Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Simultaneous Retinoscopy
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> Why no, quite the contrary! All the kids loved Dr. Bates! His presence
> emanated an atmosphere of calm which would permeate into the children.
Like, say Michael Jackson?
> It is very unlikely that someone who made a hobby with the
> retinoscope, using it for several decades to measure the refraction of
> several thousands of subjects, was not highly proficient its use.
It's very unlikely that Dr. Bates had mystical powers we no longer have
today.
It's also unlikely that the angle subtended by a pupil at six feet is as
large as the angle subtended at two feet.
> It is also a notable point that, after Dr. Bates cured himself of
> presbyopia, he would most likely have secured a very keen level of
> vision, and therefore would be able to perform feats with the
> instrument that required great precision and skill, otherwise not
> possible.
It's also a notable point that you're full of crap. You won't convince any
living eye doctor that Bates cured himself of presbyopia. You believing it
only proves that you swallow crap.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> Why no, quite the contrary! All the kids loved Dr. Bates! His presence
> emanated an atmosphere of calm which would permeate into the children.
Like, say Michael Jackson?
> It is very unlikely that someone who made a hobby with the
> retinoscope, using it for several decades to measure the refraction of
> several thousands of subjects, was not highly proficient its use.
It's very unlikely that Dr. Bates had mystical powers we no longer have
today.
It's also unlikely that the angle subtended by a pupil at six feet is as
large as the angle subtended at two feet.
> It is also a notable point that, after Dr. Bates cured himself of
> presbyopia, he would most likely have secured a very keen level of
> vision, and therefore would be able to perform feats with the
> instrument that required great precision and skill, otherwise not
> possible.
It's also a notable point that you're full of crap. You won't convince any
living eye doctor that Bates cured himself of presbyopia. You believing it
only proves that you swallow crap.
-MT
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
In article <tpqdnXQDxJ00JZnVnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews,com >,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
[attribution from Mike missing]
> It's also unlikely that the angle subtended by a pupil at six feet is as
> large as the angle subtended at two feet.
>
> > It is also a notable point that, after Dr. Bates cured himself of
> > presbyopia, he would most likely have secured a very keen level of
> > vision, and therefore would be able to perform feats with the
> > instrument that required great precision and skill, otherwise not
> > possible.
>
> It's also a notable point that you're full of crap. You won't convince any
> living eye doctor that Bates cured himself of presbyopia. You believing it
> only proves that you swallow crap.
Then again, perhaps if Bates refused to believe in glasses, and was
presbyopic, wouldn't it be very possible that he couldn't see a damned
thing at two feet, and so did his exam from six feet?
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic,net
In article <tpqdnXQDxJ00JZnVnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews,com >,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
[attribution from Mike missing]
> It's also unlikely that the angle subtended by a pupil at six feet is as
> large as the angle subtended at two feet.
>
> > It is also a notable point that, after Dr. Bates cured himself of
> > presbyopia, he would most likely have secured a very keen level of
> > vision, and therefore would be able to perform feats with the
> > instrument that required great precision and skill, otherwise not
> > possible.
>
> It's also a notable point that you're full of crap. You won't convince any
> living eye doctor that Bates cured himself of presbyopia. You believing it
> only proves that you swallow crap.
Then again, perhaps if Bates refused to believe in glasses, and was
presbyopic, wouldn't it be very possible that he couldn't see a damned
thing at two feet, and so did his exam from six feet?
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
dabel@sonic,net
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On 14 Apr, 19:58, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> > No, but we can infer that you are a slightly lazy person, since you
> > are asking many questions but not bothering to do some research and
> > find their answers yourself (by reading The Book).
>
> I've looked carefully through The Book and I never found exactly what Dr.
> Bates meant by "simultaneous retinoscopy." He mentions the technique but
> never actually explains how to do it, precisely how it is different from
> conventional retinoscopy, nearpoint ret, or MEM.
>
> He does mention that retinoscopy must be done from six feet, and that the
> visual system always changes unpredictably when retinoscopy is done from the
> more conventional 67 cm. (I can't see how this would be true for presbyopes.
> I often think it an indication Dr. Bates was a bit of a smelly troll who
> made young people nervous when he got close to them.)
>
> At any rate, if you know how to do conventional retinoscopy, it makes you
> scratch your head and wonder how he DID that. Nowhere in The Book does he
> describe exactly how to do "simultaneous" retinoscopy. Knowing it's done
> from 6 feet, and assuming his arms were not six feet long, we do know that
> six-foot retinoscopy could not be very exact unless he employed an assistant
> or had the patient move trial lenses in front of their eyes. Even then, it
> would be 8-10 times more difficult to interpret the retinoscopic reflexes.
>
> Now you may consider my points to be trite but I propose you will have at
> least as many problems as I do, finding a comprehensive description of
> "simultaneous" retinoscopy in The Book.
>
> Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out chapter and verse. That's how
> it's done with other sacred Books like the Bible and the Koran.
>
> I'm getting deja-vu; I know I've had this conversation before. But nobody
> ever pointed out exactly how to do "simultaneous" retinoscopy.
>
> With this Book, which you say is science and not religion, you might
> decide that vagueness and arcane techniques that nobody can duplicate are
> strong indications of charlatanry and pseudoscience. You might not decide
> so, but that would be gullible and as you've said, you aren't gullible.
>
> I have several retinoscopes and tons of experience with them. I can do
> retinoscopy just about any way you want, except when you point vaguely and
> say "like he did it, back there."
>
> -MT
It is hardly likely that someone who made a hobby of using the
instrument under all sorts of conditions and spent decades doing so
would be incompetent in its use. Dr. Bates had remarkable eyesight
after he cured himself of presbyopia, so it should not be surprising
that he was more skilled in the use of the instrument than many
others.
His findings with the retinoscope also stand the tests of experience.
People who have discarded their glasses and begin to cure their poor
eyesight notice dramatic changes in their quality of vision, depending
on their emotional state and other factors. This is something that
will often vary little if glasses are worn, or go unnoticed if the
assumption is held that the quality of vision does not change both for
the worse and for the better depending on how the mind is being used.
The variability of the quality of vision has become so obvious to such
people (including myself) that there is no need to question Bates's
accuracy with the retinoscope. The fact should be obvious to anyone
with perfect sight, as nobody with perfect sight has perfect sight all
of the time. - Kiesling
On 14 Apr, 19:58, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> > No, but we can infer that you are a slightly lazy person, since you
> > are asking many questions but not bothering to do some research and
> > find their answers yourself (by reading The Book).
>
> I've looked carefully through The Book and I never found exactly what Dr.
> Bates meant by "simultaneous retinoscopy." He mentions the technique but
> never actually explains how to do it, precisely how it is different from
> conventional retinoscopy, nearpoint ret, or MEM.
>
> He does mention that retinoscopy must be done from six feet, and that the
> visual system always changes unpredictably when retinoscopy is done from the
> more conventional 67 cm. (I can't see how this would be true for presbyopes.
> I often think it an indication Dr. Bates was a bit of a smelly troll who
> made young people nervous when he got close to them.)
>
> At any rate, if you know how to do conventional retinoscopy, it makes you
> scratch your head and wonder how he DID that. Nowhere in The Book does he
> describe exactly how to do "simultaneous" retinoscopy. Knowing it's done
> from 6 feet, and assuming his arms were not six feet long, we do know that
> six-foot retinoscopy could not be very exact unless he employed an assistant
> or had the patient move trial lenses in front of their eyes. Even then, it
> would be 8-10 times more difficult to interpret the retinoscopic reflexes.
>
> Now you may consider my points to be trite but I propose you will have at
> least as many problems as I do, finding a comprehensive description of
> "simultaneous" retinoscopy in The Book.
>
> Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out chapter and verse. That's how
> it's done with other sacred Books like the Bible and the Koran.
>
> I'm getting deja-vu; I know I've had this conversation before. But nobody
> ever pointed out exactly how to do "simultaneous" retinoscopy.
>
> With this Book, which you say is science and not religion, you might
> decide that vagueness and arcane techniques that nobody can duplicate are
> strong indications of charlatanry and pseudoscience. You might not decide
> so, but that would be gullible and as you've said, you aren't gullible.
>
> I have several retinoscopes and tons of experience with them. I can do
> retinoscopy just about any way you want, except when you point vaguely and
> say "like he did it, back there."
>
> -MT
It is hardly likely that someone who made a hobby of using the
instrument under all sorts of conditions and spent decades doing so
would be incompetent in its use. Dr. Bates had remarkable eyesight
after he cured himself of presbyopia, so it should not be surprising
that he was more skilled in the use of the instrument than many
others.
His findings with the retinoscope also stand the tests of experience.
People who have discarded their glasses and begin to cure their poor
eyesight notice dramatic changes in their quality of vision, depending
on their emotional state and other factors. This is something that
will often vary little if glasses are worn, or go unnoticed if the
assumption is held that the quality of vision does not change both for
the worse and for the better depending on how the mind is being used.
The variability of the quality of vision has become so obvious to such
people (including myself) that there is no need to question Bates's
accuracy with the retinoscope. The fact should be obvious to anyone
with perfect sight, as nobody with perfect sight has perfect sight all
of the time. - Kiesling
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> His findings with the retinoscope also stand the tests of experience.
> People who have discarded their glasses and begin to cure their poor
> eyesight notice dramatic changes in their quality of vision,
This is crap. It only happens in your head, which as we know is full of
crap.
> on their emotional state and other factors. This is something that
> will often vary little if glasses are worn, or go unnoticed if the
> assumption is held that the quality of vision does not change both for
> the worse and for the better depending on how the mind is being used.
Believing this is "scientific" proves that your head is full of crap.
> The variability of the quality of vision has become so obvious to such
> people (including myself) that there is no need to question Bates's
> accuracy with the retinoscope.
Again you've swallowed crap, a cargo-cult explanation for accommodation.
> The fact should be obvious to anyone
> with perfect sight, as nobody with perfect sight has perfect sight all
> of the time. - Kiesling
It should be obvious to you that this is crap.
Since it isn't, I'll continue pointing it out to you whenever crap leaks
from your head. Should happen again, any moment now.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> His findings with the retinoscope also stand the tests of experience.
> People who have discarded their glasses and begin to cure their poor
> eyesight notice dramatic changes in their quality of vision,
This is crap. It only happens in your head, which as we know is full of
crap.
> on their emotional state and other factors. This is something that
> will often vary little if glasses are worn, or go unnoticed if the
> assumption is held that the quality of vision does not change both for
> the worse and for the better depending on how the mind is being used.
Believing this is "scientific" proves that your head is full of crap.
> The variability of the quality of vision has become so obvious to such
> people (including myself) that there is no need to question Bates's
> accuracy with the retinoscope.
Again you've swallowed crap, a cargo-cult explanation for accommodation.
> The fact should be obvious to anyone
> with perfect sight, as nobody with perfect sight has perfect sight all
> of the time. - Kiesling
It should be obvious to you that this is crap.
Since it isn't, I'll continue pointing it out to you whenever crap leaks
from your head. Should happen again, any moment now.
-MT
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> This is not crap!
Well, Mike ....
He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> This is not crap!
Well, Mike ....
He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > This is not crap!
>
> Well, Mike ....
>
> He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > This is not crap!
>
> Well, Mike ....
>
> He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > This is not crap!
>
> > Well, Mike ....
>
> > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
>
> It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
Sorry, but ... just like Otis, you seem to lack the really rudimentary
understanding that the burden of proof is on you.
I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research, using an incredible
variety of sources. Nothing but your claims backs up your claims, and
they fall apart under even minimal scrutiny by impartial observers
with even a hint of knowledge about eyes and sight.
Sorry. The burden is yours.
On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > This is not crap!
>
> > Well, Mike ....
>
> > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
>
> It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
Sorry, but ... just like Otis, you seem to lack the really rudimentary
understanding that the burden of proof is on you.
I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research, using an incredible
variety of sources. Nothing but your claims backs up your claims, and
they fall apart under even minimal scrutiny by impartial observers
with even a hint of knowledge about eyes and sight.
Sorry. The burden is yours.
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On 15 Apr, 17:46, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > This is not crap!
>
> > > Well, Mike ....
>
> > > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
>
> > It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> > All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> > Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
>
> Sorry, but ... just like Otis, you seem to lack the really rudimentary
> understanding that the burden of proof is on you.
>
> I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research, using an incredible
> variety of sources. Nothing but your claims backs up your claims, and
> they fall apart under even minimal scrutiny by impartial observers
> with even a hint of knowledge about eyes and sight.
>
> Sorry. The burden is yours.
Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
On 15 Apr, 17:46, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > This is not crap!
>
> > > Well, Mike ....
>
> > > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
>
> > It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> > All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> > Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
>
> Sorry, but ... just like Otis, you seem to lack the really rudimentary
> understanding that the burden of proof is on you.
>
> I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research, using an incredible
> variety of sources. Nothing but your claims backs up your claims, and
> they fall apart under even minimal scrutiny by impartial observers
> with even a hint of knowledge about eyes and sight.
>
> Sorry. The burden is yours.
Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
>I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research
That twenty years would've been better spent in curing your vision
defect with the rest methods ;) Have you learned anything in that 20
years of how to CURE yourself?
>I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research
That twenty years would've been better spent in curing your vision
defect with the rest methods ;) Have you learned anything in that 20
years of how to CURE yourself?
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> That twenty years would've been better spent in curing your vision
> defect with the rest methods ;) Have you learned anything in that 20
> years of how to CURE yourself?
We've learned you're full of crap.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> That twenty years would've been better spent in curing your vision
> defect with the rest methods ;) Have you learned anything in that 20
> years of how to CURE yourself?
We've learned you're full of crap.
-MT
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
Is THAT what you think you're doing?
To all of us, it looks like you're spewing crap, diluting this newsgroup
with nonsense advice and embarassing yourself and your teachers.
You could learn something here, but you won't.
You could go away, but you won't.
Bates fooled himself and he fooled you but your head is too full of crap to
realize it.
-MT
"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail,com > wrote
> Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
Is THAT what you think you're doing?
To all of us, it looks like you're spewing crap, diluting this newsgroup
with nonsense advice and embarassing yourself and your teachers.
You could learn something here, but you won't.
You could go away, but you won't.
Bates fooled himself and he fooled you but your head is too full of crap to
realize it.
-MT
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On 15 Apr, 18:16, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> > Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> > burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
>
> Is THAT what you think you're doing?
Yes! It's what I said all along!
On 15 Apr, 18:16, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring,com > wrote:
> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote
>
> > Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> > burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
>
> Is THAT what you think you're doing?
Yes! It's what I said all along!
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On Apr 15, 12:57 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
bull$hit. you are just blathering a bunch of unproven mythology that
has little to no basis in fact.
anyone who is interested in Bates can find out about it without your
help. you simply like to flit around this newsgroup like some kind of
harpy who harasses everyone with stupid quotes from stupid books, or
posing stupid questions that seem interesting to no one but you.
you are sick. the only one who cares about what you are writing about
is you! go away, like your hero troll friend Gatti did.
On Apr 15, 12:57 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
bull$hit. you are just blathering a bunch of unproven mythology that
has little to no basis in fact.
anyone who is interested in Bates can find out about it without your
help. you simply like to flit around this newsgroup like some kind of
harpy who harasses everyone with stupid quotes from stupid books, or
posing stupid questions that seem interesting to no one but you.
you are sick. the only one who cares about what you are writing about
is you! go away, like your hero troll friend Gatti did.
Re: Simultaneous Retinoscopy
On 15 Apr, 19:19, p.clar...@gmail,com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:57 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> >. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
>
> bull$hit. you are just blathering a bunch of unproven mythology that
> has little to no basis in fact.
>
> anyone who is interested in Bates can find out about it without your
> help. you simply like to flit around this newsgroup like some kind of
> harpy who harasses everyone with stupid quotes from stupid books, or
> posing stupid questions that seem interesting to no one but you.
>
> you are sick. the only one who cares about what you are writing about
> is you! go away, like your hero troll friend Gatti did.
No!
On 15 Apr, 19:19, p.clar...@gmail,com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:57 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> >. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
>
> bull$hit. you are just blathering a bunch of unproven mythology that
> has little to no basis in fact.
>
> anyone who is interested in Bates can find out about it without your
> help. you simply like to flit around this newsgroup like some kind of
> harpy who harasses everyone with stupid quotes from stupid books, or
> posing stupid questions that seem interesting to no one but you.
>
> you are sick. the only one who cares about what you are writing about
> is you! go away, like your hero troll friend Gatti did.
No!
Next: AMEBIC LIVER ABSCESS (Part Two) posted on http :// www .surgerysearch.blogspot,com...
Previous: The Swinging Cure
