VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Akhenaten]

Revised Claim: I claim that when I have a medical perception of a person's kidneys, that based on that perception I can distinguish whether the person has one or two kidneys.

The claim is not that I will be able to always know how many kidneys a person has.

I have not experienced not being able to see the kidneys in a person, but I do require the option to pass just in case the perception does not form. The accuracy will be tested based on the perceptions. I will not be forced to guess.

Revised Claim: I claim that when I have a hallucination of an invisible pink unicorn, that based on that perception I can distinguish whether there are one or two invisible pink unicorns.

The claim is not that I will be able to always know how many invisible pink unicorns there are.

I have not experienced not being able to see invisible pink unicorns, but I do require the option to pass just in case the perception does not form. The accuracy will be tested based on the perceptions. I will not be forced to guess.

 

[Ashles]

Revised Claim: I claim that when I have a medical perception of a person's kidneys, that based on that perception I can distinguish whether the person has one or two kidneys.

The claim is not that I will be able to always know how many kidneys a person has.

I have not experienced not being able to see the kidneys in a person, but I do require the option to pass just in case the perception does not form. The accuracy will be tested based on the perceptions. I will not be forced to guess.

Then the test will not take place. End of story.

No skeptical organisation has any requirement to agree to test proposed paranormal clams that are effectively identical to chance.

It's odd, if the ability is suddenly so remakably unreliable it kind of makes us wonder what actually makes Anta think she ever had any ability in the first place.

Let's just remind ourselves of some of Anita's own words from 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.

This seems to contradict the 15-30 minutes wanted by Anita in this thread.

Unca specifically asked how long Anita required to form perceptions:

I think it depends on the strength of the vibrational information that forms the perceptions. Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately. And in cases where I have to search for information it takes a while longer for the perceptions to form, since the vibrational information is not as strong. Typically it takes from "no time" to a few seconds. Sometimes I spend up to a minute forming images very carefully, if I picked up on a hint of a health problem and want to work on forming the entire perception of it. It really takes very little time. But on a test I want to be allowed more time than it normally takes, just in case.

From "no time" to a few seconds?

It's interesting for anyone to reread that page and all of Aita's claims and descriptions, then copare it to where we are now on this test.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really, Anita--do you think JREF would hand over a million bucks if you did a zero wrong for zero perceptions "demonstration"? Surely not. So you've got to make a testable claim of your ability.

Can you reliable have a perception 6 out of 10 times? 8 out of 10 times?

If it's a power that comes and goes without rhyme or reason then there's no possible way of testing it (and no way to distinguish having such a power from not having it). Do you understand this last point? It's very important.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Which brings me to the question: Why do we need a paper screen in the first place? Obviously it would be better for the test, to control for various visual clues that could interfere and throw off the statistics, but one isn't supposed to see a kidney through the clothes and back of a person just by looking? And surely we wouldn't use the same persons twice on a test? Their specific outline and movements would give them away!

You give up too easily. We could figure out a way to reuse a person on a test with a paper screen.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From "no time" to a few seconds?

Funny--I was just thinking of the traditional way conventional vision testing is done. You look at the chart and read what you see.

Can you imagine someone claiming to have normal vision but requiring 15 minutes (or even 5 minutes) to perceive and double check the third row on the eye chart?

ETA: And then changing their claim to "I have normal vision except for sometimes when I need glasses."

 

[Uncayimmy]

I really don't expect to pass, I just want to have that option available just in case.

This is why you could never develop a protocol with the IIG in the first place, not your lack of a "specific condition" like you claimed yesterday. You will not be allowed to pass without it being a fail. That's just silly.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Any test that makes any part of the volunteer directly visible, or that makes a silhouette of the volunteer visible, is a no-opt in my opinion.

Imagine the following situation: A skeptics group goes out and looks for volunteers. At the same time VFF goes out with something like "You may be contacted by some people for a test. If you participate, and you have only one kidney, please twitch/move/whatever while i look at you. If i then win the $$$$, you get 5% of it. There is one million to grab. Don't tell anyone about me contacting you."

Sure, this may sound far-fetched, but it is a possibility. People can go to great lengths when there is some substantial amount of money to grab. Unless it can be 100% guaranteed that VFF has no way of contacting them, and never had any prior contact to them, anything that makes any part of the volunteer visible in any way is a no go.

Also, the requirement to see a part of the volunteer doesn't make any sense. She already said that she can look through clothing, so there is no reason that she can not look through a opaque, thin fabric screen. The volunteer's upper body half could be "fully exposed" behind that screen, i.e. he/she is not wearing any sweaters or whatever.

However, it is pretty clear that VFF does not want to get any real test at all. Suddenly her claim changed to "well, i see stuff sometimes". If nothing is "seen", then that is a miss. End of story. Either one can do something, or can't.

In general, i think that the test to detect _any_ person behind a screen is much more suitable. It is way easier to do, easier to verify and way shorter as to the time needed.

It's funny that VFF makes so many completely absurd claims, but when it comes to testing any of them, starts to obfuscate and complicate things. But then, no surprise. She can't do what she claim, and only wants some attention. Actually proving any of what she says she can do is an absolute no-opt. Because that would expose her claims for what they are: fantasy.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ashles]

I think this latest breakdown in experimental protocol makes this thread more relevant than ever.

Anita claims to be able to do so many things, all of which seem to become massively less reliable whenever any form of test is proposed.

In this thread she claims to be abe to detect the number of kidneys a person has.
How hard should this be to test.
Yet now even this claim seems to have fallen through due to Anita wanting to have the option to simply refuse to guess on any/all the volunteers.

So it would become a huge waste of time for all concerned except for Anita who would have had a hive of activity around her for a whole day.

How on earth did this claim come to this?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Revised Claim: I claim that when I have a hallucination of an invisible pink unicorn, that based on that perception I can distinguish whether there are one or two invisible pink unicorns.

The perception leads to not pink unicorns, but number of kidneys. And people do have kidneys.

 

[Ashles]

The perception leads to not pink unicorns, but number of kidneys. And people do have kidneys.

So, still pretending all the posts asking if you can detect the presence of a human behind a screen don't exist?

You might as well read them and respond - you just killed the kidney detection claim.

 

[Audible Click]

Anita we're trying to help you here. You must understand that wanting to pass on any of the subjects must equal a fail otherwise the practice test simply becomes a guessing game. IIG won't allow you to do that. As for your new statement that the "vision from feeling" that you have may not work all the time, well that statement means that you can never be tested scientifically. The ball is in your court and maybe you should explore Dr. Res's suggestion.

 

[Akhenaten]

The perception leads to not pink unicorns, but number of kidneys. And people do have kidneys.

How do you know?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The perception leads to not pink unicorns, but number of kidneys. And people do have kidneys.

How do you know?

Because I can see kidneys that's why.

 

[Akhenaten]

So, still pretending all the posts asking if you can detect the presence of a human behind a screen don't exist?

You might as well read them and respond - you just killed the kidney detection claim.

Perhaps it was missed in the haste to get the goalposts into their new position. Someone should repost the suggestion.

It seems that we have overlooked probably the easiest test that could be done.
Use a full screen and VfF has to tell if there is someone on the other side or not.
10 trials and only once in the 10 trials will there be no one behind the screen.

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

That will probably keep happening. There's something stuck in my clipboard.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Because I can see kidneys that's why.

Except when you can't.

 

[Akhenaten]

Because I can see kidneys that's why.

Evidence?

 

[Agatha]

Because I can see kidneys that's why.

Except when you can't - and that is what makes this claim untestable as it stands.

 

[GeeMack]

Of course you don't want to make the test easier for me to pass, but meanwhile surely you understand that it is in the interest of the claimant to ask for a test that best allows for her claimed ability to come through, within the limitations of ensuring a proper test.

And that's the kind of nutty thing you keep saying that makes everyone realize your whole project is a crock of crap. Take a science course. Pass it. Come back when you get it. Right now you don't get it.

What if I have medical perceptions but not always? I don't know that.

We know you're not willing to find out if you ever do.

Revised Claim: I claim that when I have a medical perception of a person's kidneys, that based on that perception I can distinguish whether the person has one or two kidneys.

The claim is not that I will be able to always know how many kidneys a person has.

I have not experienced not being able to see the kidneys in a person, but I do require the option to pass just in case the perception does not form. The accuracy will be tested based on the perceptions. I will not be forced to guess.

A correct guess is a hit and an incorrect guess or a pass, is a miss. That's it. And if there is no person behind the screen and you guess 1 or 2 kidneys, that's a miss, too. And it might be the same person behind the screen over and over. And there might not be even one person in all the subjects who is actually missing a kidney. That's science. If you're not tough enough to deal with it, if you want to play how-many-fingers-am-I-holding-up-behind-my-back, go away until you grow up, kid.

And if you say you can do it with clothes but can't do it with a screen, given there have been several reliable methods offered where you can know the exact location of the person behind a screen, then you can't do what you've claimed, and you are a 100% failure. At science. At math. At your claim. At pulling this whole BS hoax. Fail. 100%.

 

[Sun Countess]

Any test that makes any part of the volunteer directly visible, or that makes a silhouette of the volunteer visible, is a no-opt in my opinion.

ITA.

Imagine the following situation: A skeptics group goes out and looks for volunteers. At the same time VFF goes out with something like "You may be contacted by some people for a test. If you participate, and you have only one kidney, please twitch/move/whatever while i look at you. If i then win the $$$$, you get 5% of it. There is one million to grab. Don't tell anyone about me contacting you."

Sure, this may sound far-fetched, but it is a possibility. People can go to great lengths when there is some substantial amount of money to grab. Unless it can be 100% guaranteed that VFF has no way of contacting them, and never had any prior contact to them, anything that makes any part of the volunteer visible in any way is a no go.

It doesn't even require such a far-fetched scenario. The one-kidney person KNOWS that he or she is the target and will twitch involuntarily in a different way than the nine decoys, especially with a stranger staring at him/her for 15 minutes.


What's wrong with the full body screen and having Anita detect whether there's a male, a female, or nobody behind it.

 

[Ashles]

Because I can see kidneys that's why.

But Akhenaten can see invisible pink unicorns.

He said so.

He can repeat the claim mutliple times if you like, and in bold and in larger fonts.
He can even use smilies if it will make his claim more credible to you.

And he has exactly as much evidence for this claim as you do for yours.

Your concept of magically viewed kidneys bear no more resemblance to reality than Akhenaten's invisibe pink unicorns.

At the moment his claim is exactly as credible as yours. Exactly.