Last chance to Remote View Titan!

[Ashles]

This would have made a really good test. The Huygen's probe (from the Cassini spacecraft) is due to land on Titan and beam back pictures of the surface today.

Wouldn't it have been interesting if someone could have predicted what we would find (you could Remote View it, or psychically read the future where we know, or ask the aliens who contact you to tell you etc. - it's your choice).

The ultimate double-blind test.

I wish we'd thought to ask that poster who claimed to be in contact with the aliens (I forget her name - was it Earthborn?)

[Ipecac]

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

I'm seeing ice. Lots of ice. Thick atmosphere, very frigid. No lifeforms. Yes! I am boldly predicting we will see no lifeforms.

I'm also getting an "R", maybe a "B" and a December-May romance.

[Ashles]

Personally I'm going for big slow moving waves. And dense cloud. And very cold.

Ah! It's like Cornwall!

[Explorer]

I'm getting a leaden deep brown/grey sky. Lighter grey smooth landscape punctuated with dark narrow ravines. Orange rivulets and staining everywhere. Very rounded topped hills in the background, again lighter grey against the darker sky, with horizontal dark streaks around the perimeter. The remnants of the parachute lying to the left of the frame, rapidly being covered with a kind of white dust.

Well, I am either going to be famous later on today, or the laughing stock of the board.

[davidsmith73]

What a bollocks test that would be Ashles. You've all just demonstrated that it would be very hard, nigh on impossible, to tell the difference beyween a real remote view from someone who just knew some basic things about the surface of Titan.

[Dr Adequate]

http://bedoper.com/reptilian/graphics_graveyard/dinosauroid.jpg

[Ashles]

We don't know about the surface of Titan - that's the point.
You've all just demonstrated that it would be very hard, nigh on impossible, to tell the difference beyween a real remote view from someone who just knew some basic things about the surface of Titan.
Oh you mean guessing?
Yes, it is hard to distinguish some paranormal claims from guessing - you are correct there.

We can guess, but the surface details are not known.
Shouldn't RVers all be able to tell us in some detail what we would find?

Hell they can even read all the literature on Titan as well to help them give us their answers.

If they get it right then they either have the paranormal ability or were good guessers or good guessers and good researchers.
But they would have some evidence to add to their claims.

If they get it wrong then they don't have the ability.

I know you don't like clear tests like this David because if they get it wrong they look pretty foolish.

But it is certainly a test that could reject false RVers. Would that not be useful?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ashles
We don't know about the surface of Titan - that's the point.

We can have a pretty good guess without any remote viewing which makes your test bollocks.


Oh you mean guessing?
Yes, it is hard to distinguish some paranormal claims from guessing - you are correct there.

Only in uncontrolled conditions. In controlled conditions you can tell exactly when a paranormal claim is in line with chance. Unfortunately your "test" cannot do this because its completely uncontrolled.


We can guess, but the surface details are not known.
Shouldn't RVers all be able to tell us in some detail what we would find?

I don't know. Why would they be able to tell in detail? Is that some rule of RVing? How much detail? How would you be able to tell what level of detail is good enough?


If they get it right then they either have the paranormal ability or were good guessers or good guessers and good researchers.
But they would have some evidence to add to their claims.

If they get what right? People here have given us pretty good guesses that will turn out to be "right". What would the remote viewers have to do to get it right? Come on Ashles it's your test.


If they get it wrong then they don't have the ability.

What would be wrong?


I know you don't like clear tests like this David because if they get it wrong they look pretty foolish.

This test of your's is about as clear as a pint of wheat beer. I'm not concerned with the damaged ego's of any remote viewers out there. I just concerned that you think you have a good test.

[Ashles]

Well somebody's a little touchy!

It was supposed to be a lighthearted post.

Still any questioning of paranormal ability deserves a tirade of abuse from davidsmith.

What would the remote viewers have to do to get it right? Come on Ashles it's your test.
okay they can tell us the type of surface, the terrain, rough idea of temperature, visibility and colour would be good.

The alien contactees have to provide more detailed chamical analysis.

I'm not concerned with the damaged ego's of any remote viewers out there. I just concerned that you think you have a good test.
I'm just concerned about the vitriol in your posts when anyone suggests that paranormal ability might be...

oh, what's the word I'm looking for...

bollocks.

[Azrael 5]

What about some details of the craft itself-on the surface naturally!
:D

[chrisberez]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
We can have a pretty good guess without any remote viewing which makes your test bollocks.



Only in uncontrolled conditions. In controlled conditions you can tell exactly when a paranormal claim is in line with chance. Unfortunately your "test" cannot do this because its completely uncontrolled.


Wow, relax. The post was meant to be humerous.

[EDITED TO ADD:] Unless of course you meant the test was the dog's bollocks. In which case you'd be correct.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
We can have a pretty good guess without any remote viewing which makes your test bollocks.

Really? Earlier this morning I heard the NASA/ESA scientists saying openly that they had no idea whether the surface was solid or liquid or whether it was some strange intermediate. They hoped the craft would survive a touchdown because they had no idea what to expect.

So according to you, you can have a pretty good guess as to whether the surface is solid, liquid, or something else? You obviously know more than either the ESA or NASA experts.

Care to enlighten us? I'm sure NASA/ESA would be extremely grateful to know how it's done.

[Ipecac]

By the way, I have remote viewed the future and it appears I am right! Eat it, chumps!

(Or is that not how it works?)

[Xeriar]

I predict that it will see at least one mountain or something like it (maybe a hill)...

On a more serious note, I'l make a claim that we will eventually find microbial life there, possibly of similar origin to Earth's but not from any probes or other junk we set down.

[The Mighty Thor]

Pareidolia on Titan:

Zoom image to 200%

from top to bottom --

phallic symbol
"scream" mask or alien "grey"
duck-billed platypus

http://photobucket.com/albums/v616/themightythor/?action=view&current=titan2.jpg

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Ashles

I wish we'd thought to ask that poster who claimed to be in contact with the aliens (I forget her name - was it Earthborn?)

Somehow I doubt it was Earthborn.

[Ipecac]

Holy cow! Orange! Who would have guessed? (Or remote viewed?)

[geni]

Originally posted by LucyR
Somehow I doubt it was Earthborn.

earthsister is the poster being refered to.

[Ashles]

earthsister is the poster being refered to.
That's it! Thanks geni.

I assume we are still awaiting the 42nd Mersenne prime from her.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ashles
That's it! Thanks geni.

I assume we are still awaiting the 42nd Mersenne prime from her.

Also the atomic number of the metal that the alien spaceships are made from (asked way back first time she appeared).

[Explorer]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Holy cow! Orange! Who would have guessed? (Or remote viewed?)

Me..several posts above!

Mind you, the rest of my guesses were a bit wide of the mark. No ravines (unless you accept the river valleys), no hills or a parachute visible.

Ah...but all those features were in the 300 or so shots that the other attenae failed to transmit.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well somebody's a little touchy!

It was supposed to be a lighthearted post.

Still any questioning of paranormal ability deserves a tirade of abuse from davidsmith.


Lighthearted but still with the same old sickly layer of pseudoscepticism I've come to expect from you. I don't mind questioning of paranormal ability at all. What I don't like is when scepticism itself is not questioned. It's all good and well saying that your post is intended as a bit of fun, but the general air of these kind of posts is to show how apparently clear cut it would be demonstrate psi abilities as real, when in fact the test you describe would do nothing of the sort. But of course, everyone laughs at how psi is thus patently nonsense and returns to their comfy amrchair


okay they can tell us the type of surface, the terrain, rough idea of temperature, visibility and colour would be good.

And how would you know objectively that such a description was not either obtained by chance or by educated guess?


The alien contactees have to provide more detailed chamical analysis.

Why?


I'm just concerned about the vitriol in your posts when anyone suggests that paranormal ability might be...

oh, what's the word I'm looking for...

bollocks.

Like I said, I don't object to someone question psi as long as it's based on objective sound criticism rather than your feeble attempt to disguise your person beliefs with the cover of scepticism.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Really? Earlier this morning I heard the NASA/ESA scientists saying openly that they had no idea whether the surface was solid or liquid or whether it was some strange intermediate. They hoped the craft would survive a touchdown because they had no idea what to expect.

So according to you, you can have a pretty good guess as to whether the surface is solid, liquid, or something else? You obviously know more than either the ESA or NASA experts.

Care to enlighten us? I'm sure NASA/ESA would be extremely grateful to know how it's done.

Well now that we do know what the surface looks like, lets have a look at some of the jockular descriptions we obtained from previous posts:

"I'm seeing ice. Lots of ice. Thick atmosphere, very frigid. No lifeforms. Yes! I am boldly predicting we will see no lifeforms."

"I'm getting a leaden deep brown/grey sky. Lighter grey smooth landscape punctuated with dark narrow ravines. Orange rivulets and staining everywhere. Very rounded topped hills in the background, again lighter grey against the darker sky, with horizontal dark streaks around the perimeter. The remnants of the parachute lying to the left of the frame, rapidly being covered with a kind of white dust."

I would say that some of the content of these descriptions matches quite well with the photo's. But of course that's just my subjective opinion. Hang on, I thought subjective opinion was to supposed to be excluded from any analysis of results! Ok, I wonder how the test would calculate the chances of these descriptions being correct. Oh wait a minute, it can't.
Back to the drawing board

[MRC_Hans]

Because it was a joke, david. J - O - K - E. You know, not to be taken entirely seriously.

Jeesh...

Hans

[Ashles]

You're really making yourself look foolish here David.

Please, carry on.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Because it was a joke, david. J - O - K - E. You know, not to be taken entirely seriously.

Jeesh...

Hans


Ok, so it's a joke.

But Ashles and Pragmatist are still debating the test

Does that mean they think the test actually is valid?

Because I would expect someone who is entirely joking to have just admitted "yeah its a joke, and you're right the test is bollocks"

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ashles
You're really making yourself look foolish here David.

Please, carry on.

Ok, doesn't bother me

Do you agree that the test is invalid with no controls or objective means to tell if RVing has taken place?

[geni]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ok, so it's a joke.

But Ashles and Pragmatist are still debating the test

Does that mean they think the test actually is valid?

Because I would expect someone who is entirely joking to have just admitted "yeah its a joke, and you're right the test is bollocks"

You don't know this forum very well do you? We've got a 500+ post thread somewhere basicaly debating wheather 1=1.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Ashles
Personally I'm going for big slow moving waves. And dense cloud. And very cold.

Ah! It's like Cornwall!
Okay out with the puppets for David.

David it was a joke. My post wasn't actually a detailed scientific test. Some people here realised that without having it spelt out. But I apologise, maybe I should have explained in more detail just in case you were to visit the thread.


Still do you think it would have stopped the RVers from claiming success if they had guessed right?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ashles


Still do you think it would have stopped the RVers from claiming success if they had guessed right?

Probably not but I'm not interested in whether they claim success or not, just in what science reveals to be true.

[Ashles]

Oh well, not a peep out of any of the RVers anyway.

Guess they're still looking for Osama.