If you look at a hottie and she looks back, you will remember. That tingling you get when a hot chick - or guy - checks you out registers. If they
don't look back, you move on and forget about it. Nothing mesmerising there
I've always thought that's cool - if you flick your gaze past someone and they look at you, you KNOW they have seen you, just as you know they know!
Even animals. The brain works pretty damn quickly (in most of us) I think it goes to show how important personal recognition is
Contrary to popular belief, Vulcans do not actually need to touch the forehead of someone they are doing a mind meld with.
Spock (in that scene the Alternative Universe evil/barbaric Spock) simply had a thing for McCoy.
Some say this was simply to make Ohura jealous as she vassilated back and forth between Spock and Kirk, but clearly there was an underlying tension in
all of Spock's and McCoy's interaction that reeked of sexual frusturation.
doesnt the human body emit infrared radiation? in fact i have seen video of qi gon masters setting fire to paper and when recorded under infrared
camera generated enough heat to turn water into steam......explain that.
I suppose this relates to this staring problem post regarding social anxiety?
Eye contact...Staring problem. (anxiety)
In these 5-6 years the biggest problem I've had with Social anxiety
disorder is the Staring problem I've had. Maybe it's not related to social
anxiety at all and maybe it's just me being totally insane.
What happens with this staring problem is I'll stare at people whoever
enter my viewable vision area. I think it relates to the fact that I'm
scared/afraid of other people looking at me and putting quick BAD judgement
towards me. This staring problem has gotten to the point now where it's
ALWAYS on my mind whenever another person is nearby me. I'm afraid I'll
make myself look creepy, strange and weird by doing it and I've even had
some people who spend much time around me ask me why I always stare at them
so I know for a fact that this is a problem and not something I feel I'm
Examples of when this happens are when:
~I'm sitting down watching a TV show and I'm quite comfortable on my own
but once someone shows up and sits down beside me I'll stare at them in my
periphal vision rather than concentrate on the television. As soon as they
come into view or I know they are there I already have that nervous feeling
rush over my body. I'll then get some intense thoughts of how they are
going to notice when I start staring at them and how I wish they'd go away
or I'll just leave. Any of the concentration I had for the TV show I was
watching will almost be to make this person and myself uncomfortable.
Something i've noticed is i'll stare out the window at cars passing by and look at peoples faces as they drive and sometimes that person notices
someones looking at them and they'll turn to my direction
there's for sure a PULL feeling when that happens as if they are aware of my presence
further to phages excelent observations , i am dubious about the ground electrodes being on DIFFERENT ears - we know that left brain / right brain
activity is different so there ios automatically a source of spurious signal
also the very act of staring is a concious one - requiring activity from both the eyeball and its control muscles - there again you have a potential
to generate a spurious signal just by the muscluse controling they eyeball
sorry - i am not impressed - i know already that when i sate at some one , or even look in another direction - i alter my brains and faces electrical
Why is this important? is like asking why electricity is important. We may not be able to explain it very well, but that this does happen all the
time and is perfectly natural - vindicates a significant portion of what has been considered "occult" for over a thousand years.
The ability to influence someone with just a look has very interesting connotations - as in how far can this be developed? Lots and lots of
interesting issues - from the Eye of Horus and Illuminati symbolism, why the stubborn insistence of treating the eye strictly as a receiver and not a
transmitter? It only gets more interesting from there.
I think it's probable. We each have an electromagnetic field and if we can focus our attention on one spot I theorize you can emit negligible amounts
of energy. Of course this wouldn't be achieved by just anyone but with people of predisposed energy field.
I had a friend who was in the marines in the 80's. He claimed that they tought him what they called the "6th sense". The lesson was that if you
were deep infiltrating, say you intended to sneak up on an unsuspecting opponet to snap his neck, that you refrain from staring at them too much too
directly as you sneak up. He also referenced how int he movies you often see the guy looking to the side while doing such. Maybe he was full of it, I
I cant see the document, but it is wiley. It'll be interesting to see how the rest of the scientific community responds to this...
This could pose a serious 'threat' to the quantum mystics, or the opposite. I suspect the debates will have those from either side confirming their
own assumptions / beliefs from the same data. I'm not exactly fond of the quantum mysticism, especially with all of the pseudoscience I've seen them
pedal, so hopefully I sift thru the arguments rationally...
What was measured was electrical potential changes between the goggles and the subject's head. A variation of an EEG. Not surprising changes were
seen with eyes opened and eyes closed.
This is exactly what I was thinking as I browsed the paper. Artifacts in the data caused by ocular movement - deliberate movement, blinking,
involuntary saccades, etc... are a well documented issue which anybody who works with EEGs should be intricately familiar with, as these artifacts
must be accounted and corrected. Considering how difficult it can be to sterilize all ocular based artifacts from the data in conventional uses, I
would expect at least some mention on how he differentiated between data and artifacts. Did he use an ICA algorithm? If so, which variant and how were
the filters modified, if at all?
Assuring that "During all readings the participant’s facial musculature was still" is... sort of moot. Reminds me of the old magician's canard:
"Nothing up my sleeve".
The goggles are just... lol, no... especially with EEG. First thing's first, I would think that the proposition of your eyeballs emitting EM
radiation could verified directly and rather easily before we start jamming the cart before the horse here. You can buy inexpensive EM detectors at
Radio Shack (or at least, you could back when they were cool like that). So I'm sure the technology to detect eyeball emissions directly, without all
that intercessary junk getting in the way, should not be a significant hurdle.
Meanwhile, an independent team conduct experiment which reproduces the same proposed phenomena as "Evil eye beam" and devise a series of experiments
to see whether or not the volunteers can even detect the EM that being shot them with any manner of statistical significance.
.... oh, Christ... I can't believe I forgot where I'd seen this before. Dr. Ross was one of the JREF 2008 Pigasus Award winners for
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.