VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Professor Yaffle]

How about a person standing right behind a screen with a person drawn on it, so that their arms, legs etc are in the corresponding place.

Repeated in case it got missed.
Wouldn't this satisfy both parties? There will be a screen, and Anita will still be able to locate the distance and orientation of the body.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I'm not asking for you to perform the celebrities test, simply asking if that ability is still one you claim to have.

ETA - you must understand the relevance of the question to your current claim.

Even if you don't, surely it's a simple question you could answer with one word. Yes - you do still claim that ability, No - you don't still claim that ability.

I will say no, because I know where this is leading and I don't want to have a test of remote viewing.

 

[volatile]

Anita - can you, or can you not, see through clothing?

 

[volatile]

I will say no, because I know where this is leading and I don't want to have a test of remote viewing.

Not "no" because you can't actually do it?

Can you actually do this? Yes or no?

If yes - why can't we test this "remote viewing"? If no - why did you previously claim you could?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

How about a person standing right behind a screen with a person drawn on it, so that their arms, legs etc are in the corresponding place.

It would still throw me off. This could be indicative as to an explanation of what the perceptions are and how they work, meanwhile I am interested in having a test where the perceptions are allowed to occur.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Thus far, this thread has "stood on its own" due to the specific nature of the OP. However, now thread is starting to drift...at which point it is just more general VFF claims discussion and destined to be dumped into the Moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

I intend to keep this thread on-topic and about the kidney detection test. Could off-topic posts instead be moved elsewhere? It worked in the past when the crushed pill test posts were moved people stopped talking about it here.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Surely this is directly relevant to the specific thread which is the creation of an agreeable protocol for Kidney Detection?

This is all related to Anita's medical detection claim, this is directly related to her claims about what she can and can't detect through.

If other parts of her medical claim contradict her claimed abilities in this thread, is that not on topic?

How are we supposed to generate an agreed protocol without clarifying the specifics of the ability?

Dear Ashles, I have specified the claim and its limitations very clearly at least twice already on this thread. I have already said that I will not agree to a full-body screen. Get over it.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Basically, you just said that you know you can't do something because you haven't actually tried it. That makes no sense.

So, you think I should try out some remote viewing? How about Zener cards, oh wait, you already told me to try those out once. How about I try some levitation, or telekinesis?

I have outlined the claim that will be tested and I already know what its limitations are.

 

[volatile]

So you can accurately see inside people's bodies, through clothing, but you can't see inside people's bodies through a screen made of identical material, even if you know where the body will be to orient yourself?

 

[Akhenaten]

I intend to keep this thread on-topic and about the kidney detection test. Could off-topic posts instead be moved elsewhere? It worked in the past when the crushed pill test posts were moved people stopped talking about it here.

The crushed pill test now has its own thread, so that problem has been addressed. This thread has been remarkably focussed but it seems that we have reached a point where it is difficult to see the way ahead.

What is your suggested next move for us all?

 

[volatile]

So, you think I should try out some remote viewing? How about Zener cards, oh wait, you already told me to try those out once. How about I try some levitation, or telekinesis?

I have outlined the claim that will be tested and I already know what its limitations are.

Can you detect ailments in celebrities via the TV, Anita?

 

[Audible Click]

I've sort of lost track of the protocols and their variations. Did we ever have a workable protocol without a screen?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The more you go on about this the more you make it clear you are not interested in any test protocol that is actually doable that would debunk your delusions of supernatural powers.

Listen carefully, I have never been able to form medical perceptions through an opaque full-body screen if the person was not leaning against the screen so that I had some sense of where they are. Why on earth are you insisting that I accept a test condition that would automatically have my claim fail? Then how is that testing my claim?

You have just stated you can "perceive internal tissues." You have tested yourself (and failed, although you don't admit it) doing this at a skeptics meeting where everyone had their clothes on. There is absolutely no reason - none (except for the fact that you don't have powers) - why you could not do this with a cloth barrier and perceive the existence of tissue or no tissue on the other side.

I do not form medical perceptions unless I have a clear understanding of where the person is. I have never remote viewed through a screen. And I was quite successful with reading the FACT Skeptics. And I did detect the missing kidney, only I could logically not believe it so I did not report it until after the fact. And that is the truth of it, and that is the basis of why I am having this kidney detection test.

You calling this remote viewing doesn't change the fact that its not - its what you've already done and claimed to be successful at (although you lied about the successful part). If you can see through clothes, you can see through a cloth barrier. Its not remote viewing, and you've already been told that someone could draw an outline on the sheet and you could be told that the person would be standing within a inch of it.

Looking through an opaque full-body screen to see whether there is or is not a person there IS remote viewing. If I am looking at a person's clothes I have a clear sense of distance to the person. I can not see people through an opaque full-body screen.

Your right, there will be no excuses because its never going to happen. You've made sure of that one.

A kidney detection test will happen.

Again, this is not remote viewing. Placing someone within a few inches behind a cloth barrier and making you identify whether you "perceive tissue" using your powers would be the most simple and obvious test of your own claimed abilities. Which, again, is why its never going to happen. Somehow you can see a kidney through a cloth layer (their clothes), but can't detect the presence of a human being with all their tissues and organs behind a cloth barrier. Why? Because your powers are make believe and you want to only advocate for tests that are extremely expensive and time consuming.

I can not see people who are behind a screen. The only reason it worked in my at home test was because the person was leaning against the screen, and even with that, my sense of orientation was seriously thrown off.

By the way, Anita, you going to the moderators and reporting everyone because your upset that we keep pointing out easy ways to test your medical perceptions claims just verifies that you are here for attention. So far the entire thread has been on topic.

I have chosen a claim to test and I will not test any other claims. I do not remote view.

To recap:
Why Anita's kidney test will never happen:
1) It is unreasonable to expect anyone to go out and find the appropriate
number of volunteers AND ensure that they have the right number of kidneys
2) When Anita gets it wrong, no volunteer is going to agree to have a ultrasound to prove that they have the specified number of kidneys.

We'll just see about that. Now you are the one making excuses. If I came here and brought up these complications you would all say that I was making excuses to not have the test take place.

Why Anita will not agree to simply perceiving whether or not she "sees" tissues/organs on the other side of a cloth barrier:
1) This is a feasible test that would be easy to design and falsify her claims.

I would fail such a test, my claim is not remote viewing.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita - can you, or can you not, see through clothing?

Well I don't know if I can see through clothing, but I do know that the perceptions of internal tissue and organs occur through clothing. But that is not the same as having a flat full-body screen between me and the person. I have to be able to look at the surface of the person in order for the perceptions to form.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Not "no" because you can't actually do it?

Can you actually do this? Yes or no?

If yes - why can't we test this "remote viewing"? If no - why did you previously claim you could?

No. And we are not testing remote viewing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, you think I should try out some remote viewing?

Calling it remote viewing doesn't make it so. I want you to do exactly what you said you could do - detect tissue in a person behind a screen. If you want the person to touch the screen, that's fine. They can make a fist and push it against the screen. The control will be a fake fist. Tell us which is the human. I'm sure we can develop adequate controls to exclude detecting life through ordinary means.

How about Zener cards, oh wait, you already told me to try those out once.

Please try to stay on topic. But if you want to go there, you told me that you had tried Zener cards in the past, but that you wouldn't use them in future. Instead you preferred to think about "cute, furry animals with wet noses" because those send a stronger message.

How about I try some levitation, or telekinesis?

Have you made that claim?

I have outlined the claim that will be tested and I already know what its limitations are.

Please elaborate. You have told us of just one time where you allegedly detected a missing kidney. You had observed this person on multiple occasions for probably several hours. You also spoke with this person. So, the truth is that you do not know of any limitations because none were in place during your one alleged success.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So you can accurately see inside people's bodies, through clothing, but you can't see inside people's bodies through a screen made of identical material, even if you know where the body will be to orient yourself?

I do not know whether I can accurately see inside people's bodies, the test will determine that. All I know is that when I look at people I see images that depict internal tissue and organs and I have experienced interesting correlation in the past and that is why the claim is entitled to the test. Yes it works through clothing, and no it does not work through a screen made of identical material, even if I know where the body will be.

I need to be looking at the surface of the body. Even if a person is standing behind a screen and the outline of the person is drawn on the screen, or the outline of the person can be seen through the screen, I do not have an exact sense of the distance to the surface of the body. That is how this works, and how this doesn't work. And if we can't design a test around that, then this claim will simply have to be concluded as untestable or automatically falsified.

 

[Akhenaten]

I do not know whether I can accurately see inside people's bodies, the test will determine that. All I know is that when I look at people I see images that depict internal tissue and organs and I have experienced interesting correlation in the past and that is why the claim is entitled to the test. Yes it works through clothing, and no it does not work through a screen made of identical material, even if I know where the body will be.

I need to be looking at the surface of the body. Even if a person is standing behind a screen and the outline of the person is drawn on the screen, or the outline of the person can be seen through the screen, I do not have an exact sense of the distance to the surface of the body. That is how this works, and how this doesn't work. And if we can't design a test around that, then this claim will simply have to be concluded as untestable or automatically falsified.

You don't get to promote it like that. It simply isn't a claim, any more than my invisible pink unicorns.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Calling it remote viewing doesn't make it so. I want you to do exactly what you said you could do - detect tissue in a person behind a screen. If you want the person to touch the screen, that's fine. They can make a fist and push it against the screen. The control will be a fake fist. Tell us which is the human. I'm sure we can develop adequate controls to exclude detecting life through ordinary means.

There are complications with such a test protocol too. For instance the person might move. Meanwhile I fail to see what external clues on a person's clothed back might reveal how many kidneys they have. I will not agree to a full-body screen. I must be allowed to see the clothed back of the person, or this claim is to be considered either untestable or automatically falsified.

Please try to stay on topic. But if you want to go there, you told me that you had tried Zener cards in the past, but that you wouldn't use them in future. Instead you preferred to think about "cute, furry animals with wet noses" because those send a stronger message.

No Mr. Carr, you and I were discussing how I and my boyfriend were doing games of telepathy, where I send an image to him and he tells me what it is. You then said that I should try Zener cards, and I said that I won't because they are just flat images, whereas 3-dimensional images are much easier for me to visualize in my mind. I prefer to transfer animals, yes, whereas my boyfriend - being a boy - is much better at detecting sports balls, tools, and cars!

Please elaborate. You have told us of just one time where you allegedly detected a missing kidney. You had observed this person on multiple occasions for probably several hours. You also spoke with this person. So, the truth is that you do not know of any limitations because none were in place during your one alleged success.

Meanwhile, I am so confident in this specific claim of kidney detection that I am fully prepared to allow this specific test to conclude on my claim. Isn't that all that matters?

ETA: It is as simple as if I claim to perceive the kidneys, that perception is tested for accuracy. That is how I can know the limitations.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Listen carefully, I have never been able to form medical perceptions through an opaque full-body screen if the person was not leaning against the screen so that I had some sense of where they are. Why on earth are you insisting that I accept a test condition that would automatically have my claim fail? Then how is that testing my claim?

Liar, liar. If you can "perceive" things through clothing - which you claim to have successfully have done before (although in reality you failed it), then you would be able to detect flesh through a barrier made of the same material. You don't want to do this because it would be too simple and there could be no arguing about your results - you could only say "human behind the curtain, human not behind the curtain." There would be no arguments about extra kidneys or anything else - which is why you will not do this.

I do not form medical perceptions unless I have a clear understanding of where the person is. I have never remote viewed through a screen. And I was quite successful with reading the FACT Skeptics. And I did detect the missing kidney, only I could logically not believe it so I did not report it until after the fact. And that is the truth of it, and that is the basis of why I am having this kidney detection test.

Its been established for about 20 pages now how to fix this. All we have to do is put a outline on the barrier showing where the person - if there is one there - is standing behind. You failed reading the FACT skeptics, but if you want to act like you succeeded you did so through clothing.

Looking through an opaque full-body screen to see whether there is or is not a person there IS remote viewing. If I am looking at a person's clothes I have a clear sense of distance to the person. I can not see people through an opaque full-body screen.

No amount of you making up your own woo terminology is going to change reality. You using your proclaimed supernatural powers to detect the presence of flesh/organs/whatever you want through a barrier that is made of the same material as the clothing you already see through is not remote viewing. It has never been remote viewing, and it will never be remote viewing. It is a test of your own proclaimed powers, but since you don't have said powers you will never agree to it.

A kidney detection test will happen.

Maybe. But a kidney test that provides useful information isn't going to happen.

I can not see people who are behind a screen. The only reason it worked in my at home test was because the person was leaning against the screen, and even with that, my sense of orientation was seriously thrown off.

No one is asking you to see people behind a screen. We are asking you to use your self-proclaimed super powers to detect the presence of flesh/organs/whatever you want behind a screen.

I have chosen a claim to test and I will not test any other claims. I do not remote view.

You've been shown how you could test this medical perceptions claim but you won't do it because you would rather put together a complex protocol so you can complain about the results and/or put together a meaningless study.

We'll just see about that. Now you are the one making excuses. If I came here and brought up these complications you would all say that I was making excuses to not have the test take place.

Only in your fantasy world. You have been provided with easy way to test your proclaimed powers and refuse to do so because you don't have powers. You just want to be special.

I would fail such a test, my claim is not remote viewing.

You would fail such a test because you don't have the power to do medical perceptions, which is what it would test accurately (not remote viewing).