Moderated: VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Senex

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!)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Senex

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by volatile

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]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

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]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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

Oh yes she can

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Senex

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]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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

We'll see.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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?

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

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:

Quote:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Chimera

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]

Originally Posted by Senex

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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;

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

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.

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

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.

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

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]

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by pakeha

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.

Originally Posted by pakeha

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.

Originally Posted by pakeha

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.

Originally Posted by pakeha

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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?

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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,

Originally Posted by LightinDarkness

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by volatile

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]

Originally Posted by Ashles

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]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by Senex

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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:

Originally Posted by Ashles

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

You responded to the list:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ashles

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

<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,

Originally Posted by Ashles

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]

Originally Posted by Kariboo

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ashles

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]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling

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:

Quote:

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?