6 minutes to view each person. All five persons were sitting in line at all times for my readings, and I was allowed to look at any of them and to distribute my time among the five as I wish. A total of 30 minutes viewing time for five persons.
6 minutes per person was enough with three of the five persons. With person # 1 and person # 2 I needed more time to go back and look at them. This was because I had only one weak perception of person # 1 left kidney as there, and because I did not feel a kidney in person # 2 right side and wanted to go back and double-check and confirm these perceptions with repeated perceptions to see if they would be consistent. Also with person # 1 left side I had wanted to try to obtain a clearer perception. I used some of the time remaining from persons # 4 and # 5 on the others when I finished early with these.
6 minutes per person should be adequate in most cases. But I did require additional time with some of the persons. The time I need with each persons, varies and depends on the clarity of my perceptions in each case, which differ. I would appreciate being given some time at the end of a test to review my notes and to make a final comparison before I make my choice. This was not available for this test and I had to take from my own viewing time.
A total test time of 30 minutes (ignoring the time spent in between each 6 minute reading session which was allocated for questions and answers regarding my claim) seemed like a comfortable amount of time. 30 minutes was not too much, and I can gladly add more to a total testing time, such as an hour. But from the IIG test I learned that three 27 minute trials, with two 10 minute breaks in between and six people to read in each 27 minute session, was too much and left me exhausted and unable to perform in the third trial. I am expecting now, that an hour a day is about what I can do of the intense concentration that is involved when I attempt the perceptions.
Question: Why do I concentrate?
Why does it require so much concentration when I look at people and try to form some sort of conclusion about their kidney status? Shouldn't it be as simple as just giving a quick glance and making a guess? Or, should it really be all that intensive to just look at someone for a few minutes?
When I form my medical perceptions, it starts with me seeing a person. From then on I am using feeling, not vision. I think I need to initially see the person in order to know exactly where they are and to locate the vibrational information that I then experience myself sensing, and after that initial quick glance I often choose to look away or to even close my eyes. I then begin to process information that is not visually derived.
I feel a pattern of vibration across the person. I have to somehow reach into it, to feel the shapes and patterns contained within it, and to process these into corresponding images, and to then assign meaning to what it is I am feeling and seeing. To feel the shapes requires an effort and it does make my mind tired after a long time. I do not use logic or the thinking process, which of course does not make a person have to concentrate this much and does not make them tired in the same way.
I also want to mention something disturbing. At the IIG test when I got very tired by the beginning of the third trial, I was starting to feel headaches and nausea and an overall "electrical" discomfort across my brain and body. It felt like what I would imagine is the onset of epilepsy. I have never had epilepsy and this was my first encounter with a sensation like this. And at the same time my claim ceased to work or to manifest any of the shapes or pictures. There was also a moment during the TAM demonstration when I was starting to feel similar sensations, but nowhere near as severe. I of course take this seriously and I avoid putting myself at any risk of harm. When this starts to occur I always rest during a test, and for most of trial 3 in the IIG test I was in fact leaning back, closing my eyes, breathing and resting.
The intense concentration, and the resulting fatigue and even something similar to the onset of an epileptic seizure, indicates that I do use my brain when I process something that I feel and to form the perceptions. If it can ever be arranged, I would love to see a brain scan from a time when I am forming the perceptions, just to learn what areas of the brain I am using and in what combination, to form the perceptions. This would definitely prove whether I am using logical thinking skills (ie. looking at external symptoms and trying to be clever and figure out what clues indicate who knows that they are a target), whether I am using feeling, or vision, and in what combination. There are also areas in the brain that are involved with hallucinations and delusion, and so I am quite sure I would learn a lot from undertaking a brain scan during my perceptions.
People are different?
In the IIG test I noticed that some people were harder for me to feel into, than were others. There was one person in particular, person # 12 in trial 1 who I was having a very hard time feeling into, and I had to assume that it was because he was a larger person than some of the others. In this TAM demonstration I also noticed that some were easy for me to conclude on. In fact, persons # 4 and # 5 were both very quick and easy for me to see both of their kidneys many times and clearly, yet person # 1 left side was almost impossible and it took a long time for me to finally see her left kidney once, but weakly, and I never managed to see it again.
I wish I had a way of being able to define the general characteristic that will make a person harder to feel into than others, because that way they could be excluded from participating in a test - I should not be required to feel into "all" persons, but to be able to pick someone from a line of people correctly. I now know that it isn't body size, because persons # 4 and # 5 were a bit larger than person # 1 who was harder to feel into her left side.
Could it be their body temperature? A physics professor who is very interested in sensory perception, to whom I shared about my claim and investigation suggested to me that if my claimed ability works, it would have to be the case of me sensing thermal patterns, that is, the distribution landscape of the body's emission of heat.
Heat is electromagnetic radiation, in the same way that color and sunlight, ultraviolet rays and x-rays are, but heat has such a low frequency - or energy content - that our eyes can not see it. Instead, we have receptors in our skin that can feel the heat. So, heat is in fact a form of vibrational information that we can feel. This all started when I was practicing to learn to feel some sort of "energy beam" supposedly coming from the tip of a quartz crystal. I practiced for days, until after about two days I could feel a cool, blue beam emanating from the crystal and into my hand. It is known in optical science, that letting light pass through a quartz crystal does change the properties of that light. But can we really feel this type of light, or, can we learn to do so?
I have more questions than answers, but so far all I need to focus on is not how it works, but does it work. But I can not define in advance who will be and who won't be difficult for me to feel into, nor what the reasons for that will be. Person # 3 in which I felt a distinct feeling of "empty" in his left side, I later learned he had had recent health problems including a stroke. Perhaps that reduced his body temperature in that region? Perhaps it reduced some sort of "life energy" in him? I don't know.
If you look at that above temperature distribution map, you can imagine how feeling temperature can provide some sort of vibrational, felt, information. Such a felt landscape can then start to translate into a felt outline and a shape that becomes visual in nature.
But how about the temperature map across the human body, and can that really convey information that reveals the presence or absence of kidneys, or other tissues and organs? Let's look at a temperature map of the human body, found here medical thermography (they have no affiliation to my investigation). If you look at the picture provided there, of the thermal map across a human back, there appears to be no distinct occurrence of heat where the kidneys would be located. Yet, what would the absence of a kidney look like on thermography? The kidneys contain a great deal of blood, and blood carries heat in the human body. Is the thermal distribution of a human body related to the amount of blood in that region? I think that maybe it is. Then would the absence of a kidney correspond to that region with the missing kidney being much colder than if it has a kidney? I do not know.
But how about all the other things I claim to be able to detect? I am not convinced that I could produce the perceptions based on sensing thermal patterns. I should test this! How about having some candles and some icecubes hidden behind simple screens? If it is thermal patterns I am sensing, then these temperature maps should produce the same kind of "perceptions", although not of tissues, but of shapes, as when I look at a human being.
And in spite of all of these questions I have, when I try to learn more about my experience of felt and visual medical perceptions, the most important aspect to try to define is what its accuracy is, and whether there even is an ability. I also need to consider the possibility that this only be something that takes place in my mind, and that these perceptions are not derived based on actual information that I perceive. There are many more questions to answer. The perceptions are real, in that I experience them as visual and felt information, and I am curious to find out what they are, how they come about, and what they can do.
