Psychic Ability.

[mike]

on the topic of such things, as part of some rather specialised training, i was taught never to stare at "targets" you were either trying to get past, or trying to take out......
the rationale being that when you stare directly at the target, they get a "sense" of same. a feeling of being "watched". so peripheral gaze was the prefered option.

anyone else heard of this, do you think the idea has merit ?

or is it the martial arts equivilent of an old wives tales ?

 

[Stillborn]

on the topic of such things, as part of some rather specialised training, i was taught never to stare at "targets" you were either trying to get past, or trying to take out......
the rationale being that when you stare directly at the target, they get a "sense" of same. a feeling of being "watched". so peripheral gaze was the prefered option.

anyone else heard of this, do you think the idea has merit ?

or is it the martial arts equivilent of an old wives tales ?

I'm behind on the thread. A little different than what you speak of, but thought I'd chime in. Won't take long. As usual.

My dad who was in nam was told not to look directly at a target or focus at night. You pick up more light from the side view. I've noticed this on my own actually. Anyone who disagrees, try looking for a pin point in the dark directly. You'll see it better by not looking at it spot on. If lazy, use stars.

 

[Gareth]

I'm behind on the thread. A little different than what you speak of, but thought I'd chime in. Won't take long. As usual.

My dad who was in nam was told not to look directly at a target or focus at night. You pick up more light from the side view. I've noticed this on my own actually. Anyone who disagrees, try looking for a pin point in the dark directly. You'll see it better by not looking at it spot on. If lazy, use stars.

No its completely true. Theres a technical name for it. David even described it once on the show... when Jeff Ritzmann was on talking about his experience out in the country with his wife, and that he could only really see this light/ufo if he looked just to the side. Looking dead-on it was a lot harder to see. David mentioned the technical name on the show.

I Like how its sort of a metaphor for other things in life.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

on the topic of such things, as part of some rather specialised training, i was taught never to stare at "targets" you were either trying to get past, or trying to take out......
the rationale being that when you stare directly at the target, they get a "sense" of same. a feeling of being "watched". so peripheral gaze was the prefered option.

anyone else heard of this, do you think the idea has merit ?

or is it the martial arts equivilent of an old wives tales ?

I remember a tv show that took that on, quite a while back. And if I recall correctly, more than 50 percent of people who were being stared at, did turn around and start looking for something or someone. As they were random people on the street, I would think it was pretty good proof that people being stared at, feel it.

If I remember the name of the program, I will post it.

Of course, since they could have just taken film of groups of people and then inserted narrative ahead of those caught on film doing the turn around and search thing.... who knows how accurate it was?

 

[derekcbart]

I remember a tv show that took that on, quite a while back. And if I recall correctly, more than 50 percent of people who were being stared at, did turn around and start looking for something or someone. As they were random people on the street, I would think it was pretty good proof that people being stared at, feel it.

If I remember the name of the program, I will post it.

Of course, since they could have just taken film of groups of people and then inserted narrative ahead of those caught on film doing the turn around and search thing.... who knows how accurate it was?

And a few months ago I heard an interview with a researcher (I think from London) who recently performed this experiment and it showed that less than 10%, or even 5%, of the people being stared at reacted. I've been trying to find that link also and will post it if I find it.

-Derek

 

[David Biedny]

No its completely true. Theres a technical name for it. David even described it once on the show... when Jeff Ritzmann was on talking about his experience out in the country with his wife, and that he could only really see this light/ufo if he looked just to the side. Looking dead-on it was a lot harder to see. David mentioned the technical name on the show.

It's tied to the layout of our eyeballs, where the optic nerve connects to the eyeball (the optic disc). Our brains work around this and fill in the gap, but if you're looking directly at a pinpoint of light in the dark, there's a spot where it just goes blank in your field of vision.

dB

 

[AnnetteMarie]

And a few months ago I heard an interview with a researcher (I think from London) who recently performed this experiment and it showed that less than 10%, or even 5%, of the people being stared at reacted. I've been trying to find that link also and will post it if I find it.

-Derek

well, so much for going on memory, that 50% I talked about could have been 5% and just gotten bigger every time I thought about the program...

So, take back the percentages I threw around, as they obviously ain't worth bupkus...

 

[Schuyler]

No its completely true. Theres a technical name for it. David even described it once on the show... when Jeff Ritzmann was on talking about his experience out in the country with his wife, and that he could only really see this light/ufo if he looked just to the side. Looking dead-on it was a lot harder to see. David mentioned the technical name on the show.

I Like how its sort of a metaphor for other things in life.

If I'm not mistaken, the visual acuity of the eye is not straight ahead, but off to the side. For example, if you stare at the Pleiades system you can see x number of stars, but if you cast your vision slighty to the side, you can see more of the stars. This really does have implications. It is said, for example, that the only way you can see fairies is to not look straight at them. As David stated, there is also a blind spot in your field of vision, which is tested for when you do the field test at an opthamologist. But these are two different issues.

 

[Gen]

If I'm not mistaken, the visual acuity of the eye is not straight ahead, but off to the side. For example, if you stare at the Pleiades system you can see x number of stars, but if you cast your vision slighty to the side, you can see more of the stars. This really does have implications. It is said, for example, that the only way you can see fairies is to not look straight at them.

I don't think it was a fairy, but I did once see something unusual that I could only see when I wasn't looking directly at it.

About ten years ago, when I was in college, I was working at the desk in my bedroom when I noticed a wheel of light rotating beside me. It was about two feet in diameter and fairly close to me, certainly within arm's reach. I don't think I tried to touch it, though that seems like an obvious thing to try, now that I'm writing this down.

It would disappear if I turned my head to look at it directly, and then reappear immediately as soon as I turned back to work. It was very bright and very much...there, slowly rotating in front of the radiator. There was no weird lighting in the room that could have caused anything remotely like this. I wasn't overtired and I don't do drugs; this was all in normal consciousness during (if I recall this detail correctly) the daytime. Whatever it was hung around for about twenty minutes before it faded.

It didn't feel scary or threatening. In fact, the whole thing felt disarmingly normal. As I was studying, I had to keep reminding myself that this bizarro thing was happening right next to me. Yet the "ho-hum" feeling was very persistent and hard to break through.

I think that this was probably the paranormal-est thing that's ever happened to me, though it felt so normal at the time that I wonder if I might have had other unusual experiences that I then normalize.

I don't know if others have experienced it, but that "normal" feeling feels even more insidious than the screen memories I've heard people like Whitley Streiber talk about -- part of me worries that I might have seen a UFO and said, "Interesting. Well, I've heard they're out there, so it's not unusual that I'd be seeing one. What's for dinner?" and just moved on, letting it blend into my life so seamlessly that I'd forget I'd had an extraordinary experience. I'm pretty sure that this has NOT happened, but when you do see something so strange that you don't know how to integrate it, I think that normalizing and forgetting is one of the brain's possible ways of responding to it.

 

[dreampsi]

I've been wondering about the possibility of telepathy for a long time and one thing I've learned stands out: If telepathy does exist then it is easily an elusive ability. Sometimes it seems to work reasonably well or better and other times it seems to fail completely. This could easily indicate that telepathy does not exist but with matters to do with the brain things are often not as predictable or reliable as one would prefer.

I have some experience in telepathy and I want to offer an exercise for you to judge for yourself. I, too, was once interested in telepathy (still am but this was the first time) and I read about an experiment and tried it with amazing results. This is the experiment if you are willing to strictly follow it. Pick a friend or partner willing to do this experiment with you. You pick the SAME EXACT time EVERY DAY to do this for 15 minutes. You simply will have a conversation with this person in your mind. Ask things like "what are you eating for breakfast/lunch/dinner" and then wait for the response whether it be "heard" in words like "steak and eggs" or you see the food on the table or maybe you recall yourself eating steak and eggs once at IHOP. People fail to realize that in telepathy (as well as other psychic ability) you are interpreting energy. The thought is a form of energy that is sent out and then received by another person and interpreted into THEIR "brain" (although we don't know what interprets that info) with THEIR symbols for that same energy.

If you do this for an extended period of time, you will begin to understand how telepathy works. I did this experiment with a friend (I in AL and she in VA). We spoke each night on the phone detailing what we each received during out telepathy sessions. Nothing seemed more than chance for the first several weeks. (We did this while driving because we were each on the road at that exact time with nothing else to do). We almost decided to give up after 2 months but we said hey...we still aren't doing anything while driving so why give it up? We continued and after 3 months things began to get interesting.

The following examples all happened during our 15 min "talk time".
One day I was driving and I could taste like I had just eaten a banana. (She did during that time). I thought I need to get my oil changed (that night she said she had same thought). The list goes on and on of singing same songs, eating same food, knowing things we couldn't know about each other. Here is a good one...I was thinking I should stop and buy a birthday card but the problem was I didn't know about anyone's birthday but calling her that night revealed she was shopping for birthday cards during our "talk time" for a girl in her office.

These might seem like small unconvincing things but I tell you this...the weird things that followed us for the next 3 years were uncanny. We had even stopped doing the "talk time" but I could list things for pages and not scratch the surface. The really ODD thing is that even though we stopped our "talk time" we had the same occurrences in our lives like twins!!! Things very uncommon like I go to the doctor, she went the same day. I had EYE SURGERY and she had it the same week. My windshield wipers broke, so did hers. I lost a ring, so did she.

Sorry for the long post but in closing, if you do not have a friend to do this with, I will volunteer to do this with you since I have been good with telepathy since then and that was 10 years ago.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Wow this thread got some legs didn't it?

 

[Stillborn]

It's tied to the layout of our eyeballs, where the optic nerve connects to the eyeball (the optic disc). Our brains work around this and fill in the gap, but if you're looking directly at a pinpoint of light in the dark, there's a spot where it just goes blank in your field of vision.

dB

I once went to the eye doctor because I thought something was wrong. I found the blindspot we all supposedly have, where the optic nerve meets the eyeball or whatever. The doctor told me I was the first person he'd ever met, or even heard about that found this spot. I was a hypocondriac back then. Anyway, mine is off to the side (blind spot). I noticed it years ago in school trying to look at a girl I liked without looking directly at her. Her head would be blurred out lol. Thought I was getting glaucoma.

 

[NNN]

As far as I know, there are two different issues here concerning blind spots.

Firstly, there is the spot which exists as result of where the optic nerve attaches to the retina as has been mentioned and these blind spots are to the side.

There is another effect, concerning the centre of the field of vision, which is caused by the fact that there is a preponderance of colour sensitive cells on the part of the retina that deals with the centre of the field of view.

Further from the centre of the field of view, the retina is more heavily populated with black & white sensitive cells, hence the better view off-centre in the dark.