VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Akhenaten]

This is my strongest claim.

It's not doing very well is it? How do you rate your chances with your other claims?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Either accept that my claim is detecting which of persons has had a kidney removed or get out of this thread and stop posting things that are thus regarded as off-topic and are getting in the way of working out a test protocol and having the preliminary testing take place.

We're not at your beck and call, Anita. Nobody owes you anything. You should be more polite to people when you ask for their help, especially when you repeatedly ignore it.

Besides, your "claim" is ridiculous. You've only done this one time (allegedly). Remember when you said you detected a vasectomy? Later you told us that was a one time thing and that you couldn't use it for a test. How do we know you're not gonna pull the same thing again? You didn't retract your claim when you failed to detect more vasectomies, so why should kidneys be any different?

Your "claim" about detecting a missing kidney is really just a demonstration of a larger claim for which you have given us numerous other anecdotal demonstrations. Right now because of all the silly restrictions you put on this particular demonstration, the best protocol design means choosing another demonstration.

You can't pretend like you just waltzed in here claiming to detect missing kidneys and pretend you haven't made dozens of other claims nor can you ask us to pretend as much. Nobody is bringing up anything new - it's all stuff that you have told us.

If somebody says, "I can play musicial instruments. I will demonstrate it by playing a cello while jumping out of airplane with a full orchestra as we play "Flight of the Bumblebee" shouldn't we be allowed to suggest a simpler demonstration?

I have FINALLY agreed to ONE specific, testable claim and now all this? What is it saying about you Forum "Skeptics"?

What do you mean by agreed? It's not like we suggested it and you agreed to it. This is coming from you, not us. You say it is testable, and we're telling you it is highly impractical to test. You reject every suggestion that makes it simpler. Furthermore, you have "agreed" to do many things including other tests, but you have broken every promise.

If you must know, the forum skeptics are not letting you feed us a load of bull.

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is my strongest claim.

Your strongest claim is one which you failed to demonstrate under controlled conditions?

 

[Pup]

I may have missed this already being discussed, but has there been any talk about identifying which kidney is missing (right or left)? It would double the odds.

 

[Agatha]

Either accept that my claim is detecting which of persons has had a kidney removed.. <snip>

Your claim is detecting a person who has had a kidney removed - rather than someone who was born with one kidney? Let's be precise here, is there a difference as far as your "perceptions" are concerned?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Detection of which of persons is missing a kidney is the strongest and most testable aspect of my claim of medical perceptions, and I have submitted that claim to the IIG and will have a test with them. Meanwhile I am arranging to have preliminary testing, especially since I have only had one past experience of detecting that a kidney was missing. I have outlined the claim and the requirements and limitations of that claim and have suggested a test protocol. If anyone wishes to take part in developing that protocol I would be grateful. Meanwhile, negative bickering and attempts of side-tracking me away from taking this final, conclusive, and falsifiable test will simply be ignored.

You guys are nothing but negative, angry, hostile, bickering pretend-Skeptics, insisting that I agree to testing things that are not my claim and insisting that I involve test details that block my claimed ability. Meanwhile I have presented a testable claim and it is fully possible to design an acceptable protocol around it.

Unproductive hostile comments that serve no purpose in bringing this claim to a test are referred to UncaYimmy's website.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I may have missed this already being discussed, but has there been any talk about identifying which kidney is missing (right or left)? It would double the odds.

Actually, the plan now is to take samples from a removed kidney, dry it, crush it, add some dye, and then mail it to Anita so she can tell us the owner's eye color.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I may have missed this already being discussed, but has there been any talk about identifying which kidney is missing (right or left)? It would double the odds.

Useful only if the prevalence of right vs. left kidney removals is determined. For instance, what if 90% of all kidneys removed for donation are the left kidney? Then I should not receive extra points for "knowing" that it was the left kidney that was removed. Meanwhile, even if the significance of correctly predicting which of kidneys was removed can not be worked into the protocol, I could still mention which I perceive it is and if I am wrong then at least that provides evidence that can be added toward falsification of the claim.

If that makes sense.

Your claim is detecting a person who has had a kidney removed - rather than someone who was born with one kidney? Let's be precise here, is there a difference as far as your "perceptions" are concerned?

Injuries and artificial changes to the body give off a stronger vibrational signature since they are "out of balance" and "not smooth". I would imagine that simply being born without a kidney still looks natural and all blends in. I do not know that. That is why I would hope to involve only persons who have had a kidney removed just in case.

 

[Agatha]

Shouldn't you have researched whether one or other kidney is preferentially removed?

 

[Akhenaten]

Meanwhile, negative bickering and attempts of side-tracking me away from taking this final, conclusive, and falsifiable test will simply be ignored.

I insist that you present evidence of "negative bickering" and attempts of side-tracking.

You guys are nothing but negative, angry, hostile, bickering pretend-Skeptics, insisting that I agree to testing things that are not my claim and insisting that I involve test details that block my claimed ability.

This thread has remained particularly focussed on the claim and test proposed in the OP.

What you perceive as negative, angry and hostile bickering is simply the abject failure of your arguments to convince anyone of the worth of your endeavours.

What you claim as off-topic is in fact the presentation of evidence that demonstrates the continued futility of attempting a workable protocol. If that evidence is sourced elsewhere, then so be it.

It is NOT for you to try and dictate the nature of the skepticism displayed by other posters.

It is NOT for you to try and dictate the nature of the evidence that is presented against your arguments.

It is NOT for you to try and dictate.

 

[Kariboo]

If anyone wishes to take part in developing that protocol I would be grateful. Meanwhile, negative bickering and attempts of side-tracking me away from taking this final, conclusive, and falsifiable test will simply be ignored.

You guys are nothing but negative, angry, hostile, bickering pretend-Skeptics, insisting that I agree to testing things that are not my claim and insisting that I involve test details that block my claimed ability. Meanwhile I have presented a testable claim and it is fully possible to design an acceptable protocol around it.

Unproductive hostile comments that serve no purpose in bringing this claim to a test are referred to UncaYimmy's website.

How about you start responding to questions directly related to your protocol? Like:

How will you find volunteers? Since it has to be a double blind study, you cannot be involved in this, nor can anyone of your friends.

Where will the test be?

How will you get the room set up: i.e who is going to buy curtains and hang them?

How will you find a space?

How will you fund all of this?

How will you find skeptics to help you?

How will you prove that people have 1 or 2 kidneys?

How do you know you won't get so tired that you cannot do the test. Especially since this is a forced choice test and according to you:
Quote:
The cereal tests required that I make forced attempts to detect the bacteria, rather than detecting it on its own as is normally the case, and also to make forced detection repeatedly over a period of several minutes up to an hour. I started to develop strong headaches and nausea <> I am however reluctant (or even fearful) of having more cereal type of tests, including coin detection and other chemical detection tests of this type since they make me very uncomfortable.

What will you do with the volunteers before/during/after the test? Since it has to be double blind they can not talk to you/friends/each other etc

How will you exclude any excuses after the fact?
How will you exclude any excuses during the fact?
How will you exclude any excuses before the fact?

 

[Akhenaten]

Unproductive hostile comments that serve no purpose in bringing this claim to a test are referred to UncaYimmy's website.

By whom, Your Imperial Majestickness?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Detection of which of persons is missing a kidney is the strongest and most testable aspect of my claim of medical perceptions, and I have submitted that claim to the IIG and will have a test with them. Meanwhile I am arranging to have preliminary testing, especially since I have only had one past experience of detecting that a kidney was missing.

Can you see how stupid you sound? You've claimed to have had these magical abilities for at least a decade, right? You have shared countless anecdotes about your abilities. Up until last December you had never once detected somebody missing a kidney. Now, seven months later after you failed to detect it in a controlled test, you start telling us that it's your strongest claim?

I call ********.

Meanwhile, negative bickering and attempts of side-tracking me away from taking this final, conclusive, and falsifiable test will simply be ignored.

If you fail this test, which of the following claims will be falsified?
* Seeing internal organs
* Seeing the brain
* Hearing blood flow
* Sensing pain
* Tasting what others eat
* Remote smelling
* Urine analysis (specific to each person)
* Full bladder detection
* Health and body chemistry differences between blacks and whites
* Chemical identification
* Getting "high" by looking at drugs in a microscope
* Bacteria sensing
* Detecting medicinal properties of foods and plants
* Analyzing chemicals in insects
* Communicating with insects
* Seeing ghosts
* Talking to ghosts
* Touching ghosts
* Telepathy
* Being a star person
* Healing the sick
* Sensing animals unseen
* Detecting what someone recently ate
* Detecting color blindness (thought we forgot about that, huh?)

Meanwhile I have presented a testable claim and it is fully possible to design an acceptable protocol around it.

Then why do you need our help?

Unproductive hostile comments that serve no purpose in bringing this claim to a test are referred to UncaYimmy's website.

Why do you call my site a "fan site" on your website?

 

[Kariboo]

Meanwhile, even if the significance of correctly predicting which of kidneys was removed can not be worked into the protocol, I could still mention which I perceive it is and if I am wrong then at least that provides evidence that can be added toward falsification of the claim.

No, It falsifies your claim. period. Unless you accept that there is no use in testing.

njuries and artificial changes to the body give off a stronger vibrational signature since they are "out of balance" and "not smooth". I would imagine that simply being born without a kidney still looks natural and all blends in. I do not know that. That is why I would hope to involve only persons who have had a kidney removed just in case.

How do you know? Also this makes the use of an ultrasound unnecessary. If you pick out someone who has not had surgery as the one with the 1 kidney it falsifies your claim, Right?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If you pick out someone who has not had surgery as the one with the 1 kidney it falsifies your claim, Right?

Only if that person was not born with one kidney. My claim is to detect which of persons has one kidney, but I would hope to only involve persons who have had a kidney removed on the test. It is not an out; it is an inconvenience (that some persons were born with one kidney) that I will have to correct for at my own expense.

 

[Paul2]

From my post #274

VFF, have your forgotten about my idea (with some slight expansions below)?

1. subjects in bathing suits that do not cover the area where the kidney is
2. thin, opaque screen
3. marks on the ground or the screen that specify where the subject is standing
4. subject stands as close to the screen as possible without touching it (facing away from the screen or facing it, per your preference, specified before the test)

This eliminates the need for more than two volunteers, per UncaYimmy's protocol.

What's the problem with this?

 

[Kariboo]

Only if that person was not born with one kidney. My claim is to detect which of persons has one kidney, but I would hope to only involve persons who have had a kidney removed on the test. It is not an out; it is an inconvenience (that some persons were born with one kidney) that I will have to correct for at my own expense.

But you do agree that if you pick a volunteer that is not the one with the kidney removed it falsifies your claim?

 

[Agatha]

The problem appears to be (and doubtless VfF will correct me if I am wrong) that VfF can see through clothes, but not through a screen.

Now, some people might say that this implies cold (or hot) reading. I couldn't possibly comment. [/Urquhart]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When I look at people I perceive images in my mind that depict the inside of their bodies,
<snip>

Once the ten persons are settled I will take a seat behind their row a few feet behind them. I have four hours to look at them.

The long duration given in the protocol (even if it's "only" 2 hours) is at odds with your claim.

So when you look at people, do you perceive these images or not?

The long duration seems to be a way to separate out people who can sit in a chair that long from those who cannot. As stated, your protocol opens up the possibility of discerning who is missing a kidney by normal rather than paranormal means.

Is there any reason you can't do the task in 5 minutes?

If not, would you care to change your claim, "When I look at people I perceive images. . . "?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Useful only if the prevalence of right vs. left kidney removals is determined. For instance, what if 90% of all kidneys removed for donation are the left kidney? Then I should not receive extra points for "knowing" that it was the left kidney that was removed.

There are no extra points for anything. There is one point for doing what you claim.
If you can view a kidney inside the body, what prevents you from determining which side it is on ?

Meanwhile, even if the significance of correctly predicting which of kidneys was removed can not be worked into the protocol, I could still mention which I perceive it is and if I am wrong then at least that provides evidence that can be added toward falsification of the claim.

If that makes sense.

If you can't see what side it's on, what makes sense, is that you cannot do what you claim.

Injuries and artificial changes to the body give off a stronger vibrational signature since they are "out of balance" and "not smooth". I would imagine that simply being born without a kidney still looks natural and all blends in. I do not know that. That is why I would hope to involve only persons who have had a kidney removed just in case.

What does that have to do with where the Kidney is located?

You claim to be detecting the kidney, if this doesn't include it's location, then all the crap about a screen or clothing interfering is nonsense..