Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Rolci

You Really Can Feel a Person's Stare

174 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

DALLAS, TX--(Marketwire - 04/05/10) - Noted psychiatrist and author Colin A. Ross, M.D., has published experimental data that supports his scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and measured. Doctor Ross' paper, "The Electrophysiological Basis of Evil Eye Belief," is published in the current issue of Anthropology of Consciousness, a journal of the American Anthropological Association. The full paper is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123310535/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

arrow3.gifRead more...

Not sure if this has been posted on UM yet so... there you go.

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting :yes: those in our membership who have access to such equipment? Could actually replicate this.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has happened to me too many times to think this is a coincidence. Too bad that cute boy at the grocery store doesn't notice my stare though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has happened to me too many times to think this is a coincidence.

Same here :)

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has happened to me too many times to think this is a coincidence. Too bad that cute boy at the grocery store doesn't notice my stare though :P

You can be totally forward with men they react differantly to women.

No need to be shy say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is shame we have not heard more? In relation to the topic.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I know what that heat is that I feel when women stare at my body. It all makes sense when you feel someone sexing you with their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This phenomenon is so reliable that the British army actually train soldiers to compensate for this when sneaking behind enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Man, this means I'm going to have to apologize to a whole lotta women... :rolleyes:

Edited by DigitalSentinal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that is a terrible paper! No wonder it is in a Anthropology journal and not a science one.

Problems:

Constant misuse of the term theory. For example

Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenic fields

This is not a theory, this is a idea. If you are going to talk science, correct terminology is essential.

Constant use of the term "Western Science". There is no "Western Science" there is just science.

What type of t test did he use? He doesn't say.

His sample size was 1 :no:

With his 1 :lol: subject he infers cause and effect with out addressing any other confounding factors regarding brain wave analysis.

There is no control

Of course brain waves alter when you close your eyes, the input for your brain alters.

The article implies some level of cause and effect with out actually showing any such thing.

He says

A wide range of beliefs in spirits could provide us subjective, culturally transformed

testimony concerning the interaction of human beings with

electromagnetic fields in the environment.

- Sorry but only in story town, not in science.

He calls for ignorance of the scientific method to validate his beliefs.

Overall this is a terrible, terrible piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His sample size was 1 no.gif

Ah, but Matt, it's common knowledge you can learn everything about cryptids and UFOs with a sample size of zero. Compared to that, a sample of one is infinitely more credible. This guy's gotta be on the level.

no.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but Matt, it's common knowledge you can learn everything about cryptids and UFOs with a sample size of zero. Compared to that, a sample of one is infinitely more credible. This guy's gotta be on the level.

no.gif

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried this for many years, observing people from behind very intensely (people I know though so not risking being taken for a creep :lol: ) and I must say that it just haven't worked for me yet. Maybe I have to low "power" in my yes though :rolleyes:

Zam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:lol:

Matt you should be able to replicate this yourself?

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt you should be able to replicate this yourself?

Any thoughts?

I could yes, but since it is such a pathetically bad test I don't see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could yes, but since it is such a pathetically bad test I don't see the point.

If in fact that is correct? You could prove that and present the results.

It would not cost that much either.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If in fact that is correct? You could prove that and present the results.

It would not cost that much either.

Any thoughts?

I showed way using the paper. There is assumed cause and effect which is wrong, there is a sample size of 1, which is bad. There is no control, which means it is not an experiment. There are too many confounding factors which are duly ignored by the author. The author misuses scientific terminology.

That is enough to show that it is rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He says

- Sorry but only in story town, not in science.

He calls for ignorance of the scientific method to validate his beliefs.

Overall this is a terrible, terrible piece of work.

Maybe so, but coming from you.

hahahaha! straight from the pseudo-scientist himself, the master of ignoring and avoiding data that derails his preconceived ideas. From the man who steers his research to make sure his agenda is stregthened so that more grant money can be obtained.

hahahahahahaahahahahaah!

From the man who ignores the scientific method and betrays all of mankind promoting the greatest hoax on Earth. The man who believes in his idea so much that he refuses to even look a data and evidence that even suggest he is wrong. His ego is cashing checks on an empty bank account.

You're a funny guy Mattshark.

hahahahaahhaa!

Go practice what you preach before you insult others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but coming from you.

hahahaha! straight from the pseudo-scientist himself, the master of ignoring and avoiding data that derails his preconceived ideas. From the man who steers his research to make sure his agenda is stregthened so that more grant money can be obtained.

hahahahahahaahahahahaah!

From the man who ignores the scientific method and betrays all of mankind promoting the greatest hoax on Earth. The man who believes in his idea so much that he refuses to even look a data and evidence that even suggest he is wrong. His ego is cashing checks on an empty bank account.

You're a funny guy Mattshark.

hahahahaahhaa!

Go practice what you preach before you insult others.

Oh course, but hey you think quote mining and deliberate misrepresentation are acceptable scientific practice, so quite frankly, your opinion means squat and your name remains ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[snipped random, ignorant, misbegotten insults]

For the love of common sense. Mattshark does not ignore data. If you'd give him some, I'm sure he'd be happy to look at it. And he understands the scientific method better than most people. [Which is strange, because it's not really all that difficult to grasp...] He's demonstrated his knowledge and displayed uncanny tolerance on many occasions.

See if you can imitate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried this for many years, observing people from behind very intensely (people I know though so not risking being taken for a creep :lol: ) and I must say that it just haven't worked for me yet. Maybe I have to low "power" in my yes though :rolleyes:

I have had tons of experiences where people I know turn and look straight at me, not long after I start looking intently at them, from behind-ish, but like Matt said, the paper is pretty bad, and doesn't prove anything, though.

On the other hand, I do not dismiss that a person can somehow sense being looked at or thought about.

Hmm.. I guess I'll have to put it in the same category as my cats starting to run towards the parking lot a few seconds after my parents call and say they're on their way back home from town, they then sit down and wait patiently until the car arrives (this has happened many many times for me and others), or how sales people always without fail manage to call when i am either just done cooking and is about to eat, or i am in the bath / shower. It's just one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...at first I was like :D

....but then I was like :\

...and then I realized this is just more outrageous claims from kooks with delusions of the metaphysical.

Seems everyones a scientist these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this staring sensation all my life. Yes it is posible, but it is not only eyes, U can feel emotions and thoughts to. I am making a diagram of reactions. Becouse diferent thoughts react to diferent parts of your body (not just brain). It is quite interesting, maybe in a decade or so I will publish my findings. But probably not, U have to find your own truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should always stare one step at a time. I tried to read this paper but it burst into flames when I looked at it!

But maybe that's just me looking a little too focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I showed way using the paper. There is assumed cause and effect which is wrong, there is a sample size of 1, which is bad. There is no control, which means it is not an experiment. There are too many confounding factors which are duly ignored by the author. The author misuses scientific terminology.

That is enough to show that it is rubbish.

Until you can refute the findings with your own data...these conclusions you are making are unjustified claims are not scientific.

I have looked directly at countless number of women in my day. And a countless number of them

who I clearly noticed first? Turned and noticed I was looking at them.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.