VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

I recall the original statement was that the professor threw papers at her, but it is too much bother to try to track it down. Actual assault witnessed by a whole class would result in charges being brought in any university that I know of.

It was this post in this thread.

Other than one F which I have because I refused to attend a class where the professor hits students and calls them names and tells them he hates them, I have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It was this post in this thread.

No, that was yesterday. The original was last Fall after she was exposed.

 

[Ashles]

No, that was yesterday. The original was last Fall after she was exposed.

Yes, I was referring to the post yesterday as the potentially libellous one.

(although I suspect if discovered the original post would probably have been fairly hotly contested by the professor and/or the University - it doesn't reflect well on any establishment for one of their students to complain of failing a course due to agressive behaviour by a lecturer, and that when complained about no action was taken by the University)

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Hell, I'm ill and bored, so I tracked down the original post, back in February:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4412684&postcount=2331

I was waiting for that. I received an F last year because I had a professor who was really mean to some of the students. We were hit with papers and yelled at and insulted every day of class, he said he hated us and didn't want to see us in his classroom anymore and that we should withdraw. None of the students earned this behavior, he was just an unfriendly personality. It was making me depressed having to be in an environment like that, so I had to stop attending his class in order to not let it affect my mood and my other grades. As you all know I'm a very sweet and friendly personality and I don't do well with negative behavior like that. So, the school gave me an F. An F that is not based on my study skills, so it really says nothing about me all it says is that my school isn't perfect. I am using a grade replacement policy and retaking that class this semester and already got an A in the first assignment so the 4.0 is coming back. So the F doesn't count and technically I'm still a 4.0. Not that it matters?

All it takes is one F to be kicked off the Chancellor's List. They don't care why you got it, even if it was the school's fault and there was nothing you could do. I've cried about it plenty, but I'll be back by the end of this semester, check back then.

 

[Senex]

No, that was yesterday. The original was last Fall after she was exposed.

I monitor these things fairly closely and to my knowledge VFF has yet to be exposed *


* see Vanessa Hudgens, Rebecca Gayheart, et.all

 

[Sun Countess]

I guess the kidney detection test is a no-go then. But I'm sure the blame will be placed at the feet of IIG, since they'll fail to rustle up all those one-kidney volunteers who would be willing to be stared at for half an hour apiece.

Can one really submit such an unworkable semi-protocol to an organization and then just expect them to do all the work? It's not like they just need to find cards and envelopes or volunteers with common medical conditions. "Just get me a bunch of people with one kidney, and we'll be good to go! Except that I'm really busy studying for school."

Priceless. I'll happily write a cheque for $100 to Free the Children, because VfF did not follow through. I guess she had fun for a few days though.

 

[pakeha]

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.
Hmm. I see I wasn't crystal clear about what cold reading is and I apologise for that. It's the study of micro movements, gestures, eye movement, foot movement, any sort of movement or posture which can give to the observer a wealth of information about a person. Obviously, not about whether a person has one or two kidneys, but yes, if they know they are the 'target' of a study. Body language is an intriguing field, VfF.

The claim is not as simple as you would like. I need to see the surface of the person, ie. skin or thin clothing.
Steady on, old girl.
Skin? I'm not entirely sure that's legal.
Thin clothing? Indeed. What is thinner than a burqa (burkha, whatever)

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.
Very wise of you to say that. After all, if you can see the person, cold reading comes into play. Consciously or not.

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.
I hope I cleared up what confusion was caused by my post. Cold reading would not divulge the number of kidneys of a given person, but rather their awareness of their role in the test.
I can agree with you, VfF, that it is amazing, simply amazing the amount of information we give freely to the world just by the way we sit in a chair.
Anyway, if you can spare the time, I'd be interested in knowing what objections there were to the burqa idea.

Good luck with Uni.

 

[Ashles]

I guess the kidney detection test is a no-go then. But I'm sure the blame will be placed at the feet of IIG, since they'll fail to rustle up all those one-kidney volunteers who would be willing to be stared at for half an hour apiece.

Just for reference, I e-mailed IIG to find out who was waiting for who to agree a date.

The whole date issue has been actually a bit confused now I look back.

Skeptical Greg quotes this from IIG, but I'm not quite sure where that came from.

Once we have a target date from you, we can begin negotiating the details of the protocol and begin our search for all the volunteers we will need for the test.

In this post Anita states that

The target date is any weekend of their choice.

This is the email I received from Jim Newman today:

While we might have been hoping for a firm date from her, it's not really
fair to expect one until we have developed a protocol that she and we can
agree on. So it's probably safe to say that we are not at that stage,
yet.

So it looks like the date setting is now dependent on and subsequent to a protocol agreement.

So I predict now that this test will not take place this year.

 

[Ashles]

Sorry, should have posted the first email I got back from IIG as well:

Thanks for your inquiry. Our negotiations with Miss Ikonen have been
moving slowly. This is largely due to the fact that we are a large
organization and many pairs of eyes need to vet all communication before
it's approved. We prefer that these negotiations remain out of the public
eye. As slow as things are now, they would only slow down more if we had
to take into consideration every opinion from outside sources.
That being said, please know that we read every post in all the many
threads on this subject in the JREF forum and other websites. We just
don't feel that the forum is the right environment for us to conduct these
negotiations.
Feel free to share this information at JREF.
Once negotiations have concluded, we will likely publish all the
pertintent information that led to our conclusion.
We're sorry we can't give you more information right now, but thank you
for your interest in this project.
Thanks,
Jim Newman
www.iigwest.org

 

[Gaspode]

To all participants - this thread is about VisionFromFeeling's kidney detection test. I suggest reaquainting yourself with the opening post if in doubt.

Further breaches of Rule 11 in this thread will not be tolerated. Punitive action may include suspension and even banning from the Forum.

If you cannot post on-topic then do not post.

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

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here's an interesting tidbit: In VFF's past protocol negotations with IIG we have the following:

Anita's comments in magenta.

Ailments or conditions” also includes missing parts such as kidneys, tonsils, and
appendixes, and any part of the anatomy that has been altered such as (but not
limited to) artificial hips and knees, or the presence of pins, rods, screws, etc.
With regard to this point, I can only agree with missing arm(s), hand(s), leg(s) or
foot(feet). Not missing fingers or toes, missing tonsils, or pins, rods, screws.
Please provide me with a comprehensive list of possible missing parts and I will
let you know with each one whether I can agree to it or not.

She refused in the past to attempt to detect missing kidneys. Fascinating.

After her reading with Dr. Carlson, she never said anything about it being her strongest reading ever. In fact when it came to her study she only said, "I will most likely include 'missing kidney' on the list of ailments." Given a chance to gush about it, she just gave a ho-hum response to it. She did add it to the study form, but we have yet to see the data from the study.

Interestingly, there was no public mention of kidneys again until she announced that this is her strongest claim and the only thing she will test. In a private chat right after the reading she said, "I made progress. I now claim to detect missing kidneys, or that at least I think I did once. So that is good." Every other time she mentioned it to me it was as if she were treating it virtually the same as lactobacillus or any other reading she had done.

Just food for thought...

 

[tsig]

GeeMack, I detected that a left kidney was missing. You calling it a lie doesn't change the fact that I detected it. I allow that I mentioned it after the fact and that therefore there is no evidence for it and I allow that you Skeptics have every reason to doubt my sincerety in this, meanwhile I do know that I did detect it before it was mentioned to me and that is why I am having the test. You can't convince me otherwise, and I won't try to convince you otherwise either. You weren't there, you don't know, and I am telling the truth. I never lie. You should see me on April Fool's Day when I try to call friends and family and make up some silly or even convincing lies, I just start giggling and can't do it. Or if I lie I feel so guilty about it I have nightmares and have to go and confess to the person. That's just the way I am.

Let's let the test decide whether I can see kidneys or not, GeeMack.

But you didn't have enough faith in your ability to write it down at the time.

 

[Roadtoad]

I DETECTED THAT A LEFT KIDNEY WAS MISSING AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERCEPTION AS CLEAR AS THAT AND THAT IS WHY I WILL HAVE THIS TEST AND NONE OF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME AWAY FROM IT

THE TEST WILL DECIDE WHETHER I CAN DO WHAT I CLAIM OR NOT AND I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

*And yes, saying it in large font and Caps Lock does make it so.

Christ almighty. This thing is STILL going on?

Anita, seriously. You are not the one who can say you were telling the truth. That is only shown through evidence. And as yet, you've provided none. And, no, shouting doesn't make it so, it's merely shouting.

I have tried to read through every post on this thread, and I simply wind up reaching for the Tylenol. This is one of the most embarrassing things I've ever read on this board.

Evidence, Anita. Evidence. It is the only thing which matters. You can claim you have seen X, but until there's evidence that X even exists, until there's evidence that you could have seen it, you have zip.

You have been shown repeatedly how to put together protocols for the challenge, and you have repeatedly made it clear you're not interested in fulfilling that end of it. You're simply groovin' on the attention.

I'm done. You want to humiliate yourself? Go ahead. But I refuse to participate. I'm simply not that cruel.

 

[Roadtoad]

Attention passengers...this train will not be stopping at Derail-ville but may make a unscheduled stop at either Merger-town or AAH-Burg if the passengers in the back won't calm down...yes you, the tall short one with the top hat. Your cooperation is appreciated. /Mr Conductor

In other words...this thread is not about who lied, school, etc. but about developing a kidney test protocol as defined in the OP. Please stick to that topic in THIS thread.

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

Dude, please. Just grab the bags and toss 'em into the AAH car. No one will miss them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And, no, shouting doesn't make it so, it's merely shouting.

I think she's trying to be funny or at least is directing that at me. A month or so ago in a Skype exchange between VFF and myself, she pulled the all ALL CAPS thing on me using almost the same words. I responded, "Oh, well if you type it in ALL CAPS, then it must be true!"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So. . . .even if you could find a bunch of volunteer subjects with just one kidney who've never met Anita (and I don't think you can in real life) or find just one and work out a way to re-use that volunteer (and somehow eliminate the recognition problem mentioned below), and even if you can arrange a partial screen such that there is NO information leakage like person's girth and their ability to sit still for a long time--stuff that might recognize a repeat volunteer (and I don't think you can), you're still dealing with something that's basically a coin toss--either two kidneys are one kidney.

In fact, I suspect a coin toss would be used to randomize the order of subjects.

I don't think 10 tries is enough to rule out chance. It might mathematically if you require all 10 to be correct for her to claim a successful outcome, but, as I've said, if she gets 8 or 9 correct, I guarantee she wouldn't admit failure no matter what she agreed to ahead of time.

Instead she'd modify her claim to say she is 80 or 90% accurate as validated by rigorous testing under controlled conditions. In fact, such a failure would actually make her bogus claim look more legitimate.

That's why a bad test is not better than nothing.

 

[tsig]

Other than the fact that you couldn't even make it through a class that obviously many other people were able to complete, you have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

Other than the fact that you don't have a perfect 4.0 GPA, you have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

You're a real piece of work, Anita. Lying with no compunction. I bet your parents are proud.

And there's still the issue of determining whether your alleged sense of super secret x-ray vision isn't caused by something mundane, well known to exist, and relatively common. Before you take your kidney counting guessing game, don't you think it would be a good idea to get a professional assessment of your mental health, since we all know that a problem in that area could cause the symptoms you're having? Then if you ever play that guessing game, you will have eliminated the most obvious explanation beforehand. Science at its finest, Anita! Someday you might be a real science student, as opposed to the grade school kid pretend science student you are now, and you'll be glad to know these things.

deleted per warning

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Replies

Oh, and you neglected to mention whether you've had your problem properly assessed by a mental health professional. Being the self declared science student that you are, I'm sure you'd agree that eliminating the obvious explanations would be a good first step when trying to find out if there's some kind of unknown cause for a phenomenon, like your supposed ability to see people's innards. And you certainly can't deny that mental illness is known to exist and could explain everything about the symptoms you describe. Get that checked out yet, Anita?

Dear GeeMack, I see pictures of tissues and organs in the same way that I see colors associated to physics equations and molecular formulas. The experience is real (but not necessarily reality-based) and similar to synesthesia, which, by definition is not a mental illness. I have not concluded whether I actually see people's insides and I will let the kidney detection test determine that. Mental illness can not explain why I accurately describe health information that one should not be able to know just by looking at a person.

You have discovered the secret: Just tell the truth, and people won't call you a liar.

Actually, UncaYimmy, I am called a liar when I tell the truth. The truth is, I did detect the missing kidney before it was mentioned. And that is the truth.

Ever since I told you that I would no longer keep the contents of further conversations private, you have not contacted me privately. We went from multiple chats per week (initiated by you) to zero in the month since that announcement.

Jim Carr! Don't you make that conclusion! I have been staying at my boyfriend's house this Summer and while I am here I do not have internet connection with my own computer and that is the reason! Just you wait, once I'm back to school you'll be bombarded with private messages again.

If you give me permission, I will reveal those things that are relevant to your investigation. If not, then please retract your claim that there are no secrets.

I do not give you my permission to disclose content from our private conversations.

She refused in the past to attempt to detect missing kidneys. Fascinating.

Yes. I was reluctant to assume that the perceptions would work equally well with all health information. Only after I (allegedly!) had the experience of detecting a missing kidney did I decide to involve that in a test.

But you didn't have enough faith in your ability to write it [missing kidney] down at the time.

Exactly! And that is part of the reason why I feel so confident in the kidney detection! Because logically I was absolutely certain that he couldn't possibly be missing a kidney!

Evidence, Anita. Evidence. It is the only thing which matters. You can claim you have seen X, but until there's evidence that X even exists, until there's evidence that you could have seen it, you have zip.

You have been shown repeatedly how to put together protocols for the challenge, and you have repeatedly made it clear you're not interested in fulfilling that end of it. You're simply groovin' on the attention.

I can not provide evidence for or against the claim until there is a test. So we have been discussing the test protocol until that test happens. I can't do a remote viewing test, and I'm not here for attention.

I think she's trying to be funny or at least is directing that at me. A month or so ago in a Skype exchange between VFF and myself, she pulled the all ALL CAPS thing on me using almost the same words. I responded, "Oh, well if you type it in ALL CAPS, then it must be true!"

Ha ha, yes, it is a private joke between me and UncaYimmy. I knew he would catch on it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Dear GeeMack, I see pictures of tissues and organs in the same way that I see colors associated to physics equations and molecular formulas.

No, you don't. You said that certain formulas appear as having a certain color. That is a far cry from downloading information and creating 3-D images you can manipulate in any dimension and zoom in/out. But we don't need to discuss that for the hundredth time.

I do not give you my permission to disclose content from our private conversations.

The most important thing here is that there are "secrets" in your alleged investigation, which is why I brought it up. As for what I choose to reveal, you have posted verbatim things that I and others have said to you privately, so you cannot seriously expect others to treat your comments differently. When you write hundreds of words in a chat with no response from me, you do not create an obligation on my part to keep that information to myself.

Exactly! And that is part of the reason why I feel so confident in the kidney detection! Because logically I was absolutely certain that he couldn't possibly be missing a kidney!

And yet you want to insist that if you choose a target in error that person must undergo an ultrasound to prove their kidney count. Do you not see the apparent contradiction?

I can not provide evidence for or against the claim until there is a test.

You can and you did. Repeatedly. The "study" was more than sufficient to reveal that there is nothing worth testing. You did worse than 2 out of 3 controls. You have to understand that the only person who believes you need a test is you. In other words the rest of us believe your investigation has long since been concluded.

Ha ha, yes, it is a private joke between me and UncaYimmy. I knew he would catch on it.

It wasn't funny. It was pathetic, actually.

 

[GeeMack]

Dear GeeMack, I see pictures of tissues and organs in the same way that I see colors associated to physics equations and molecular formulas.

Sounds like hallucinations to me.

The experience is real [...]

Or seems so to you.

[...] (but not necessarily reality-based) [...]

Which would describe mental illness.

[...] and similar to synesthesia, which, by definition is not a mental illness.

There are no doubt lots of things about various symptoms of various mental illnesses that are similar to something that isn't mental illness. Duh.

I have not concluded whether I actually see people's insides and I will let the kidney detection test determine that.

We are a group of pretty shrewd and intelligent skeptics, and we, for the most part, hold the position that you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim, therefore we tentatively reject it. Your wholly unsupported conclusion notwithstanding.

Mental illness can not explain why I accurately describe health information that one should not be able to know just by looking at a person.

If you are suffering from a condition that makes you delusional, you, Anita, are not qualified to accurately determine the state of your own mental health. Mental illness could easily explain why you might believe you accurately describe health information that one should not be able to know just by looking at a person. And since it has not yet been once demonstrated that your claim is remotely true, the skeptical analysis would be that either you believe it is true, which would indeed support the possibility that you are mentally ill, or that you know it isn't true, which would take us another direction. That other direction being that you're a liar and a fraud.

So can we take it that you haven't had a professional mental health assessment regarding these hallucinations of yours and that the possibility of you being mentally ill is still on the table as an explanation? Or maybe you'll admit to being a liar and a fraud? That's really about all you have to go on right now, because until you can demonstrate any truth to your claim, some kind of magical x-ray vision is not in the running as an explanation.