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

Hidden Kidney Study Results



The kidney used in these two studies is the one marked with 1.

To determine whether I can claim to experience medical perception of an unconcealed extracted sheep kidney. Medical perception is my paranormal claim otherwise experienced and previously tested on live human subjects whose emphasis has been on the detection of the number of kidneys one or two in a human subject. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a simpler and better protocol for my paranormal claim can be made that uses extracted sheep kidneys instead of live human subjects. In this first part of the study I determine whether I can experience a medical perception of a kidney which is in plain eyesight and not concealed behind any screen or other material.

In this first part of the study, the kidney will be fully visible to me and not wrapped in anything nor concealed behind any kind of screen or in a box. It will be about one feet in distance from me as distance does not matter in this part of the study. I will look at the kidney and determine whether I experience a medical perception or not.

Setup for both this and the next study. I have worked with more awkward laboratory setups in the science lab before. Fortunately the kidney will be concealed in future studies so you won't have to see it.

If I can not experience a medical perception: then there is no possible future protocol to be used with the use of extracted sheep kidneys to allow a future test of this concept, and this study on extracted kidneys ends here and no further stages of this study will be performed.

If I can experience a medical perception: visual access to this extracted kidney does produce the experience of a medical perception. A medical perception is when I experience feeling a detailed shape or a pattern which turns into an image. This is different from vision otherwise, and a medical perception generally forms internal structural imagery whereas normal vision only produces vision of the surface of things. If I can experience the medical perception under these circumstances, it does not mean that I will be capable of medical perceptions in a future test protocol. It does not exclude the possibility that I be using ordinary vision and/or knowledge of its whereabouts to produce images that are imagined and not paranormal or extrasensory.

If I produce the experience of medical perceptions under these circumstances then I proceed to further studies with gradually improved protocol.

What if I can experience to perceive the kidney under these circumstances, but I can not do it again later under a different protocol? That will imply several things about how this paranormal claim works and those conclusions can be made at that time.

Comments before the study is performed:
The kidneys have been stored in the fridge and I am allowing my chosen kidney to warm up to room temperature. Which means that eventually I will have to touch it on the surface to check its temperature. I have a strong feeling that cold items will not produce medical perceptions with the same ease as warmer ones. It still remains a hypothesis that if I am capable of medical perceptions that thermal (heat) patterns might be a possible source of the information.

The kidney was left on my desk (gently wrapped in plastic) to warm up to room temperature. I then went to a party and when I returned the kidney had sat in my room out of the refrigerator for about two days. The ambient room temperature in this room is slightly colder than normal room temperature. I gently touched the surface of the kidney and it felt up to room temperature (I then washed my hands). The kidney smells more than it did when I first took it out, so for any possible future test protocol it must be ensured that it does not become possible to locate the kidneys by scent, whether consciously or subconsciously. The kidney has become darker after it has sat here. I will discard this one after the first series of tests and later use another one if there are future tests.

Good news: I get to proceed to the next part of this study. When I am looking at the kidney which is just about one foot away from me, it takes me only two seconds to formulate a felt image. This medical perception produces to me an entirely different and separate image than the image I have from ordinary vision.

The medical perception I form of this kidney depicts internal structural information and not the surface of the kidney. Which would make sense for a claim like this since most of the kidney occurs on the inside and not across the surface. The medical perception I have of the inside of the kidney looks like a fibrous mesh pattern. This mesh is rigid and firm enough to probably cause the firmness that a kidney organ has. The actual tissue structure of a kidney can be looked up in the literature. I feel the firmness, weight, and density that are familiar from live human kidney detection tests and experience.

Furthermore, when I "feel into" the air just beside the kidney, I get no such feeling of firmness or weight as I get when I feel into where the kidney is.

I will say that I have successfully completed this first part of the study on extracted sheep kidneys and that my results mean that I have passed this section and can proceed to the next section. This part of the study took a total of perhaps 5 to 10 minutes only, and most of that time was spent on taking these notes on the observations.

Comments after the study was performed:
The study was performed on November 7 2010. The kidney was sitting on the plastic bag in which it was wrapped earlier, and this resting on a small glass plate. The glass plate feels slightly cold to the touch but this fact did not detract from the results. And the plate then was resting on the computer desk.

What was learned from this study?
1. I can feel into a sheep kidney in the same manner as I feel into a human kidney.
2. The fact that a kidney has been extracted does not make it not produce a medical perception.
3. The sheep kidney being smaller in size than a human kidney does not make me unable to form medical perception.

Note that nothing paranormal has been indicated by these results. To somehow experience sensory perception of an object that is visually accessible does not imply extrasensory perception. Normal senses of perception must be disabled and if still accurate perception of the object occurs then an extra sense may be suspected.



To determine how distance between me and the object affects the experience of medical perception. This will be measured by estimate of the ease of forming medical perception, the clarity of the medical perception, and time it takes to form medical perception. The purpose is to establish an optimal distance range for future studies and a future possible test.

The setup is the same as in the earlier study so I am using the same picture as previously.

With the same setup as before, measure the distance from the kidney to me and look at the kidney to determine whether I experience a medical perception at that distance and take note of that experience. Repeat at several distances at increasing distances and compare results to determine if distance affects the experience and whether there is an optimal distance range for these experiments.

Distance is measured as a horizontal distance along floor. The distance is from my front to the mid of the kidney. Height from kidney on desk and up to my eye-height is about 80 cm +/- 5 cm when I am standing (so for the actual diagonal direct distance from my eyes to the kidneys, use the Pythagorean theorem!).

Since I was able to perceive the kidney in the previous study I must be able to perceive in this study as well since the setup is identical to the previous and the only variable adjusted is distance. My expectation would be that the ability to form medical perception diminishes with increasing distance, and that the closer I am to the kidney the easier it is to form perception.

Comments before the study is performed:
At the IIG test my task was to determine which of several human subjects was missing a kidney, and 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 and how I experience the distance of 1.5 meters with the unconcealed extracted kidney.


Results table - The experience of a medical perception of the unconcealed sheep kidney at different distances
DistanceExperience of medical perception
35 cm
14 in
Goes well. I feel that the kidney is slightly too far below my eye-height for comfort. I notice that once I start forming medical perceptions, my visual sense is heightened which again suggests that ordinary vision is involved, and I start to notice things in the surroundings more clearly than I would otherwise to the point of things becoming a distraction. A perception takes one second to form.
40 cm
16 in
Takes longer and is a bit more difficult than the farther distances. Two to three seconds.
50 cm
20 in
Takes longer and is a bit more difficult than the farther distances. Two to three seconds.
60 cm
24 in
I am somehow more comfortable with this distance because the thing that I am looking at is not too close to me, yet I notice that the perceptions take a little bit longer to form than they did at 35 cm. A perception takes about two to three seconds to form and I feel as if it is because of more cold air in between myself and the object.
70 cm
28 in
Goes well. Perception takes about one to two seconds, more like one second than two. The feeling is warm and not disturbed by any feelings of cold air.
80 cm
32 in
Goes well. One to two seconds to form perception.
90 cm
35 in
Goes well. One to two seconds to form perception.
100 cm
39 in
Goes well. One to two seconds to form perception. I felt at first the first time the sensation of cold air in between disrupting, but it was fine thereafter.
110 cm
43 in
Goes better than any of the earlier. Less than a second of time. Very instant.
120 cm
47 in
Cold air disturbed me again at first. After the feeling of cold air had passed, I was able to quickly form a perception and which took only a second or two to form.
130 cm
51 in
Instant. One second of time to form perception. I also had the feeling of "warmth" from inside the kidney and along with the perception, in fact the feeling of warmth in the perception came up first before the structural image perception.
140 cm
55 in
Instant and easy. One second. The image felt warm.
150 cm
59 in
Instant and easy. One second. The image felt warm.
160 cm
63 in
Instant and easy. One second. The image felt warm.
170 cm
67 in
Instant and easy. One second. The image felt warm.
180 cm
71 in
Instant and easy. One second. The image felt warm.
190 cm
75 in
Two to four seconds. The image did not feel warm this time. Harder than at previous distance.
200 cm
79 in
Instant. One to two seconds. Easy enough. The image did not feel warm.
>200 cm
>79 in
Two to four seconds. Still easy enough to form perception.
Distance measured in centimeters (cm) and later converted to inches (in).
>200 cm (>79 in) means distances greater than 200 cm.

Results histogram - Time to form perception as a function of distance (data lifted from above table)
The time in seconds it takes for me to experience a medical perception of the unconcealed sheep kidney as a function of distance in centimeters from the kidney. A range is indicated by grey squares, for instance if the time is 2 to 4 seconds; 1 and 2 are black, 3 and 4 are grey, meaning that it takes at least 2 seconds but up to as many as 4.

Comments during/after the study was performed:
I intended to try the different distances in two sets: once when standing, and then repeated while sitting, in order to compare whether I prefer to sit or stand for a medical perception. But for a future test I expect to have a chair available and the option to sit or stand at my choice so the seated trials were not conducted.

In a sequence I tried the distances 35, 60, 70, 80 and so forth until >200 cm. After these I went back and did one at 40 cm and another at 50 cm to fill in the gaps and entered those in their appropriate sequence for increasing distance across the table.

The first time around going from 35 to 60, 70, and so forth, I had noticed that it was harder to form perceptions from close range. I was then pleased to see that after finishing up to >200 cm and going back to do 40 and 50 cm, the same trend was noticed at 40 and 50 indicating that it is harder to perceive from such close range. It supports the earlier findings.

On some attempts (at 60 cm, 100 cm, and at 120 cm) my medical perception attempt produced a feeling of flowing cold air felt from a location in between me and the kidney, closer to the kidney, in front of the kidney. In all the individual cases the cold air was felt as if moving from the right and to the left. The feeling of cold air came first before a feeling of a kidney perception could form. During my survey of the medical perceptions claim when I was at a mall making observations on people, I also then noticed that a feeling of flowing cold air in the entrance hall was disturbing my formation of health perceptions, so this was already known to me but confirmed here.

But for the first time ever during my investigation, on some occasions I noticed a feeling of warmth on the kidney. This feeling of warmth appeared first and after it had subsided the structural felt perception of the kidney beneath the warm feeling could appear. Perhaps this feeling of warmth only appeared in my experiences after I had noticed the occasional feeling of cold air, and so the feeling of warmth may have thereafter been enhanced in the absence of the feeling of cold.

The feeling of cold air and the feeling of warmth do not appear as a function of distance, but seem to be random events. I would even suspect that if repeating several trials all at one particular distance, the feeling of cold might appear sometimes and sometimes not but at that same distance. It is not worthy of further investigation and is not related to any controllable parameter of a future test protocol. I already know to ask that the air conditioning be turned down on a test site to reduce cold air flow. If the disturbance of cold air appears, I am aware of it there and then and so this factor does not make for an unknown disturbance, so that's good. It can therefore be corrected for on a test and can not add error to the results.

The study was performed on November 7 2010. I spent only about 5 seconds total on each distance and was able to proceed through this study quickly. This entire study took perhaps about an hour or up to an hour and half to complete from start to finish. I generally only attempted a medical perception once at each distance, considering it sufficient to form the conclusion.

Right from the start of this study I was feeling the familiar exhaustion symptoms which are a mild nauseating and headache feeling. It was not debilitating to keep me from completing this study. If I work on medical perceptions for too long or beyond a certain point I become exhausted with the appearance of discomfort in the form of a mild headache and nausea. The fact that these symptoms appeared this early in this study may suggest that forming perceptions on dead extracted sheep kidneys may be more of an effort for me than working on human subjects. Or it may be that I had not worked on perceptions in a while and could have used a warm-up.

Learned from this study?
1. The ease at which I form a medical perception of an extracted sheep kidney does seem to vary with the distance between me and the object.
2. An optimal distance range for future experiments was found. I would estimate that distances up to 60 cm are too close and therefore inhibit on the experience somewhat. 70 cm to 120 cm is a more comfortable range than the first. 130 cm to 180 cm was found to be the optimal distance rage for these experiments. Distances from 190 cm and up are less favorable.
3. The IIG test used a minimum distance of 150 cm. This distance is perfectly in the middle of the optimal distance range of 130 to 180 cm found in this study. This might suggest that the medical perception ability on human subjects' kidneys and on extracted kidneys would be comparable in how they function as far as distance is concerned.
4. The disturbance of cold air for the formation of medical perceptions was once again noted in this investigation. And an experience of warmth above the kidney was also noted on some occasions. These observations suggest that the sensory perception of temperature may somehow be involved in my work of forming medical perceptions.
5. The sensory experience of cold air or warmth were both distracting and were experienced as something in front of or in the way of the kidney, prohibiting access to feeling the kidney. The cold air or the warmth had to subside first before I was able to access to perceive of the kidney behind or beneath it respectively.
6. The exhaustion symptoms of headache and nausea occurred from the very start and may suggest that the formation of perceptions of these kidneys is more of a mental effort than to do so on the insides of live human subjects.

The next study will involve the same extracted kidneys but concealed behind various forms of screens or in a box. I will have knowledge of the whereabouts of the kidneys in each case, and if I advance to the next stage, the location of the kidneys will be randomized by someone else and unknown to me prior.

Note that again, nothing paranormal has been indicated by these results. To somehow experience sensory perception of an object that is visually accessible does not imply extrasensory perception. Normal senses of perception must be disabled and if still accurate perception of the object occurs then an extra sense may be suspected.