VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[GeeMack]

Will the test be videoed?

... and made available immediately after it gets transcribed longhand?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Which is exactly where Anita seems to want this whole thing to be. She proposes to the Independent Investigations Group that she will, at her own expense, fly out to California, view ten people, one of whom is a woman who is lacking a kidney. Then Anita will attempt to determine by use of her magical powers which of the ten people has the missing kidney. If the selected person claims to have both kidneys, Anita will spring for a couple hundred dollar ultrasound exam to verify the number of kidneys possessed.

And at the end of the day this will have demonstrated exactly what? That Anita can hit or miss a 10% target one time in a single round of a child's guessing game? And the IIG is going to use this game of how-many-fingers-am-I-holding-up-behind-my-back to decide if her claim of having x-ray vision warrants further investigation? Nope.

Another problem being that even if we get a hit (which everyone acknowledges is meaningless, statistics-wise), how can the test be turned into one that gives 1 in 10,000 odds? If this takes 4-5 hours, how will anyone possibly tighten the protocol to be useful for a real, statistically-sound challenge? I don't see it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Let's make sure we all understand what's really involved with the IIG test.

First, passing the IIG formal test seems to qualify as passing the preliminary test for the JREF MDC:

http://www.iigwest.com/challenge.html
The IIG works closely with the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the IIG $50,000 Challenge qualifies as a pre-screening process for the JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. One million dollars awaits the individual that can prove, in a controlled setting, that they have supernatural abilities.

If you pass the IIG Challenge, we'll pay you $50,000 ourselves and provide the results to the JREF, which will qualify you to be tested for James Randi's One Million Dollar prize!

Second, IIG says, "in most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform an informal demonstration of the claimed ability or phenomenon, which if successful will be followed by the formal test." This is to be distinguished from their advice where they strongly suggest "that applicants conduct proper, scientific tests of their own to determine whether their abilities or claims are actually valid."

There are really three separate tests we are discussing here. So, Anita, do you believe that you have already done a test "on your own" or do you believe you still need to do that?

The IIG application states, "For claims that have a statistical possibility of having a positive result by chance alone, the Testing Protocol Agreement will require sufficient multiple trials to ensure the result cannot be accounted for by chance. In such a case, a single “test” will be considered to consist of as many repetitive trials as determined necessary."

Have you asked the IIG what odds they will require for them to fork over their $50K? If we are talking one in 1,000 (I use the 1,000 number because that's typically what the JREF requires for a preliminary test), then that would require three trials for a total of 3 people missing a kidney and 27 people willing to act as controls. At 15 minutes per person, that's about 8 hours of testing.

Note: Those of you suggesting possibly having more than one target per trial, have you worked out the odds and the pass/fail scenarios? If so, what are they?

Anita, have you asked them what odds they require for the informal test? Will a 1 in 10 trial be sufficient? Will this be conducted the same weekend you visit Hollywood? Can you do it with FACT? Or by "informal test" do they mean a quick "open book" test where you simply demonstrate that your abilities are working at that moment and that the protocol is acceptable? That's not clear to me.

Since you can't use the same people in the informal and formal tests, that makes it that much more work to find volunteers (and more time consuming). If there is just one informal trial, then we're talking 40 people or possibly just 31 where one "extra" person missing a kidney is on hand for you to confirm that he or she is missing a kidney (no control subjects).

These are important questions that need to be answered.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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)?

It was just a check to see how I would do with a fabric screen. It was by no means a Preliminary test, which will be what I do before the official IIG test, which is a Preliminary test for the MDC Preliminary test, after which I can take the official MDC Test.

Regarding the cost of an ultrasound. (...) Personally I don't think that the ultrasounds are a necessity, but if Anita (VFF) has a couple of thousand dollars to burn then it should be possible via one of the many private clinics set up for these baby scans. She might even get a bulk rate.

I will choose one person out of ten as the one I claim to perceive has one kidney. If that person is not JPL's wife (the person who has had a kidney removed) I can have the volunteer I chose undergo an ultrasound at my expense to check whether they are one of those few that were born with one kidney. It would only be one person who has an ultrasound (unless I would like to have one for myself just for fun since I'm very interested in medical imaging).

You offered a window that you know will be impossible for IIG to set up a proper protocol within.

I am allowing the IIG to take the time they need to arrange the test. If I were to set an exact date, say, Saturday August 22 at 9:00 AM that might complicate their arrangements. Instead they can choose a weekend that best fits with theirs and their volunteers' schedules, I am simply offering to be flexible and I thought I was doing them a favor by saying that.

(...) At one point the IIG asked me to prepare a video where I demonstrate how the claimed ability takes place. I have not done that, but I still might.

Gosh, what a shame that Anita didnt think to video her "at home kidney detection test"

The "at home kidney test" was simply testing how I see kidneys through a screen. It would not have proven anything, and your imaginations of how it was set up is any bit as good as a video of the event. (Except Senex's imagination might go other places.)

Actually, with 1 in 10 odds, the IIG would not qualify as a preliminary test for the MDC, but only a preliminary to the preliminary.

What I am arranging in San Diego, and discussing here as the Preliminary test, is not necessarily an official IIG test. The IIG are arranging a test of their own and I think they might have 1 in 1000 odds on it. See catbasket's wonderful reply to this.

Without the explicit and detailed participation of the IIG, it's not a test, it's a stage show.

Yes well the IIG have suggested that I do some preliminary testing before having their official IIG test and that is what I am doing. Be it a test or a stage show, it is what I need to do at this point while the official test is being arranged by the IIG.

You can't hand-pick your volunteers like this. Where are the rest of them going to come from anyway?

So I can't involve JPL's wife in the test? The hardest part is finding a person who has had a kidney removed, and luckily JPL's wife seems to have agreed to take part in the test. Best of all, her husband is a Skeptic and for all we know she might be a Skeptic too. Why would we not "hand-pick" JPL's wife for the test?

As for the others, I will contact two San Diego Skeptical groups and see if they would like to come up with nine women for the test. We'll see. If not, then I'll explore other options.

This is silly. You claim to be doing this [write number on volunteer's wrist with permanent marker] to eliminate "cheating" while ignoring huge exploitable gaps everywhere else in your "protocol".

Please suggest what those huge exploitable gaps everywhere are and how to overcome those.

What if they turn up in a something else? Have you predicted the weather for [date to be fixed] yet?
Or there may be. Who can tell? Previous performances speak to this problem.

The volunteers may wear what they choose. I will suggest that they wear cotton but if they don't then that is fine. Before I begin the test I sign a statement that I am experiencing no extraneous conditions that are reducing my performance.

I have a suspicion that when you return to the room, the volunteers will have taken unilateral action to escape, although this is purely speculation on my part.

LOL Volunteers climbing out the window to get away from VFF.

Yeah, OK, you're going to shuffle some papers and give them to a passing skeptic. This is not in the least bit scientific-sounding, you know, and people will notice.

Please suggest what would be a better procedure than passing the answer sheet to an attending skeptic.

Meant to have [two kidneys]? What the hell does that mean?

It was you who brought up that 1 in 700 are born with one kidney and many of them might not know it. Any of the nine who were meant to have two kidneys might have been born with one without knowing it.

You do realise that you're asking people to undergo a medical procedure as part of a "paranormal claim" don't you? Do you think this might impact the number of volunteers you are likely to get?

Personally I would think that having a free ultrasound would be great fun. But I'm just a medical-imaging geek.

This protocol is childlike in it's concept and utterance. Resubmit please.

Agreed. It is a preliminary protocol and outlines the important concepts of the test. It has to be hashed some more and the final draft will be an example of my professional science writing skills.

 

[GeeMack]

Agreed. It is a preliminary protocol and outlines the important concepts of the test. It has to be hashed some more and the final draft will be an example of my professional science writing skills.

It needs to be discarded completely because its design is purely amateurish and any results obtained would be useless.

 

[Kariboo]

I can have the volunteer I chose undergo an ultrasound at my expense to check whether they are one of those few that were born with one kidney. It would only be one person who has an ultrasound (unless I would like to have one for myself just for fun since I'm very interested in medical imaging).

Have you checked with ultrasound people in San Diego if they even do this? There is a difference for paying out of pocket for a medically necessary ultrasound (uninsured) and just having one for fun. I am doubtful you can just call and arrange one for whatever reason. Please check this before you continue with this in your protocol. For instance I couldn't have an ultrasound here without being referred by an MD.

Before I begin the test I sign a statement that I am experiencing no extraneous conditions that are reducing my performance.

How do you know this beforehand? If you include this part in your protocol there are 2 options (well 3 really). 1. There are no conditions that are averse to you. 2) there ARE conditions that are averse to you and then the test will have to be canceled, not a great idea. 3) You are ok in the beginning but get tired/nauseous during the test. The test will have to be canceled. Since this has happened before how do you know it won't happen again? If you know beforehand that you are able to sign this declaration then why include it? Also how can you be sure beforehand, excluding just wishful thinking.

Yes well the IIG have suggested that I do some preliminary testing before having their official IIG test and that is what I am doing. Be it a test or a stage show, it is what I need to do at this point while the official test is being arranged by the IIG.

So what is your timeline? If IIG is planning this test before the end of the year you will have to plan YOUR test before that. You also stated that you would like IIG to use info from YOUR test to adjust theirs so they won' t be able to get that going before you conclude your test. Not to mention the time it generally takes for you to report back (how are you doing with the scans of that FACT study btw?). When do you suggest you have your pre pre test?

 

[Ashles]

Anita, you didn't address the issues regarding the very low odds of 1 in 10.

What use is a test that can be relativly easily passed by chance alone.

Also it's worth us finding out what will you take from a failed test? (i.e. you select the incorrect person).

Will you assume you do not actually have this ability after all? Will you abandon the paranormal claims?
Will you move to a different claim?
Or will you try to create a new experiement about this same claim anyway?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes well the IIG have suggested that I do some preliminary testing before having their official IIG test and that is what I am doing. Be it a test or a stage show, it is what I need to do at this point while the official test is being arranged by the IIG.

This would seem to be an attempt to shift the responsibility for delays onto the IIG. How can they be arranging a test when your protocol is still the shambles that it is?


So I can't involve JPL's wife in the test? The hardest part is finding a person who has had a kidney removed, and luckily JPL's wife seems to have agreed to take part in the test. Best of all, her husband is a Skeptic and for all we know she might be a Skeptic too. Why would we not "hand-pick" JPL's wife for the test?

You aren't supposed to know ANYTHING about ANY of the volunteers.


As for the others, I will contact two San Diego Skeptical groups and see if they would like to come up with nine women for the test. We'll see. If not, then I'll explore other options.

So as it stands then, this whole thing is just speculation and "ifs".


Please suggest what those huge exploitable gaps everywhere are and how to overcome those.

General lack of the scientific rigour one would expect to be displayed by a science student in a pursuit of this nature. I have no suggestions for overcoming this lack, other than the gaining of a complete and legitimate education in science. Start there perhaps?


The volunteers may wear what they choose. I will suggest that they wear cotton but if they don't then that is fine. Before I begin the test I sign a statement that I am experiencing no extraneous conditions that are reducing my performance.

More verbal interaction with the volunteers? I told you that may happen.


LOL Volunteers climbing out the window to get away from VFF.

No, these are presumably normal people and they will likely form an orderly queue leading out the door. People in bizarre situations will sometimes do things like this of one accord, without a word being spoken. Also herrings.


Please suggest what would be a better procedure than passing the answer sheet to an attending skeptic.

Having some actual answers would be kewl.


It was you who brought up that 1 in 700 are born with one kidney and many of them might not know it. Any of the nine who were meant to have two kidneys might have been born with one without knowing it.

I'm aware of the points that I've raised, thank you. Your reminder does not answer my question. How are you going to screen volunteers when it is acknowledged that some/many/most may not know how many kidneys they have?

What are the figures for people with three kidneys, BTW? And don't ask me to research it or make suggestions. Not my test.


Personally I would think that having a free ultrasound would be great fun. But I'm just a medical-imaging geek.

A medical-imaging geek would know that there's no such thing as a free lunch ultrasound. Maybe you aren't one after all.


Agreed. It is a preliminary protocol and outlines the important concepts of the test. It has to be hashed some more and the final draft will be an example of my professional science writing skills.

It's a mess. Your attempted protocol displays not one whit of evidence of the professional science writing skills that would be required to try and salvage even the preamble.

Progress Report: This space intentionally blank.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The curtain (which now you can't see through although you have seen through thicker layers previously)

Can the test be done without a screen? Ashles I trust your judgement since you have a degree in test design. Keep in mind that a screen reduces my performance, more specificly it reduces my targeting ability.

shorter time for the test (the length of the test allows you to revert to previously used 'tiredness' defence if the desired results are not achieved)

I must sign a statement that states whether there were any conditions that reduced my performance. How much time would you suggest I am given to see each volunteer? How about 5 seconds, since I clearly can work that fast?

the fact that 1 in 10 odds renders the test almost completely pointless (if you pass it is not particularly high odds so doesn't really indicate anything and if you fail you will continue investigating it anyway so it won't indicate anything that way either)

I will try to arrange more than one person who has had a kidney removed.

What will this experiment actual tell anone about your ability? What can we learn from this?

If I fail it adds to evidence that my claim would become falsified, if I pass it might add to the evidence that my claim would become verified (only "might", since the test conditions might not be adequate to support a claim, meanwhile less than adequate conditions may support falsification of a claim).

This Preliminary test will give me some practice and experience. To actually carry out a practice test will help in designing the actual official IIG test.

ETA: The IIG should reserve the right to insert as many/few single kidney volunteers as they wish so Anita does not know how many she is suposed to identify.

I do think it is a good idea to have an unknown number of persons with one kidney, ultimately, to actually prove a claim of seeing kidneys, this would be quite necessary on a test I think. Meanwhile, please allow me to have a simpler Preliminary test where I know how many persons with one kidney I am expected to find.

And have we ascertained whether there is any silly 'scale' judgement or is each reading a simple one/two kidneys and marked as clearly hit/miss?

Ashles you should know that this is a clear hit/miss kind of test!

 

[Uncayimmy]

I will choose one person out of ten as the one I claim to perceive has one kidney. If that person is not JPL's wife (the person who has had a kidney removed) I can have the volunteer I chose undergo an ultrasound at my expense to check whether they are one of those few that were born with one kidney. It would only be one person who has an ultrasound (unless I would like to have one for myself just for fun since I'm very interested in medical imaging).

And what would be the point of that? If the person is missing a kidney, then that means you had a 1 in 5 chance of selecting a person with a missing kidney. At the same time you will have failed to detect a person who is missing a kidney. How unremarkable.

You expect the IIG to hand over $50,000 for you to beat essentially 1 in 1,000 odds. The odds of a person on the street being born with one kidney is 1 in 750 (http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/kidneycaucus/onekidney.html). Hmm...

Really, what are the odds that a person is missing a kidney and is actually unaware of this fact? They are often diagnosed before birth. Other people learn of it when they are treated for other illnesses, many of which are related directly to missing one kidney. Therefore, the odds of a person on the street missing a kidney and being unaware of it are very slim.

Think about what you're saying: If you fail to detect the target, then you want somebody to spend their free time testing for something that is extremely unlikely just to prove that you might have made a 1 in 5 guess.

That's not science. That's indulging a fantasy.

I am allowing the IIG to take the time they need to arrange the test. If I were to set an exact date, say, Saturday August 22 at 9:00 AM that might complicate their arrangements.

The IIG told you, "A target date would allow us to know how much time we had to finalize protocol negotiations with you and get everything in place for your arrival."

Give them a target date like they asked. Otherwise we're going to hear excuses about how you need to study for exams or whatever.

Personally I would think that having a free ultrasound would be great fun. But I'm just a medical-imaging geek.

Nobody owes you anything. You are asking strangers to spend their valuable free time indulging you because, what? You told Dr. Carlson you knew he was missing a kidney after he told you he was missing a kidney? On that basis you want people to jump through hoops to prove that you weren't wrong this time?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

If I fail it adds to evidence that my claim would become falsified, if I pass it might add to the evidence that my claim would become verified (only "might", since the test conditions might not be adequate to support a claim, meanwhile less than adequate conditions may support falsification of a claim).

What do these words mean in Earthian?


Chef's Suggestion:

"Mind yøu, møøse bites can be pretti nasti."


.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Meanwhile, please allow me to have a simpler Preliminary test where I know how many persons with one kidney I am expected to find.

You are not expected to find any ..

Since you will know how many there are - one - you shouldn't have any problem guessing - one - ...

As has been mentioned, you are proposing a silly child's guessing game.

The only thing you are testing, is everyone's patience ...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ashles you should know that this is a clear hit/miss kind of test!

So was the reading with Dr. Carslon. You missed, but you call it a hit.

 

[Agatha]

So I can't involve JPL's wife in the test? The hardest part is finding a person who has had a kidney removed, and luckily JPL's wife seems to have agreed to take part in the test. Best of all, her husband is a Skeptic and for all we know she might be a Skeptic too. Why would we not "hand-pick" JPL's wife for the test?

Because it would be far too easy for you to cheat; there is enough information already available on the JREF and elsewhere for you to be able to identify her prior to the test.

I am not saying that you would cheat, merely that such a thing would be possible.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

She proposes to the Independent Investigations Group that she will, at her own expense, fly out to California, view ten people,

Dear GeeMack, what we are discussing here is a Preliminary practice test and not the official IIG test. The IIG would never arrange a 1 in 10 test for me.

And the IIG is going to use this game of how-many-fingers-am-I-holding-up-behind-my-back to decide if her claim of having x-ray vision warrants further investigation? Nope.

The IIG seem to already be setting up the kidney detection test for me. Read our correspondence. This Preliminary test is just for practice and experience. The IIG said:

" We are aware of only one time that you said you were able to detect a missing kidney. We strongly urge you to find ways to further study this ability. We know, based on your posts at the JREF Forum, that you are aware of the recent test of Connie Sonne for the JREF prize. The fact that she never self-tested under circumstances similar to the actual test ended up being problematic for her. We hope that you will not be in the same position should you come to Los Angeles for a test. "

Suggesting the purpose of this Preliminary test.

Obviously Anita's suggested protocol, in its entirety, is as poorly designed and as useless as all of her previous harebrained ideas for test protocols.

GeeMack, please attempt to design an acceptable test protocol based on this fully testable and falsifiable claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney.

Any discussion of clothing, length of sitting time, screens, or any other efforts to tweak this crappy suggestion are moot.

No it isn't. The suggestion that volunteers wear football shirts was just for simple numbering. I responded that it would be less expensive and more convenient that the volunteers wear their own clothing and have a number written on their arm. As for length of sitting time, would you only be satisfied if I agree to a time that is so low that it reduces my performance and causes me to fail the test? And I tested the screen at home and concluded that it reduces my ability and I will not agree to have a screen. Just because I can not agree to conditions that shut down my claimed ability does not mean I am being difficult. I am finding out what I can agree to. It is a two-way compromise. As I said, the underground bunker...

I have a legitimate, do-able method for developing a test, Anita. As soon as you flush this one down the toilet, the whole thing, complete, I'll let you know how you can actually create a qualified, quantified, objective test of your claimed ability to see people's innards. You could create the test in your own area for a fraction of the cost of flying to California. Nearly free in fact. The results would be informative towards your stated goal, as opposed to the inane concept you've described.

The method I'd propose for developing a test would help you learn a lot about science and the scientific method, an area in which you clearly have shown deficient knowledge and skill. And aside from getting you on the right track with your problem, it could also be beneficial to educators, students, and the general public. Additionally it would serve to get the attention of the IIG and JREF in a positive way if there was even a hint of success. They'd both be begging you to come in for a visit.

Interested? The first step is to get rid of the crappy "protocol" you're working on now. There's no fixing it in its current state. Then you can move forward to construct something that might actually be meaningful.

Do share your idea, that's what we're here for.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

GeeMack, please attempt to design an acceptable test protocol based on this fully testable and falsifiable claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney.

That's actually the claimant/investigator/test designer/event co-ordinator/professional science writer/nobel laureate/medical-imaging geek's responsibilty. The rest of us are UN observers.

Chop chop, lassie. Time, tide and kiddelies wait for no man. Especially a man with only one kiddely.

 

[Ashles]

Can the test be done without a screen? Ashles I trust your judgement since you have a degree in test design. Keep in mind that a screen reduces my performance, more specificly it reduces my targeting ability.

It's strange that seeing through clothes (and even other materials) has not caused you a problem in the past, but a thin screen does. (NB I have a degree in Experimental Psychology not Test Design, but creating tests and studies was part of it)

I must sign a statement that states whether there were any conditions that reduced my performance. How much time would you suggest I am given to see each volunteer? How about 5 seconds, since I clearly can work that fast?

Hey it's just what you youself have said in the past.

Aside from all the practically instantaneous readings you have anecdotally described in the past, your entire experience of kidney identification is described by you thus:

In the one past experience where I claim to have detected that a kidney was missing, it only took a moment for it to catch my attention once I felt through the upper back area. I then spent at least 5 more minutes double-checking repeatedly and confirming to myself what I was feeling.

So the one time you experienced it before you only needed just over five minutes, including 'double-checking' time?
The other issue is that you have previously blamed poor performance on 'becoming tired'. As Kariboo points out - how does signing a form befoe the test prevent you from claiming you got tired during the test?

I will try to arrange more than one person who has had a kidney removed.

That part should be organised by IIG. You should not even be aware how many they have placed in the test.

If I fail it adds to evidence that my claim would become falsified, if I pass it might add to the evidence that my claim would become verified (only "might", since the test conditions might not be adequate to support a claim, meanwhile less than adequate conditions may support falsification of a claim).

Which means it achieves absolutely nothing.
Especially as you are already expressing the possibility the test conditions might not be ideal!
If they aren't then you don't do the test or the IIG stops the test. You can't start blaming poor test conditions for useless results before the test has even been created! You are already giving yourself an out.

This is exactly why it does not seem as though you will ever conduct a test with any meaning whatsoever.

This Preliminary test will give me some practice and experience. To actually carry out a practice test will help in designing the actual official IIG test.

How? This shouldn't be complicated. You control for cheating, you make it statistically meaningful, you make it as practical as possible.

I do think it is a good idea to have an unknown number of persons with one kidney, ultimately, to actually prove a claim of seeing kidneys, this would be quite necessary on a test I think. Meanwhile, please allow me to have a simpler Preliminary test where I know how many persons with one kidney I am expected to find.

Why? If you have the ability this is pointless. If you don't have the ability it only makes it easier to guess.
Please explain why you would like to know the number of people with one kidney if it is a reason other than it greatly increases your odds of simply guessing.

Ashles you should know that this is a clear hit/miss kind of test!

You have invented what should have been clear hit/miss kinds of tests before into which you have introduced a confusing and unhelpful marking scale into.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am not saying that you would cheat, merely that such a thing would be possible.

If only her supernatural ability to see down the molecular level weren't blocked by an opaque sheet of thin cloth...Then again, her ability still works with a 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.

It's interesting how the above relates to what she wrote in the Interview thread...

The perceptions either come to me on their own, usually when it is the case of more serious health information whose "vibrational signature" is more loud than others, or the perceptions come about from a conscious effort I make to detect information. When I "download" information, this refers to a conscious effort when I reach into the vibrational information of a person's body. To do this I need to first look at the person with my eyes. It is often a very brief look. In almost all cases I will then either close my eyes or look away, and the images begin to form in my mind based on the vibrational patterns that I felt in the person. I close my eyes or look away to not be distracted by the ordinary sense of vision. However, I think I could continue to look at the person and would still be able to place my focus on the perceptions that form in my mind and choose to not let myself be distracted by real world images. So, the answer is, that the images will form whether I look away or not, but that I prefer to look away to have less of a distraction from other sources of information. You see, although the medical images are based on information in the real world, the medical images I am looking at are in my mind. Not in the world around me. That is why once I've formed the images it is helpful to look away, or to close my eyes to see them better.

The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation. However I can go from there and choose to look at structures in the body from any angle that I choose, and from any level of magnification that I want. I find that going deeper into organs, seeing the tissue structure, and individual cells, and molecular level, going into the atoms, that after the atomic level comes what I call the vibrational level of magnification, where all things appear to be vibrational structures, and I believe that this is what I am fundamentally perceiving, that forms the larger scale composite information. I can observe images from several angles and several levels of magnification simultaneously.

Often I detect the missing molar right away, because it is something that is "different", but I can also choose to search for it if I didn't detect it already. I do not know if I can detect all cases of missing molars, I do not have the experience to tell me that, but it is one of the types of information I think I am quite good at.

The images include relevant structures that involve the health information, which sometimes means that structures physically distant from one another in their location in the body are perceived in the same image, even though there becomes "unspecified space" in between the different locations. So those are some major differences: The images are three-dimensional, and only involve relevant structures. Also, the perception involves more than just the structures and shapes. I also perceive the texture of tissues, and information about what the problem is and other information that is not just visual. Also, the images are in color. But just like in MRI, I can distinguish the different types of tissues and layers.

I've also started to appreciate the appearance of the spleen, and the folds of the brain.

All this just doesn't make sense. She said she can work through a screen. Her human body scanning as she describes it is extremely effective. She can even see through the skull.

The only reason she is refusing to do test with the screen is because she knows that it would make the test far to easy to implement. With a screen we only need a few people since she will never see them. It could actually be done with two subjects. She already has Dr. Carlson, whom she knows she can read.

It's so incredibly simple...

 

[Giggywig]

GeeMack, please attempt to design an acceptable test protocol based on this fully testable and falsifiable claim of detecting which of persons is missing a kidney.

Why are you so focused on detecting who is missing a kidney? Does your ability only work with kidneys or does it work with other body parts? Can you distinguish between a fist and an open hand if they are behind a curtain? Because that would be so much easier to test.

 

[Farencue]

Obviously the jig is not up if Anita can go on and on and on for another 10 pages in this thread whining and shifting responsibility for her failures onto others.

The fact that it is so glibly announced that in 34 minutes, between postings on this thread, an "at home kidney detection test" was conducted, is an indication to me of how much time and effort is spent on jerking people around with mindless, inane, repeated attempts for attention.
The fact that there is no time spent on developing a protocol that resembles anything scientific is the evidence of aforementioned attention seeking antics.

JPL, is your wife blonde?
JPL, is your wife taller than 5 foot 4?
JPL, does your wife have a problem with one of her knees?
JPL, does your wife have pierced ears?
JPL, has your wife given birth to 2 or more children?

Obviously JPL does not need to answer those questions Anita, but imagine if he was so inclined.
Where does that leave your protocol for the preliminary test of the preliminary test?

My 12 year old could play your guessing games Anita without needing so much attention from anonymous people on the internet.

Finally, I cant believe that the JREF allow you to take up so much space on this forum with the same thing over and over again. You couldnt even write down that you "saw" Dr Carlson had a missing kidney in case you were wrong. Your own words Anita.
Dr Carlson has publicly said that he does NOT believe you have an ability worth testing. The same Dr Carlson you gushed about on your webpage.
It is extremely weird that anyone would want to take up more and more pages here with a childish guessing game for a missing kidney when it is public knowledge you failed.