VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since when don't people on this site recognize what a metaphor is?

I've got a a magna cum laude English degree. I know what a metaphor is. You said she needs to see the surface of the body, but she claims to be able to do her thing with normally-clothed people. There's no metaphor here at all. You're just wrong. (Or you misused the word "surface" to mean something like "outline"--but misusing a word is not a metaphor!)

Says you.

The link I provided earlier that you missed:
http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html

ETA: From that article: "The term seems to have been invented by physicist Dr. Russell Targ and physicist/scientologist Dr. Harold Puthoff to describe their work with alleged psychics for the U.S. government in a project known as Star Gate." Read what Star Gate was about, and you'll see remote viewing is nothing like what VFF claims, which is some variant of "x-ray vision". The full screen protocols we've suggested are tests for her claims, not remote viewing.

If I was Anita I would walk away from thread and go on vacation. Who needs to be subjected to this rubbish?

Many of us have speculated on why she's still active here. Most of us think the "pay off" she's getting is being the center of attention. She clearly has no interest in testing her claims. I've given her a pretty good protocol for a test she can do at home with just one friend to help. I guarantee you she hasn't tried it and never will.

 

[GeeMack]

If I was Anita I would walk away from thread and go on vacation.

She can't afford a vacation. She can't afford a bottle of aspirin.

Who needs to be subjected to this rubbish?

She asked to be subjected to exactly what she's getting here. And as to needing, it has been suggested that Anita does in fact have some sort of need for this kind of attention.

 

[Akhenaten]

Did no-one like my burqa ABX protocol?

Yes. A burqa was also one of the things I first thought of when the screen discussion started.

It seems to fit VfF's criteria of close proximity to the body really well.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[volatile]

Yes. A burqa was also one of the things I first thought of when the screen discussion started.

It seems to fit VfF's criteria of close proximity to the body really well.


Cheers,

Dave

It does rely on her being able to tell two people apart simply by looking at their insides; something I'm sure she should be able to do given how she "downloads" information to be referred to at a later moment.

Anita - do you think you could do this? I think you could do this, based on your own descriptions of your power?

 

[Senex]

She can't afford a vacation. She can't afford a bottle of aspirin.

Oh yes she can

I've got a a magna cum laude English degree. I know what a metaphor is. You said she needs to see the surface of the body, but she claims to be able to do her thing with normally-clothed people. There's no metaphor here at all. You're just wrong. (Or you misused the word "surface" to mean something like "outline"--but misusing a word is not a metaphor!)

Pssfff... I have a master's degree.

Not only do you not know what a metaphor is you think you can block me. You aren't the first who failed.

 

[Sun Countess]

This was interesting from VfF's mall survey notes:

Man 40 glasses a bit big. I think I saw
his entire digestive system. Nothing
bad to note on! ~30 meters away.

Most of the people she only stared at for 2 or 3 seconds tops and was able to get good vibrational information (except black people who are all healthy and with different body chemistry, and "Mexican" people who are also too healthy). She was able to "download" information and continue viewing even after she stopped staring.

This man was 30 metres away, she only saw him for a couple of seconds, and she was able to make a reading. Why does she insist on 3 feet away and 15 minutes (down from her original request of 30 minutes) per volunteer?

Also, the mall survey was done in January in North Carolina. Now, I'm not a complete weather expert, but I'm pretty sure the conditions are winter-like. Anita, were the people at the mall all wearing thin cotton shirts? Or were you at that time able to see hearts, ovaries, and intestines in a matter of seconds, from several metres away, under bulky layers of clothing?

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh yes she can

Pssfff... I have a master's degree.

Not only do you not know what a metaphor is you think you can block me. You aren't the first who failed.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Finding five people who are nephrologically challenged is a pain in the pass.

We find healthy kidney donors. And that is the beauty of this test, it does not exploit any people who have or have had an illness.

And because we've been down this road before, the next issue is verification. How are we going to verify the kidney count? It is very unlikely people will submit to an ultrasound to satisfy the whims of a petulant child science student.

Well those that can bring documentation that they have had a kidney removed can verify that they have one kidney that way and would not need an ultrasound.

In other words, one reason this approach has been dismissed after careful consideration is that it is a logistical nightmare. You couldn't even get six people to volunteer for a psychic reading with the help of the F-A-C-T group, and that took weeks for you to organize. Your second study failed to produce any results whatsoever.

UncaYimmy... The most likely reason we didn't get six volunteers at the first study that took place in the city was because there were hardly any people out that day! The percentage of people walking by who were actually involved in the test would surprise you. And I have not had a second study, you are referring to when I went on my own into the city to try to get some more readings done and yes it was not productive for various reasons.

Yet you think this scenario stands a remote chance of being executed?

We'll see.

My website will ensure that never happens.

If I ever wanted to become a practicing woo I could do that. But my career will be in conventional medicine so don't you worry about that.

If you place personal insults against me in your posts again then do not ask me why I did not answer your questions.

 

[Akhenaten]

We find healthy kidney donors. And that is the beauty of this test, it does not exploit any people who have or have had an illness.

Well those that can bring documentation that they have had a kidney removed can verify that they have one kidney that way and would not need an ultrasound.

<snip for brevity>

Hi Anita.

I know I brought it up in the first place, but I reckon this screening of people (for healthy kidneys, born with one kidney etc) is still going to present some problems.

I'm hopeful that some kind of statistical norm can be established for these conditions and that your performance can be measured against that.

It would ease the qualms of a few people I think if we reduce any possible medical ethics problems to an absolute minimum.

Any thoughts?


Cheers,

Dave

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And nobody thinks you should have any contact with any volunteers for any reason at all. (...) You shouldn't know the actual size of the group or the method of deciding who goes behind the screen, in what order, how often, nothing. You shouldn't know if there's a single person without a kidney in the group or five, or none. You shouldn't know if everyone in the group has a turn behind the screen, or three, or only one. Everything about the subjects should be as far removed from your knowledge as humanly possible.

I know that GeeMack. For once I just wanted to let you call me a liar.

Controls such as subjects wearing multiple layers of clothing should be allowed in the mix.

No, because my claim outlines that the persons are wearing a single-layer cotton shirt. What? I didn't state that before? Did I specify that no one may empty a bucket of water over my head?

Controls such as a non-humans, like maybe a mannequin, should be allowed as part of the test, also.

Oh now that would be fun! Sure, go for it! Would be so much fun if I perceived kidneys in a mannequin wouldn't it, I sure would laugh and readily falsify the claim.

I've said many times, you should define your claim, clearly and unambiguously. You've barely done that, and it's taken you dozens of tries. You should define the limits of your claimed ability, clearly and unambiguously. You've barely done that, and those limits are bound to change several more times before any test ever occurs.

GeeMack let me add that there may not be elephants and pigs running loose in the test room and that no one may pull the chair from under me.

And on the negligible chance that a test ever does occur, the limits of your claim are bound to change again after the test. It's your style. You've done it in almost every instance, and it's part of the reason we know you're a liar.

I did that during the study which was when I was learning about the limits of the claim. Once I submit my claim to a test the limits should be outlined already. I am ready to allow the claim to be falsified once the test protocol is final. You'll see.

You should, after you've defined your claim and the limits of your claimed ability, accept any protocol suggestions that can conceivably test for that supposed ability within the limits you describe. But every single time you've described your limits, people have come up with suitable protocols. Then what happened? You changed your definitions of the claim and/or the limits.

GeeMack, I never said that someone can't come up from behind me and cover my eyes with their hands, so when you suggest that someone do that to make the test more reliable and I object you would say that I am changing the claim or limits.

But it's likely that it will never happen because you clearly don't want it to happen. And why don't you want it to happen? Because then you'd pretty much have to admit what we already know, that you're a fraud.

GeeMack I want the test to take place. And I am ready to falsify the claim if that is where it leads.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If I were taking the test, I would guess 2 kidneys for every subject. In all likelihood, I will get no more than 1 wrong. I could claim a 90% hit rate. Even if I agreed before the test that a success has to be all 10, you can bet I'd crow all over the interwebs that I was 90% accurate.

Not to be rude, dear Forum Skeptic, but I was not planning on having a 1 in 10 test. Where ever I discuss a 1 in 10 trial such a test would involve three such trials for a total odds of 1 in 1000. Please read carefully sometimes, magna cum laude in English.

 

[Kariboo]

Also, the mall survey was done in January in North Carolina. Now, I'm not a complete weather expert, but I'm pretty sure the conditions are winter-like. Anita, were the people at the mall all wearing thin cotton shirts? Or were you at that time able to see hearts, ovaries, and intestines in a matter of seconds, from several metres away, under bulky layers of clothing?

Ah yes,

Asked and answered:

Originally Posted by Kariboo
Tell me what were the people wearing that you read so far (Dr Carlson, the other volunteers at FACT, the people in your pre- study on the street, random other people etc). So no one was wearing an overcoat? or thick sweater? or layers? All of them were wearing at maximum a thin cotton shirt?

That's right.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, you're ignoring the fact that you were caught in (another) blatant lie.

Which of the following statements by you is true?

Well in all honesty the claim that will be tested is detecting number of kidneys by looking at a person's clothed back. I have never detected kidneys or humans behind steel. And I won't consider testing other claims. If the kidney detection test fails it will falsify most of these other experiences also.

 

[Ashles]

If I was Anita I would walk away from thread and go on vacation. Who needs to be subjected to this rubbish?

She's always free to do that. It might be interesting for you to wonder why she doesn't.

 

[EHocking]

I agree with you, but. . .


We're not dealing with regular vision. Little to no light penetrates through the skin, so there's no normally reflected light to give fat any particular color. Whatever process she claims is happening, it's not vision in the normal, optical sense. (I think she said she sees nitrogen as a cool neon blue or some such.)

Thanks for providing Anita with an out....

But.

This is HER CLAIM, from her website, my bolding;

The vision is in actual, natural color. Much of the inside of the body is in pink, orange and red. Images are three-dimensional and often perceived from many angles at once, from the front, behind, up, down, left and right at the same time. So images are not constructed from the sides that I am facing only. Although the inside of the body is dark, and a light source needs to be attached to optical instruments that are inserted into the body in medicine, my vision of tissues is bright and clear, and not surrounded by darkness.

Note: Actual, natural colour, bright and clear.

Note also the highlighted passage with relation to her dodging posts wrt any test protocols at these threads.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

1) I like the idea of adding a mannequin into the mix, as a possibly decoy from behind the screen.

I do love that idea also. Wouldn't it be funny and very obvious if I were to detect kidneys in a mannequin? I would laugh a bit and say that the claim is hereby falsified and that we have all learned something. I would then become an investigating skeptic and put others' claims of medical perception to the test.

2) Why would somebody lean against a cloth screen? Am I the only one who thinks VfF never actually tested her ability to see her visions when the subject is behind a screen? I mean, I've seen a few cloth screens in my day, and I always make sure not to lean against them, because they tend to fall over.

Because of the way it was set up. The only way we could think of constructing a full-body fabric screen was by tying a sheet on the posts of a bed. The person was then sitting on the edge of the bead and could not help but to lean against it. And contrary to what you would like to suspect I am actually being entirely honest about everything. If I say I tested a screen I probably did test it.

3) Since it's going to be difficult to advertise for one-kidney folk, would it be easier to design a protocol to detect some other medical condition? Pregnancy, maybe? If you can determine that a woman is having her period, surely you should be able to tell if there's an embryo inside her uterus. At the early stages of pregnancy, it should also be as easily viewed from the back. And burkhas could always be used.

I think I have finally chosen a specific claim (kidney detection) and I don't want to change at this point.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

For a while Anita was offering on her website to sketch unborn babies in the womb, so it's certainly plausible that pregnancy might provide an avenue of approach. However, at one point Anita was also considering detecting vasectomies, but she backed out of that claim by saying she tried but couldn't do it again.

I have chosen a claim (kidney detection) and I will not change again. Or it will introduce delays to test arrangements. When did I say I couldn't detect vasectomies anymore? I think what I said was that I wasn't detecting many out in the public. But the test will involve detecting number of kidneys, and I won't change that.

A better approach might be to guess the gender of the baby. Parents learn this pretty early on and are provided with documenation (ultrasounds). This alleviates several logistical problems. There are zero physical clues as to gender of the baby, so we don't have to worry about those types of visual cues. All of the subjects are controls, so we don't have to worry about non-verbal cues in that regard.

That's a wonderful idea. Too bad I think I will stick to having a kidney detection test.

All that's left is controlling for the subject giving a hint as to the gender. Standing behind a screen with the belly portion removed should alleviate any concerns about subtle clues unless someone can think of a belly movement that indicates boy or girl.

Oh really? And what kind of back movements reveal the number of kidneys? As I said, we can find numerous ways of lying to the persons so that they are confused as to who is the target.

Thank you for not insulting me this time.

 

[Ashles]

I do love that idea also. Wouldn't it be funny and very obvious if I were to detect kidneys in a mannequin? I would laugh a bit and say that the claim is hereby falsified and that we have all learned something. I would then become an investigating skeptic and put others' claims of medical perception to the test.

As I beleive I have mentioned before, you would have to massively improve your knowledge of, and ability to generate, experimental protocols before you would be able to do that.

At the moment you are fairly dreadful at creating skeptical or scientific tests.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

1/ just how a "wooster" is capable of justifying his failure even after repeated and recorded tests. The testers, beguiled by DO's charm, actually felt sorry for the man's 'self delusion'.
2/ the basic inability of "woosters" to admit they are extremely talented cold readers.

The objective of my investigation is to reach a reliable conclusion on the claim one way or the other and I would not object falsifying the claim. Oh if you guys knew that I did detect the missing kidney! Personally I fail to see what cold reading would have been available to some of my perceptions, but that is why I have the test.

I reckon most posters here are perplexed by VfF's utter refusal to construct an valid test for a simple claim.

The claim is not as simple as you would like. I need to see the surface of the person, ie. skin or thin clothing.

I know I was, til I read her Mall Reading notes:
http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/surveynotes.html
Cold reading all the way down the line, in my opinion.
Or, if the phrase cold reading is objectionable, replace it with reading the body's micro gestures and movements coupled with good guessing.

Well of course, I do not refute the fact that cold reading is available to many or most of my medical perceptions. Meanwhile I am investigating since I do not know what cold reading would have been available to some of the perceptions, and I admit that that doesn't mean cold reading wasn't responsible for them as well.

Why is the burkha option unacceptable to VfF?
Then again why doesn't VfF understand that insisting on physically seeing the volunteers can be taken as a direct admission he/she is using cold reading?

I need to see the clothed back of the person to perceive kidneys, and I fail to see what cold reading is available for the number of kidneys. And if the investigation concludes that all it is is unintentional cold reading I would be interested in that conclusion as well, because I would be very impressed with what cold reading can do.

 

[Ashles]

Well in all honesty the claim that will be tested is detecting number of kidneys by looking at a person's clothed back. I have never detected kidneys or humans behind steel. And I won't consider testing other claims. If the kidney detection test fails it will falsify most of these other experiences also.

We still need you to confirm your answer to my question in this post.

With regard your desire to be able to 'pass' on subjects, here are the choices:

1) No passes allowed. You must respond (as previously detailed) '2 kidneys', '1 left kidney' or '1 right kidney' regarding every subject placed in front of you.

2) Passes allowed - but if you 'pass' this is instantly counted as a 'miss' (this what what you previously stated)

3) Passes allowed - but if you 'pass' this is considered as a response by you of 2 healthy kidneys (without any recourse to later claim otherwise)

Which of these do you choose?