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.
The claim states that I need to see the surface of the body whether they are clothed or not. A flat screen does not give me an exact sense of distance to the person. Also, a screen does block the "vibrational information" that I claim to detect, which is why a partially see-through screen that did allow the outline of the person to be seen, also greatly reduces the quality of the perceptions.
I can not detect a person/no person behind an opaque full-body screen. When I had medical perceptions of a person behind a full-body opaque screen it was because the person was leaning against the screen so I had some sense of where they are, but even at that my orientation in the body was severely thrown off.
I will not do a remote viewing test to detect whether a person is or is not behind a screen. The claim is medical perceptions to detect the number of kidneys in a person, and I do require to see the clothed back of the person.
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.
I need an exact sense of where the person is. And I did not fail with the readings of FACT members. I do perceive through clothing, but only when I am looking straight at the surface of the body.
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.
To see persons behind a screen is a claim of remote viewing. My claim is that I need to look at the surface of the person, whether clothed or not, in order for the perceptions to form. As soon as you lift that fabric barrier further from the surface of their skin and make it into a flat screen so that I do not know exactly where things are, the vibrational information is no longer available and my sense of orientation in the body is severely thrown off, and the claim can not perform under those conditions, and under those conditions it can not be tested.
"Since I don't have said powers" I should be expected to fail at the preliminary test whose protocol has been devised so far and never make it to an official test. We need Ray Hyman! He was able to falsify Natasha Demkina's claim with far less acceptable test conditions and with great courtesy toward the claimant.
Maybe. But a kidney test that provides useful information isn't going to happen.
At the very least it is able to falsify the claim, right? Since I can't see kidneys through a clothed back, can I? Because no one can, right?
No one is asking you to see people behind a screen.
Yes you are! You are asking me 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.
And I can not do that unless the person is already leaning against the screen, ie. I would already know that they are there. As for some kind of decoy that produces a compression against the screen, the possible clues of there/not there in this test would be of far greater concern than whether one can see some sort of "magical twitching" and body language on a person's clothed back that reveal the number of kidneys.
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.
The study is
OVER. I have defined a specific claim and submitted that for testing. I am unable to remote view through a screen.
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.
How is forcing me to try to remote view through a screen, an "easy way to test my claims" when I have stated time and time again that my claims can not do that? I don't have remote viewing powers, no. I don't want to be special. I see internal tissues and organs when I look at people and I want to test whether they are accurate and whether they accurately depict information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception.
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).
Testing whether a person is/is not behind a full-body screen is testing remote viewing. What I call "medical perceptions", or "vision from feeling
TM" requires that I see the surface of the person.
Are we done, LightinDarkness? Or do you want us to go through all of this again?
