Thanks for the unverifiable, third-hand anecdote, Otis.
Dan Abel - 27 Mar 2008 22:27 GMT
In article
<0c27f326-66b2-4ac3-b391-cd3e08f53519@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Thanks for the unverifiable, third-hand anecdote, Otis.
All you have to do is find a little, gullible kid and you too can
reproduce this. Those doctors are going to claim that it's just
floaters in the eye caused by the pressure put on the eye, but Otis,
Atchoo and I know better.
If you don't believe me, would you be willing to believe that kids have
just forgotten how to do this in the last 80 years? Didn't think so.

Signature
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net
In article
<68b3fbe3-d718-4dfd-a7e1-eeeb4e6938e4@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> [...A very remarkable patient, a girl aged eight, was treated more
> than fifteen years ago. The vision of the right eye was 2/200 while
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> - Dr. W.H. Bates, March 1930
I amazed by how obtuse these few sentences are. The little I have been
able to extract makes no sense to be based upon my knowledge of
geometric optics. Is someone able to translate from this pseudo-English
into real English? I want to get an idea of just how crazy Bates was.
A big help would be to describe the geometric configuration by giving
dimensions in millimeters. Include focal lengths or powers of the eye's
optical parts;
Bill
Zetsu - 27 Mar 2008 23:27 GMT
What is it that you don't understand, Bill?
Dan Abel - 28 Mar 2008 01:54 GMT
> In article
> <68b3fbe3-d718-4dfd-a7e1-eeeb4e6938e4@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > [...A very remarkable patient, a girl aged eight,
> > Her voice became more musical with the
> > - Dr. W.H. Bates, March 1930
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> dimensions in millimeters. Include focal lengths or powers of the eye's
> optical parts;
I would call this 14mm. Anybody disagree?

Signature
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net
Salmon Egg - 28 Mar 2008 04:45 GMT
In article
<dabel-5C5769.17540527032008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> I would call this 14mm. Anybody disagree?
What is "this". "Anybody disagree?" is as ungrammatical as the writing I
was trying to understand.
Bill
Dan Abel - 28 Mar 2008 05:49 GMT
> In article
> <dabel-5C5769.17540527032008@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What is "this". "Anybody disagree?" is as ungrammatical as the writing I
> was trying to understand.
"This" is "Her voice became more musical".
It was meant to be a joke.
The way charlatans work is to use a lot of words to say nothing. It
doesn't appear that Bates did much measuring, just unscientific
observing.

Signature
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic.net
Zetsu - 28 Mar 2008 13:12 GMT
What kind of measuring are you talking about?
The girl was able to read and see perfectly with objects that were
touching her eyelashes. Why does one need a dioptrical measurement to
confirm that this is a remarkable feat? Tell me, how many people do
you know who can do the same thing?
"This" is an interesting aspect of the cure of imperfect sight. Bates
was simply reinforcing the frequent observation that when one is able
to restore their vision many other bodily abilities are improved. For
this girl, it meant her voice became more soft, relaxed, and melodic,
and so reflecting her state of mind and her eyesight.
The use of additional description in clinical observations is simply a
way to raise a point that may be of interest to the reader. It does
not imply charlatanry.
Zetsu - 28 Mar 2008 13:13 GMT
What kind of measuring are you talking about?
The girl was able to read and see perfectly with objects that were
touching her eyelashes. Why does one need a dioptrical measurement to
confirm that this is a remarkable feat? Tell me, how many people do
you know who can do the same thing?
"This" is an interesting aspect to the cure of imperfect sight. Bates
was simply reinforcing the frequent observation that when one is able
to restore their vision many other bodily abilities are improved. For
this girl, it meant her voice became more soft, relaxed, and melodic,
and so reflecting her state of mind and her eyesight.
The use of additional description in clinical observations is simply a
way to raise a point that may be of interest to the reader. It does
not indicate charlatanry.
Neil Brooks - 28 Mar 2008 16:27 GMT
> "This" is an interesting aspect to the cure of imperfect sight.
No.
Maybe when you get older, you'll realize that it's nothing more than
an unverifiable, third-hand anecdote.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 28 Mar 2008 15:24 GMT
Bill> I amazed by how obtuse these few sentences are. The little I
have been
able to extract makes no sense to be based upon my knowledge of
geometric optics. Is someone able to translate from this pseudo-
English
into real English? I want to get an idea of just how crazy Bates was.
Otis> After reading his ORIGINAL studies -- that made sense -- and
were LIMITED (1903 - 1913 ) I came to the conclusion that he
began to exagerate his statements. (i.e., make excessive claims
and statement.)
Otis> In fact one person claimed (in Bates name) that he saw
a person "instantly" clear his vision from -40 diopters to normal.
Otis> The accepted power for the adult eye is about 60 diopters.
Otis> This would mean (for example) that the eye would have
to change its TOTAL POWER from 100 diopters to 60 diopters
in "and instant".
Otis> It is statements like these that make this situation difficult.
Just my second-opinion,
> In article
> <68b3fbe3-d718-4dfd-a7e1-eeeb4e693...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 28 Mar 2008 16:28 GMT
On Mar 28, 7:24 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Otis> After reading his ORIGINAL studies -- that made sense -- and
> were LIMITED (1903 - 1913 ) I came to the conclusion that he
> began to exagerate his statements. (i.e., make excessive claims
> and statement.)
That, ALONE, should make you a fan.
Kindred spirits, at least!