On her website VFF posted the following about her first study:

I spoke with the three controls between the readings and occasionally we compared what each of us had just perceived or guessed about the volunteer's health, and some of what we had put down were the same.

With three of the I think five volunteers I perceived something extra that the volunteer was then asked about, and after each I had asked the participant whether I was right or not, and all three had been verified. Other than this I have yet no way of knowing what the correlation was!

Comparing notes with the controls? Talking to the volunteers? Huh? I am very disappointed in the FACT members who participated. I expect this nonsense from Anita, but they should know better than to be giving her feedback or allowing deviation from the protocol.

Has anyone contacted FACT to see if they, in fact, allowed her to get feedback from the controls/volunteers? This could be another one of her delusions. She sounds as if she is getting rather desperate for some attention.

Posted By Audible Click on 07 Apr 2009 06:05 PM
Has anyone contacted FACT to see if they, in fact, allowed her to get feedback from the controls/volunteers? This could be another one of her delusions. She sounds as if she is getting rather desperate for some attention.

From that I understand, the study was not endorsed by FACT. In fact they rejected her proposal to use do the study on them based on its current form. However, some members agreed on their own to assist her in her study, a decision with which I strongly disagree. Furthermore, Dr. Carlson and another member allowed themselves to be read by Anita at one of the meetings. Anita now mentions Dr. Carlson about 20 times on her Study page.

Granted, Anita has a disclaimer saying that they don't endorse her "study" but actions speak louder than words. If we are going to condemn Anita for saying, "I sensed it, but I didn't write it down" then I think we should condemn FACT members for saying, "I don't think your study is useful, but I will spend lots of time helping you do it and promote it on your website."

These are skeptics?

So. Now, Anita will claim this as a "successful" study on her website, mention FACT 20 more times, and the disclaimer might as well be invisible.

Unbelievable.

Posted By desertgal on 07 Apr 2009 07:55 PM
These are skeptics?

So. Now, Anita will claim this as a "successful" study on her website, mention FACT 20 more times, and the disclaimer might as well be invisible.

Unbelievable.

Hopefully GodofPie will chime in and give us his account. Anita can be very persuasive, and she picks and chooses what she tells people. It's only when you look at the whole do you realize what is really happening. Look at The Claims forum to get an idea of just some of the stuff she has said.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 07 Apr 2009 09:27 PM

Hopefully GodofPie will chime in and give us his account. Anita can be very persuasive, and she picks and chooses what she tells people. It's only when you look at the whole do you realize what is really happening. Look at The Claims forum to get an idea of just some of the stuff she has said.

You're right, I know. Sorry, that was a knee jerk reaction. It's just disappointing. We both know that Anita's main purpose in involving skeptics is to give herself credibility. She tried it with the JREF forum skeptics, and now she is doing it with FACT - and we know violating the protocol will enable her to turn this study into a series of "hits".

I don't believe it happened as she described it. Fool me once, my fault.

Jeff? Is that you me old china? Strewth cobber, it's good to see yer ugly mug again!

No wuckers over here about coppin' any pony. I don't Adam we've even got a moderator.

G'donyer bloke, yer blood's worth bottlin', fair effin dinkum.

Anyway, back on topic.   That study's a beaut, eh?   Y'reckon this sheila's got a few roos loose in the top paddock?  At least a coupla snags short of a barbie, at best. 

Melbourne to a rusty rabbit trap these drongos at FACT aren't the full quid either, if y'ask me.


Cheers Mate

Dave

Proper like, fer the rest o' the seppos:
^{(here is a translation for my other American friends)}


Hi Jeff,

I believe we may have met somewhere else. It's very nice to see you again.

This is a fairly easy-going forum, and we have no problems at all with moderation of the threads.

Welcome, I'm sincerely happy to see you posting here.

Anyway, back on topic. The protocol for the study seems lax; do you think the young lady may have some mental health issues? She certainly doesn't appear to be up to the task she's set herself, in my opinion.

I also feel that it was unwise for the members of FACT to take part in this study.


Regards,

David

Posted By desertgal on 07 Apr 2009 07:55 PM
These are skeptics?

So. Now, Anita will claim this as a "successful" study on her website, mention FACT 20 more times, and the disclaimer might as well be invisible.

Unbelievable.

I think they've unwittingly embarked on the same fantastic voyage that JREF is just now concluding.

At least they have us to help, which is more than we had.   I have high hopes that we will end up as allies.


Me cobber from the Big Smoke is here!   Grouse.   What a good lookin' pair, eh?

":I believe we may have met somewhere else. It's very nice to see you again"
If you were at TAMI or II. it's entirely possible. I gave a paper at TAMI and chaired the Sunday paper session at TAMII.
Jeff

Posted By Jeff on 08 Apr 2009 07:44 AM
":I believe we may have met somewhere else. It's very nice to see you again"
If you were at TAMI or II. it's entirely possible. I gave a paper at TAMI and chaired the Sunday paper session at TAMII.
Jeff

My apologies Jeff.   I have mistaken you for another Jeff who I was hoping/expecting to arrive shortly.

A hearty welcome to you then.   And I love your beard.  

Cheers,

Dave the drongo.

Excellent response, Jim.