VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

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

We don't know.

Anita is still carefully avoiding referring to any of the posts asking about this.

We don't know why.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who was the one in the middle again?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Who was the one in the middle again?

That was me and my skeptics. Locknar will always be the one in the middle. You can be the second from the left. Whose face we can't see. Because you've turned the wrong way so that I can't count your kidneys.

 

[Audible Click]

It seems we're at an impasse now.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Alright, moving on. A pass is a miss. The answer sheet has the following options:

Has both kidneys
Has left kidney, right kidney missing
Has right kidney, left kidney missing
Unable to determine

So even if I fail the test because I passed on too many, at least I can see how many of the ones where I did perceive the kidneys were correct. And I will arrange another test if I only failed because I passed on too many.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It seems we're at an impasse now.

We have always been at an impasse..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hello Anita ..

Can you detect if there is a living human being behind a paper screen ?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim. The same volunteers can not be used more than once, because even with a screen, their outline and movement can give clues as to who it is.

 

[Akhenaten]

Alright, moving on. A pass is a miss. The answer sheet has the following options:

Has both kidneys
Has left kidney, right kidney missing
Has right kidney, left kidney missing
Unable to determine

So even if I fail the test because I passed on too many, at least I can see how many of the ones where I did perceive the kidneys were correct. And I will arrange another test if I only failed because I passed on too many.

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?

 

[Audible Click]

Let me test my understanding of this. The protocol so far is:

* Subjects will be behind a screen.

* Subjects will only be used once.

* A pass on a subject equals a fail.

So is that what we have so far or is there more?

 

[Akhenaten]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim. The same volunteers can not be used more than once, because even with a screen, their outline and movement can give clues as to who it is.

In what way?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Alright, moving on. A pass is a miss.

Let's just clear this up before we "move on". Is your claim that when you look at a person you can see his or her insides enough to tell whether or not he or she is missing a kidney?

What are the specifics? We know you don't need them to be naked, so apparently this perception works through clothing. Can you do this through a screen if the person stands on two footprints or at least within a 2' x 1' rectangle?

As mentioned, if you can see their insides as per your claim, and you know even very basic gross anatomy, a skeleton or a person's viscera or circulatory system will give you plenty of information about location/orientation and outline. That's why it is of primary importance to nail down exactly what your claim is.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim. The same volunteers can not be used more than once, because even with a screen, their outline and movement can give clues as to who it is.

Seeing their outline or their movement goes directly and fully against the basis of your claim.

In no way you should be able to see the person or any part of the person behind the screen. Not directly and not any silhouette and not anything else. You should not be able the directly see if there is a person behind the screen at all.

Any possibility of you directly (eye-sighting the person or part of it) or indirectly (a silhouette) seeing anything behind the screen has just too much potential to give you any clues.

Again, you either can do what you claim, and that is looking inside a person, even through clothing (and as such through a screen), or you can't. Any attempt to overly complicate any protocol, imposing any requirement to see anything with bare eyes, makes the whole test invalid from the start.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim.

Not at all. Your claim is that when you look at someone, you can somehow perceive the insides of their body. Whether or not someone is there should be a less demanding task. (I'll give you a hint--if a person has no insides, that person is not there.)

 

[GeeMack]

Not at all. Your claim is that when you look at someone, you can somehow perceive the insides of their body. Whether or not someone is there should be a less demanding task. (I'll give you a hint--if a person has no insides, that person is not there.)

And the correct reply on the kidney counting test would be... zero.

 

[Ashles]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim.

Let's check back on this thread:

Post 127

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.

Nope, can't see any limitations there that indicate you couldn't detect a person.

You say

"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 seems like detecting simply a human present would be a doddle.

Where are the limitations of which you speak?

Shouldnt this test be miles easier for you?

In a very brief test (apparently no more than 34 minutes including setting up the test from scratch and writing a post here) you perceived lots of organs very quickly, and such a range of perceptions that you were led to make further assumptions about the ability.

Let me ask a question clearly then.

Are you saying that, despite your description of your experience with a screen above, your ability to detect just the presence of a human standing behind a sheet is actually weaker and less reliable than your ability to detect the specific number of kidneys a person has through a shirt?

 

[Ashles]

Seeing their outline or their movement goes directly and fully against the basis of your claim.

In no way you should be able to see the person or any part of the person behind the screen. Not directly and not any silhouette and not anything else. You should not be able the directly see if there is a person behind the screen at all.

Any possibility of you directly (eye-sighting the person or part of it) or indirectly (a silhouette) seeing anything behind the screen has just too much potential to give you any clues.

To be fair this aspect of the test has been suggested by some of us.

To be honest if every part of the person is concealed by a curtain except for their back, which is under a shirt, then this is as close to full concealment as we are likely to get.

Under this protocol you could in theory possibly repeat a volunteer.

 

[Akhenaten]

Alright, moving on. A pass is a miss. The answer sheet has the following options:

Has both kidneys
Has left kidney, right kidney missing
Has right kidney, left kidney missing
[Has no kidneys] *
Unable to determine

So even if I fail the test because I passed on too many, at least I can see how many of the ones where I did perceive the kidneys were correct. And I will arrange another test if I only failed because I passed on too many.

* The protocol is going to have to account for dead/not-actually-there people, isn't it?

 

[Uncayimmy]

The test will involve detecting the number of kidneys in persons. Not whether there is a person behind a screen, as that immediately goes against the limitations of my claim. The same volunteers can not be used more than once, because even with a screen, their outline and movement can give clues as to who it is.

I told you already that we can work around the issues with seeing outlines. Look at the images below:



We take an ordinary lawn chair that only costs a few bucks. We cut the back out of it so you have direct access to the kidney area. We attach something at the top to block the head. You will not be in the room when the subjects enter/exit the chair.

End result? The outline through the paper screen is identical for each person.

Remember how you used to call me brilliant? I'm even smarter now.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Let's just clear this up before we "move on". Is your claim that when you look at a person you can see his or her insides enough to tell whether or not he or she is missing a kidney?

So far I have perceived the kidneys in every person when I have tried but I am not sure I want to make the assumption that I would always perceive the kidneys. But for the sake of having this test I will say that a pass is a fail.

What are the specifics? We know you don't need them to be naked, so apparently this perception works through clothing. Can you do this through a screen if the person stands on two footprints or at least within a 2' x 1' rectangle?

I ask that I either see the clothed back of the person (and all other parts of the volunteer are screened off) or possibly that the entire person is behind a paper screen, which is lit so that the outline of the person can be seen. I am still testing the paper screen in between posts here.

Seeing their outline or their movement goes directly and fully against the basis of your claim. In no way you should be able to see the person or any part of the person behind the screen. Not directly and not any silhouette and not anything else. You should not be able the directly see if there is a person behind the screen at all.

My claim clearly states that I see images of tissues when I look at a person.

Any possibility of you directly (eye-sighting the person or part of it) or indirectly (a silhouette) seeing anything behind the screen has just too much potential to give you any clues.

Again, you either can do what you claim, and that is looking inside a person, even through clothing (and as such through a screen), or you can't. Any attempt to overly complicate any protocol, imposing any requirement to see anything with bare eyes, makes the whole test invalid from the start.

My claim is not remote viewing.

Are you saying that, despite your description of your experience with a screen above, your ability to detect just the presence of a human standing behind a sheet is actually weaker and less reliable than your ability to detect the specific number of kidneys a person has through a shirt?

Correct.