Srat away from "vision educators"

Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" phoned
me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses he wanted
to buy.

I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and
will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.

Then I shared with him a good conversation.

Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original
Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit
from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried the
experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.

He promised me that he would have tried this soon.

He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about vision
are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of the eye,
and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, exactly in the
same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the idiots doctors here
on sci.med.vision seem to not cope with this fact.

Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of
Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to
subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a
story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after he
has spoken to me.

To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University in
New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became aware
that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.

I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind which
is not there when I have something to do with idiots like Cagnoli and
Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These people have
spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is selling their
courses and programs which have nothing to do with the Original Bates
System.

"Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They
understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates
himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find here.



--
"As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his
life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of
magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke in
hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some other
battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who are
sitting in darkness have seen its great light."
William B. MacCracken, M.D.
(1937, Berkeley CA)

 

Of course one should, but the thing is, would it get published either
way? That is the most daunting task.

Kory

 

Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates
Method is??

And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your
claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."

Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the
Bates Method is"

nipidoc

 

The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
reading Bates.

Kory

 

The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by the
simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual field.
To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the point.

There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames themeselves
block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the frames are no
longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes accustomed to
working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus lenses minify
is quite correct, - they draw more information into an area of sight
that has been contracted.

It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
glasses.

An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

Kevin

 

BatesCultist:

Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.

1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some
don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that
matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't.
And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are
simply born that way.

2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do
with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with
whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for
certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a
physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who
have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing
glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield
because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into not
using optical correction is a definate potential cause.

3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.

4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using a
smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of
stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral retina
anomolies.

SO....

Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most
everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary to
your position means a damn thing to you.

--LB

 

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

But your reaction is to me the very opposite of unassuming.

Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
your words won't sound so hollow.

Kevin

 

No, not quite - see my response to LarryDoc.

I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of
the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral
vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate
this observation, but in due course that will come about.

Kevin

 

Kevin,

With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has MORE
formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses.
In a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)

With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information.
In a small angle they could not "catch" a thing.

Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and hypermetropics wich
we may not ignore speaking about the retina when wearing glasses?

And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
contactlenses?
Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are already present at the
time Bates wrote his book.

 

------------------

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing raeaction!

I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.[/QUOTE]

Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
above directly from your post.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
or the other.

I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on the
scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple to
find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to be
false, invalid, or detrimental.

On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy of
UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup or
perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.

I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just after
the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking longer
than usual to go away.

Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a study
to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think it
works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got to
able to show cause and effect relationship. It is helpful to understand
the physiology that makes the connection, but sometimes it is OK to
present data that shows the cause and effect without knowing exactly why
and how. You can work on that later. Then you've got to show it is both
safe and effective, or at least exactly HOW effective. You've got to be
able to prove The Method is a safe and effective treatment for what it
is promoted to achieve.

Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is still
OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat? I heard
it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all spacecraft that
make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon isn't made of
cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

 

I've already commented earlier on the flat earth concept. It was
certainly reasonable in its time.

As for the moon being made of green cheese, I think that's been taken out
of context. If someone was to say that their car is "candy apple red",
nobody would think that the car was made out of apples. "Green cheese"
does not refer to a green color. If I referred to a new employee as being
green, you would not expect their skin to be green. "Green" means new.
If you have ever seen green cheese (cheese that was just made and hasn't
ripened at all), you would instantly realize that it is exactly the color
of the moon.

 

Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
doesn't exist. How open minded of you.

And let's assume there has not been any formal testing of The Method.
Care to ask why not, after a century goes by? Do not Cultists care
about reality? (Rhetorical.)

never seen any evidence of this.

Can you read or not? MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
tests.

In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
saying goes: "put up or shut up."

Or just go away and palm away the strain.

--LB

 

Contacts in general have some advantages over glasses in that they
provide a slightly more normal experience for visual focusing.

I do understand that more visual information is available in the casw of
lenses for myopia, but you are skipping the point - the retinal area
used to see that 'greater visual information' is a smaller area of th
retina than if the whole eye is used without lenses.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, 'the area of visual information
which is perceived as useful by the subject takes up a smaller space on
the retina than on the retina of a person who uses their eyes without
glasses'. Stuff outside that clarity bubble that glasses provide is
generally disgregarded. The connection between eye and brain of the
reception of light on those retinal cells at the outer periphery is thus
ignored.

Kevin

 

Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it here,
above directly from your post.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be one
or the other.[/QUOTE]


Yes, I agree with that. It would be truer to me to say 'I am under the
impression that it is more likely for myopes, and particularly high
myopes to have some degeneration at the peripheral edges of their
vision.'

I don't mind being wrong about that, but it is a strong impression I've
gathered from hearing talks and advice from some of the ophthalmologists
I'm in contact with over here in the UK. I usually attempt to avoid
making generalizations - perhaps in this case I misunderstood what was
being said, and I don't have the statistical data to follow it up.

TYhere's a significant problem here - the current crop are mostly
neither zealots nor charlatans, but the mix of different worlds creates
that impression. Actually for both sides it appears that the other side
is somewhat insane.

To be fair, Bates does attract a fair number of people looking for the
magic answer to life and you will get a degree of unperceptive delivery
which is in no way helpful. This sort of thing is what makes the method
produce a kind of cultic impression and people who are deeply like that
tend to be more vocal. But they can't discuss very well.

Yes, and I totally agree. There's a reason that this has never been done
before. Back in the 1940s when Corbett was taken to court (twice) for
practicing medicine without a license one of the long term results was a
very effective damping down on all Bates teachers. Although she was
acquitted, Corbett herself was seriously alarmed and began to suppress
publicity around the method. As she was one of the most influential
teachers her subsequent advice to all Bates teachers to keep their heads
down was taken seriously.

By the time I trained in the 90s, this overall 'survival' approach had
created what I'd call a serious 'community rot' amongst Bates teachers
and vision educators in general.

Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly acutely aware
of just what happened and why it happened. Colleagues of mine would be
only too happy to discredit 'scientific method' and its representatives,
because it was considered a good way of justifying the contiunued lack
of well designed studies - not in a conscious way nor with malevolent
intent, but with an accepted 'this is how things are' approach.

Unfortunately, it is also bull**** and time it was rooted out and
exposed for what it is. Any optician who wants to try and expose this
lack will be shouting themselves hoarse for a long time. From a Bates
community point of view the orthodoxy is unable to speak much sense by
default, so this is part of the reason that it appears that there is
this constant butting of heads with no-one really grasping the essential
points which help things to move forward.

But I agree with you completely, there needs to be some really well
designed studies, and done with the co-operation of opticians,
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Results do not have to be as
spectacular as what Bates claimed - just an indication that progressive
myopia is slowed, or overall reduced in impact would be significant
enough don't you agree?

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Kevin

 

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that

Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!

Nice to see you here!!!

How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
glasses?

Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.

Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).

I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
"improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
proposer himself hasn't got much success?


If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.

 

I drop in and out occasionally.

Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
years.

Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.

Thanks.

What puzzles me Rishi is why you go to such lengths to cause dissension
and discord. There are many many people involved in the NVI movement and
the orthodox vision world in general. Some will be better at passing on
helpful advice than others, some will have a more clearly Batesian
approach than others. Some will not understand it all, some will
understand very little. Yet you will persist in alienating yourself from
them all. If you want to communicate with them in order to pass on your
'knowledge', why make sure that you've offended them all first?

But I guess the real point I want to make is that you seem to be totally
unable to communicate in any other way. Oh, unless you want something of
course in which event you can become very chummy.

So how many Bates teachers are now in the list of those who have told
you to go away?

Doesn't it bother you that you can't actually communicate with anyone
without being offensive?

Personally, I don't have any problems with dealing with Bates oriented
person vs. ophthalmologist, in a civil and organised manner, where
things get discussed and information is passed and shared. There's no
agenda to convince but a genuine desire to exchange. It works, and
things move forward.

But whether you like this or not, or think this is silly or not, or a
waste of time or not, the fact is that to those of orthodox inclination
you epitomize the image of the Bates cult member. Unable to communicate
without offense, unaware that this gets you nowhere and in fact provides
ammunition for the orthodoxy to dismiss the method outright.

I know you are annoyed at me because I put you on moderation on the
Bates yahoogroups list because you were unable to talk without being
rude or childish, but really going from writing to me and telling me
that you considered I was one of only two Bates teachers who could
really teach it (and asking me if I would train you) to this apparent
childish diatribe above, I mean, what a mess.

It's a shame, because your heart's in the right place, but your people
skills suck big time.

Kevin

 

Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!

You drop always out of the right time.

And how do you cope with driving, with life in general? If it is true
that you can see only 20/50 you should be in a very dirty position.
You are not able to detect any sign of eyestrain or strain when you
work with your clients. How do you do that? Get closer?

Speak out the truth, because to lie is against your permanent cure,
remember well!!!

I know that you are ignorant about the truth, that's all.
You demonstrate that the Evaristo was right: you are a stupid man. I
once had faith in you and trusted you, but when you confessed that you
are blind and cannot go over 20/50 then I understood how fake you and
your friends at seeing.org are.

This is saddening, because it is unbelievable that after 15 years of
training you are still at 20/50.

The idiots professionals you find here are right.

Poor Doctor Bates must be suffering a lot in his grave seeing that his
work was so badly treated by people like you.

It's difficult for me to understand how you all can go on propounding
the Bates stuff and still be not cured!

The NVI movement is something very shallow.
Just today I handled the Reference book, Relearning To See. Well, it's
so terribly stuffed by wrong advice, that I am appalled: I put it back
in the shelf. What is the use of NVI? It's simply false.

I am not interested in your false movement. Just I want to disseminate
to those who can listen that there is no need for your false and
misleading stuff. So my opinion is just one amongst the others. You
should not be worried.

I'm interested in the truth.
Since you are not telling the truth, I have to tell it for you.

???

Perhaps you are mismatching me with some other men.

Please read back the posts and see that, in truth, the so-called Bates
Teachers are coming to me seeking help and counselling. I can quote
them as three now, from three different nationalities. Three persons
reached me because of my work as a publisher and as an expert in the
words of Bates. All of them had the training with Quackenbush (also
the teacher training) done in the past.

This is silly, I am angry about that, because if such people need to
talk to me, whom I am nobody, just entered this business few months
ago!... Then this means one only thing: the mainstream "teaching" in
the field is bullshit, really. You have robbed Bates of his very
work!!! THAT'S REALLY INFAMOUS.

Please, stop call yourself "Bates Teacher". Call yourself an NVI
teacher, it is more honest in the memory of Bates.

I do it, when I do it, out of compassion, because sometimes people is
really hard and dumb and if you do not beat them you could not obtain
nothing. But I understand: there are people which the more you hit
them the more become stubborn and stupid. But it is a risk one should
tale, but it is done out of compassion.

You are talking nonsense.

"Bates oriented person" do not exist. You can tell only one thing:
people gets a permanent cure, or not. Permanently cured people have a
dignity, which you lack, and need not bother with ophthalmologists and
other criminals like those.

a "Bates oriented person" that cannot get a cure is just an idiot, he
only shows his ignorance, and should study better and learn better and
be quiet instead of speaking or teaching.

**** them all, Mr. Wooding, I am not concerned with the
idiots-professionals. Just I am happy and aware that I can read more
than 25/25 (feet) in low light indoors, just tested myself today, and
still improving. I have no need for any acknowledgement (polite or
not) by those ugly people, people that prescribe glasses instead of
teaching rest methods, people that use lasers to cut corneas and
destroy happines forever, these people, I do not want to have anything
to do with!!!

I am a fair person: I believe those people you refer to are criminals
and tell lies upon lies to people. I act accordingly. I know what is
the truth of perfect sight. I know the professionals don't have a clue
about that, and so you. If you need to have something to do with these
professionals, that shows your ignorance. It's not personal to you (I
am not interested in anybody personally), but to people like you.

How can you explain to an idiot like the doctors we have here that
vision is largely mental and refraction has nothing to do with it?
What is the purpose of this? It's useless to work with these people.
It's unbelievable how you cannot understand this!!! There is no
question about that!!!

Yes! I was not aware of your incompetence!!!
I know now that you are just an ignorant man as I was. Now I am no
more ignorant, I have understood how to cure myself, and did it. Now I
can offer my understanding to you, as I have done, but since you are
stupid, it seems, you are not interested in getting cured.
This is strange.
Why you do not want to be cured, to cure yourself, to go on with the
treatment and go over 20/10 (as my aim is, for now)???

By the way, your group is full of bullshit. It is not worthwhile, just
a waste of time reading it. Full of stupid things you teach in the
name of Bates, which Bates never even imagined. To let children play
with pile of books and have them scatter all around... What nonsense
is this? Playing with balls... Are you mad?

These are the things you teach: bring a dozen books, pile them up, and
have the child hit them and let them fall to the ground.

Compliments, keep on with the great works!!!

The shame is with the people like you: you call yourself "Bates
Teachers" but you know nothing about Bates, have no understanding, no
practical use of it, no intelligence to impart to clients.

The evidence of this is that you are now three years on the net and
nobody of your readers or writers has got any valuable progress, not
to mention cures.

If I am wrong, please tell. But I know I am not wrong, because I know
that the real Bates stuff needs intelligence, and I do not see much
intelligence around, unfortunately.


By the way: I have more than 400 clients of the Bates book, more than
150 listees in my professional Yahoo Group, and more than 40 people in
the non-professional, open yahoo group dedicated to the 1920 book.

By the way: I have just published the Emily 1926 book, both in English
and Italian, and the clients who have purchased it are enjoining it
very much, and some of them are cured now by reading only the two
books.

By the way: I don't care a bit of your opinions!!! What I only think
of is to let people know the truth of the very words of Bates/Lierman,
because I know that those words are the only things that work. But
this is just out of my compassion, not for other reasons, except a
little bit of cash I may earn from this very time consuming
businesses.


I hope you will get to 20/20 soon, but if you still stick to your
method, you won't reach.

 

My goodness Rishi, your incomprehension is about the most complete I've
ever seen. I have better things to do than read your extraordinary
fabrications or whatever they are, just not understanding I suppose. Do
you have any awareness that you misquote and misread?

Suffice to say that your good friend Evaristo unsubscribed and called me
a stupid man when I asked him to help out another reader who wanted to
understand the swing and how to implement it. Why? who knows. It looked
significantly like turning yellow to me. The same went for another
subscriber of around that time - when i asked for some practical signs
that they could be of some use to the group instead of just whining and
complaining that 'no one else got it', and the response was again stony
silence.

No use at all Rishi. None.

It's great that you've found something that really fires you up. Long
may you promulgate it with enjoyment and of great benefit to others.

It saddens me that you simultaneously alienate yourself from many people
with no control over the habit.

You know, you may have the single most significant contributiion to make
to the whole of the Bates method movement, but instead of simply
bringing it to the table you deliver it like this:

'This is the real Bates and if you don't understand it or if you have
something else to offer you are stupid, a liar, a charlatan etc. and
there is no use in talking to you'.

This is two year old behaviour. Why so spoiled? Do you not know that no
man is an island unto himself? It is acceptable for someone of the age
of two to believe all information and the universe centres on him, but
it is not acceptable for someone who can string a couple of sentences
together. Would you not like to have many teachers sympathetic to your
words and happy to listen, learn, and discuss and share experiences?

Your approach is exactly what happened to the method in the last 70
years. "I have it and those people over there don't" The result was
fragmentation, and a disintegration of the much needed support for
pushing the method forward.

Right or wrong just tone it down, and break free of whatever
programming you're under and then you'll find a degree of progress that
is so much more than now.

Kevin

 

My goodness Rishi, your incomprehension is about the most complete I've

Your vision is bad as is your memory.

You mismatch me with the Evaristo!

I was not moderated from your group, I simply left when I became aware
of your incompetence.

It was the Evaristo that was moderated. Check your loggings, you can
see it very well. Stop telling lies, otherwise I will continue to
expose you.

Then, what is the point of "moderation"?

People can subscribe with different names and mocker you more easily.

Either you moderate everybody (as I do in my Italian group, but it is
an editorial choice, not to put off people who are not according the
standards), or you moderate nobody. It is unfair to only moderate
those who are better than you and show more intelligence than you. You
are an unfair man.

I do not see ANY BATES METHOD MOVEMENT!!!
There is none and there will never be none, because the Bates stuff is
mainly individual, is a single personal process, it is not a religion,
although you bad teachers are striving to transform it into one!!!

You are the same rotten minds as the professionals here. But you think
you are on the right side of the river, just as they are thinking
about themselves.

You are part of a rotten church as they are.

It's ugly to say this, but it is the truth!

You want to build something, but your fundations are rotten.

Why don't you cure yourself permanently?

Explain that.

That's true: the Bates publications are available. Who are you to cut,
distort and destroy his publications, robbing people of the true
genius of the man, and in his name, too!!! And you cannot get any cure
for yourself!!!

Don't you feel embarassed?

You and all your friends, high myopic and imperfected sighted people,
chose not to cure yourselves but to sell your false teachings to other
gullibles, and you advocate for yourself the truth about "The
Method"!!!

NO IF THE TEACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO CURE THEMSELVES!!!

CURE YOURSELF AND I WILL RESPECT YOU!!!

OTHERWISE STOP TO SPOIL THE BATES NAME AND START SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

YOU ARE DESTROYING THE WHOLE WORK OF BATES AND LIERMAN.

I just happened to cure myself, which you cannot do.
If what happened in the last 70 years was something like this, that
cures happened, there would have no need to disintegrate anything.

Instead, people started to call themselves experts and teachers, like
you do, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SUCCESS IN CURING THEMSELVES!!!

How cannot you see this, I am puzzled.

There is no "method" to bu pushed forward.

You have to push yourself to perfect your understanding and your
practice, become cured, and cure others.

But if you cannot cure yourself, if you cannot still maintain your
constant improvement, then what are you teaching? You are simply
teaching how to remain uncured.

It's clear and simple.

Maybe you need more time to realize this, take your time, I am not
bothered by you, just wanted to expose your unfairness and
charlatanery.

???

You'd better tone you up and start finally to practice the right
methods to get a cure.

It's a shame that you read only 20/50 and your vision fluctuates. And
you cannot drive, and you cannot see how people behave with their eyes
when you teach them.

Start to practice according to the truth and become cured.

I assure you that you can be back to 20/20 and more. Believe me. But
you have to drop the false things they taught you (myopic people
taught you to remain myopic), return to the Original Sources and
practice accordingly.

I suspect you fear the sun too much, you don't practice with strong
electrical lights and you don't practice with imagination of black in
the distance.

So, you have much to do for yourself. Then, and only then, your
"method" will spread and you won't be embarassed to face the ugly
professionals that threathen you.

Start the practice.
If you need help, I am available.