VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Sun Countess]

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.

Oh really? Try this experiment with a local daycare group. (Not really, but try to picture this scenario. ) Have a friend give a small pebble to one child and put it in his pocket. Then tell him that a lady is going to come by to guess which child has the pebble. "Try not to give it away!" I bet any one of us here could guess which child was holding the pebble, and we wouldn't need fifteen minutes to do it.

Adults may not behave exactly as children, but any person with a secret pebble is still going to give off subtle signals, completely unintentionally.

 

[Ashles]

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.

I'm sorry but you absolutely, undeniably have claimed exactly that.

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.

You claimed you could see inside the body of someone concealed behind a screen. This is remote viewing and in the one instance you have tried to do this (acording to your story) you not only could detect soeone behind the screen but you could actually see their internal organs.

Lying about posts you have made on this specific thread does not help you at all.

 

[Akhenaten]

I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab. We were given four unknown compounds that we had to identify through various chemical testing, melting point, IR and NMR spectra. By looking into the molecules, I could for instance clearly see biphenyl, and the nitrogen that was involved in two of the others was clearly detectable and a helpful clue.

Link


How can you remain oriented inside a molecule but not a human body?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

My perceptions of kidneys are not based on my expectations. I expected Dr. Carlson to have two kidneys, but I detected that the left one was missing. And I know my boyfriend to have two kidneys, yet I always see the left one first and have to look a while for the right one, even though I know it is there and I have seen it before.

Can a person really look at a person's clothed back and determine how many kidneys they have? I know that a full-body screen would be preferable, but since it reduces my capabilities, do we really have to have one?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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.

He was leaning toward the screen. The screen was a sheet. Therefore I knew that he was behind the screen. No contradiction.

 

[Sun Countess]

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

I would lose that bet. I would be willing to give $100 to my favorite charity if the test ever proceeds. I'll even scan my tax receipt and post it in a timely manner.

Anybody else willing to go in on charitable donations to spur the test into fruition? Think of all the money that Anita could indirectly raise if she actually goes through with a reasonable test.

 

[Akhenaten]

What decides how to determine the boundaries of things, for instance one cell from the others? Well, actually the entire human body can be perceived all together as one composite vibrational aspect. Or, I can find an organ and consider it being one vibrational aspect. Or a cell, or a structure, or even a chemical, or an individual atom. But relevant and adjoining things are linked together and their vibrational aspects are easy to perceive in combination.

Link


Please explain.

 

[Kariboo]

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?

Well when you put it like this, seems like you are all set to go. Now go work on this list of things you said you needed to do and then let us know when and where this thing will take place.

First of all I need to involve a Skeptics group. I will ask the FACT Skeptics first, and if they are not interested then I have contacted another southern Skeptics group and they have said that they might be interested in helping me with this preliminary kidney detection test.

Once I have a Skeptics group the first thing to do is to ask whether any of the Skeptics know of persons who are missing a kidney and several other persons who have both kidneys. As the claimant I can not have any involvement with the volunteers, however I would advertise for both one-kidney and two-kidney volunteers but they would not be given my contact information, but instead be referred to contact the Skeptics if they are interested in participating.

I will pay for and book a conference room. That should give a nice, convenient room without distractions.

I will buy material for the screen and build and place the screen. Participating Skeptics may help with that if they want to.

I will look for conference rooms on the internet, then call and check for availability and pricing. Set the date between me and the Skeptics well in advance and choose a room that is available on that date.

I will e-mail Jim Moury and Dr. Eric Carlson who are the organizers of the FACT Skeptics and ask them if FACT would like to work with me in this preliminary test. If they are not interested, I have already e-mailed another southern Skeptics group and they said they are interested.

Meanwhile before having the preliminary test, I will practice with various people I know to put myself through looking at kidneys for the amount of time that will be required for the test. If I do get tired or believe that there were any other conditions that reduced my ability I must clearly state that in advance before I receive the results. I have to promise that my ability was working as it should before I can be told what the results were, and, I will have incentive to want to receive the results because I am spending money on this test. And because I am investigating something here.

 

[Ashles]

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

We are still not clear on these 'limitations'.

It appears you can see through shirt material but not identically thin material made into a curtain?

Is that correct or incorrect?

The reason we are asking this because as it stands it appears you are okay to detect the kidneys of a volunteer who is sitting down - they are completely concealed by a curtain with a hole cut in it which reveals their back only - their back is covered with a shirt.

Is that correct as you are currently proposing?

So why is this different from someone sitting in the same place and position with a bare back who just has a solid curtain draped over them?

Please can you clarify this?

 

[jhunter1163]

I would lose that bet. I would be willing to give $100 to my favorite charity if the test ever proceeds. I'll even scan my tax receipt and post it in a timely manner.

Anybody else willing to go in on charitable donations to spur the test into fruition? Think of all the money that Anita could indirectly raise if she actually goes through with a reasonable test.

I'm in for $100 to the charity of Anita's choice if she ever proceeds with a test protocol designed and/or approved by the posters here.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It appears you can see through shirt material but not identically thin material made into a curtain?

I see through shirt material and I also see through identically thin material made into a curtain. The problem is not visibility, the problem is orientation in the body. I get lost among the tissues and organs and have a hard time finding the kidneys.

The reason we are asking this because as it stands it appears you are okay to detect the kidneys of a volunteer who is sitting down - they are completely concealed by a curtain with a hole cut in it which reveals their back only - their back is covered with a shirt.

That's exactly how I want to have the test.

So why is this different from someone sitting in the same place and position with a bare back who just has a solid curtain draped over them?

It is much harder for me to find the kidneys when the person is behind a full-body screen than if I am allowed to see part of the person, whether that part is clothed or not does not seem to matter. The problem is I lose my sense of orientation in the body. The problem is partially also access to the body. If I can see a part of the body, I have access to the vibrational information. If the person is behind a screen, it is harder to access.

Can we have a test where I am allowed to see the clothed back of the persons? It shouldn't be possible to know the number of kidneys in a person just by seeing their clothed back. The problem is at this point whether the volunteers would be giving off clues by their movement or posture. Is that really an issue for the preliminary test?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Do what you like Anita. It's your claim that's at stake. If you fail to demonstrate it, why would we care?

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.

All you need do is test for =/> 0. Binary choice. Simple. But you stamp your little cyber foot and refuse to do it.

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.

Doesn't much matter what you agree to. With nobody else backing your claims, you have nobody to agree with.

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.

And this would affect us how?


ETA: It may pay you to remember that you came here in the first place because another group sent you away to get a protocol. How many options do you have?

 

[Ashles]

I'm in for $100 to the charity of Anita's choice if she ever proceeds with a test protocol designed and/or approved by the posters here.

Count me out. I can just imagine her posting on her website that skeptics are actively paying to support her in her research.

It's up to her to sort this protocol out - we can only point out problems with it and potential improvements.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oh really? Try this experiment with a local daycare group. (Not really, but try to picture this scenario. ) Have a friend give a small pebble to one child and put it in his pocket. Then tell him that a lady is going to come by to guess which child has the pebble. "Try not to give it away!" I bet any one of us here could guess which child was holding the pebble, and we wouldn't need fifteen minutes to do it.

Adults may not behave exactly as children, but any person with a secret pebble is still going to give off subtle signals, completely unintentionally.

Reminds me of Derren Brown's "Lying Game".

Part 1:


Part 2:


Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ashles]

I see through shirt material and I also see through identically thin material made into a curtain. The problem is not visibility, the problem is orientation in the body. I get lost among the tissues and organs and have a hard time finding the kidneys.

But you have molecular 3-d vision.

From the interview thread.

Yes, and I do that most of the time. The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation. However I can go from there and choose to look at structures in the body from any angle that I choose, and from any level of magnification that I want. I find that going deeper into organs, seeing the tissue structure, and individual cells, and molecular level, going into the atoms, that after the atomic level comes what I call the vibrational level of magnification, where all things appear to be vibrational structures, and I believe that this is what I am fundamentally perceiving, that forms the larger scale composite information.

This really does not fit with your previous stories at all.

That's exactly how I want to have the test.

It is much harder for me to find the kidneys when the person is behind a full-body screen than if I am allowed to see part of the person, whether that part is clothed or not does not seem to matter. The problem is I lose my sense of orientation in the body. The problem is partially also access to the body. If I can see a part of the body, I have access to the vibrational information. If the person is behind a screen, it is harder to access.

You wil have exactly no more information about 'orientation' when they are wearing a shirt versus the sheet is draped over thm.

The only difference is you will see a different patch of cloth which will be their shirt.

So this does not make sense.

 

[Akhenaten]

I see through shirt material and I also see through identically thin material made into a curtain. The problem is not visibility, the problem is orientation in the body. I get lost among the tissues and organs and have a hard time finding the kidneys.

<sniip>

Your problem is solved!

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?

 

[Akhenaten]

There's a hål in the bucket, Anita, Anita,
There's a hål in the bucket, Anita,
There's a hål.

Then fix it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
Then fix it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, fix it.

With what should I fix it, Anita, Anita,
With what should I fix it, Anita, with what?

With a straw, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
With a straw, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, with a straw.

But the straw is too long, Anita, Anita,
The straw is too long, Anita, too long.

Then cut it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
Then cut it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, cut it!

With what shall I cut it, Anita, Anita,
With what shall I cut it, Anita, with what?

With an axe, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
With an axe, dear Ashles, an axe.

But the axe is too dull, Anita, Anita,
The axe is too dull, Anita, too dull.

Then, sharpen it, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
Then sharpen it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, sharpen it!

With what should I sharpen it, Anita, Anita,
With what should I sharpen it, Anita, with what?

With a stone, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
With a stone, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, a stone.

But the stone is too dry, Anita, Anita,
The stone is too dry, Anita, too dry.

Then wet it, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
Then wet it dear Ashles, dear Ashles, wet it.

With what should I wet it, Anita, Anita,
With what should I wet it, Anita, with what?

With water, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
With water, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, with water.

But how shall I get it?, Anita, Anita,
But how shall I get it?, Anita, with what?

In the bucket, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, dear Ashles,
In the bucket, dear Ashles, dear Ashles, in the bucket!

But there's a hål in the bucket, Anita, Anita,
There's a hål in the bucket, Anita,
There's a hål.​

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stop it people, I have already said that my perceptions are harder to make with a screen.

Yes--and we're making it MUCH easier for you by saying just determine whether someone is there or not. It's a much simpler test, and all you have to do is see any kind of tissue, something you already said you can readily do.

I will NOT have a full-body screen on the test, nor should I have to.

You don't have to do anything, but if you want to demonstrate your claimed ability, you pretty much 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.

This has already been covered. You merely add a statistical advantage and the possibility of using ordinary means of trying to distinguish whether a person has a kidney or not.

By the way, as you described it earlier (an unknown number of the 10 have only 1 kidney), the statistics you claim aren't so--you can safely assume that it's difficult to find volunteers with only 1 kidney, so you could probably beat the odds just by guessing 2 kidneys on each subject. This is yet another reason the person or no person test is preferable.

I will not test some other claim. The claim I want to test is detecting the number of kidneys in a person.

No. Your claim is that when you look at a person you can somehow perceive what it looks like inside his or her body.

I will not play remote viewing games with a person behind a screen. The claim is not remote viewing.

No--it's something we used to call "x-ray vision". You can see through clothes and skin and other tissue to discern internal organs. You've also said that you can do this through a full body screen, but you have difficulty with orientation (since you apparently know nothing about anatomy) and that it's hard to count the kidneys.

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.

Once again, you've altered your claim. That's exactly why you're not ready to "move on". You must state very specifically what your claim is. Once you do that, we should be able to come up with a way of testing that claim. We cannot come up with a way of testing the claim if every time we try to eliminate ordinary means of getting information you change your claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

12 December 2008

For some reason I was starting to lean toward finding other discussion sites.

Link


15 August 2009

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.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

 

[GeeMack]

My perceptions of kidneys are not based on my expectations. I expected Dr. Carlson to have two kidneys, but I detected that the left one was missing.

Once again, for anyone new to the discussion, this is not true. Anita didn't give kidneys even a passing thought until after she was done viewing Dr. Carlson. Then he informed her that he was missing a kidney. Then, after that, she claimed to have already known that. So you can take the word of a known liar who refuses to demonstrate reasonably and scientifically that she can indeed see people's innards with her super secret magic vision if you want. But it would take a mighty gullible person to fall for that, now wouldn't it?