So, if I am successful of perceiving with an opaque screen in place I may proceed to a paranormal test. If however I am unable to perceive with an opaque screen in place, I can not devise a protocol for a paranormal test and must continue to focus this investigation on perception of live human subjects, at greater labor and effort. Do note that being able with an opaque screen is not enough - I will also need to add to protocol that trials are randomized, and randomized by someone other than me.

Furthermore I expect some materials to be easier for me for a screen than other materials, but I can not predict which materials would be easier than others. If I pass tests with a screen then I will proceed to studies with a kidney in a box - a box is like a contraption of screens on all sides of the object. I expect a screen to be easier to perceive with than a box.

Comments before the study is performed:
I've discarded the first kidney and have the second one out to warm up to room temperature. I forgot to measure the previous kidney. This one has measurements 8 cm long and 5 cm wide (width taken from the center and including the pink adipose or vascular tissue on the side). This is one of the larger of the kidneys and is a beautiful specimen (for someone like me who appreciates histology). Blood vessels are visible radiating inward from the adipose part where the ureter was once connected.

I notice that this one hardly smells at all and so the concern of whether detecting the presence of a kidney by its smell should not be a problem on a test as long as the specimens are fresh. They have lasted very well in the refrigerator and show no deterioration from when bought.

Holding the paper screen in front of the kidney to test it before use, I notice that I can not see the kidney (through ordinary eyesight; have not tested medical perception yet) through the paper and that no shadow or other visual markings appear on the paper to indicate the presence of the kidney behind it. This however does not exclude the possibility of some very minor visual clues on the paper that are not consciously detected but are registered subconsciously for use in deduction. In other words, the paper appears to be an opaque (not see-through) material, but there is no guarantee of that.

Results:

Results table - Medical perception through a paper screen

Trial	Experience of medical perception
1	Perceived. 2 seconds.
2	Perceived. 2 seconds.
3	Perceived. 2 seconds.
4	Perceived. 2 seconds.
5	For the first 5 seconds I was tired and did not perceive. I then started again and perceived in 2 seconds.
6	Perceived. 1 second.
7	Perceived. 2 seconds.
8	Perceived. 1 second.
9	For the first 4 seconds I was tired and did not perceive. I then started again and perceived in 1 second.
10	Perceived. 2 seconds.

Kidney behind seemingly opaque paper screen in all ten trials.
I have knowledge of the kidney being there in all ten trials.
I sat a distance more than 100 cm away from screen.

The average time for perception of the kidney in the previous unconcealed study in which I had prior knowledge of kidneys to determine optimal distance, was 1.6 seconds. Calculated as follows:
Number of trials: 19
Median values: 1, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, 1, 1.5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1.5, 3.
Sum: 30.5
Average (sum / trials): 1.6 seconds.

The average time for perception of the kidney in this study with paper screen and prior knowledge of kidneys was 1.7 seconds. Calculated as follows:
Number of trials: 10
Values: 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2.
Sum: 17.
Average: (sum / trials): 1.7 seconds.

The average time for perception of the kidney in this study with paper screen and prior knowledge of kidneys was 2.6 seconds if adding the time during which I was tired and not perceiving of 5 and 4 seconds respectively. Calculated as follows:
Number of trials: 10
Values: 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 1, 2, 1, 5, 2.
Sum: 26
Average (sum / trials): 2.6 seconds.

Results histogram - Time to form perception. Kidney concealed behind paper screen, but with prior knowledge. Kidney present in all ten trials.

The time in seconds it takes for me to experience a medical perception of the sheep kidney behind a seemingly opaque paper screen but with prior knowledge of the kidney being there. Kidney there in all ten trials. Here, gray squares before black squares indicate a time during which a perception was not forming.

Comments after the study was performed:
I was surprised that I was able to perceive the kidney through the paper screen. I was expecting not to be able to "feel" the weight/density/firmness of the kidney perception through the paper. Even though I did not have visual access to the kidney in this setup, I was able to experience the felt medical perception which turns into an image, of the kidney behind the screen.

For this first setup, all lights were turned off and only natural light was available from the window immediately behind the setup. This lighting felt sufficient. For this first setup, ten trials were conducted in a straight sequence without breaks. Lasting from 2:40 PM to about 2:45 PM (I forgot to check the ending time but I estimate it as having taken about that long since it is 2:49 now and I have been typing for a few minutes.) All ten trials were done with the kidney behind the screen. I knew that the kidney is there. The setup was not altered between trials.

After the ten trials had been conducted, I now touched the surface of the kidney with my fingertip. The kidney feels notably colder than the kidney did in the previous study when I touched it. This kidney has only sat warming up to room temperature for a few hours, whereas the previous kidney sat for longer. There is also a window behind it and it is snowing outside. Yet the temperature of this kidney did not seem to reduce the results, so in future protocols the kidney will perhaps not have to warm up to room temperature.

In the first trial, I was surprised that the kidney perception occurred as soon as within 2 seconds. In later studies the trials will be randomized by me and later randomized by someone other than me such that I will not have prior knowledge of whether the kidney is there or not, and since I expect that in such a study it will take me longer to determine whether the kidney is there or not, than it takes in this study where I do have prior knowledge of whether the kidney is there or not, I was trying to take longer in these trials so that I would not take longer in the randomized study than here. Yet, these perceptions still occurred within an average of two seconds even though I was almost "wanting" to take longer, since I expect to take longer in the upcoming randomized studies. This again shows how my perceptions are not part of my logic or expectations.

The perception of a kidney is localized, meaning that I feel it in a particular place. The perceptions of the kidney in this study were localized to where I know the kidney was at; both in terms of vertical and horizontal placement on the desk behind the paper screen.

The perception of the kidney was one of felt weight, density and firmness, identical to this feeling when the kidney was not concealed behind a screen in the earlier study. However the experience of the medical perception was different this time, because the vision of the kidney was not involved. In the previous study, the colors visually seen of the kidney in conjunction when forming a felt perception were part of the whole sensory experience. Here, there was no sense of brown in the way as before. Yet the "felt" aspect of the kidney was the same. The perception in this paper screen study was probably as clearly felt as in the previous unconcealed study, if not just a slight bit weaker, but probably the same strength.

The average time for perception in the 19 trials in the previous study was 1.6 seconds. The previous study had visual access and prior knowledge. In this study the average time for perception in the 10 trials was 1.7 seconds. The time for perception can be considered equal, although the time fluctuates a lot more in the previous study and can not be used for proper comparison since it involved non-optimal distances and this study used only one distance within the optimal range. Still, the fact that the average time was nearly equal in both studies and almost the only variable changed was the paper screen, suggests that visual access was not responsible for perception in this study nor in the previous study. Prior knowledge still occurs in both studies and so once prior knowledge is eliminated and if the time for perception increases or perception ceases, one can assume that prior knowledge played part in forming the perception and/or in the time it takes to form perception.

However, if looking only at the optimal distance range in the previous study, where time for perception averaged 1 second, one can almost hint at a slight time increase for the paper screen study. A proper comparison of time for perception of unconcealed vs. paper screen would require that ten trials be done at the same distance as in this paper screen study for the unconcealed kidney. You can never attempt to learn anything by comparison of two separate sets of studies in which more than one variable was adjusted. To understand the difference the paper screen makes vs. no screen requires that the distance used was the same for both those studies, but that was not the case. Still, that is not the objective of these studies. The objective is primarily to advance toward an acceptable test protocol.

In eight of the ten trials I was able to produce a perception of the kidney right away within two seconds. In two of the ten trials, trial 5 and trial 9, I was hindered by a feeling of tiredness at the beginning of the attempt. The feeling of tiredness made it impossible to form a perception until I had waited and allowed the tiredness to subside. The tiredness completely blocks the mental processes involved in the forming of a perception. However, this time this tiredness had none of the symptoms of what I otherwise call "exhaustion", none of the headache or nausea. This tiredness was completely different than the exhaustion, and much milder. Compared to the exhaustion, this tiredness is not uncomfortable, it is just a temporary inability to mentally focus to form the perception. The tiredness lasted 5 and 4 seconds respectively, after which a normal perception taking 2 and 1 seconds respectively could occur with no lasting effect of tiredness and no effect of tiredness lingering on to subsequent trials.

This study was performed on November 9 2010 and took in total no more than a few hours. Most of this time went in constructing the screen and in taking measurements and planning. The ten trials took less than 5 minutes in total to conduct.

Outcome:
What was learned from this study?
1. I do experience the perception of an extracted sheep kidney that is placed behind a seemingly opaque paper screen and as visual access to the kidney has been disabled, however prior knowledge that the kidney is there in all ten trials still remains.
2. Since the perception of the kidney occurs at nearly the same, or perhaps slightly longer, time as in the previous study in which a screen was not used, it is fair to assume that visual access to the kidney is perhaps not responsible for or required for a perception to occur. It is therefore better to suspect that the prior knowledge is sufficient to form the perception, if non-paranormal means are to be suspected.
3. I can experience something I've called tiredness which is a much milder form of the exhaustion and comes with no headache or nausea and is not uncomfortable at all. It occurred twice during the ten trials and prevented formation of perception for 5 or 4 seconds respectively, after which a perception can occur as before and unaffected. This tiredness does not linger on to subsequent trials. Possible time spent being affected by this tiredness must be added to the total time requested for a trial on a test, if a test is to take place.
4. The experience of the felt perception of the kidney was similar if not identical to the felt perception as without a screen in the previous studies, if not slightly weaker but otherwise the same (perhaps not even weaker).
5. The average time to form a perception was 1.7 seconds, or 2.6 seconds if adding the time during which I was tired of 5 and 4 seconds respectively.
6. The perceptions seem to be localized, meaning that along with the feeling of weight/density/firmness of the felt perception of the kidney comes also a sense of its vertical and horizontal placement, or the origin of the feeling that is being perceived.

The next study will do ten trials with the same setup as here except without the kidney there. I will not have visual access to what is behind the screen, but I will have prior knowledge that in each ten trials the kidney is not there. Later studies will randomize whether it is there or not but with prior knowledge. And later randomization done by someone else so that I do not have prior knowledge. Other types of screens will also be tested, such as fabric, and thick cardboard, and then larger screens will be tested. There is more work to be done.

Question: Many of you are probably wondering why I am going about this so gradually and why I do not just jump right in to a proper test protocol? That is because if my paranormal claim ceases to function, by having added one more factor at a time into the protocols and having built the protocol from a basic foundation and upward, I will instantly be able to know what was the cause of the claim failing. For instance if I could have perceived in the unconcealed study but not with the paper screen then I could have known that I was unable to perceive because of the paper screen. But had I jumped right in to an advanced testing protocol and failed to perform, then I would have had no idea which of the many factors involved in the protocol were the cause of my failing and it would have been difficult to know how to design an alternative protocol.

Note that nothing paranormal has been indicated by these results. To experience sensory perception of an object that although it should not be visually accessible, there is prior knowledge of it being there, does not imply extrasensory perception. Although normal senses of perception of the kidney may have been disabled, prior knowledge is still in effect, and only if prior knowledge is also eliminated and still accurate perception of the object occurs then an extra sense may be suspected.