Hi guys, I post these results early due to time zones and I think the really interested have all come on board
The great reveal of the fallible psychic come mystic.
Before I reveal what I attempted to influence you to draw, I would like to emphasise how absolutely infinitesimly minutely vanishingly small it would be to even come remotely close, to even one of you guys to drawing the correct object.
I asked you to draw two objects one inside the other, correct?. I just want you to stop here and ask you to think of the billions or zillions of objects there are out there combined by the unlikelyhood of you drawing two of them, one inside of the other. Got me point I hope? I generalised the whole experiment leaving it wide open by not specifying geometrical shapes or objects of nature etc etc.
Just to emphazise how even more how unlikely it is for me to even have one hit, we must consider the tiny number of people participating in this experiment. Rhine and Co when trying to verify and validate the truth of psychic abilities such as telephathy etc, used huge numbers of participants, who took hundreds of thousands of tests and found only a tiny mnute deviation from chance.
Strangly sometimes these deviations were in the negative direction, seeming to indicate that just by experimenting less positive results where sometimes the result, no matter how hard the participants tried to project the image
As an Industrial/ Mechanical Engineer I have some knowledge of statistics and proberbility facturisation
Thats my two cents worth, first read just a few of the objects/shapes amongst the almost infinity of possible shapes you might have chosed to draw, and only then scoll down and see how close I got.
Read just a few of the type of shapes or objects below that, you might have drawn and then take into consideration I asked you to draw one inside the other making the whole exercise even more difficult
polygon
o concave polygon
o constructible polygon
o convex polygon
o cyclic polygon
o decagon
o digon
o dodecagon
o enneagon
o equiangular polygon
o equilateral polygon
o henagon
o hendecagon
o heptagon
o hexadecagon
o hexagon
Lemoine hexagon
o icosagon
swastika
o octagon
o pentagon
o regular polygon
regular decagon
regular octagon
regular pentagon
o star without crossing lines
o star polygon
decagram
octagram
star of Lakshmi (octagram)
heptagram
star of David, hexagram
pentagram
triangle
o acute triangle
o anticomplementary triangle
o equilateral triangle
o excentral triangle
o isosceles triangle
o medial triangle
o obtuse triangle
o rational triangle
o right triangle
30-60-90 triangle
isosceles right triangle
Kepler triangle
o scalene triangle
o Reuleaux triangle
parallelogram
o equilateral parallelogram: rhombus
Lozenge
o rhomboid
Penrose tile
rectangle
rhombus
square
trapezium
o isosceles trapezium
quadrilateral
o cyclic quadrilateral, tetrachord
o kite
o tangential quadrilateral
o trapezoid
isosceles trapezoid
polydrafter
annulus
arbelos
circle
o disc
o Archimedes' circle
o Bankoff circle
o circumcircle
o excircle
o incircle
o nine-point circle
circular sector
circular segment
crescent
various lemniscates
lune
oval
Reuleaux polygon
rotor
o lens, vesica piscis (fish bladder)
o Reuleaux triangle
sphere
semicircle
triquetra
Yin-Yang
tomoe, Archimedean spiral
astroid, paracycle, cubocycloid
deltoid
ellipse
smoothed octagon
super ellipse
tomahawk
Triangles -- triangle object and related functions.
Faces -- face object and related functions.
Surfaces -- surface object and related functions
And all these could be flat or three dimensional!
Now scroll all the way down!
This is what I tried to get you guys to draw. Either a circle with a triangle inside or the reverse.
The naughty ones who took a little time to think about it might have drawn a circle with a square or box inside, but what did really first come into your mind
If I am not remotely correct then I must admit as a remote influencing telepath I am a failure, but that is OK with me as the experiments was fun
alan
Home
Pages: 1 
