VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[GeeMack]

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.

Not ready. Aye. That seems to be the consensus view among the sane people in this discussion.

 

[Audible Click]

=VisionFromFeeling;
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.

You're perfectly free to try to design your protocol somewhere else but if you go to another skeptics site then you will run into the same protocol design problems that you do here on the JREF. No true skeptic group is going to sign off on a blatently flawed protocol. Your other choice would be to just make whatever protocol you want and go arrange it even if it is not up to any scientific standards.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

We all have conceived protocol after protocol that was reasonable and met your limitations. Or did, until you changed the limitations. Then changed again. Then remembered some detail you'd forgotten. Then demanded some arbitrary crap to make a useful protocol useless. Then added a couple more stipulations to make it less practical to ever perform the test... etc... and so on...

And that's why I (and several others) asked many pages ago if you would define your claim and describe any details that you could think of that might be problems. And you said you had. And said it again. And again. But you clearly still aren't willing to define your claim and describe, in detail, everything you think might be issues with testing it. Because sure as shootin', as soon as you say you've done it, and someone else fixes the protocol to suit your latest whim, you'll add some other piece of bogus limits to your limitations.

And at the rate you're making up crap to stall the process, it's obviously not going to happen. Which is cool because that's exactly what you want. Then you can continue to cling to your fantasy and maybe go begging for attention at other Internet forums... that is until you run out of forums and are recognized as the laughing stock of Internet paranormal claimants. It'll happen sooner than you think. You've already made yourself the object of ridicule here because of this sham of a kidney counting guessing game you want to play.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, you did not answer this very important question. Specifically, if you ever take a kidney test, what claims will you announce as having been officially falsified? Are we going through all this trouble just to learn that only your claim about detecting missing kidneys has been falsified? After all, you've only ever done it one time. I wouldn't expect a normal person to have performed any extraordinary (but still not paranormal) feat just one time to be able to repeat it at will.

If you fail this test, which of the following claims will be falsified?
* Seeing internal organs
* Seeing the brain
* Hearing blood flow
* Sensing pain
* Tasting what others eat
* Remote smelling
* Urine analysis (specific to each person)
* Full bladder detection
* Health and body chemistry differences between blacks and whites
* Chemical identification
* Getting "high" by looking at drugs in a microscope
* Bacteria sensing
* Detecting medicinal properties of foods and plants
* Analyzing chemicals in insects
* Communicating with insects
* Seeing ghosts
* Talking to ghosts
* Touching ghosts
* Telepathy
* Being a star person
* Healing the sick
* Sensing animals unseen
* Detecting what someone recently ate
* Detecting color blindness (thought we forgot about that, huh?)

Feel free to quote the above and bold the ones that will be falsified.

 

[Prometheus]

How about:

1) The subjects are wearing camouflage patterned clothing and presented in front of a similarly patterned waving background curtain, making it difficult to discern movement of the subjects;

2) The subjects are presented three at a time, but only one is randomly chosen as the target;

3) The subjects are blinded as to which of them is the target.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Natasha Demkina got a test, why can't I?

We might learn something from Natasha Demkina's test of a claim similar to mine. Her claim of having X-ray vision to see inside people's bodies and describe health problems was tested by CSICOP in May 2004. I apologize to the authors for liberal copying verbatim but I find that as a claimant anything I write in my own words is questioned.

Excerpts from: Natasha Demkina The Girl with Normal Eyes
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/demkina.html
by Andrew Skolnick

Seven volunteers were used for the test.

We wanted a test that would prevent Natasha from making diagnoses that could not be disproved

One or two kidneys can be disproved. At my expense of an ultrasound.

We wanted to conduct a blinded test. Natasha claims to see through people's clothing, yet she says she cannot see through a fabric screen, which we wanted to use to prevent her from seeing the test subjects.

I hear you.

We found this unexplained contradiction curious-and frustrating:

My Skeptics hear you.

Any test she would agree to would have to allow her to study the test subjects using her normal senses. As Hyman points out, this study flaw alone could provide an astute person powerful clues about a person's health problems.

About number of kidneys?

It would be less of a problem if we were able to recruit subjects who were physically and demographically similar. Unfortunately, we had great difficulty recruiting subjects for the test and had to settle for several people with characteristics that suggested their target conditions.

Lucky for us, physical and demographic similarity is not obvious just from looking at their clothed backs. And no one really has characteristics that suggest the number of kidneys. Provided we use healthy kidney donors and not persons who have had to have a kidney removed due to illness. The reason people donate a kidney is due to a choice, and past choices can not be discerned just by looking at a person.

it took her more than four hours to complete the test and, inexplicably, she took an hour to examine the seven subjects before deciding which one was missing a large part of her left lung! She guessed that one correctly, but why would anyone who claims to be able to see "every cell" inside a person take an hour to decide which person was missing a large portion of one lung?

Especially when one could receive clues just by looking at people face-on and at how they are breathing. Luckily, body movements such as breathing do not reveal how many kidneys they have.

Natasha matched only four of the conditions correctly-a score that everyone prior to the test had agreed would not justify further testing. Natasha's most dramatic misdiagnosis was her failure to see a large metal plate covering a missing section of skull in a man who had a large brain tumor removed. Instead, she indicated that she "saw" a metal plate and missing skull section in a man who had his appendix removed but a normal skull.

_____________________________________________________​

Excerpts from: Testing Natasha
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html
by Ray Hyman

Natasha can see through clothing, but not see what someone is holding behind their back. She cannot see inside people if she shuts her eyes. Daylight is better. She does not need to talk to them to diagnose.

Same as the conditions of my claim.

She says that she can examine the whole body, but it can give her a bad headache if she does too much.

Same as the conditions of my claim.

The evidence supporting Natasha's abilities comes from selected anecdotes of reactions to her readings.

Mine are just anecdotes and not other people's reactions to my readings.

No matter how subjectively compelling, the context of such readings makes it impossible to separate how much of the apparent success is due to such possibilities as: guessing; external clues from the client's physical appearance and observable behavior; feedback from the client's spoken and bodily reactions; or actual paranormal powers.

Same problem with my anecdotes.

Although psychological research has documented how humans frequently provide unconscious clues to their current thoughts and emotions, most people seem unaware of this possibility. The research also shows that subtle clues can influence us without our consciously realizing it.

We made sure to include in the protocol the statement that the "test is not in any way a definitive test. Deciding the truth of Natasha's claims with comfortable certainty is too simple and brief. It can only help to decide whether further studies of Natasha's claimed abilities are warranted."

And I would like such a preliminary test for myself too.

Even under ideal circumstances this test could not clearly decide if Natasha does or does not have X-ray vision. Any scientific hypothesis-especially a paranormal one-cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by one test or one experiment. Scientific investigation requires a series of experiments. Each new experiment builds on the results of previous ones. The more we learn from the early experiments, the better we can understand what we need to control and what we can safely ignore. If the hypothesis is implausible and/or controversial-as Natasha's claim certainly is-then the original investigators must replicate their findings. In addition, independent investigators must also replicate the findings before they gain scientific credibility.

We knew that our test could not distinguish between two possibilities: (1) she can make correct matches using external clues; or (2) she can make correct matches using paranormal X-ray vision. The alternatives we could control or reduce were that she gets correct matches just by luck or that her correct matches are due to those factors that make vague statements seem like hits.

We used all our resources to obtain seven subjects. If we had been trying to test for a moderate or weak effect, we would have had to use many more subjects. Our test, then, was aimed at detecting a large effect. We reasoned that if she possessed the reliability of diagnosis that her proponents claimed, our test would reveal this. Such an effect would encourage us to investigate her abilities in more detail.

I would like to get started with something with this intent, too.

The outcome of the test could be from zero to seven correct matches. We set the criterion for success at five correct matches.

If we disregard any additional clues about health information that might throw off the probability of guessing, what were the odds that she get five out of seven correct by guessing?

Although Natasha's mother says that her daughter never makes a mistake, we did not want to demand that Natasha perform perfectly. We wanted to give her some margin for error.

Could I get a teensy-weensy margin of error too? Just a little one?

Keep in mind that if she got five or more correct this would be consistent with her having the X-ray power that she claims. Yet it would also be consistent with the possibility that she was matching the target condition by normal means such as the appearance and behavior of the subjects.

Yet she was given a test. So why would I not be?

Richard Wiseman, Andrew Skolnick, and I [Ray Hyman] collaborated in designing the test. We arrived at a mutually satisfactory plan after exchanging several e-mails. The task of finding appropriate subjects, and coordinating the many details was left to Andrew. He had less than one week to accomplish all this. He had to do this from Amherst, more than 350 miles from New York City.

I wonder if Mr. Skolnick would like the honor of finding some volunteers for my test?

During the test, we seated the seven subjects in a semicircle facing the chair where Natasha sat.

My protocol is much better already. The volunteers are not facing me but I see their backs. And I only see a small portion of their body, ie. part of the back. And I wasn't allowed to see all people at the same time but one at a time.

Each volunteer had an internal condition that should be easy to detect if Natasha's claim is correct. The target conditions were as follows: One patient had metal surgical staples in his chest from open heart surgery; one had a section of her esophagus surgically removed; one had a large section of one lung removed; one had an artificial hip replacement; one had a missing appendix (we discovered afterwards that another subject also had a missing appendix, which he didn't mention when we recruited him. Natasha chose neither of these two as the one with the missing appendix); one had a large brain tumor removed and now has a large hole in his skull covered by a metal plate; and the final subject had none of these target conditions.

Would seeing a portion of a person's back really reveal clues about their number of kidneys? Meanwhile Natasha was looking at the people and even though they didn't have mutual eyecontact, nobody's hearing was covered and all body language was available.

Metal surgical plates in the chest? Looking at the people from their front? Surely this has some clues. Esophagus? Clues, look at how they swallow. Lung? Clues, just look at the movement of the person's chest and how they breathe. Artificial hip? How they are standing and how they lean their weight on their hips. Missing appendix? Clues? How come missing a kidney would give off clues that we can't accept? And only from seeing their clothed back?

During the test, when Natasha was looking at the subjects, the subjects wore sunglasses whose lenses were covered with opaque tape. This prevented the subjects from knowing when Natasha was looking at them. This also prevented Natasha from picking up clues from their eye movements or pupillary dilations (which are a sign of emotional reaction).

And I will be facing their back and not even be able to see their heads.

Before the test, I instructed and rehearsed the subjects on how to behave. They were to sit as still as possible when Natasha was in the room. If Natasha needed to observe them in a standing position, I would tell Natasha to turn her back while they stood up and when they sat again. We used similar precautions if Natasha needed to look at them in profile. These precautions reduced the possibility of reactions by the subjects from knowing which target condition Natasha was currently studying. We also wanted to reduce external movements (for example, the subject with a hip replacement might give herself away from her efforts to stand or to change the position of her body).

I won't even be asking the volunteers to shift position.

Except for the subjects (and Austin Dacey [executive director of the Center for Inquiry-MetroNY]), everyone in the test room, including myself, was blind to the condition of each subject.

Because Andrew was in charge of recruiting the subjects and was not completely blind to their conditions, he stayed out of the testing room.

He remained in the briefing room during the entire test (which lasted more than four hours).

Four hours? I have now reduced to strictly 2 1/2.

We used this room to brief Natasha before each of the six required matches (once she had made six matches, the seventh was determined by default).

The test consisted of six trials. On each trial Andrew gave Natasha a test card that clearly described, in Russian and English, the condition she was to match to a subject.

After Natasha had studied the subjects for the given condition, she chose the subject she believed had the specified condition. She would circle the subject's number on the test card and both of us would sign the card. We then returned to the back room to prepare for the next condition and trial.

We wanted to make the test as comfortable and nonstressful for Natasha as possible. I made sure not to rush or pressure her in any way. I gave her all the time she wanted to make each match.

Oh if all Skeptics were like Ray Hyman, I would be so comfortable during the test, and with all the time in the world and nothing stressing me to make an answer.

She took one hour to make the first match-which was to find the subject who had a large section of the top of her left lung surgically removed. She required more than four hours to complete the matches of conditions to the seven subjects. Throughout this process I repeatedly asked her if she was comfortable and if we could do anything to make the process more agreeable to her.

Meanwhile I am anticipating a very uncomfortable and rushed test. We need Ray Hyman.

Natasha succeeded in correctly matching four target conditions out of a possible seven. Our protocol required that Natasha get five or more correct matches to "pass" our test.

Both inherent and unforeseen limitations of our test provided possible clues to the target conditions for some subjects. I already discussed the daunting task of finding seven appropriate subjects. We had to settle for a less than optimal set of subjects. These subjects differed sufficiently in outward appearance to provide possible clues about their conditions.

Meanwhile I fail to see how a person would give off signs that they have one or two kidneys. Especially if I am asked to diagnose all subjects with one or two, they should all be equally nervous and all feel like they are the 'target' and twitch in funny ways as some Skeptics here have suggested.

Our test included five subjects for whom external clues were available concerning their internal condition. The clues correctly pointed to the true target condition for four subjects.

Meanwhile nothing should be expected to point to the number of kidneys in a person.

The external clue for the fifth subject falsely pointed to the hole in the skull [the man was wearing a hat however he was not the one with the metal plate in his skull]. In each of these five cases Natasha made her choice consistent with how the external clue was pointing.

Nor would I expect anything to point to the false number of kidneys in a person.

Because a single test, even one done under ideal conditions, cannot settle a paranormal claim, we conceived our test as the first stage of a potential series.

I would love to begin my potential series now.

The first stage would not necessarily rule out nonparanormal alternatives. If Natasha could pass the first stage, this would justify continuing onto the next stage. If she passed that stage, then we would continue studying her claim. On the other hand, if she failed at any of the early stages, this would end our interest in her claim.

I wish I could go about it this way, rather than probably ending up with the underground bunker protocol.

Our test had its limitations. None of these limitations, however, worked against Natasha's claim. If anything, they may have artificially enhanced her score. Our task was not to prove that Natasha does not have X-ray vision. Rather, Natasha and her supporters had the responsibility to show us that she could perform well enough to deserve further scientific investigation. This they failed to do.

Why was Natasha given this convenient test and I am not? Is it because Natasha had been offering psychic medical readings in her country Russia and at a fee for many years? What does it take for me to get a test put together and test whether my medical perceptions depict real health information or whether they are a subjective experience? Would I need to offer medical advice to persons? Is that what it takes?

 

[Audible Click]

<snip>I wonder if Mr. Skolnick would like the honor of finding some volunteers for my test?<snip>

<snip>Oh if all Skeptics were like Ray Hyman, I would be so comfortable during the test, and with all the time in the world and nothing stressing me to make an answer.<snip>

It's very simple, contact those people and have them test you. Case closed.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

How about:

1) The subjects are wearing camouflage patterned clothing and presented in front of a similarly patterned waving background curtain, making it difficult to discern movement of the subjects;

2) The subjects are presented three at a time, but only one is randomly chosen as the target;

3) The subjects are blinded as to which of them is the target.

Your suggestion is making me dizzy. It is all confusing. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy's questions

If you fail this test, which of the following claims will be falsified?
* Seeing internal organs yes¹* Seeing the brain yes¹* Hearing blood flow yes¹* Sensing pain yes¹* Tasting what others eat yes¹* Remote smelling yes¹* Urine analysis (specific to each person) yes¹* Full bladder detection yes¹* Health and body chemistry differences between blacks and whites yes¹* Chemical identification yes¹* Getting "high" by looking at drugs in a microscope yes¹* Bacteria sensing yes¹* Detecting medicinal properties of foods and plants yes¹* Analyzing chemicals in insects yes¹* Communicating with insects yes
* Seeing ghosts no
* Talking to ghosts no
* Touching ghosts no
* Telepathy no
* Being a star person NO!!!²* Healing the sick yes
* Sensing animals unseen yes
* Detecting what someone recently ate yes¹* Detecting color blindness (thought we forgot about that, huh?) yes

1. Will still be experienced as before but obviously have normal as opposed to paranormal origin.
2. Will never be falsified.

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm calling bullfeathers on this.

Enough.

Anita, you have tried time and again to manipulate this to your liking, only to get called on it each and every time. And when you do, you stomp your feet and whine about it like a little kid.

First things first: What can you do? No twisting this, no trying to move goalposts. Say what you can do, making sure it's clearly defined once and for all. You can see kidneys? Fine. But when people try to help you set things up for what is supposed to be a DOUBLE BLIND TEST, quit trying to tell them you don't want to do it that way. If you can't do it under those conditions, YOU CAN'T DO IT AT ALL. That is partly why there is a double-blind component to this; it weeds out the whack jobs.

I'm sorry, but GeeMack is right. You're not here to work on your protocols, you're simply here trying to get attention for yourself. If you were seriously interested in doing the test, there might be reason for further discussion. As it is, there ain't.

When you get banned for your trolling, be sure to look up The Professor. I'm willing to bet the two of you will have a lot to talk about, since you have so much in common.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

First things first: What can you do? No twisting this, no trying to move goalposts. Say what you can do, making sure it's clearly defined once and for all. You can see kidneys? Fine. But when people try to help you set things up for what is supposed to be a DOUBLE BLIND TEST, quit trying to tell them you don't want to do it that way. If you can't do it under those conditions, YOU CAN'T DO IT AT ALL. That is partly why there is a double-blind component to this; it weeds out the whack jobs.

The claim is that when I look at people I perceive alleged vibrational information that translates into felt and visual information that depicts internal tissues and organs and I want a test in order to determine whether those images depict actual information, or whether it is a subjective experience, similar to synesthesia.

I have chosen to test the claim in its entirety based on the detection of how many kidneys a person has. Kidney perception is the single strongest perception I experience and is also one of the most testable types of perception because if a person has one kidney they have no external symptoms of it unless they are giving it away by knowing that they are the target person in a test.

The claim requires that I see the back of the persons and I allow that all other parts of their body is fully screened off: the head, neck, shoulders, arms, below hips, and legs. I also allow that the person is wearing a thin cotton shirt.

I use no speaking, touching, or other interaction with the person, and I require no prior knowledge of the person. The volunteers can be any age, gender, race, or other demographic.

I accept either of the following two types of protocol: that I am told how many people I am about to see and how many among them have had a kidney removed, or that I am not told in advance how many of the persons I am about to see have had a kidney removed. The first protocol would require me to pick one target person among a group, and the second protocol requires that I describe the number of kidneys in each person.

I will accept as little as 15 minutes with each person. And I also accept that a pass must constitute a fail on the test.

Other than that, I ask that the test take place indoors, with normal lighting and air temperature without strong air conditioning on at the time. The claim does not permit a full-body screen to be used.

If this outline of the claim and its limitations and allowances isn't good enough, then I don't know how to make it better. I am sorry if my claim doesn't allow the kind of test procedure that we would all like. I do believe it is a testable and falsifiable claim and I look forward to having it tested soon.

 

[Uncayimmy]

"Will still be experienced as before but obviously have normal as opposed to paranormal origin.

Sorry, that disclaimer is too vague for my tastes. You must admit that the "experiences" are nothing more than a figment of your imagination and totally unrelated to reality. To say that their "origin" is not paranormal still allows you to claim that they have meaning. They do not have meaning.

Will you remove the claims you made about the health benefits of certain foods?

Will you put on your website that your claims of Vibrational Algebra were purely wishful thinking on your part without any basis in reality?

Will you also send a letter to the migraine group in Charlotte retracting your claim that you can heal?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

We all have conceived protocol after protocol that was reasonable and met your limitations. Or did, until you changed the limitations. Then changed again. Then remembered some detail you'd forgotten. Then demanded some arbitrary crap to make a useful protocol useless. Then added a couple more stipulations to make it less practical to ever perform the test... etc... and so on...

As convenient it would be from the test perspective, I can not agree to having a full-body screen on the test and I ask that I see the clothed back of the persons. At least for the preliminary testing - which is what we are designing here - it should be good enough.

And that's why I (and several others) asked many pages ago if you would define your claim and describe any details that you could think of that might be problems. And you said you had. And said it again. And again. But you clearly still aren't willing to define your claim and describe, in detail, everything you think might be issues with testing it. Because sure as shootin', as soon as you say you've done it, and someone else fixes the protocol to suit your latest whim, you'll add some other piece of bogus limits to your limitations.

Here's where I outlined my claim when I was asked to, #228. It already states that I see the back of the persons. I have now described the claim again, #571. Is the problem that I am not agreeing to having a full-body screen, or is the problem something else?

And at the rate you're making up crap to stall the process, it's obviously not going to happen. Which is cool because that's exactly what you want. Then you can continue to cling to your fantasy and maybe go begging for attention at other Internet forums... that is until you run out of forums and are recognized as the laughing stock of Internet paranormal claimants. It'll happen sooner than you think. You've already made yourself the object of ridicule here because of this sham of a kidney counting guessing game you want to play.

I am not stalling. I want to have this test as soon as possible. I am hoping to get some sort of protocol that will have your blessings and that I can take and have a preliminary test. So that I can get some experience and exposure to the claim and the possible outcome so that I am better prepared for the official IIG test. I am not here for attention, in fact the attention I get here is very uncomfortable at times. I'm just here because I know it's a great resource for test protocols.

Of course a kidney detection test would always seem like a guessing game, no matter how it is done. It will always be the case of "one kidney" or "two kidneys"? But if we have ten volunteers and I am not told how many one-kidney persons are among them, then it is a 1 in 2¹⁰=1024 odds of passing the guessing game, provided there are no other subtle clues that would throw off the statistics.

Tell me what to do next?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Will you remove the claims you made about the health benefits of certain foods?

Those were not claims, btw. They are just examples of my perceptions. The page where I describe my food perceptions clearly states that they are not stated as fact but as examples of my perceptions. It already says that.

Will you put on your website that your claims of Vibrational Algebra were purely wishful thinking on your part without any basis in reality?

Not that it is wishful thinking because it is not that.

Will you also send a letter to the migraine group in Charlotte retracting your claim that you can heal?

No, because what ever I did, coincided with a tremendous improvement in the man's migraine condition.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Those were not claims, btw. They are just examples of my perceptions. The page where I describe my food perceptions clearly states that they are not stated as fact but as examples of my perceptions. It already says that.

Not that it is wishful thinking because it is not that.

No, because what ever I did, coincided with a tremendous improvement in the man's migraine condition.

Thank you for clearing that up. In other words nothing is going to change. What incentive does anyone have to assist you in this or any other test?

 

[Uncayimmy]

As convenient it would be from the test perspective, I can not agree to having a full-body screen on the test and I ask that I see the clothed back of the persons. At least for the preliminary testing - which is what we are designing here - it should be good enough.

Good enough for whom? The only person who needs to be satisfied that you can detect a person missing a kidney is you. Apparently doing a reading, failing to write it down, failing to say anything when being told about it and e-mailing the person the next day to "confess" that you really did detect it is sufficient enough for you to call this your "strongest claim" ever.

The rest of us on planet Earth require something a bit more substantial. What we are telling you is that your constraints render a test protocol unworkable if you want to convince us of anything.

I am not stalling. I want to have this test as soon as possible. I am hoping to get some sort of protocol that will have your blessings

Every other time we have given you a protocol with our blessing you either rejected it or modified it beyond recognition so that we withdrew our blessings. What makes you think this will be any different?

BTW, the CSICOP test you referenced was considered by many, myself included, to be a mistake. They took a calculated risk when they caved into her foolish demands. They did it because she was already famous and endangering lives. The judged the benefit to outweigh the risk. You can read our reactions here.

Of course a kidney detection test would always seem like a guessing game, no matter how it is done.

Not if you use our protocol(s).

It will always be the case of "one kidney" or "two kidneys"? But if we have ten volunteers and I am not told how many one-kidney persons are among them, then it is a 1 in 2¹⁰=1024 odds of passing the guessing game, provided there are no other subtle clues that would throw off the statistics.

There's already a subtle clue called "it's really hard to find people who are missing a kidney." If they find only one target and you bank on them only finding one target and guess accordingly, it would not be very difficult to get 10 correct. In other words if you guessed Heads once and Tails 9 times, then your score would either be 8 or 10.

I'll let someone like FLS handle the statistics, but in the real world of finding volunteers the chances of finding target subjects get smaller and smaller after you find each one. There must be an equal chance of the target or control being in the group.

Therefore, if you insist on this "not knowing" thing then the test must require the testing group to acquire 20 people (10 of each) and randomly selecting how many of each. A better approach is if they get 5 targets and tell you they have 5 targets. Getting all 10 correct would still be a 1/1024 chance, and it's much easier to pull off logistically.

Do I really need to explain this stuff to you?

Also, please stop telling us that seeing the person makes no difference. It does. This has already been explained numerous times. Repeating yourself won't make your statement true. The only debate is the degree to which we believe it increases your odds of guessing correctly.

So, when you say the odds are <whatever>, that's wrong. It really means that the odds are less than <whatever> by an unknown degree. I already explained this to you. A proper scientific study, as I am sure you know, doesn't play around with unknown odds.

If you want to compete against random chance, you need to compete against random chance. As long as you can see the people, it's not random. How far off from random, I cannot say, but the chances of it not being random are 100%.

 

[chillzero]

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.

Perfect!
Forget the kidneys part, and step back to the much easier test of detecting 'tissues and organs' - i.e. the existence of a person (or absence of one) from behind a screen.

VfV, you have yet to come up with any valid reason as to why you can't do a test to identify if a person is on the other side of a screen or not, and that protocol will be much easier to organise, design, and undertake.

Please - regain a little bit of the credibility that you are wilfully throwing away by reviewing this as a protocol.

 

[volatile]

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.

Well then - a simple there/not there test is perfectly possible, under these abilities.

Right?

 

[Ashles]

Well then - a simple there/not there test is perfectly possible, under these abilities.

Right?

The problem with that protocol is that Anita has retreated to simply refusing to even consider it simply because she doesn't want to.
No reason given.
So from that we are given no option but to assume she is refusing it because it is a much easier claim to set up and run, and allows for far fewer post test excuses about 'orientation' or 'levels of magnification' or 'confusion between organs' or any other content-free excuse. Failing to detect even the existence of a whole live human being very effectively closes the book on the whole medical claim, whereas the kidney claim allows for all sorts of post test wiggle.
This test should be just as effective as the kidney test after all like the kidney test she has done it once before.
Also this test yielded results instantly (the fat was detected) whereas it took her five minutes to (allegedly) confirm she had detected Dr Carlson's kidney.

But sadly it looks like we aren't going to get any more scientific reason as to why this protocol is flat rejected beyond "I'm not doing because I don't want to!" [footstamp].

It really feels like we're doing real cutting-edge scientific research here doesn't it?

 

[Kariboo]

<snip>I wonder if Mr. Skolnick would like the honor of finding some volunteers for my test?<snip>

<snip>Oh if all Skeptics were like Ray Hyman, I would be so comfortable during the test, and with all the time in the world and nothing stressing me to make an answer.<snip>

Tell me what to do next?

Easy!

Execute the following list:

Quote:
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.

Somewhere in there you can contact Mr. Skolnik and Hyman as well. I would suggest that you present them with a protocol that they are willing to execute because I am pretty sure that they will not accept one anymore that has the same flaws as the Demkina one.

So you also have to write a good protocol.

That's it.

Getting to your preliminary test in 50 easy steps or less.

Have fun and let us know when it takes place.