VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

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

* Subjects will be behind a screen.

From Post 328:

And yes, 3 feet away or more, with their entire body hidden from view except for their back with that section of their back covered with a thin shirt. Finally, we are getting somewhere.

So they are completely concealed apart from their shirt covered back. Presumably the rest of them is covered with some sort of curtain with a hole cut in?

* Subjects will only be used once.

Seems so, although in theory you could maybe use someone twice.

* A pass on a subject equals a fail.

I think it should be defined as a pass on a subject indicates no reading of anything unusual i.e. subject is considered to have 2 kidneys.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

For that matter, if she can see the spleen she can certainly reliably count the kidneys!

And yeah--whether or not the person is even there should be even easier! (Although we couldn't allow conditions she described--where the person was leaning back against a thin sheet.)

This business of being able to see through clothing (and many people wear multiple layers of clothing that are thicker than a typical bedsheet) but a sheet severely impairs the ability makes no sense at all. Has she ever failed because someone was wearing an undershirt and an outer shirt? (I thought she claimed she never failed!)

 

[Audible Click]

Hey! I might be a little brilliant, I thought of the paper screen.

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

Yes, i know that it has been proposed by some of us. However, i simply see flaws in that. Why to see a part of a person with a shirt on, instead of putting the shirt off ( or lifting it for the area in question) and having the curtain conceal the whole person? Logically there should be nor difference at all.

On the other hand, any body part, either bare skin or under a shirt, can give her a direct clue. like twitching. By seeing the outline or parts of the outline of a person, one could recognize if the same person is showed again or not. You know, anatomy and such. By having 15 minutes to look at a person, there are just too many hints/markers that can be given/memorized that way.

I would go even further and demand that in addition to no direct visual clues, there should be provisions that she doesn't get any audible clues too. So, deafen her using earplugs or/and sonic-shielding "headphones". You know, the way a person breathes or makes sound due to movements can give a hint. In fact, it should be impossible for a regular person to see/hear if there even is a person behind the curtain/screen at all. If she can do what she claims she can, then she should be able to first detect that there is a person, and further, see what's going on about the kidneys.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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.

Assuming that the cut-out region of the chair is not covered with anything since you did not mention it, how exactly would each person's back produce the same outline?

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

<snip>

Correct.

Please explain.

 

[Ashles]

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.

Wow. Well that doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever when we read your own accounts. But whatever.

Can't say I'm surprised though - any easy protocol curiously appears to be one of your strangely weak abilities.

 

[catbasket]

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?

Would the posters who insist on quoting the above please stop relentlessly bullying poor Anita.

/sarcasm

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey! I might be a little brilliant, I thought of the paper screen.

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

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

Sorry, but given that description, you are in no way looking at the person, but at the clothing of that person. Or a paper screen. You are not seeing the bare skin directly. So whatever it is that "vibrates" there, does so through the clothing and/or paper.

Therefore i see absolutely no reason to not have a full concealment of the person behind a thin curtain/screen, maybe with the shirt lifted up. In fact, the skin/person is concealed with your method too. The only difference is that with your proposed method, you are able to pick up physical clues due to twitching, movements, anatomy, etc.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Of course i mean physical clues that anyone else would be able to pickup, without the need for fantasy-like abilities.

 

[Agatha]

You can detect kidneys through clothing if you can see the person. You cannot detect a person if they are behind a screen.

What exactly distinguishes your claim from bogstandard, dime-a-dozen cold reading?

 

[Ashles]

Yes, i know that it has been proposed by some of us. However, i simply see flaws in that. Why to see a part of a person with a shirt on, instead of putting the shirt off ( or lifting it for the area in question) and having the curtain conceal the whole person? Logically there should be nor difference at all.

On the other hand, any body part, either bare skin or under a shirt, can give her a direct clue. like twitching. By seeing the outline or parts of the outline of a person, one could recognize if the same person is showed again or not. You know, anatomy and such. By having 15 minutes to look at a person, there are just too many hints/markers that can be given/memorized that way.

I would go even further and demand that in addition to no direct visual clues, there should be provisions that she doesn't get any audible clues too. So, deafen her using earplugs or/and sonic-shielding "headphones". You know, the way a person breathes or makes sound due to movements can give a hint. In fact, it should be impossible for a regular person to see/hear if there even is a person behind the curtain/screen at all. If she can do what she claims she can, then she should be able to first detect that there is a person, and further, see what's going on about the kidneys.

To a certain extent, although it is good experimental protocol, we must remember that any time Anita has done anything approaching a test she has failed completely, even when there were opportunities for cheating.

We haven't ever had any reason think Anita picks up on subtle clues or cheats or cold reads or anything like that. So far she has simply failed to get anything interesting correct.

I think we needn't worry too much about Anita picking up micro gestures etc.

No tactics of cheating are quite as concerning as the fact that the test is 1 in 10 if she picked a number out of a hat! The whole test is statisticaly meaningless anyway.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Assuming that the cut-out region of the chair is not covered with anything since you did not mention it, how exactly would each person's back produce the same outline?

Please try to keep up. We are talking about the paper screen, which you said is acceptable. You said that the outlines are too distinctive with someone standing/moving behind it, so we would still need lots of people. I just spoon fed you a simple protocol where the person is sitting in a chair with their kidney area exposed. This will present the same silhouette for everyone. Now we only need two people.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So they are completely concealed apart from their shirt covered back. Presumably the rest of them is covered with some sort of curtain with a hole cut in?

Yes.

Seems so, although in theory you could maybe use someone twice.

I don't think a volunteer can be used twice. Each back is a little bit different.

I think it should be defined as a pass on a subject indicates no reading of anything unusual i.e. subject is considered to have 2 kidneys.

Not really, but what ever. What ever reason a pass is made a pass is a fail. Moving on.

For that matter, if she can see the spleen she can certainly reliably count the kidneys!

Problem is it takes longer and I lose orientation in the body.

And yeah--whether or not the person is even there should be even easier!

No. There will always be a person and I say whether they have one or two kidneys.

This business of being able to see through clothing (and many people wear multiple layers of clothing that are thicker than a typical bedsheet) but a sheet severely impairs the ability makes no sense at all. Has she ever failed because someone was wearing an undershirt and an outer shirt? (I thought she claimed she never failed!)

The people will wear a single layer cotton shirt. Besides I tried it with a friend wearing a thick fleece jacket and I got lost in the jungle of sweater fibers!

On the other hand, any body part, either bare skin or under a shirt, can give her a direct clue. like twitching. By seeing the outline or parts of the outline of a person, one could recognize if the same person is showed again or not. You know, anatomy and such. By having 15 minutes to look at a person, there are just too many hints/markers that can be given/memorized that way.

I would go even further and demand that in addition to no direct visual clues, there should be provisions that she doesn't get any audible clues too. So, deafen her using earplugs or/and sonic-shielding "headphones". You know, the way a person breathes or makes sound due to movements can give a hint. In fact, it should be impossible for a regular person to see/hear if there even is a person behind the curtain/screen at all. If she can do what she claims she can, then she should be able to first detect that there is a person, and further, see what's going on about the kidneys.

How about we don't over complicate the preliminary test and if I pass the preliminary test then go ahead and make a very complicated official test, with people in an underground bunker and what else.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sorry, but given that description, you are in no way looking at the person, but at the clothing of that person. Or a paper screen. You are not seeing the bare skin directly. So whatever it is that "vibrates" there, does so through the clothing and/or paper.

Therefore i see absolutely no reason to not have a full concealment of the person behind a thin curtain/screen, maybe with the shirt lifted up. In fact, the skin/person is concealed with your method too. The only difference is that with your proposed method, you are able to pick up physical clues due to twitching, movements, anatomy, etc.

The difference is that with a full-body screen I lose my sense of orientation in the body.

 

[Christian Klippel]

To a certain extent, although it is good experimental protocol, we must remember that any time Anita has done anything approaching a test she has failed completely, even when there were opportunities for cheating.

We haven't ever had any reason think Anita picks up on subtle clues or cheats or cold reads or anything like that. So far she has simply failed to get anything interesting correct.

I think we needn't worry too much about Anita picking up micro gestures etc.

No tactics of cheating are quite as concerning as the fact that the test is 1 in 10 if she picked a number out of a hat! The whole test is statisticaly meaningless anyway.

True, indeed. However, let's just for a minute assume that she passes that test conducted according to that protocol, you can be damn sure that if it comes to the final test for 1 million bucks, the protocol will be tightened up anyways. Why then not directly go with a real, suitable protocol?

Tightening it later only gives another out in the form of "well, i prepared myself for that other test, so i failed now because it was changed!"

Not to say that there are not already enough other out's implemented in her protocol already.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Uncayimmy]

There seems to be a few new faces in this thread. That's great! It can be really difficult to keep up with everything, so I'm going to repost the following to help people better understand why things keep going in circles.

I consider myself an expert on all things VFF, so let me try to explain what I believe is really going on. She calls herself Vision From Feeling for a reason. Everything she does is based on a feeling. It's normal for people to "feel" that something is true. For example, if you see a kid fall down, you "feel" like he is pain. If you see someone jump suddenly, you "feel" like they are startled.

VFF takes this much further than most people. Take her tasting claims. When her boyfriend eats some chocolate ice cream, she "feels" that he is tasting chocolate and feeling cold. Through her imagination she makes herself taste the chocolate and sense the cold. Thus she concludes that she can taste and feel what he does.

When it comes to kidneys, she just imagines that she senses kidneys. In her imagination she conjures up imagery of what it looks like. If she believes he has two kidneys, she imagines two kidneys. Unfortunately, she is unable to separate reality from fantasy. She really does believe she is seeing inside the body.

Think about it. All of her inconsistencies could be explained by this. In fact, all of her claims can be explained this way. Read Desertgal's excellent essay about Anita's revolutionary war ghosts. What Anita "saw" was not based on reality but on popular fiction. Her imagination drew on what she knew.

When Anita tried to "see through" a sweater, she figured it would make her confused, so that's what happened. When she tried to see through a screen, it took longer because that's what she expected. I don't think she's lying - I think she cannot separate reality from fantasy.

Look at the other "tests" she has taken. She made all sorts of readings that were wrong, such as with F-A-C-T members and the photos. She saw whatever her imagination conjured up. It's not that her "ability" didn't work - it worked perfectly as far as she was concerned because she still created an image in her mind.

What about all those tests with the cups, clenched fists, and hands in buckets of ice? She felt in her mind that she knew, so she conjured up an image. She was wrong more often than she was right, but she doesn't acknowledge that this indicates that what she "sees" is not real. As long as she gets a Vision From Feeling, everything is working just fine. In her mind she's just not getting the right data.

If you examine her reasoning closely in regards to the kidney test, you'll see that it's all just her imagination at work. What we're fighting against here is her irrational belief in her imagination. If you look at it from her perspective, it all makes sense: If she sees a vision, it's working. If the vision is wrong, it's because she's not getting the right data for some unknown reason. If she sees nothing, then something is blocking the data.

Under these conditions no test will ever be created.

Look at what happened with the screens. Anita decided that a paper screen would allow her abilities to work because it would still require gathering 40 people. An opaque screen didn't work because that would mean only two people, and that's too easy to test.

Also, as she gets closer to arriving at a protocol, she again brings up the old, "my ability doesn't always work and that shouldn't count against me" routine.

So far, nothing has been shown to discredit my theory, and it makes accurate predictions.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles, the test will not be 1 in 10. The test will either involve more volunteers than that, or I will not be told how many one-kidney persons and how many two-kidney persons there are, so that I have to guess/perceive with each person. For instance, with a 1 in 2 chance with 10 people, the total odds of getting them all correct is 1 in 1024!

 

[Agatha]

The difference is that with a full body screen you have fewer opportunities to cheat.

The protocol needs to eliminate the possibility of cheating as far as possible. This is why you cannot be involved in finding volunteers (how many seconds would it take you to obtain a picture of JPL's wife, given that JPL has stated on another thread that he is Robert Lancaster's brother?), why you must not be given feedback after each run, why your opportunities for cold (or hot) reading must be eliminated.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The difference is that with a full-body screen I lose my sense of orientation in the body.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Are you trying to tell us that you can see inside a body, see it's organs and all that, but are unable to see if it upside down, or if you are looking at the left or the right side?

Remember, there can be markings that directly tell you where the person is standing. Like an outline drawn on your side of the screen. The persons would all stand at the same spot. And just for the sake of it, i think it is safe to assume that they stand on their feet, and not on their heads.

Really, you contradict yourself with almost every subsequent statement you make.

Greetings,

Chris