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

Hidden Kidney Study Procedure

Open trials - unconcealed
Can I see them? - The first thing to do once I acquire the kidneys is to look at them unconcealed to see if I experience the perception of them.

Optimal distance range for future protocol? - If I perceive the unconcealed kidneys the next step is to try various distances and note how distance may affect my experience of perception. Does the experience of perception diminish with increasing distance? What appears to be the most optimal distance? At the IIG test I was to keep a minimum distance of 1.5 meters (5 feet) from the row of subjects. This distance was just fine for human subjects. I wonder what will be the optimal distance range for extracted kidneys.

What kind of screens?
Provided that I experience perceiving the kidneys when they are unconcealed, the next step is to conceal them and to design a screen that works. Could the kidney be in a box and surrounded by walls in all directions? Or do I do better if the screen is only between me and the kidney, whilst allowing the kidney to "radiate" the "vibrational information" that I feel? Will there be a noticeable difference between box and screen? Both box and screen are acceptable for a test protocol provided they do not allow vision of the object.

I already know the following from earlier studies and tests about how my perceptions works and will assume this also applies to here:
- I can not perceive in darkness.
- I need to face the object and can not perceive if I turn my back on it.
- I can not perceive if facing the object but blindfolded or with my eyes closed.
- Air currents such as strong air conditioning or the draft in an entrance hallway distorts the images and diminishes my perception.
- I am distracted by sounds in the surrounding, whether someone talking or a cellphone ringing, because it disrupts my attention.
- I will become exhausted if I do perception work for too long. This exhaustion shuts down the experience of perception (perception = seeing images that form in my mind and that are based on something which I feel, feel without touching the object, feeling from a distance). The exhaustion involves headache and feeling nauseated and if I take it further after these early warning signs develops also into a feeling of electrical imbalance in the head which can spread across the body if even worse. I always stop at these early warning signs of exhaustion, except for at the third trial on the IIG test when I was trying to complete the trial even though I was struggling.

One possible problem: When I perceive into humans I need to see a part of them with my eyes. If I am searching for extracted kidneys then on a test I will not be allowed to see any portion of the kidney with my eyes. I will find out whether I can perceive an extracted kidney that I do not see any part of.

Participant(s) involved if the previous seems promising
If trials that I do on my own seem to go well then I will involve someone to set up the trials for me. Initially I can set up the trials on my own even if it means that I will know the correct answers as I go along, but it allows me one early opportunity of finding out if I can not do this. But if I seem able to detect the kidneys in a box or behind a screen then I will involve a family member or a friend to randomize the trials for me. This way I will not know of the right answers beforehand as I am trying to perceive the presence or absence of a kidney.

This participant will have to use a randomizing method. I prefer a computer generated method. A die can not be considered to be as reliable as a randomizer as a computer program is. The sequence for trials is thus determined not by the person, but at random, for which trials will have a kidney and which will not. Or, if a trial consists of several stages each of which may or may not contain a kidney, the randomization determines which of these has a kidney and which not. The participant will randomize and prepare a trial in my absence, and this participant will not be present while I conduct a trial so that their knowing of the right answers does not interfere with my work or with my impressions or decisions making.

If I am only working with one participant and that one participant leaves me alone to do a trial, one should not be concerned with the possibility that I cheat while I am alone during a trial. This because any accuracy would not be credible anyway because there are amateur-level at-home studies regardless of if I am alone or if a second friend or family member is with me for the trial. I say this because I do not want to take up the time of too many people.

But if these trials seem adequately successful then an additional person will be employed who is present with me during a trial to assure that the protocol is being followed. This added credibility does not change the significance of the results for me because I already know whether I cheated or not, but begins to form more of a formal significance to these results. "Formal results" referring to results which have credibility to everyone, not just those present for the test.

Study with credible participants
And, if I graduate to this stage, if studies involving one participant who randomizes and prepares the trials and another one or several participants who were present with me during the trials, produced significant accuracy, then I will enlist the help of credible persons who are impartial and not associated to me. I would attempt to produce the same results with persons who this time are not my friends, family members, nor acquainted to me.

And if the results still persist and are significantly accurate to suggest a talent beyond the possibilities of random guessing then I will arrange a demonstration or a test with a skeptics group. If that test also is successful then I will continue with further tests and more inspection of the protocol and procedure to see if there is a normal as opposed to a paranormal explanation to statistical significance.

Ready to Start!
November 5 2010 I bought the sheep kidneys and I am ready to start this study. I'm hoping to have results, but will have to continue with human subjects if this one does not produce any significant accuracy.

My first encounter with the kidneys
When I was going to buy the kidneys, I made sure I was picking up a few other items as well so that the kidneys would not be as obvious in my shopping basket. It was uncomfortable browsing among the four packages available to select the best-looking one but I told myself to be brave when other people arrived to browse the meat counter. I dreaded whether the cashier would give me a look or say something, but luckily she just entered the item like any other and there was nothing awkward. I quickly put the item in my shopping bag and felt the greatest relief and release of anxiety, like a robber who just got away with their crime and it was safe now. I must tell you, buying kidneys is more embarrassing than buying condoms (which is why I never buy them), and it even beats the time when my period was late and I went to the pharmacy to buy a pregnancy testing kit and the cashier starts talking about the wonders of planning for a baby and yells across the store to her coworker about when she was planning for a baby. I just wanted to get out of there, and no my baby wouldn't have been planned (there was no baby). But buying kidneys is the most embarrassing thing I've done in a long while. But here they are.
My test subjects. I chose the topmost one.
No! Don't eat those kidneys! They are for my experiment!

There are eight kidneys in the package. The label also says: "Count 125-175 g per person. For kidney sautee, fried or barbequed kidney, pork and kidney stew." No thanks. Thing is, I find myself treating the package and the kidneys more like a medical procedure than as a potential meal. I sliced open the package carefully and with precision like as if with a surgical knife, and I couldn't touch the kidneys but had to lift one out of the package with a spoon. I selected the second-darkest one out of the eight. I think it looks to have the most "content". And I manage hygiene around these kidneys, as if there were a patient involved and as if these were actual internal organs, not a food item. This is a scientific experiment. Not a cooking class.
Looks like a kidney doesn't it.
Some people eat these.
This is my chosen first kidney to experiment with.

They cost 31.45 Swedish crowns, just under $5 US dollars. They weigh 0.525 kilograms (18.5 ounces). Date of expiry November 8, which is three days after the day of purchase of the 5th. They look just like chocolate pudding. In fact if I put it in a bowl with whipped cream on top no one would know the difference until they taste it, that is how closely they resemble chocolate pudding. They have a very uncomfortable smell that is difficult to get used to. I was trying to think of a similar scent that I knew I had encountered before, and I realized they smell almost the same as liver pate. It has that "visceral" scent to it. I did in fact encounter sheep kidneys once before. Early in my college education before I fell in love with Physics I was a Pre-Medicine student and took Human Anatomy classes, and one of our practical assignments was to familiarize with the anatomy of a kidney with a sheep kidney example... Oh why couldn't I have medical perceptions of flowers!