About VFF
  Induced 1
  Induced 2
  First study
  Second study
  Results 1
  Results 2
  Results 3

Hidden Kidney Study

In the JREF Forum I sometimes used to be silly and post this image and say it was a kidney in a box and give it to forum skeptics when they were being mean as a way of making peace with a gift. I didn't think it would come to this, but the other day I happened to see fresh kidneys for sale in the store, and of course I have to experiment with them.

These are sheep kidneys. They are fresh and uncooked. One package has several of them about five or more. They are really cute, they look just like human kidneys only smaller. It was fun to actually get to see this beautiful organ like that with plain eyesight. I once saw a kidney donation take place on tv from the donor to the receiver and was amazed to see it. Well, yes buying fresh kidneys is gross and yes I am going to experiment with them to see if I can arrange situations where I might be able to perceive them with my paranormal claim. But it's not all that bad. Ever since I started seeing clear images of tissues and organs in my mind at the age of fourteen I grew to become very fond of tissues, to the point of wanting to study histology at some point, the scientific study of human tissues. And it could be worse - some people eat these things. They are sold as food. So keep that in mind as we go ahead and do a study involving yes - real fresh kidneys.

No kidneys will be eaten during this study. Or ever.

Fresh extracted sheep kidneys
A human kidney is 10 to 13 cm (4 to 5 inches) long and about 5 to 7.5 cm (2 to 3 inches) wide, weighing about 150 grams (5.3 ounces).source I was unable to find a citation of the dimensions of a sheep kidney but I suppose I can measure them when I get them. But the point is, should the size difference between a human kidney and a sheep kidney matter for my claim? No it should not. It might be easier to see the presence or note the absence of a kidney that is larger, but I estimate that the sheep kidneys are large enough.

Would there be a difference for my claim between a human kidney and a sheep kidney in terms of the tissue structure and its perception? Possibly, but not likely. If there is a difference that makes it difficult to perceive sheep kidneys then I would be able to learn to identify it just as well as I have learned to identify human kidneys.

Which brings us to my main concern. These kidneys are not living kidneys. There is no warm blood pumping through them. They are dead. There is no microscopic life happening across these kidneys. I suspect that if my claim were real, then part of that something that I am seeing could be the various microscopic molecular activities which possibly emit the "vibrational material" that I am sensing, which then outlines the images and information. Which begs the question, "What exactly do I experience that I am perceiving when I sense the presence of a kidney?" When I sense the presence of a kidney, the main feelings associated to that is the density and the weight of the kidney which comes accompanied with its placement, shape, outline and color. So would it make a difference whether the kidney is living or not living, in order to experience this sense of "weight" and "density" of a kidney? It very well might. I can not speculate beforehand whether I could experience perceiving a dead kidney as easily as I can a living kidney. This needs to be investigated.

The second concern, similar to the previous one, is that this kidney has been extracted and is no longer part of the whole living dynamic body. When I look for health information, I always use surrounding and related feelings from the body to piece together and to reinforce the images that I am forming. When I search for the presence or absence of a kidney, I always lend support from surrounding tissue which helps to let me feel, well, what they are feeling. Things in the body are connected, things in the body are affected and influenced by the presence of another, so I use that. Whether these kidneys being extracted matters, is something I am going to have to determine in this study.

Benefits - if this works
If I have success with this extracted kidney study, a test based on dowsing for extracted kidneys will have tremendous benefits over a live human kidney detection test.

I get to practice as much as I want - If I would have wanted to run a series of studies on, or practice for, missing kidney detection involving live humans, I would have needed live humans, some of which are missing a kidney, and some of which that are not. At the very least I would have needed one person who is missing a kidney, to practice on. The problem with this is not only that it is tricky finding someone who volunteers, but once I have seen the person and learned of the identity of their kidneys the person becomes somewhat useless for further studies or practice after that point. I have a relative whose one kidney is dislocated far below to the pelvis and I like to look at that, but after extracting what bit I can learn from that case it ceases to advance this investigation any further. But with extracted kidneys, I get to practice and study different setups all I want. If extracted kidneys prove to be as easy to feel as live kidneys in humans, then I immediately go from less than five trials a year to as many as I want, hundreds or thousands if I like.

No more human subjects needed! - If there is a test involving the use of extracted kidneys, such a test becomes tremendously easy to set up compared to one involving live human subjects. No longer do human volunteers need to be found for a test. This reduces most of the labor involved in arranging a test. The IIG, who arranged a missing kidney detection test for me, went through a great deal of work in finding the 20 subjects for the test. Four of these were missing a kidney, sixteen who were not. (There were three trials with six people in each, and one open trial at the beginning with one of each.) All of these 20 people had to be at the IIG building on the same day. There also of course had to be food available for them to stay all day, adding another expense to the test.

But the problem with having live human subjects is not just that they are hard to find and coordinate for a test. Each human being is different, and it is perhaps impossible to try to make them all equivalent for the purposes of a test. Even if the elaborate screen would be made that only shows the kidney-area portion of the back and all persons are wearing the same kind of shirt, there will still be minute differences. The way that they breathe, the way that they lean, etc. Even though none of these subtle differences should be able to provide clues indicative of their kidney status, it is still always best for test purposes to keep all trials identical except for the one variable which is being studied, in this case "one kidney or two kidneys".

Another concern with using live human subjects for a test was that this imposes a time limit. The IIG was concerned that the longer the human subjects would have to sit for a trial, not only would they personally become more tired, but that they might start to reveal clues, or that given enough time, subtle clues might begin to add up. An extracted kidney does not come with this problem (unless it sits for way too long and starts to smell). I could very easily be given trials that instead of being 4.5 or 5 minutes to spend on one person, I could be given ten or twenty minutes to look at one site, or why not even an hour if I needed it. The site would not change visually during that longer period of time.

No more time restrictions - As said above, using human subjects necessarily imposes a time restriction. The IIG gave me 4.5 minutes to spend on each person, giving me a total of 27 minutes to look at the six persons of a trial. For the TAM test I was given a slightly more generous 5 minutes per person, or 25 minutes for that one five-person trial. The concern is not only that a live human subject would become more tired from having to sit for longer for a trial, but also that possible external clues indicating to their kidney condition might become more apparent. Not only natural signs, but also the issue that a live human subject might be aware of their status as the target or non-target in a test. Even if measures had been taken to ensure that a human subject does not know that the target is a one-kidney person, the fact that their knowledge of the objective of the test and their status in the test might provide additional non-paranormal clues makes it still a viable concern - simply because we can not know or guard against a person knowing their status in the test. But an extracted kidney is not going to produce more signs as time goes along nor will the behavior or emitted signals of an extracted kidney change over time. A trial involving an extracted kidney could allot as much as ten or twenty minutes or even up to an hour for each kidney without it posing additional problems for the test. It also means that I will no longer be rushed in a test.

Best of all, a test involving extracted kidneys could allow me to spend a free amount of time on trials. I could finish early, or take longer on a particular trial. And I am thrilled at the prospect of such a test!

Low cost - A test involving human subjects is associated to some costs. As the claimant I may be responsible for the travel and refreshments costs of the many subjects of a live human test. Not to mention the very expensive ultrasound examination. I paid $250 to have ultrasound examination at the IIG test. Even though with the participation of an ultrasound technician or clinic it may be possible to arrange the technology free of charge for a test, the use of extracted kidneys requires no ultrasound for verification purposes.

No ultrasound - A test involving extracted kidneys does not require ultrasound technology to verify the results. The concealing setup of the test can be removed to reveal the results and in a manner that is quick, undisputable, and easy to see immediately by all. No cost or complication or time expense of conducting ultrasound examination for verification purposes.

More trials! - With human subjects, only very few trials were always possible due to the difficulty in finding and managing with live human subjects. Using extracted kidneys, an infinite amount of trials can be conducted. Also, the same extracted kidneys can be used in repeated trials.

The only disadvantage of using extracted kidneys over live human subjects would be if I am unable to produce a clarity nor frequency of kidney perceptions sufficient to run a test. I am fine with if my clarity or frequency would be somewhat reduced from that involving live human subjects, but it needs to be adequate and lead to confident answers. This study should reveal whether I can claim to perceive extracted kidneys. Let's hope that I can!