Cal misrepresents study
Posted by Skywise on August 06, 2006 at 16:07:35:

In Cal Orey's book on Jim Berkland, in the forward on page XIV, Cal says,

"Another more recent study, by an anonymous researcher,
analyzed Berkland's missing pet ad data from 1989 - taking
important factors into account that Schaal missed - AND
SUPPORTS BERKLAND'S HYPOTHESIS. [emphasis mine] For more
information on this study, see "Do Missing Pets Predict
Earthquakes? A Test of the Hypothesis" in the 2005 issue of
the 'Journal of Unconfirmed Nonsense and Knowledge', which
can be accessed online:
www.sharemation.com/Pedestrian1857/missingpets-v21.html"
[URL has changed slightly from that listed in the book]

I have been in email contact with the author, and have read the paper in question. The study DOES NOT SUPPORT Berkland's hypothesis.

Makes me wonder if any other papers, studies, or comments have been misinterpreted to support her claims.

Brian

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Brian-Cal misrepresents study - Cal  16:37:54 - 8/16/2006  (40204)  (0)
     ● Re: Brian-Cal misrepresents study - Cal  16:31:50 - 8/16/2006  (40203)  (0)
     ● Re: Brian-Cal misrepresents study - Cal Orey  16:20:00 - 8/16/2006  (40202)  (1)
        ● Re: Brian-Cal misrepresents study - Skywise  23:17:23 - 8/16/2006  (40209)  (0)
     ● Re: Cal misrepresents study - marco  00:12:12 - 8/7/2006  (39829)  (1)
        ● Re: Cal misrepresents study - Skywise  00:41:33 - 8/7/2006  (39832)  (0)
     ● Re: Cal misrepresents study - Roger Hunter  19:26:13 - 8/6/2006  (39826)  (0)