VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Christian Klippel]

When the person was behind an opaque full-body screen I did perceive tissues and organs, but I had a hard time finding the kidneys.

As I have already said, with the full-body opaque screen the first perception of tissue I landed at was the layer of yellow fat tissue on the back beneath the skin, and after that what I saw was the heart. I was having difficulty with orientation in the body. I tend to see one thing at a time, rather than everything at once. Meanwhile if I can see the clothed back of a person, I can construct perception of the kidneys right away.

I do not see everything at once like in that picture, but rather one region of the body at a time. I can choose the depth from which I create images provided I have a sense of location and distance to the body.

Are you aware that you make no sense at all, and probably even contradict yourself here?

Let me explain your error here:

First you say you see the tissue, especially the fat layer. Then you go on and tell us that you see only a region of the body's inside. You tell us that you can somehow adjust how deep you look inside. But at the same time you want us to believe that you "loose orientation" when the person you look "into" is completely behind a screen/curtain?

Look, it's really simple. If you can do what you claim you can do, then you see the fat layer. Seeing that you already know how "deep" you are looking into the person. Then you look a bit deeper and find the heart. If you got that, it must be easy to find the kidneys. After all, at that point you do indeed already know where you are looking at.

Having two "landmarks", say, the heart and the lungs, that you find, must make it easy to "navigate" to certain places, like the kidneys.

After all it can be safely assumed that the persons behind the screen are always at the same position, gesture, and facing their back's towards you.

There is absolutely no logical reason to deny that. The only reason would be your desire to stall a workable protocol, give you an out. The only reason to demand seeing any part of the person directly, even when that person has a shirt or whatever, can only be for you to try to get perfectly mundane clues that involve no special ability at all.

Again, what you just wrote makes no sense at all in that cobination. I call that rubbish, as i call every of your claims.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I tried some more with a paper screen that shows the outline of the person who is behind it, and I conclude that I can't have any full-body screen on the test, whether opaque or whether it lets through the outline of the person. I ask that I am allowed to see part of the back of the person, and the remainder of the person may be screened off without any visibility of it.

Screens block out the "vibrational stuff" that I claim to feel, and in all fairness, if the claim were true and there was some vibrational substance across a person, most things are blocked to various extents by physical barriers. Can we proceed designing a protocol where I am allowed to see the (clothed) back of the persons?

If my claim is destined to become falsified, it is most likely to be falsified at this kind of preliminary test. And if I do pass the preliminary test, all it means is that I will then probably have to accept stricter protocols for the official test even though it reduces my capabilities.

 

[Kariboo]

Interesting, but I don't want to do that. I want a test where I describe how many kidneys I see.

Why?


According to you you think that 1. It will be difficult to find volunteers for the kidney test. 2. You are able to discern tissue behind a screen and tissue=person.

Why go for the more complicated version?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Interesting, but I don't want to do that. I want a test where I describe how many kidneys I see.

Of course you don't want to do that. However, you also don't want to do that kidney test. All you want is to propose tests that give you an opportunity to guess and/or cold/hot-read people. In no way you ever want to have anything really tested, because you know right from the start that you will fail. Due to lack of your claimed abilities.

If not, then please explain to us why you insist on an overly complicated kidney-test protocol, one where you build many flaws into, keep a lot of out's built in, and reject every sane suggestion to that test? Instead you could go with an very easy to set up test to check for person there/not there. But then, such a test would be so easy to setup and conduct that you can't play silly games for as long as you want. It would simply show your failure almost at an instant.

In short: you are not being sincere with us here. All you want is getting attention.

Not hard to guess why that is so.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Akhenaten]

When the person was behind an opaque full-body screen I did perceive tissues and organs, but I had a hard time finding the kidneys.

That's good enough for the body/no body test.


My main reason to prefer involving only 10 volunteers is because I expect it to be difficult for Skeptics to find volunteers.

That's why the body/no body test is better.


As I have already said, with the full-body opaque screen the first perception of tissue I landed at was the layer of yellow fat tissue on the back beneath the skin, and after that what I saw was the heart. I was having difficulty with orientation in the body. I tend to see one thing at a time, rather than everything at once. Meanwhile if I can see the clothed back of a person, I can construct perception of the kidneys right away.

Rubbish. If you sense living tissue that's good enough. We can eliminate the whole disorientation thing by using the body/no body test.


I do not see everything at once like in that picture, but rather one region of the body at a time. I can choose the depth from which I create images provided I have a sense of location and distance to the body.

Seeing any region will do. Depth is irrelevant. The location of and distance to the body/non body can be clearly indicated to you.


I humbly wrote that knowing that you guys all call what I do guessing. I call it perceiving, hence, guess/perceive to make both of us happy. I don't guess. I form my answers based on images and feeling I perceive.

You wrote what you wrote, and many a true word is spoken in jest. Your answers are formed on a whim.

 

[Ashles]

When the person was behind an opaque full-body screen I did perceive tissues and organs, but I had a hard time finding the kidneys.

But you can't be certain next time you you will even be able to detect a living human, let alone actual organs?

Hey it's just what you yourself have said.

You have declared the only time you have tried to detect someone behind a screen you could detect specific organs. Yet for some unknown reason you have concluded that you cannot with any reliability detect even just the presence of a living person behind a sheet?

It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever I agree, but it's your weird claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

Interesting, but I don't want to do that. I want a test where I describe how many kidneys I see.

Reality says "Can't have!" Deal.

 

[Paul2]

Interesting, but I don't want to do that. I want a test where I describe how many kidneys I see.

For no good reason relevant to the goal of proving that you have a paranormal ability. Please follow the logic below:

1. Detecting a person behind a full-body opaque screen would be paranormal;

2. Detecting tissues and organs, even unidentified ones, would allow anyone to determine whether a person was behind a full-body opaque screen; if any tissues or organs were perceived, a person would be behind the screen, and if no tissues or organs were perceived, a person would not be behind the screen;

3. You can detect a person behind a full-body opaque screen. You wrote, "When the person was behind an opaque full-body screen I did perceive tissues and organs, but I had a hard time finding the kidneys." (from post #518);

4. Therefore, there is no reason relevant to proving that you have a paranormal ability to see into bodies to reject a full-body opaque screen.

What am I missing?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Stop it people, I have already said that my perceptions are harder to make with a screen. I will NOT have a full-body screen on the test, nor should I have to. There are no silly body movements that translate from a person knowing that they have one kidney and that they are the target person. This is absurd. One is not supposed to be able to know how many kidneys a person has just by looking at their clothed back.

I will not test some other claim. The claim I want to test is detecting the number of kidneys in a person. I will not play remote viewing games with a person behind a screen. The claim is not remote viewing. The claim is to detect some vibrational information that is right around a person's body. And to detect it I must see the person's body, either the surface of the body or right at the everyday clothing that they have.

I have agreed to all conditions that I have been able to agree to. I have agreed to seeing one person at a time rather than all at once. I have agreed to not having a pre-determined number of one-kidney persons on the test. I have agreed to reduce the viewing time considerably. I will not consider other claims at the moment, and I will not have a full-body screen on the test. If you all can't conceive a test protocol that is acceptable for the preliminary testing of this claim and around that claim's limitations, then tell me so and I will take these discussions elsewhere.

 

[Ashles]

Screens block out the "vibrational stuff" that I claim to feel, and in all fairness, if the claim were true and there was some vibrational substance across a person, most things are blocked to various extents by physical barriers.

Didn't you say you could detect celebrities ailments from watching TV?

This is the third time I have asked this on this thread - it's more honest Anita if you don't try and avoid answering difficult questions.
I thought you were genuinely trying to learn the truth about your clamed ability?

If so you need to acknowledge inconsistencies in your story - you don't have to try to explain them (in fact one of your biggest mistakes in continually trying to), just acknowledge them.
It would make you appear more credible.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

When the person was behind the opaque full-body screen, I was able to see them leaning toward it, so I knew they were there. To ask me to remote view a person behind a screen is not my claim, and I have never experienced being able to remote view. Please respect what my claim is and its limitations.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I tried some more with a paper screen that shows the outline of the person who is behind it, and I conclude that I can't have any full-body screen on the test, whether opaque or whether it lets through the outline of the person. I ask that I am allowed to see part of the back of the person, and the remainder of the person may be screened off without any visibility of it.

Screens block out the "vibrational stuff" that I claim to feel, and in all fairness, if the claim were true and there was some vibrational substance across a person, most things are blocked to various extents by physical barriers. Can we proceed designing a protocol where I am allowed to see the (clothed) back of the persons?

If my claim is destined to become falsified, it is most likely to be falsified at this kind of preliminary test. And if I do pass the preliminary test, all it means is that I will then probably have to accept stricter protocols for the official test even though it reduces my capabilities.

If that is the case, then the whole test or protocol development is moot. Furthermore, it shows that you are lying to us.

Tell us, what is the difference between a person covered in a shirt, or standing behind a screen made of the very same material? Except for ability to pick up simple clues in the former, there simply is none. If you fail to "look through" a screen, then you must fail to "look through" a shirt. You can't have it differently, since that would make no sense at all. If the screen blocks that stuff, so would the shirt.

Take a radio for example. A radio can receive a transmission outside, it can receive it inside a building, it can receive it when wrapped in clothing. It does not have to see station that is emitting. Similarly, i can put the radio inside a shielded building to block it's reception. Then it doesn't matter if i put it in a large building, a small one, or wrap the shielding directly around the radio. It would be shielded. And yes, a radio also picks up "vibrational stuff", so to say.

So, it is either-or. If stuff works when covered directly in a certain material, then it ought to work when that material is hanging in front of it too.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Uncayimmy]

I humbly wrote that knowing that you guys all call what I do guessing. I call it perceiving, hence, guess/perceive to make both of us happy. I don't guess. I form my answers based on images and feeling I perceive.

What about all the trials with lactobacillus, photos, FACT readings, your study, and all the trials for induced information where you were wrong? Are you saying those weren't guesses? If so, doesn't that mean you cannot distinguish your ability from your imagination?

 

[Kariboo]

If you all can't conceive a test protocol that is acceptable for the preliminary testing of this claim and around that claim's limitations,

Making a testable claim is really up to you. If you want to convince a skeptic group somewhere that it has merit you better have one with less 'outs' for you. It is up to you to decide what you can reliably do and make sure that the results are an unambiguous pass or fail for everyone.

you seem resistant to look at ideas based on their merit for your protocol and you get upset if adjustments don't fit with your preconceived idea of how you'd like your test to go as opposed to having a test that is actually meaningful.

 

[Sun Countess]

Everybody's already addressed the concerns I have with Anita's proposed protocol.

As I have already said, with the full-body opaque screen the first perception of tissue I landed at was the layer of yellow fat tissue on the back beneath the skin, and after that what I saw was the heart. I was having difficulty with orientation in the body. I tend to see one thing at a time, rather than everything at once. Meanwhile if I can see the clothed back of a person, I can construct perception of the kidneys right away.

One question: Do you detect the presence of yellow fat tissue or a heart when there's nobody standing behind the screen?

If you already have a screen, it would be easy for you to practice this at home with your boyfriend or friends.

The only reason you want access to actual bodies is so that you can detect subtle signs that a person is a target of your test, just as Christian Kippel has stated. In order to find any one-kidney volunteers, you have to advertise for such. The person chosen is not blinded to the experiment and the likelihood of giving off subtle clues increases with the amount of time. Fifteen minutes is a long time to try to sit without moving a muscle. You may not be a good hot/cold reader, but that's definitely what you're trying to do.

Otherwise you'd go for the much easier full-body screen test. If you detect even one molecule of human tissue, mark "Person" on your questionnaire. If you can't detect anything at all after fifteen minutes, mark "No Person." That sounds a lot easier than looking for two small organs amongst all the other tissues.

 

[Ashles]

I will not test some other claim. The claim I want to test is detecting the number of kidneys in a person. I will not play remote viewing games with a person behind a screen. The claim is not remote viewing.

Actually it basically is.

You are claiming to be able to detect an object which is concealed from view.

By cloth (shirt) and layers of skin, fat tissue and ogans.

The claim is to detect some vibrational information that is right around a person's body. And to detect it I must see the person's body, either the surface of the body or right at the everyday clothing that they have.

So in essence you are simply flat out refusing to perform a different, much easier to set up and control test (which you have already claimed you could perform) without any decent reason.

Do you at least uderstand why people would much prefer this other claim and why it would be much easier to test?

Saying you won't perform another, easier to conduct test, just because... you don't want to, makes no sense.

 

[GeeMack]

Why go for the more complicated version?

Because she doesn't have the guts to actually do it at all. If she does she'll find out she doesn't have x-ray vision. As long as she prevents any testing she can play her silly look-at-me game forever.

Strange thing is, if she were to test her ridiculous claim there's some mathematical chance, however slim, that she could appear to succeed. As long as she refuses to undergo a rational (not that crappy kid's game she keeps proposing) test, she's a failure. Too bad that's all she'll ever be is a failure. Fails at being good. Fails at being bad. A normal, average, nothing special human being so desperate for attention she'd lie and create an elaborate fantasy to fool herself into thinking she's something. Well obviously she's only fooled one person. Maybe it's because there's only one person involved in this conversation who is ignorant enough to be fooled by her delusion?

Anyone want to bet $10 to their favorite charity that this test never occurs in a manner that provides any useful information?

 

[Akhenaten]

I tried some more with a paper screen that shows the outline of the person who is behind it, and I conclude that I can't have any full-body screen on the test, whether opaque or whether it lets through the outline of the person. I ask that I am allowed to see part of the back of the person, and the remainder of the person may be screened off without any visibility of it.

Screens block out the "vibrational stuff" that I claim to feel, and in all fairness, if the claim were true and there was some vibrational substance across a person, most things are blocked to various extents by physical barriers. Can we proceed designing a protocol where I am allowed to see the (clothed) back of the persons?

If my claim is destined to become falsified, it is most likely to be falsified at this kind of preliminary test. And if I do pass the preliminary test, all it means is that I will then probably have to accept stricter protocols for the official test even though it reduces my capabilities.

Why dont you try this excuse, from December, 2008:

I do however obtain information through materials. The air of course is a material, as are see-through glass or plastic containers. The information I reach in the human body is perceived through a layer of clothes, skin, and other tissues. Perhaps this is possible since the covering materials are connected, associated to, the object in question.

Link

 

[Uncayimmy]

When the person was behind the opaque full-body screen, I was able to see them leaning toward it, so I knew they were there.

Opaque - not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

Please resolve the apparent contradiction between the bolded parts and the definition above.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

My claim is detecting how many kidneys a person has, just by looking at the person. My claim requires that I see the clothed back of the person and I ask to see each person for 15 minutes. I will not be told how many one-kidney persons to expect on the test. A pass is a fail, and a full-body screen can not be used on the test, since my claim is not remote viewing.

Please don't suggest any other claims because I have chosen this specific claim of kidney detection and I believe that a person should not be able to detect the number of kidneys just by eyesight and I fail to see how a one-kidney person would twitch or otherwise to reveal that they in fact have one kidney.

Can we or can we not construct a test protocol for the preliminary test based on my claim and its limitations?