The Challenge
Find the best to prove me wrong before too many believe me.
The Responsibility
If this work is correct, it changes how we understand perception, consciousness, and what we call "disability."
If this work is wrong, people could waste time, money, and hope following bad information.
Either way, it needs rigorous evaluation from people smarter than me.
What Needs Testing
Core Claims
- Inter-ocular CFF asymmetry creates temporal parallax
- Temporal parallax generates time/depth/color perception
- Conscious control over temporal stream selection is trainable
- VSS symptoms reduce through whole-body fascial integration
Clinical Predictions
- CFF asymmetry correlates with VSS symptom severity
- Somatic work reduces CFF asymmetry
- Training protocol improves temporal control (measurable)
- Vision improvement follows fascial chain integration
Falsifiable Tests
- Measure CFF in VSS population (should show higher/asymmetric)
- Track CFF changes during somatic intervention
- Test temporal control training protocol (does it work?)
- Document vision changes with fascial work
How to Prove This Wrong
1. Measure CFF in VSS Population
If I'm wrong: VSS population will show normal CFF distribution (mean ~60Hz, no asymmetry)
If I'm right: VSS population will show elevated CFF (>80Hz) with significant inter-ocular asymmetry
Difficulty: Medium | Cost: ~$10K for proper study
2. Test Somatic Integration Protocol
If I'm wrong: Fascial work won't affect CFF measurements or visual symptoms
If I'm right: Measurable CFF normalization and symptom reduction following protocol
Difficulty: High | Cost: ~$50K for controlled trial
3. Replicate Training Protocol
If I'm wrong: Training won't produce conscious temporal control in others
If I'm right: Replicable results following Phase 0-4 protocol
Difficulty: Medium | Cost: Time + participants
4. Challenge Theoretical Framework
If I'm wrong: Temporal parallax theory won't predict novel phenomena or has internal contradictions
If I'm right: Theory makes accurate, testable predictions about perception
Difficulty: Low | Cost: Theoretical analysis only
Current Evidence State
What's Documented
- ✓ CFF >188Hz measured (5.4σ above normal)
- ✓ 7-year vision improvement (-3.00D → -2.25D) clinical records
- ✓ Published theory with DOI (10.5281/zenodo.18180854)
- ✓ Complete protocols documented
- ✓ Non-linear timeline as memory evidence
What's Missing
- ✗ Population-level CFF measurements in VSS
- ✗ Controlled trial of somatic protocol
- ✗ Independent replication of training method
- ✗ Peer review of theoretical framework
- ✗ Video documentation of dual-stream switching
Single case (N=1) with strong documentation. Needs independent validation or falsification.
Who Should Test This
Vision Researchers
CFF measurement expertise, VSS patient access, clinical trial capability
Key question: Is CFF asymmetry a biomarker for VSS?
Neuroscientists
Temporal processing, binocular integration, consciousness research
Key question: Does temporal parallax theory predict novel phenomena?
Somatic Therapists
Fascial integration, body-vision connections, clinical practice
Key question: Does fascial work affect visual processing measurably?
Skeptics
Anyone who thinks this is wrong and wants to prove it
Key question: What's the flaw? Where does it break?
Why This Matters
I'm not a researcher with institutional backing. I'm an independent outlier who reverse-engineered atypical perception and documented what I found.
If I'm right: This could help people with VSS, advance understanding of consciousness, and show that some "disabilities" are different variable selection processes.
If I'm wrong: Better to find out now through rigorous testing than after people invest hope and resources.
Either way: The work is documented, falsifiable, and ready for evaluation. That's all I can do.
The Standard
Same standard I hold myself to: "Find the best to prove me wrong before too many believe me."
If you're smarter than me and you see a flaw, that's exactly what should happen. If you're smarter than me and you want to test it properly, even better.
Get Involved
All research, protocols, and data are open-source (CC BY-SA 4.0). Use them, test them, break them. That's the point.
Final Statement
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to test it.
If it's wrong, prove it wrong properly.
If it's right, help validate it properly.
Either way: rigorous evaluation, not blind acceptance.