Mark C. described the box as “browns surrounding the box, reds, oranges, ingrained marks.” Not bad.
Christiaan G. saw the box fairly well: “The box is a wooden box, brown in colour with carving. The corners of the box are more ornate than the sides, and there is a small handle thing in the middle of the lid.” Apart from the handle, a good description.
Lisa B. also was close: “Everytime I kept thinking about it I saw a small, dark wooden box with ornate carving on it. The top lifts off, no hinges.”
Joanne N. perhaps gave the best description of the box: “Wooden, oak coloured box with sliding lid. Inlay, darker wood diamond shape on the lid. Emotional attachment to box, possibly from deceased family member.” Although the box is not from a deceased family member, I do have a kind of emotional attachment to it. And she got the colors, sliding lid and diamond shapes. Very good! Joanne did not see any of the inside items correctly.
Ozwizardks gave an interesting reading: “The box I see seems to be made of wood. A medium brown, a light type of wood. It seems to be carved in an Asian or eastern kind of motif.” Kind of close; I like the “seems” to be made of wood. He goes on: “Inside I see a black and white photo, possibly 3'x3'.” The photo is smaller than that and was originally black and white, but hand-painted. His/her description of the photo is not accurate, although he/she says it’s of family. “I also pick up a wrist watch. It does not work.” Bingo! Even though he/she goes on to describe an analog watch, not digital.
Carolyn S. had perhaps the most interesting report. She did not get what was inside, but about the box she said, “Your box is made of a thick wood, a bit over an inch thick. Handmade with a dark coloring on it. Perhaps a varnish or whatever they call the coloring they put on wood. Oak coloring, perhaps.” Although the box is not made of wood, it certainly looks like it is, and her description is pretty good. But here’s the kicker. Carolyn continues: “There is a sticker, red, on one of the longer sides. The sticker shows about 75% of itself. It should have gone around the corner of the box however it looks like it has been cut at the corner. The sticker is about two inches from the bottom of the box and an oval shape.” Now I had forgotten that there was a sticker on the bottom of the box (see the photo), and didn’t realize it before the experiment and until I read Carolyn’s report and checked. The sticker is not red nor is it oval (although it has rounded corners), but it is on a longer side of the box and because it is partially torn away at the corner, it does show about 75% of itself, just as she describes. And it is just about two inches from the edge of the box’s bottom. Pretty interesting – especially since this is a feature I wasn’t even aware of at the time!
So who wins? Though no one scored really high, I am going to declare Joanne N., Ozwizardks and Carolyn S. the winners. They each will receive prize books from me.
Obviously, this was far from being a scientific test. It was meant mostly in fun and just to see what results we’d get. From all the many entries I received, I can tell that you all did enjoy the experiment, and I thank you all for your participation.
We’ll do it again soon, but with some changes.
We’ll never be able to make it like a real, controlled, scientific remote viewing experiment, but we can get it closer. Next time, we’ll do it in a shorter span of time; a full month was way too long for everyone involved. And to make it more like a real remote viewing experiment, we’ll set up a specific time on a specific day that I will be concentrating on the targets and when you can concentrate on remote viewing them. (Thanks, Brenda W.) Perhaps this will yield better results. We’ll actually probably set up a few different times to accommodate various schedules.
In the meantime, I encourage you to continue with your own experiments with friends and family.