Visual Standards, DMV, Military, FAA, Professional Pilot, Private Pilot

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: General Required Visual Standards.

    The subject of visual standards was raised by
    A. Lieberman.

    I have assembled those requirements by the
    above agencies on my site:

    www.myopiafree.com

    These "standards" have been constantly "edited".

    No one can provide any "final" answer for this
    that reason.

    I would suggest reading the "official" requirements
    rather than arguing about it.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Aug 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Once again Otis is leaving a thread when it is getting hot and starts a new
    one.
    Otis what a bad behavior you have.
    Allen Lieberman asked for the ORIGINAL text and a link.
    Your habit is to write down some text out of context and therefore your
    statement or text is unreliable.
    Since you can't provide such links I take it for granted you are a bad
    loser.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: "censeo Carthagnem esse delendam''

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be proved by
    Otis himself or be destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Aug 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be proved by
    I declare that you are a dunce.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Huh?????? You can't provide the "final" answer? Then surely you can't
    believe something on your website is official??????

    Maybe I am missing something Otis, but what I am looking for is what you
    base your information on. That would be from the DMV, Military and any
    other sources you base your information on. Please provide links from
    these OFFICIAL sources. Your website has seriously OUTDATED information.

    Your website is NOT OFFICIAL requirements for anything.

    Lets see some OFFICIAL information from government sites, links, not
    snippets from 1941, 1976 sources. We live in the 21st century.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Aug 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    This is a statment of the "true believer" against
    the heretic.

    Jan gets his religion mixed up with science. Tragic.

    Seems they tried this "stunt" against Galileo 500 years
    ago -- and almost succeeded. Forced him to recant.

    Managed to burn Girodano Bruno (sp) at the stake,
    because he insisted that the Sun was the center,
    and the earth went around the sun.

    Everyone just knew that the earth was the center,
    and anyone who said otherwise was wrong by
    definition.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    (And student of science)
     
    Otis Brown, Aug 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Oh, brother. Yes, you two are right up there with Galileo.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    It is obvious from your statement that you have not
    READ my site recently.

    Please attempt to do so again.

    I have a link to an OD who lists the DMV requirements
    to all the states.

    I have a link to the FAA requirements.

    I have a link to the MILITARY requirements.

    If you would stop shooting off your mouth and read
    the site -- perhaps you would do better.

    I would suggest that others read my site
    for confirmation of the above statements

    If not correct, I will make changes.

    www.myopiafree.com

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    ****
     
    Otis Brown, Aug 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Oh, brother. Yes, you two are right up there with Galileo. DrG

    Dear Dr. G.

    All that I have said thus far is that the NATURAL eye is
    a sophisticated optical control system -- and you CHOKE
    on that basic statement of scientific truth.

    Yes, I am certain you would have been pleased to
    sit on the "board" that condemmed Galileo -- and
    been tickeled pink about how "smart" you were
    to show how stupid that Galilo fellow was. He
    just fell victum to his "false beliefs".

    I have seen ODs called before "the board", which
    causes them to "shut up", and continue with the
    policy of satuating the public with the "simple"
    minus lens.

    No wonder that the policy that was put
    in place 400 years ago. There are power forces
    to "block" even the slightest change.

    But it is equally and honestly difficult to
    introduce true-prevention, sinc that work
    depends on the pilot (or motivated person) himself.

    It seem that the only way that prevention can
    develop in when the person "wakes up" to the
    scientific facts (concerning the behavior of the
    natural eye) and employs his OWN UNDERSTANDING
    and MOTIVATION to gradually clear his distant
    vision to meet or exceed the REQUIRED Snellen-DMV
    test.

    This is a tough lessor to learn -- and most people
    have no interest or are hostile to the idea and
    method.

    I would hope that our work (in the future) could
    change this ingrained (traditional) attitude.

    Best,

    Otis

    Shawn, and others who face the true difficuties
    of prevention.


    *******



    OD Board has the same effect on other ODs who
    recognize the need for fundamental change.

    Otis> And all ODs who believe in the "second opinion" and
    a person's right to hear about the "preventive" alternative.
     
    Otis Brown, Aug 17, 2004
    #8
  9. I would be happy to prescribe plus for myopia. Preventive, corrective,
    It is a wrong method, based on mental strain.
    It may succeed in certain cases, because the patient is induced into
    learning what NOT to do by demonstrating the strain.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Everyone just knew that the earth was the center,

    Thanks Otis, I am glad you consistently quote two great Italian souls.

    But they were wrong.

    You know well that putting the sun at the center is just a
    mathematical trick to explain things more easily.

    You may put the earth at the center and have the same results. For
    example, the Tropical Placidus Geocentric system in Astrology works
    that way. For the Western Astrologer, Earth is at the center, and
    planets turn around it against the fixed stars.

    Of course the stars are not fixed at all, and a man from Mars will see
    all of them turning around him.


    So, everything is questionable.


    What is really unbelievable is that eye-doctors continue in their
    blunder.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Getting a wee bit paranoid aren't we? Is the the fate of all prophets?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I am sorry you "choke" on the basic truth of the
    natural eye.

    The priority is that (before there is "refractive error"
    we use basic analytic techniques to determine if
    the natural eye is "dynamic".

    The only "assumption" we are making (pure objective science)
    is that either the NATURAL eye changes its refractive
    status (in a negative direction) from a forced "negative-delta"
    in its visual enviroment -- or it does not.

    Nothing is said about "cure", "refractive-error", emmetropia,
    ametropia, and all these assumed words the grew up around
    some simplistic assumptions made over the years.

    Since this testing is basic "input-output" testing involving
    the use of a "thought experiment" I fail to see how most
    people could miss the point -- but they do.

    It is certainly true that it takes considerable personal
    resolve to use the plus properly (at the threshold) and
    it becomes an "either-or" choice a person (or pilot)
    is going to have to make based on his best
    personal judgment.

    Because this issue involves a personal decision by
    a person of considerable motivation and insight,
    I agree completely that you can NEVER prescribe
    this type of judgment. The person must develop
    the wise insights necessary to take over long-term
    personal control of his distant vision. It is obvious
    that I am not going to "struggle" with you about
    a specific pilot's choice in this manner.

    The person who has the "smarts" to do it himself,
    and personally verifies his ability to clear
    his distant vision to better than the Snellen-DMV
    standard -- simply never needs your involvement.

    I understand why you "choke" on objective, scientific
    facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural
    eye. If you actually told the truth about this
    issue the public would be devasted by the consequence
    of this truth. You basically force the issue to be
    returned to the individual himself for his own resolution -- to
    protect his distant vision himself through the school
    years.

    I do separate, then, pure-scientific issues from
    pure "medical" issues. People who have a better
    grasp of the scientific-engineering issues can take
    that bold step towards true-prevention.

    It is just that you can never be involved in that
    difficult process -- and the individual must understand
    that reality -- and protect his distant vision
    as best he can. It is a question of whether he
    can learn it time -- so they you do not place
    a minus lens on his face -- with no discussion
    about prevention -- when it COULD be effective.

    Equally, there are ODs who endeavor to "change the
    system". The are rare, but the truth they told
    was fundmental to "solving" this difficult problem.

    So do not choke, when a person asks if there
    is any altermative to developing "stair case" myopia.
    You owe it to them to acknowledge that you
    hate the idea, but their eyes belong to them,
    and they should inform themselves as best they
    can about the alternative as developed
    by optometrists like Dr. Steve Leung on

    www.chinamyopia.org

    But as always I will forward your
    commentary to some more open-minded
    engineers, pilots, optometrists and
    students-of-science who prefer a
    "fighting chance" versus no chance at all
    for prevention.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    _______
     
    Otis Brown, Aug 18, 2004
    #12
  13. We're satisfied helping those who can't cure themselves.

    It's good that you are satisfied.

    If I was in your position, I could not be satisfied.

    Those who cannot cure themselves with the works of Dr. Bates, should
    ask help to people with perfect sight, as Dr. Bates writes many times.

    To go to imperfect sighted people is a strain, unnecessary, and
    prevents the end in view.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 18, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.