VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

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.

We do not currently agree there is anything requiring explanation.

In no test/study/survey/reading run since you joined these forums have we seen any results above chance/complete absence of ability.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

LightinDarkness to UncaYimmy about him having a website that prevents me from going into the woo economy,

And this is why, even through a few JREF trolls and conspiracy mongers have given you hell about your site, I think it is an absolutely wonderful public service you are performing and am so glad you put that site up.

And meanwhile there is this.

Yes, stop the woo that is actually investigating and willing to falsify their woo rather than exploiting and potentially harming people! Stop VFF! Don't let any woo subject their claims to proper testing and - worst of all - possible falsification and - wait, it gets worse - setting a valuable example to woos everywhere!

 

[Ashles]

LightinDarkness to UncaYimmy about him having a website that prevents me from going into the woo economy,
And meanwhile there is this.

Anita, any chance you can answer my question about the 'passes'?

If you can then that's cool and I'll let you get back to responding to every other post made since then other than my question about your protocol.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You do realise, don't you Anita, that you'll never, ever get a job in a scientific field now? One google of your name, as most employers do these days, and your CV is in the trashcan. You've literally torched your career.

I do worry about that, however my experience of medical perceptions, seeing images in my mind that depict internal tissue and organs when I look at people, is a genuine experience, one that I have not seen mentioned in scientific literature, and I have experienced interesting cases of correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of people. And I have chosen to investigate the experience to learn more about it and to reliably conclude on the accuracy and types of accurate perceptions. And I have chosen to do this publicly because not much is known about this kind of experience, and the few others that also claim to experience this are not allowing a closer inspection.

I believe that I have conducted this investigation ethically and with regard to the safety of those involved. I do believe that it is a subject that is entitled to the work I've put into it, and regardless of the conclusion that is reached, I do believe it will be a contribution to skepticism and that it will set a valuable example to woos everywhere. People, especially science students, should not be discouraged from investigating unknown phenomena, in fact I would think that it is commendable that I have chosen to do so.

 

[Ashles]

I guess not.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So you need to clarify, is a pass to be considered you declaring you can detect nothing abnormal therefore we should treat a pass as equivalent to you stating 2 normal kidneys,
or is a pass simply a miss (i.e. an incorrect reading)?

A pass would mean that I had no perception of kidneys. I would ask that a pass could lead to a test not being failed, but inconclusive. I will see what the IIG says about this. If they put their foot down about this then I will have to comply with them.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

There's no reason to limit the subjects to actual people, or to actually existing for that matter. Test using something with just one kidney and something else, or nothing, without just one kidney. If Anita balks at that idea, it's just more evidence to support the notion that she's a liar and a fraud.

I allow the test to involve a mannequin or no volunteer. It would be funny if I were to detect kidneys in thin air or in a plastic figure and the conclusion of the claim would be quite obvious.

 

[Akhenaten]

A pass would mean that I had no perception of kidneys. I would ask that a pass could lead to a test not being failed, but inconclusive. I will see what the IIG says about this. If they put their foot down about this then I will have to comply with them.

No, you're going to have to give that thinking away mate. The last thing we want out of all this is a result of inconclusive.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

She actually in fact has claimed on this very thread that she can indeed see the insides of a person behind a full screen. She said she immediately saw fat tissue, then later saw the liver, spleen and heart, but had a difficult time finding the kidneys because she was disoriented.

For the last time, dear Forum Skeptic, you need to read what it is I claim more carefully. When I tried the full-body screen, the person was leaning against the screen. It is not consistent with the remote viewing test many of you are asking that I do.

She also does not claim that she needs to see the surface of the body. She claims she can see someone's insides right through clothes. The reasons some of us are still harping on a full screen test are: 1) it would stop a major source of potential information leakage (or as UncaYimmy points out, at least a potential source of skewing the odds significantly), 2) the full screen test is consistent with her claims, and 3) finding volunteers with just 1 kidney will be difficult if not impossible, thus further skewing the odds.

The main concern of information leakage is that a person would have some sort of body language that reveals whether they think they are the target or not. And I have already said that although I find that unlikely, we can address that concern by lying to the volunteers. And GeeMack thinks that I should be able to lie.

It's not a test of remote viewing. It's a test of her claims of some form of "x-ray vision". It is entirely consistent with her claims.

No it ain't! The person was leaning against the full-body screen. I have never had medical perceptions unless I was looking at the skin, thin clothing on the skin, or directly at a sheet that was over the person's clothing that was over the person's skin, and at each added layer the medical perceptions become considerably less reliable.

ETA: Information readily available with the screen-with-a-hole-in-it-showing-the-back-of-a-seated-t-shirt-wearing-volunteer: 1) the person's girth around the middle and 2) how still and quiet the person can sit for 15 minutes.

I e-mailed a hospital that performs kidney transplants and asked whether one should be able to determine the number of kidneys in a person just by looking at their clothed back. They replied that they had no one to answer my question. Although we must consider these concerns, I question whether these are an issue.

1) Might also correlate well with age which is another bit of information that might skew the odds.

Absolutely not. There are kidney donors in many ages.

 

[Kariboo]

A pass would mean that I had no perception of kidneys. I would ask that a pass could lead to a test not being failed, but inconclusive. I will see what the IIG says about this. If they put their foot down about this then I will have to comply with them.

Sure, and having open heart surgery where the surgeon can't find the heart is not failed surgery, but inconclusive surgery

And not being able to find your car in the parking lot is not failing a driving test but an inconclusive drivers test


You say you can detect kidneys. If you can't : you failed.

It's not up to the IIG to put their foot down. It is up to you to define your claim. This "I will have to comply with them" is you trying to find an out before the fact. You can have inconclusive tests until kingdom come this way.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I'm against the idea of a mannequin, particularly if there's a hole in the screen. She's still making each subject sit there for 15 minutes (inexplicably and contrary to her claim "When I look at someone,. . ."). I don't care how still you sit, you can't sit as still as a mannequin. That'd be a flat out giveaway.

Then just use UncaYimmy's Brilliant test protocol where the people are strapped down so they can't move and no one can tell the difference between a mannequin and a live person.

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

You're right let's just forget about these people and go find some haunted motel rooms you and me.

 

[Ashles]

A pass would mean that I had no perception of kidneys. I would ask that a pass could lead to a test not being failed, but inconclusive. I will see what the IIG says about this. If they put their foot down about this then I will have to comply with them.

Whoah, whoah, whoah there...!

Back up a sec.

The option to just... pass with no penalty was not on the table and won't be on the table with IIG unless they have no more idea of how to run a test than my stapler.

You can't just have the right to 'pass' on any subject you feel like, otherwise you
A) Might just pass all of them and waste everyone's time
B) Pass all except one and give yourself a 1-3 chance of success


Seriously, is someone else going to your college and passing your exams for you?
Have you looked up the word 'Skepticism' in a dictionary?

How can you possibly think the option to just skip people is going to be acceptable?

And why the complete change from this post where I outlined as much as I currently understood of the proposed protocol?

I specifically stated:

When you declare you cannot make a valid reading this will be declared a miss

You responded to the list:

Thank you Ashles that is exactly correct. I would prefer for the shirt and screen to not have a distracting pattern, preferably a plain one-color material. As for the score I need to acchieve, I have seen it suggested by others and I accept a 1 in 1000, meaning that in this test I would have to get all 10 correctly.

Are you actually already reneging on this protocol agreed only a couple of pages ago!

That was only 17 hours ago!

 

[Kariboo]

Whoah, whoah, whoah there...!

Back up a sec.

The option to just... pass with no penalty was not on the table and won't be on the table with IIG unless they have no more idea of how to run a test than my stapler.

You can't just have the right to 'pass' on any subject you feel like, otherwise you
A) Might just pass all of them and waste everyone's time
B) Pass all except one and give yourself a 1-3 chance of success


Seriously, is someone else going to your college and passing your exams for you?
Have you looked up the word 'Skepticism' in a dictionary?

How can you possibly think the option to just skip people is going to be acceptable?

And why the complete change from this post where I outlined as much as I currently understood of the proposed protocol?

I specifically stated:



You responded to the list:




Are you actually already reneging on this protocol agreed only a couple of pages ago!

That was only 17 hours ago!

Just for my edification. How would the odds be if you had 11 people and Vff were allowed 1 pass and no more? She would still need to get the other 10 right in order for her test to pass.

Vff : based on your experience, how many passes do you generally need for 10 people? i.e in how many people can't you see the kidneys?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I've got a a magna cum laude English degree. (...) 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.

Dear magna cum laude English degree Forum Skeptic, please read my posts where I carefully explain that in the at home test with an opaque full-body screen the person was leaning against the screen and that I have never experienced the remote viewing that you people are asking me to do. And what I claim is nothing like x-ray vision.

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.

From having been here and wading through the insults and useless comments I have picked up all the useful suggestions and thanks to that I have been able to submit an improved version of the test protocol to the IIG.

I don't like the attention I am getting here at all, I have every intention to test my claim as soon as possible, and I will not try a remote viewing test. Read it carefully, magna cum laude in English (congratulations on having that by the way).

 

[Agatha]

From having been here and wading through the insults and useless comments I have picked up all the useful suggestions and thanks to that I have been able to submit an improved version of the test protocol to the IIG.

What is the protocol?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

I don't like the attention I am getting here at all, I have every intention to test my claim as soon as possible, and I will not try a remote viewing test.


<vitriol? oh dear!>

You'll have to take that up with the thread originator.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Regarding the mannequins suggested by GeeMack,

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.

I was only playing along with that because UncaYimmy wanted to design such a (silly) test in the first place.

 

[Ashles]

Just for my edification. How would the odds be if you had 11 people and Vff were allowed 1 pass and no more? She would still need to get the other 10 right in order for her test to pass.

That creates too many problems.

"Hang on, I know I passed that guy two ago, but now I want to pass ths one instead, can we get the other one back?"

Any request to 'pass' without consequence should be unacceptable, end of story.

Vff : based on your experience, how many passes do you generally need for 10 people? i.e in how many people can't you see the kidneys?

How could she know - she's only done this... once before! This whole claim is based on a single instance! (and it is, let's not forget, her strongest claim - and yet still, despite all her many many impressive previous stories, 15 minutes may still not be adequate to detect even a whole kidney!)

She has only once reported detected a missing kidney, and that was, let's not forget, only after she was informed that the person was missing a kidney.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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?

The 2nd option is the only one I could agree to.

 

[Ashles]

Regarding the mannequins suggested by GeeMack,
I was only playing along with that because UncaYimmy wanted to design such a (silly) test in the first place.

Hmm, that doesn't actually have any relevance to my statement:

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.

You are dreadful at creating test protocols, there's no getting around that.

Remeber when you requested the paying audience?
Then the free audience?

It's not exactly Mendel and his pea plants is it?