• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

VisionFromFeeling said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh look, yet another new 'limitation' on the ability generated out of thin air to counter a proposed protocol.
Why does Anita keep forgetting to mention these?
Well that really is claim over thsn as there is no way to guarantee the volunteers shirts will never be a millimetre or more away from the skin. You justed rendered your own claim impossible to test. Well done.
Shame you forgot to mention this 'millimetre' business a little earlier really.
 
(Double post - maybe even the forum software is trying to work out what it has to do to explain to Anita she will never be tested because of her own restrictions)
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK, despite your earlier statements, you cannot detect if there is a person behind a screen unless you know they are there.
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.
Click to expand...
It indicates to me that you imagine that you see precisely what you expect to see. That what you do is nothing more than imagination.
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.
Click to expand...
O RLY? If you had been able to see kidneys or even a person using a sheet, you'd have no reason not to turn down the simple, easily arranged, relatively definitive protocol. But as it is, you can continue with a claim that cannot be tested and therefore cannot be falsified. As long as the claim can't be falsified (because of the increasing limitations on your ability), you can continue this farce.
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.
Click to expand...
You see what you expect to see, every time. It's just imagination.
Just some thought. Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud. :D
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't read minds. Only you know the real motivator behind all this.
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...



Post #168

Akhenaten said:
I'm aware of the points that I've raised, thank you. Your reminder does not answer my question. How are you going to screen volunteers when it is acknowledged that some/many/most may not know how many kidneys they have?

What are the figures for people with three kidneys, BTW? And don't ask me to research it or make suggestions. Not my test.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
VisionFromFeeling said:
I won't agree to test conditions under which my claim fails.
Click to expand...
Writ large for all to see.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if I was asked to prove my claim that I can ride a bicycle, I also would not accept using square wheels or riding in a mud field.

The limitations that we impose on the protocols are put in place to make results unambiguous and to eliminate other factors than the ones we want to test for. If VFF cannot accept these conditions, she will not be tested, and we conclude that she most probably does not have the abilities that she claim.

It would be unreasonable of us to demand anything that would let genuine abilities disappear, but on the other hand, if VFF wants to be taken seriously, she will need to explore the limits of her powers so that a protocol can be constructed that fulfils the conditions.
 
steenkh said:
To be fair, if I was asked to prove my claim that I can ride a bicycle, I also would not accept using square wheels or riding in a mud field.

The limitations that we impose on the protocols are put in place to make results unambiguous and to eliminate other factors than the ones we want to test for. If VFF cannot accept these conditions, she will not be tested, and we conclude that she most probably does not have the abilities that she claim.

It would be unreasonable of us to demand anything that would let genuine abilities disappear, but on the other hand, if VFF wants to be taken seriously, she will need to explore the limits of her powers so that a protocol can be constructed that fulfils the conditions.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. Well said.


Cheers,

Dave
 
Anita, since you say you can have medical perceptions through ordinary clothes, can you "see" a person's foot through ordinary shoes?

If so, how much of the rest of the person's body do you need to be able to see with regular vision, to "see" medical conditions in their normally-clothed foot?

...

Wondering if one empty shoe beside one occupied shoe, both protruding from under a screen, is too easy to set up.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go with complex imagination and preconception by you.

Human body fat is generally clear or white in appearance.

...Just some thought. Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud. :D
Click to expand...
 
Pup said:
Anita, since you say you can have medical perceptions through ordinary clothes, can you "see" a person's foot through ordinary shoes?

If so, how much of the rest of the person's body do you need to be able to see with regular vision, to "see" medical conditions in their normally-clothed foot?

...

Wondering if one empty shoe beside one occupied shoe, both protruding from under a screen, is too easy to set up.
Click to expand...


VisionFromFeeling said:
Pup, that is a brilliant idea.
Click to expand...


Sean84 said:
Wonderful! Who needs kidneys when all she has to do is find a foot... now double-blind it.
Click to expand...


Well I agree that it's a pretty good idea too. We might have to start a new thread for it though, since this one is all about the kidney test.


Whose turn is it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom