.....
I guess a good idea would be a medical test of those that think that have both kidneys before the actual test. In case the preliminary one is successful

How do you propose such tests be financed ?

Exactly. I get to pick only one person, and if that is not the target person, I may have the person undergo an ultrasound to check for the number of kidneys and at my own expense. The nine volunteers who were meant to have both kidneys are prepared that one of them might have an ultrasound after the test.

Sorry, my perspective is Dutch/Swedish where an insurance could be used for such. In case of Sweden healthcare is even free.
In the USA the person wanting the challenge would pay for it I suppose. I have no idea about echoscopy costs and if that should not easily be raised by VFF.

The lowest price I might find is $100. I will pay that much to find out if I can see kidneys.

This statement makes it very convenient for Anita if she fails the test. Naming a countless number of parameters to blame the failure on, including her own breakfast, will no doubt cover any and all possibilities.

Before starting the test I sign a statement that I find the conditions of the test such as lighting, room temperature and my breakfast agreeable.

(...) when Jeff Wagg was the test subject, the time limit was fifteen minutes.

I really don't want time to be a factor in finding out whether I can see kidneys or not, which is why I am asking for more time than is necessary to form the perceptions and conclude on an answer.

It seems to me if you can't figure out which hand has a slab of raw meat in it with a quick glance, how will you spot the person with one kidney over a four hour period?

I haven't tried the test with the meat, but detecting kidneys is already a claim that I feel very strong and confident in so I want to go ahead and have that test.

 

[Roadtoad]

I haven't tried the test with the meat, but detecting kidneys is already a claim that I feel very strong and confident in so I want to go ahead and have that test.

That's the whole problem here. You FEEL this stuff. It has yet to have a basis in fact.

Before you decided to take the MDC, why didn't you speak to some instructors at the school you're attending, and see about doing some tests there first. If those work out, you might have something. Otherwise, you're simply setting yourself up to look silly.

 

[Audible Click]

I really don't want time to be a factor in finding out whether I can see kidneys or not, which is why I am asking for more time than is necessary to form the perceptions and conclude on an answer.

Do you realize how illogical that sounds? The time you take is a major factor in designing this protocol so you ask for more time? How long did it take you to discover the FACT member's missing kidney? An hour, half an hour, fifteen minutes, or less? What time frame are we talking about now?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You know, directly relevant to the subject of this thread: Makes me wonder what the cost differential might be between ultrasound tests to determine if the subjects are missing a kidney, and paying for ten jerseys at a local t-thirt shop. Given the ridiculousness of this comparison, if this was someone else on another forum who didn't have the luxury of having her ass covered by the moderators, someone might say these kinds of contradictory comments support the possibility the claimant is full of it. Lucky that on this forum, for this claimant anyway, criticism of the validity of these kinds of statements is out of bounds.

And again, directly relevant to the subject of this thread: If the history of this claimant's avoidance of any actual testing is any indicator of the likelihood of carrying through with this test, then no, it won't be arranged in the near future.

I will definitely pay for one ultrasound of the one person I claim has one kidney if it is not already the target person who has had a kidney removed. It might cost around $100 and this cost is necessary for the test. I will not buy shirts for the test unless it is necessary, meanwhile we can avoid that cost by attaching numbers to their shirts. I am just trying to avoid unnecessary costs. And I welcome your comments as long as they are on-topic and not overly hostile.

Frankly, I don't see much point, reagrdless of the complexities, money issues, and etc.
You're talking five hours for a 1 in 10 chance.
(...) What, really, would be the point of spending all the time, effort and money necessary to bring about a test that cannot provide any relevant evidence, regardless of the outcome?

You make a good point, however from my perspective I am compelled to have this test because I truly did experience what I claim to have, so for me personally it will be worth the expense to find out if I can see kidneys. But we're not done yet, we might be able to find another person for the test in San Diego who has had a kidney removed. But if the best that can be arranged is a 1 in 10 chance I would still want to go ahead and do it. And if we only find one person who has had a kidney removed, we can always change the odds by adding more persons with both kidneys, if possible.

And don't all forget that the IIG are planning an official test and I think they are hoping to find three persons who have had a kidney removed and the accompanying 27 others who have both kidneys, for three trials and a total chance of 1 in 1000. And this Preliminary test I am arranging is not an absolute requirement for me to have the official IIG test, it was just a recommendation, so these arrangements are not introducing any delays to the official test. Meanwhile, discussing the kidney test protocol and bringing up the issues is making progress that will even benefit the official IIG test protocol.

Also, if I fail the 1 in 10 chance test, that would be evidence. Don't you think? The Preliminary test just can't prove the claim. If I can't pass a 1 in 10 test then how on earth would I pass a 1 in 1000 test? So let's go ahead and have it done. Don't you all Skeptics think I will fail? So does it matter if i fail it with a 1 in 10 chance or with a 1 in 1000 chance?

Did I miss where you have provided evidence that you have actually submitted a claim that is being considered by IIG ?

www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html has all the e-mails between me and IIG about the official kidney detection test. Also see the July 2009 IIG update for evidence.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you realize how illogical that sounds? The time you take is a major factor in designing this protocol so you ask for more time? How long did it take you to discover the FACT member's missing kidney? An hour, half an hour, fifteen minutes, or less? What time frame are we talking about now?

Once I was looking at the person's back, it only took me a moment to detect that a kidney would be missing. More specificly, it took me less than five seconds. I would still like a generous amount of time on the test so that I can be certain of my perceptions. I won't be rushed through the test. I am sure a volunteer can sit for 15 to 30 minutes. Don't you sit for at least 30 minutes when you are eating a meal, or driving a car, or watching television? Like someone said on this Forum, we can give them something to do if we worry that they would be bored.

Is this the only thing you people can pick on about the test protocol? Does it always have to be negative?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thin opaque screen

I just tried an at-home kidney detection test using a thin bed sheet as the opaque screen. The volunteer was a friend of mine who knows that he has two kidneys. I can arrange test conditions and see whether my perceptions of the kidneys will occur and how. The screen was immediately against his back and some of his outline could be seen since he was leaning toward the screen. All of his body was behind the screen.

I found that it was much harder to find the kidneys. Without a screen I can see the kidneys first thing. With this screen, the first thing I saw was the yellow fat layer underneath the skin. So obviously my targeting was reduced. After that I saw his heart, then liver, spleen and pancreas. It took longer to finally have a perception of the kidneys and based on the quality of those perceptions I would have been nowhere near as certain as to the number of kidneys as I can be without a screen.

I conclude that I would like for the test to take place without a screen. A screen would increase the length of time I would have to ask for on the test and would reduce my confidence in the perceptions of number of kidneys.

This test also taught me some more about the perceptions. I almost got a hint that the vibrational information might be thermal patterns. The vibrational information was more colorful and bright once the screen was removed. Sometimes you don't know what you have until you take it away for a while.

 

[Kariboo]

If I can't pass a 1 in 10 test then how on earth would I pass a 1 in 1000 test? So let's go ahead and have it done. Don't you all Skeptics think I will fail? So does it matter if i fail it with a 1 in 10 chance or with a 1 in 1000 chance?

So right... Unfortunately you already failed a 1 in 1 test.

 

[Roadtoad]

I just tried an at-home kidney detection test using a thin bed sheet as the opaque screen. The volunteer was a friend of mine who knows that he has two kidneys. I can arrange test conditions and see whether my perceptions of the kidneys will occur and how. The screen was immediately against his back and some of his outline could be seen since he was leaning toward the screen. All of his body was behind the screen.

I found that it was much harder to find the kidneys. Without a screen I can see the kidneys first thing. With this screen, the first thing I saw was the yellow fat layer underneath the skin. So obviously my targeting was reduced. After that I saw his heart, then liver, spleen and pancreas. It took longer to finally have a perception of the kidneys and based on the quality of those perceptions I would have been nowhere near as certain as to the number of kidneys as I can be without a screen.

I conclude that I would like for the test to take place without a screen. A screen would increase the length of time I would have to ask for on the test and would reduce my confidence in the perceptions of number of kidneys.

This test also taught me some more about the perceptions. I almost got a hint that the vibrational information might be thermal patterns. The vibrational information was more colorful and bright once the screen was removed. Sometimes you don't know what you have until you take it away for a while.

So this test, such as it was, proved exactly, what? If you want to ignore what people are telling you here, knock yourself out. All this means is that should you actually come up with testable protocols, you'll wind up looking very silly once you're shown to be self-deluded.

Again, the JREF has suggested, strongly, that you conduct your own double blind tests with people who are trained in the scientific method. You haven't done this. You're perpetuating your own belief in something which has never once been proven in a scientific setting. If you choose to be that childish, so be it, but you can't say you weren't warned in advance that it is a very bad idea.

 

[Kariboo]

I just tried an at-home kidney detection test using a thin bed sheet as the opaque screen.

I found that it was much harder to find the kidneys. Without a screen I can see the kidneys first thing.

So obviously my targeting was reduced.
.

also add here: your previous story about not being able to read your boyfriend when he was wearing a fleece sweater.

Tell me what were the people wearing that you read so far (Dr Carlson, the other volunteers at FACT, the people in your pre- study on the street, random other people etc). So no one was wearing an overcoat? or thick sweater? or layers? All of them were wearing at maximum a thin cotton shirt?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This from IIG:

Once we have a target date from you, we can begin negotiating the details of the protocol and begin our search for all the volunteers we will need for the test.

Why don't you just set a date Anita, and demonstrate the powers you claim to have?

I predict a date will never be set, or if it is, a test protocol acceptable to IIG will never be developed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...............

I conclude that I would like for the test to take place without a screen. A screen would increase the length of time I would have to ask for on the test and would reduce my confidence in the perceptions of number of kidneys.

This test also taught me some more about the perceptions. I almost got a hint that the vibrational information might be thermal patterns. The vibrational information was more colorful and bright once the screen was removed. Sometimes you don't know what you have until you take it away for a while.

This does not gel with your claims to be able to detect gasses in metal cylinders, or bacteria in cereal boxes...

 

[Audible Click]

Do you realize how illogical that sounds? The time you take is a major factor in designing this protocol so you ask for more time? How long did it take you to discover the FACT member's missing kidney? An hour, half an hour, fifteen minutes, or less? What time frame are we talking about now?

Once I was looking at the person's back, it only took me a moment to detect that a kidney would be missing. More specificly, it took me less than five seconds. I would still like a generous amount of time on the test so that I can be certain of my perceptions. I won't be rushed through the test. I am sure a volunteer can sit for 15 to 30 minutes. Don't you sit for at least 30 minutes when you are eating a meal, or driving a car, or watching television? Like someone said on this Forum, we can give them something to do if we worry that they would be bored.

Is this the only thing you people can pick on about the test protocol? Does it always have to be negative?

I asked you about the timing because it has changed several times in the course of this discussion. If you don't want anyone to "pick on your protocol" then don't ask for help. Dissecting a protocol is how you refine and improve it but I shouldn't have to explain that to you. If all you want is for everyone to look at your protocol and admire it then you've got it posted in the wrong forum.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So right... Unfortunately you already failed a 1 in 1 test.

I detected that a left kidney was missing. I only failed to report that.

All this means is that should you actually come up with testable protocols, you'll wind up looking very silly once you're shown to be self-deluded.

I did detect that a kidney was missing. And if I fail the kidney detection tests I would not be embarassed, I'd be proud having falsified an interesting paranormal claim and setting a proper example to woo's and contributing to skepticism.

Again, the JREF has suggested, strongly, that you conduct your own double blind tests with people who are trained in the scientific method. You haven't done this.

This Preliminary test is exactly what you are suggesting that I do.

Tell me what were the people wearing that you read so far (Dr Carlson, the other volunteers at FACT, the people in your pre- study on the street, random other people etc). So no one was wearing an overcoat? or thick sweater? or layers? All of them were wearing at maximum a thin cotton shirt?

That's right.

Why don't you just set a date Anita, and demonstrate the powers you claim to have?

I did set a date:

" As for when I can come down to California to take the test, I am free for the remainder of July and until August 24 when classes begin again. I will take the test on a weekend during the semester if necessary. Please take the time you need to arrange the test and do not let my schedule place stress on your arrangements. Do let me know when we are ready to take the test and I will adjust my schedule according to that. "

 

[Farencue]

I think we have come up with a timeframe of 34 minutes.
In 34 minutes it is possible for VfFto achieve the following:

1) Make post number #126 re: protocol negativity
2) Conduct "at home kidney detection test" where "the first thing I saw was the
yellow fat layer underneath the skin. So obviously my targeting was reduced. After
that I saw his heart, then liver, spleen and pancreas. It took longer to finally have a
perception of the kidneys"
3) Make post #127 informing us of said kidney detection test

 

[Akhenaten]

I detected that a left kidney was missing. I only failed to report that.

I detected Comet Hale-Bopp in 1985. I only failed to report that.

Can you see that both of the above claims carry equal weight?


Your ergo needs some more propter to go with its hoc.

I did detect that a kidney was missing. And if I fail the kidney detection tests I would not be embarassed, I'd be proud having falsified an interesting paranormal claim and setting a proper example to woo's and contributing to skepticism.

You don't get kudos for making outlandish claims and then bringing them here or to the IIG to be shredded.

You won't be embarassed by failing the kidney test because you'll be busy being embarassed about the failure of the test to ever be carried out.

Your only contribution to skepticism is as an exemplar of what it is that skeptics are skeptical of. The attempts to create a "test" out of the nonsense described so far in this thread are 100% prime woo, and all but the most generous of posters here realise that.


Nepherkheperure Waenre

 

[Ashles]

I think we have come up with a timeframe of 34 minutes.
In 34 minutes it is possible for VfFto achieve the following:

1) Make post number #126 re: protocol negativity
2) Conduct "at home kidney detection test" where "the first thing I saw was the
yellow fat layer underneath the skin. So obviously my targeting was reduced. After
that I saw his heart, then liver, spleen and pancreas. It took longer to finally have a
perception of the kidneys"
3) Make post #127 informing us of said kidney detection test

Now that is interesting.

Some mean, cynical people might be led to suspect this "at home kidney detection test" did not really take place at all.

Still I'm sure all questions will be answered when this test without a date or protocol takes place with specific volunteers jetted in from around the country wearing their experimental unifom jumpers or written on in marker pen while waiting for the portable ultrasound unit and technician on standby.

I wonder if there would be any feasible way to come up with some sort of simpler protocol to test Anita's claims... no probably not.

ETA: Directly relevant to this claim - there are obviously simpler and quicker was of doing this Kidney test (which Anita has already rejected), but there seems to be a repeated pattern whereby the testing itself apears secondary to the drama and the circus around the claim.
Anita is apparently a high scoring science student. Why are all the protocols she suggests so complex and unworkable? Why does Anita not listen to feedback when supposedly that is what she is posting here for? Why do all suggestions to tighten the protocol or simplify potential problems get rejected?

 

[Akhenaten]

Rather than just saying that "I don't know whether I can perform with the people wrapped in thick sweaters", I went ahead and had my boyfriend put on a thick fleece sweater and asked him to sit still while I look at his back from behind. The sweater also forms vibrational information and I had to penetrate through the thick jungle of sweater fibers to search for the body beneath. I managed to find some blood vessels that reach up from around the sacrum area and was struggling to find orientation in the body. Obviously I was lost. I concluded that I would strongly prefer for the volunteers to wear ordinary thin clothing. My boyfriend then took the sweater off and was wearing his cotton shirt, which is much thinner. I had tuned up my "vision from feeling" from previously, so now I was clearly perceiving the kidneys. I could even see and taste the urine (sorry guys) in the ureters and the sodium in it, and I confirmed the presence of the kidneys in a snap.

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.

I don't know any biology professors either, but this is the internet, and I can contact any university in the world instantly with my enquiry, should I so choose.

But why bother? I'll bet there are some similarly qualified people right here in this forum who could offer a professional, if non-official opinion.


Have you made any enquiries in this regard?

 

[catbasket]

The IIG have suggested that I have a preliminary test before having the official test with them so that I am better prepared for the outcome of their test.

Let's see what we can come up with ...

I just tried an at-home kidney detection test using a thin bed sheet as the opaque screen.

<snip>

I conclude that I would like for the test to take place without a screen.

Cool! I see you've just done the preliminary test. Well done! Do come back and tell us how you get on with the IIG test.

Or am I misunderstanding and the test you did with your friend was not the preliminary test, but just a preliminary test for the preliminary test for the IIG test (which as we all know qualifies as a preliminary test for the MDC)?

 

[skeen]

At this stage, I wish a bunch of people would just meet Anita, and say "show us something that can't be explained". And video tape it. Anita has not even demonstrated that she's good at cold-reading, let alone anything else.

Oh wait, she's had plenty of opportunity to do that at skeptics meetings. Continue.