The VFF Test is On!

"I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes allloted, told me point blank that she “felt very positive ” about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused."

http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/05/girls-who-stare-at-kidneys/


It's still there.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
Yeah, that caught my eye too. But as I read your link, those words are not there. Right link? Caught his mistake and corrected it? If the latter, he should have made the edit explicit.
Click to expand...

I followed the link and that comment is still there. It is in the section that starts with "Yes folks we had one small problem."
 
Last edited:
Jonquill said:
"I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes allloted, told me point blank that she “felt very positive ” about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused."

http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/05/girls-who-stare-at-kidneys/


It's still there.
Click to expand...

This does appear to be a serious leak. How did Jim know she got a hit, if in fact only one person (whom I understand was not allowed to be present during the test) was supposed to know who the hits were?

This whole preliminary test is leaking apart.

Norm
 
Sorry, but I don't see VFF's confidence on test two as a big deal. It's sort of how the game is played. "Ah yes, I feel very strongly that..." and then if you're wrong, you move on to the next one. The fact that she got lucky with a guess about her guess doesn't seem that shocking to me.
 
bookitty said:
Sorry, but I don't see VFF's confidence on test two as a big deal. It's sort of how the game is played. "Ah yes, I feel very strongly that..." and then if you're wrong, you move on to the next one. The fact that she got lucky with a guess about her guess doesn't seem that shocking to me.
Click to expand...

The part of the quote that concerns me is:

"When Jim then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused."

Please comment on this part, not VfF's delusional thinking patterns.

Norm
 
Last edited:
It's not shocking but it's a pity she got any right, it would have been a lot harder for her to spin some justification for her magical ability if she got 0/0 (although I'm sure she would have managed it somehow).


Jim did seem rather short with her when she was trying to tell him in the break how good she felt about the second trial, I thought he must have disliked her, but maybe he was surprised that she had picked correctly.
 
Jonquill said:
It's still there.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. I somehow thought I had read the whole thing but obviously did not. My mistake. Sorry.

That said, Jim and others were adamant (to me personally) that they did not know who was missing a kidney. I think the post needs an update.
 
Sorry Norm, I was responding to the Paranormal Review stuff a few posts up. I can't speak for what happened behind the scenes at IIG, my participation was limited.
 
Jonquill said:
"I have to admit that it was a bit eerie when she turned to me after the second test and after stopping early and not using up all 27 minutes allloted, told me point blank that she “felt very positive ” about that test and was sure that she had a hit. When Jim then took me aside and said to watch her even more closely because she had gotten a hit a during the break between tests, I was a tad bemused."

http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/05/girls-who-stare-at-kidneys/


It's still there.
Click to expand...

Jim the host, stated flat out that nobody in the room knew the target, including him. Also, in trial #2, Anita received the two minute warning but not the one minute warning, so to say she didn't use all her time is misleading at best.
 
bookitty said:
Sorry Norm, I was responding to the Paranormal Review stuff a few posts up. I can't speak for what happened behind the scenes at IIG, my participation was limited.
Click to expand...

What did your friend know? Obviously, you knew you were not the target, right? Did your friend know she was looking for missing kidneys? It's hard to see, so can you tell us if he had any visible scars? It just looked like he had tattoos on his arms.

BTW, what number were you?
 
Jonquill said:
Maybe after each trial Jim was told if it was correct or not?
Click to expand...

That's probably the most likely explanation. It makes sense if they are concerned that she is using some form of cheating. The inherent problem, though, is that it's harder to catch cheating if you don't already know the target in advance.
 
fromdownunder said:
In direct breach of the protocol? IIRC, nobody in the room was supposed to know which subject was missing a kidney until the end of the third test..

Norm
Click to expand...

That wasn't in the protocol as far as I can see and for good reason. If someone had known, then Anita could claim a breach of protocol. So, while it is an excellent idea not to have anyone around who might tip her off, it's not something you put in the signed contract because it can only get you in trouble if you accidentally violate that clause.
 
UncaYimmy said:
What did your friend know? Obviously, you knew you were not the target, right? Did your friend know she was looking for missing kidneys? It's hard to see, so can you tell us if he had any visible scars? It just looked like he had tattoos on his arms.

BTW, what number were you?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I told my friend that it was random internal organs. But I asked him to volunteer over lunch, the subject turned to non-test-related VFF claims and who knows what I said. Scars, oh yes, quite a few and one on the inside of his forearm that's gnarly. That scar wasn't seen during the trial but would have been noticed in a more casual setting. And there's the noticeable limp...

I was number 33.
 
UncaYimmy said:
That wasn't in the protocol as far as I can see and for good reason. If someone had known, then Anita could claim a breach of protocol. So, while it is an excellent idea not to have anyone around who might tip her off, it's not something you put in the signed contract because it can only get you in trouble if you accidentally violate that clause.
Click to expand...

OK. I will take your word for it. But I do recall reading on this thread, or your Chat Room on the (my time) Sunday morning that the only person who was supposed to know who the target subjects were was not allowed in the test room during the test.

I am not going to go back through a 50 page thread to find this, but I am fairly certain that it has been said at some point. And while it may not be a breach of the protocol (I also accept that) it certainbly reduces any semblance of "blinding" that the preliminary test may have.

From the latter part of this thread alone, knowledge of who the second subject was, was potentially available to everybody except the janitor (yes, that is hyperbole)

Norm
 
bookitty said:
I'm pretty sure I told my friend that it was random internal organs. But I asked him to volunteer over lunch, the subject turned to non-test-related VFF claims and who knows what I said. Scars, oh yes, quite a few and one on the inside of his forearm that's gnarly. That scar wasn't seen during the trial but would have been noticed in a more casual setting. And there's the noticeable limp...

I was number 33.
Click to expand...

You're cute! :)

How confident are you that scars were not visible? She mentioned tattoos as being distracting, so she must have seen skin somehow. It's hard to tell what she could and could not see by looking from an angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom