VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Chimera]

Oh, Skeptics! I've been so stubborn! I have to give up on all my requirements right this once and I have to have the people behind a full-body screen! And in an underground bunker! Oh how stubborn of me to ask that the test would actually be testing my claim!

You should make the "underground bunker" joke a few more times. It is so funny.

 

[Kariboo]

Originally Posted by Audible Click View Post
Anita you can't be serious! You're flailing around and grasping at straws. Surely you can see that the Rhine Research Center is a woo organization. Look at the website as a science student and not a paranormal claiment. However, if you want to go ahead and test with them, why ask us? You know what the answer would be.

That's what I thought.

Yeah, so you know it is crap and then you do this:

Letter to Rhine Research Center
Quote:
Dear Rhine Research Center,
I am a paranormal claimant and live in Charlotte. When I look at people I experience seeing images that depict internal tissues and organs. I have experienced interesting correlation between my perceptions and with actual health information of persons. Some of that could be explained as unintentional cold reading, and I also have other forms of synesthesia that automatically translate one type of information into another. However there have been cases where I fail to see what cold reading would have been available. That is why I am investigating my experience and preparing to have a test to determine first of all whether my perceptions have the accuracy as they have seemed, and secondly whether I am detecting information that should not be accessible to the ordinary senses of perception. I have chosen to test the claim on detecting which of persons is missing a kidney. I have been working on test design. I would ask to see the back of the person, the person is wearing a shirt. All other parts of the person, head, neck, shoulders, arms, and from hip and down, are screened off. I use no speaking, touching, or prior knowledge, and I use no materials. All I would do is look at the person and describe how many kidneys I perceive. I am writing to ask whether the Rhine Research Center would be interested in arranging a test for my claim. This test would only need to suffice as a preliminary test. If I pass the test it would not be regarded as evidence in favor of the claim but merely warrant further testing. And if I fail the test it would falsify this paranormal claim that I have. See more on my website about this www.visionfromfeeling.com

Please let me know if the RRC has the resources and interest to test my claim. Thank you for considering

There it is. Even if a preliminary test is questionable for various reasons, at the very least it offers the chance of falsifying a claim. Let's see what happens.

So far you can't be arsed to get off your arse to do something useful in setting up a test. Like; Oh I don't know...actually contacting a skeptic organization, or finding a room or volunteers or putting a friend behind a screen. But you CAN be bothered to send a blathering letter to the nearest woo clinic.

You have no intention of testing yourself. None.

 

[Farencue]

exactly Kariboo.
The jig is up.

 

[Farencue]

Also interesting that no further information is forthcoming on the "at home kidney detection test".

 

[Chimera]

How do you suggest that my "vision from feeling", if a real ability, should be made useful?

You're kidding, right? If you really had the ability to diagnose/heal ailments solely with your mind, the implications would be staggeringly useful, to say the least. If I could do what you say you can do, I would be diagnosing and healing everybody I know. I'd be doing it so much that I would have made national and maybe international news by now. Look at Jesus.

...I am headed toward a career in conventional medicine and I would rather invest all of my skills into developing new imaging technology for the medical field.

Developing new technology requires knowledge of research and the scientific method, which are obviously not your strong points. You seem to excel more at marketing yourself.

 

[desertgal]

...yet 26 minutes later she had her letter to Rhine done.

Of course. Having exhausted any good will she might find here, Anita will now run to the nearest woo center, where they can pat her on the head, tell her how extraordinary she is, reinforce her lies, delusions, and fantasies, and give her the attention her ego so obviously craves.

I suggest that this is not the first time she has written to Rhine.

Wait...didn't she just discover it?

 

[Farencue]

desertgal
I had to edit my posts, I got lost in the wrong thread because there a lot of threads about VFF going on.
But that's a good thing right?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Speaking of correspondence Ashles, here is a copy and paste from Dr Leon Curry's website:

Anita Ikonen
Thursday, November 27th 2008 - 09:22:03 PM
brightstar@visionfromfeeling.com
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com Dear Dr. Curry,
I am so glad to have come across Greta's story and your work on psychic medical diagnose. I have an ability of perceiving accurate and very specific health information in people and have recently become interested in testing this scientifically as well as finding out more about it.

I look forward to corresponding with you about this and hope that we can learn from each other. Thank you for bringing a scientific and medical perspective to this wonderful topic that deserves the attention and consideration that you have given it.

...


Leon E. Curry, M.D.
Tuesday, November 25th 2008 - 07:21:16 AM
drleon@pineland.net
http://thedoctorandthepsychic.com I presented a book review of my book at Duke University's Stedman Auditorium in October 2008 sponsored by the Rhine Research Center. Over a thousand dollars raised for the Rhine and $600 of books were ordered.The Rhine continues its "gold standard" research of psi, ESP, consciousness.
Go to Rhine.org for more info. Leon E.Curry,M.D.

Yeah, sure you are a skeptic Anita!

Good job. It's always good to nail claimants on verifiable claims.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies

VFF, how many times did you try the full-body screen, and how many times did you try without the full-body screen?

My fear is that you're making a conclusion based on a very small number of cases, and haven't considered whether some other factor, perhaps unknown to you, is the cause, as opposed to the full-body screen?

I tried the opaque full-body screen once, and have tried without a full-body screen countless of times.

The way the opaque full-body screen was arranged, I could see the outline of the person as he was leaning back toward the screen. Remote viewing whether there is or is not a person behind an opaque screen is not consistent with my claim. I intend to try the opaque screen again tomorrow, meanwhile I already know that it greatly reduces my targeting ability, also the possible body movements that are due to a person knowing how many kidneys they have would still be available as much as they are without a full-body screen.

What would be hilarious would be to salt the panel with somebody who has had a transplant and who has THREE kidneys - they are not routinely removed just because they have failed. There are also a small number of individuals born with 3+ kidneys.

Sure, bring them in.

Explain to me why you can't see if someone is standing, naked, behind an opaque cotton screen again, given this information? Please? Why can't you do a there/not-there test if, in your own words, "visibility is not a problem"?

With the opaque screen, the person was leaning against the screen. I have never experienced the perceptions under the circumstances that would be used for a there/not-there test. My claim is not remote viewing. I need to clearly know where the person is in order to perceive the information. Please don't ask again, my claim is detecting number of kidneys.

And why does the light need to be on at all? Is this an optical perception?

I need to see the person. Obviously that allows plenty of possibility of cold reading and clues that are difficult to control for in a test, but that is how the claim works. Also I fail to see what cold reading could suggest the number of kidneys. I want to find out what the accuracy of the perceptions are, and if they are acceptably accurate, then secondly I want to find out whether they can access information that should not be available to ordinary senses. I do demand that the test take place with the lights on, although I have formed perceptions of people in the dark on occasion. I will not take a test in the dark.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

To ignore ALL the advice given on this thread, to avoid direct questions about your claims, to ignore simple protocols that would be easily tested, to not clarify what your abilities can and can't do... and then as a final crowning glory, to decide to give up completely and contact an organisation without scientific credibility because you aren't getting anywhere with skeptics?

I refuse to accept test conditions that block my claim from working. We are testing my claim, and it needs to be tested under conditions where it works. I have clearly outlined the claim and its conditions. And the Rhine Research Center is better than no preliminary test at all. At least I have a good chance at failing if there is no ability.

Fine, why not contact Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne and Derek Acorah while you are at it.
You can tell them how brilliant their abilities are, they can tell you how brilliant your abilities are and all of you can avoid ever having any real testing.

Absolutely not. I am a science student and a skeptic, my claim is based on experience and is not made up and I am submitting it to a test that can falsify it. Stop insulting me. Simply because I won't agree to a remote viewing test that I have never been able to do.

You have seen the kind of stuff they do - it takes a matter of seconds to discover what kind of lectures they have
Does this sound like a skeptical organisation? No, not to anyone.
Yet you don't even pause before sending them an invite to test you.
So you aren't interested in skeptical analysis, just the attention of a test, or even correspondence.

I have asked FACT if they would be willing to participate in arranging a preliminary test of the claim on kidney detection and have yet not received a reply. I am waiting for the IIG to get back with me in our protocol negotiations. I have contacted another Southern skeptical organization and they said they were interested and will get back with me. The Rhine Center is nearby and should be interested. If I pass the test we should consider the results as not credible in favor of the claim, meanwhile I would have a good opportunity of failing the test and falsifying the claim. No need for travel expenses or other trouble.

You should make the "underground bunker" joke a few more times. It is so funny.

How about we just put all the volunteers in an underground bunker that is soundproof and waterproof, blindfold me, drive me 100 miles away in an unknown direction, and ask me how many kidneys they have and what the winning lottery numbers are.

So far you can't be arsed to get off your arse to do something useful in setting up a test. Like; Oh I don't know...actually contacting a skeptic organization, or finding a room or volunteers or putting a friend behind a screen. But you CAN be bothered to send a blathering letter to the nearest woo clinic.

You have no intention of testing yourself. None.

I just answered to this in this very post already, but I will do it again. I have asked the FACT Skeptics if they would be willing to help me set up a preliminary test of my claim of kidney detection and have not heard a reply yet. I am waiting for the IIG to get back with me in our protocol negotiations. I've contacted another Souther skeptical organization and they are interested but said they would get back with me. On the contrary, I am wanting to have the test arranged as soon as possible, even if it means asking at the Rhine Center. Any test is better than no test. If I pass the test, we don't take that as any form of evidence but proceed to an official test, and if I fail the test the claim is falsified.

You're kidding, right? If you really had the ability to diagnose/heal ailments solely with your mind, the implications would be staggeringly useful, to say the least. If I could do what you say you can do, I would be diagnosing and healing everybody I know. I'd be doing it so much that I would have made national and maybe international news by now. Look at Jesus.

I don't know. I'm a scientist science student.

Developing new technology requires knowledge of research and the scientific method, which are obviously not your strong points. You seem to excel more at marketing yourself.

I won't agree to test conditions under which my claim fails. Why not just put the people into an underground bunker.

ETA: You all know what I mean by that. I won't agree to include test conditions in the set up of the test that immediately keep the perceptions from even forming. Such as a full-body screen. Or putting the volunteers into an underground bunker. Or blindfolding me. I won't agree to those. But, if that means that no acceptable test can be arranged, then the claim is to be considered either untestable or automatically falsified.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I won't agree to test conditions under which my claim fails.

Do you know what it means to test a hypothesis? If it can't fail, there's really no point in conducting any sort of test.

Why not just put the people into an underground bunker.

Because you didn't claim the ability to see inside people who are in an underground bunker. You did in fact claim you could see inside a person behind a sheet.

So again, go try to do the test I described. Even if you see nothing more than subcutaneous fat, that's plenty enough to determine that someone is behind the screen. That's entirely consistent with what you yourself claimed that you can do.

How about this modification? On the screen (a sheet or whatever thin, but opaque material) there is a big circle in the same position on both sides. If your volunteer is present, he or she must put an unclothed part of his or her body within an inch of the screen at the circle. When you enter the room, you know exactly where to direct your perception. If you see any insides (subcutaneous fat, organs, or whatever), you record "present"; if you don't see any insides, you record "absent". Then you compare your results to the actual condition. If you marked present when the subject was absent you can be 100% certain that your perceptions do not correspond with reality. If you record absent when the subject was present, you will know that you can't do what you claimed.

I suspect if you do this test you will find that you will make both kinds of wrong answers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

VFF, it is within your rights to insist, albeit against all logic, that your claim must only be detecting a kidney in living person, but in doing so you suffer a complete lack of credibility.

The way that you describe your ability, there is no apparent reason why you couldn't detect a person, regardless of number of kidneys, behind a full-body opaque screen (other than your mere insistence to the contrary).

Exercising your right to define a test how you want to doesn't mean you can't also lose credibility, acting against all logic.

Well, her claim is right there in the OP of this thread. She keeps changing it, but she nevertheless still insists that she has never failed to do what she claimed in the OP.. to whit:

"When I look at people I perceive images in my mind that depict the inside of their bodies".

This is a testable claim. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that she's not really interested in testing her claim.

 

[Audible Click]

I have clearly outlined the claim and
I won't agree to test conditions under which my claim fails. Why not just put the people into an underground bunker.

There we have the truth at last.

 

[Kariboo]

And the Rhine Research Center is better than no preliminary test at all.

No it is not, it is worse. These people have no idea how to do a test, neither do you so that's not the way to go.

I just answered to this in this very post already, but I will do it again. I have asked the FACT Skeptics if they would be willing to help me set up a preliminary test of my claim of kidney detection and have not heard a reply yet. I am waiting for the IIG to get back with me in our protocol negotiations. I've contacted another Souther skeptical organization and they are interested but said they would get back with me. On the contrary, I am wanting to have the test arranged as soon as possible, even if it means asking at the Rhine Center. Any test is better than no test. If I pass the test, we don't take that as any form of evidence but proceed to an official test, and if I fail the test the claim is falsified.

Look, you contacted some people and they haven't responded to you yet. Two options. 1. There hasn't been enough time or conceivably: 2. You screwed the pooch with FACT & co with your previous and current antics. The fact that you keep coming up with claims and then having people spend a lot of time on those and then you weaseling out is not going to make you very popular. Deal. Find a better option

Going to the local woo club is the worst you can do if you are actually interested in testing. It;s a great option for a career in woo. I am guessing you are aiming for the latter. Dropping The Rhine Center would show at least some semblance of integrity on your part.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Do you know what it means to test a hypothesis? If it can't fail, there's really no point in conducting any sort of test.

The setup of the test must be such that the perceptions can form. If such a setup can not be arranged to also be acceptable from the test point of view, then the claim is to be considered either untestable or automatically falsified. In the test setup where the perceptions still form, if I make inaccurate perceptions then the test is failed, and if the perceptions are accurate, we move on to better tests.

What I said was that the setup of the test must allow the perceptions to form. The claim is still falsifiable under those conditions.

Because you didn't claim the ability to see inside people who are in an underground bunker. You did in fact claim you could see inside a person behind a sheet.

The outline of the person could be seen against the sheet because the person was leaning against it. And I lost my sense of orientation in the body and had a hard time finding any kidneys because I ran into the heart and the spleen instead.

So again, go try to do the test I described. Even if you see nothing more than subcutaneous fat, that's plenty enough to determine that someone is behind the screen. That's entirely consistent with what you yourself claimed that you can do.

The person could be seen leaning against the screen. I will not do a remote viewing test because that is not consistent with my claim.

How about this modification? On the screen (a sheet or whatever thin, but opaque material) there is a big circle in the same position on both sides. If your volunteer is present, he or she must put an unclothed part of his or her body within an inch of the screen at the circle. When you enter the room, you know exactly where to direct your perception. If you see any insides (subcutaneous fat, organs, or whatever), you record "present"; if you don't see any insides, you record "absent". Then you compare your results to the actual condition. If you marked present when the subject was absent you can be 100% certain that your perceptions do not correspond with reality. If you record absent when the subject was present, you will know that you can't do what you claimed.

I would lose my exact sense of distance to the body. We are talking less than a millimeter here. That is, I believe, why I need to look at a person with my eyes before I can start forming perceptions. I will not do a remote viewing test.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Kariboo,
Good luck with that.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

"When I look at people I perceive images in my mind that depict the inside of their bodies".

This is a testable claim. Unfortunately, it's abundantly clear that she's not really interested in testing her claim.

You people are asking me to do a remote viewing test where I do not even get to look at the person.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I need to see the person with my eyes so that I can form medical perceptions of them. In the case with the opaque full-body screen, the person was leaning against the screen so I had some sense of knowing where they are, so the remote viewing test of detecting whether a person is or is not behind a screen will not work. IT WILL NOT WORK.

There are interesting aspects to how the claim works. For instance. I am looking toward the body of a person who is behind an opaque sheet that covers vision of all of the surface of their body. If my perceptions were imaginary, wouldn't I form images of kidneys just as before? I find it interesting that while I was doing my very best attempt of perceiving the kidneys under these conditions, instead what I saw was the yellow fat tissue. This, to me, indicates that there is more than just imagination going on. Or that the imagination is complex.

Would the reason be that I was expecting to do worse with a sheet? I doubt it because I was sincerely hoping that I could do well with the sheet.

Another thing I find interesting is that when I look at my boyfriend's kidneys, I've already perceived them many times before, so if I were imagining them I would do it in a snap. But for some reason the left kidney always shows up first, and I have to work a little harder to find the right one.

Just some thought. Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Another thing I find interesting is that when I look at my boyfriend's kidneys, I've already perceived them many times before, so if I were imagining them I would do it in a snap. But for some reason the left kidney always shows up first, and I have to work a little harder to find the right one...

Maybe the left "kidney" is somewhat more pendulous and hangs a bit lower than the right one. This makes the right one harder to detect with your Vision From Feeling (TM).

 

[LightinDarkness]

Another problem is that they are located at Duke University and I had been considering taking my Ph.D. in Medical Physics there, and as you all know I am trying to maintain a clear distinction between my professional life and this paranormal investigation. However, Duke already seems to be tolerant of paranormal research.

Should I contact them?

As someone who sits on an admissions committee for a Duke graduate program, I saw this and just had to comment. Contact Duke if you want to ensure you get put int he auto-reject pile.

Anita, Duke - like UNC and NC State - are North Carolina's three major research universities. They each shine in their respective areas, but Duke is not going to let anyone in if they ever find out about your claims (nor would UNC or NC State, for that matter). And most likely they will, since even if graduate faculty rarely google applicants I assure you graduate students who sit on admissions committees at Duke do so. And both your woo sites and the sites debunking you will show up on google.

Why is that, you might ask? I'm not in the hard sciences so I can't say for sure, but I am comfortable in believing that the requirements make such top graduate programs incredibly hard to get into. Programs cherish their reputations for research. Your claims and beliefs are the exact opposite of critical thinking and logic that such programs encourage, and you have demonstrated with your testing "attempts" that you don't understand simple things like statistical significance.

Something to think about if you continue down your path of woo. Even if you had the qualifications for such a program (I doubt it, you don't attend a well known research school and your grades are not that good from what others have posted) you are unlikely to ever get in due to these sorts of woo games.