The Eyes Don’t Have It All! Does Skin See?

By Mike Pickett

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Have you ever wondered why you awaken moments before your alarm goes off on the table next to your head? Did you actually SEE the alarm with your skin? Is that just one of trillions of pieces of data your brain deals with as you sleep in autonomic world?

They say one should sleep with all the lights off. If your eyes are closed, why do you need to sleep with your lights off? Are you seeing things while asleep? How?

You’ve always been enthralled with the 11:11 occurrence. How did you know, suddenly, that it was 11:11, turn and look?

Abstract – The author has gathered essays and observations to propose that the familiar “eye,” common to many species, is not the ONLY way light is perceived and evaluated. Two major conclusions can be drawn from recent information:

1. DNA makes it possible for the whole organism to detect light for specific purposes and the eye is just one type of receiver;

2. DNA operates as a transceiver.

Have you ever heard that statement “I’m all Ears?” I think it would be better said, “I’m all eyes.” If Red Riding Hood were really observant, and lived in these modern times, she would have exclaimed to the wolf, “MY what a big EYE you are.”

What I am about to propose about “vision,” seeing, and perceiving includes wolves, Red Riding Hood, single celled animals, the whole spectrum of kingdoms and their phyla. Vision is not about eyes. Eyes don’t have it all. I am proposing a more universal transceiver and calling it “skin vision.”

The first portion of my essay is directed toward the possibility of a living body detecting light without the use of “eyes.” In the first citation I would present the sea-urchin that can see but has no “eyes.” (1) There are several things taking place here. The first is the ability of the Sea Urchin to detect either colors and/or brightness. If the creature is detecting either, the implication is simple. It has “detectors” that are able to sense and interpret various colors that have importance to the urchin. Click here to see article: sea urchins “see”

The more important question, which I will leave for a different essay, is: what meaning does the creature get from these colors, and where did it “learn” that behavior? Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. James T. Culbertson have presented convincing papers concerning that matter.

Meanwhile, the urchin has no organs to which we would refer to as “eyes.” One must differentiate by saying that “eyes” in the traditional sense of the word are rather large organs that have specific types of detectors and the urchin has some other organ similarly disposed. That organ would have to be its body. The detectors in the urchin would have to be far more sensitive and specialized since they are receptor/detectors in DNA.

I do believe the urchin can transmit some kind of primeval coherent information out as easily as it receives information.

Next it helps to rehearse the ability of flora of all kinds to alter their biology depending on the length of day. Originally it was thought that trees dramatically alter their growth process when it begins to get cold in the fall. It has been since shown that the trees actually shed their leaves and prepare for winter based on the length of night (2). That means there is absolutely NO alternative but to conclude that the DNA of the tree is able to sense light. Again, like the sea urchin, I have to leave the matter of HOW the tree is able to interpret that information to a different essay. Click here to see article: “trees change color”

Next I would like to introduce a very recent video of a Chameleon that was posted on the Internet primarily as a most impressive and entertaining curiosity. It shows the Chameleon changing colors as it passes over objects of a specific color (3). The Chameleon’s epidermis has the ability to change color. How it does that has been studied extensively in a separate venue. The truly incredible thing is that there are detectors in the epidermal DNA of the creature that can not only detect the exact frequency of the color, but also make arrangements to duplicate it. So, I would assert that this is another extension of vision beyond what we call the “eye.” The Chameleon has very large and peering “eyes,” and in this video they appear to be looking elsewhere and not at the colored objects over which it was passing. So, the whole skin of the Chameleon serves as an “eye” and it is a transceiver. Click here to see : “Chameleon changes color”

I would propose an experiment for the owner of the Chameleon. Find some way to place a simple picture like a small colored target on the side of the Chameleon. I would suspect when the picture was removed, the skin might have a target on it. Looking at the video, the Chameleon receives a broad blast of color from the glasses and it’s DNA reacts. If one were to narrow the size of the transmitter and place it on the side of the creature, one might refine their view of the process. If not, the most likely answer is that the cells radiate their colors in all directions, including to neighboring cells.

It seemed to me that I needed at least one example of vision without the use of the “eye.” It needed to be in a creature whose species is always associated with “eyes.” Nature provided a number of examples in the caves and dark places of the world.

I would like to introduce just one prominent and well-known creature, the Mexican Blind Cave Tetra (Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus). (4) This species is perfect for this discussion because it is a variant of the Mexican Tetra that has eyesight. Click here to see: “Blind Mexican Tetra”

Scientists have stated that this creature senses the presence of other things by employing a series of pressure sensitive lines on its sides. I have read the studies of “lateral lines” and do not have an issue with the notion. I do believe, though, that the fish also has the ability to “see” with its skin.

It has been observed that this creature can get to its food even more quickly than fishes with eyes. It has also been observed that its quickness makes it very difficult to capture with a net. I believe that is because it can “see” the net as well as sense it’s movement in water with the “lateral lines” sonar type detection. If something as large and noisy as a net were plunged into the environment, how would this creature be able to avoid it without “seeing it.”

At this point, my question is rhetorical. I have NO proof that the fish can “see” other than its ability to hover well above gravel beds (where pressure variations would be very difficult to claim as a tool).

Next I would like to introduce a man who has been found in Turkey (Esref Armagan) who can paint pictures of landscapes. He has no eyes and was born blind. (5) He has been taken around the world where he has even demonstrated his ability to perceive perspectives in architecture. He has expressed his discomfort about being studied, because his artwork is exceptional and no one seems interested in that. He perceives himself as normal, and a good artist (I must add that I think he is an excellent artist).

The question is how does he do what he does. If you look very closely, you will see that he has his fingers immersed in his paints, and constantly adds paints to the pallet to get the color he wants. If he cannot SEE (eyes) the colors, the obvious conclusion is that he can “feel” the colors. Taking the word “feel” out of the sentence and doing a little reconstruction, I say that he can SEE (DNA) the colors within the DNA of his epidermis just like the Sea Urchin or the Chameleon.

Since we are talking about amplitude of light that is so weak as to defy description, there has to be some natural explanation for this. I would assert that Armagan can sense the light (SEE/DNA) because the optical portion of his nervous system is not overloaded with other information. It is quite like the African folk who can hear whispers at distances of 100 meters because their ears have never been damaged or overwhelmed by other more strident sounds.

The question arising about the artist Armagan is how did he manage to paint a seascape? The answer would have to be: “He SAW (DNA) it.” Better yet, one would have to ask how he knew a sailboat was a sailboat? I believe that his parents or guardians were very verbal people, who would, in the process of teaching him his native vocabulary, describe objects and name them, not realizing that he was storing the DNA pictures away for future reference. I am NOT certain this does not take place in unimpaired children, only the primary scene is instead “tagged” from the massive EYE electrochemical sensors.

I did notice a striking difference between several of his paintings in his gallery. I have not taken the time to correspond with his manager, but it seems to me that there is a marked difference between a landscape he may have been “seeing” and a plain photograph (that of Mr. Bill Clinton). In an effort to NOT violate any copyright issues, I invite you to compare these two images and decide for yourself:

Click: A scene with wonderful perspective

Click: Mr. Bill Clinton

The daunting implication of Armagan’s ability is that his body behaves much like a digital camera where coherent light is only interpreted if it comes in a parallel fashion. If that is the case, and considering that morphic resonance has caused the more successful natural processes to become habits, one could propose that the successfulness of faceted eyes in insects is the model for the “facets” of DNA in Armagan’s body. The problem of planar reception would be solved by the DNA being in his epidermis so that no light information passes through his body.

My conclusion for Part I of this exposition is that DNA can receive light and react to it in such a way as to allow a creature to discern colors (frequencies). That is proven by the ability of creatures to receive color frequencies and then duplicate them. The process of duplication of those frequencies is proof that DNA is by definition a transceiver.

The fact that Efram Armagan can receive specific information in this way is evidence that information can be transmitted to a creature in such a way as to result in translation into useful data.

My final conclusion is that all species could well have the ability to see with their DNA/skin. I believe that all species have a general morphic field that is employed to create this ability in the creature. It might well be called “Primordial,” although that word tends to depreciate the actual process.

With “advanced” creatures like humans, the sense would be called “vestigial” because it doesn’t seem to have much use. I am going to explore that notion in Part II and assert that rather than vestigial, the sense is powerful, but neglected.

I believe that eyes are actually additional sensory tools created from more specialized morphic fields that resulted from the need for creatures to move quickly, both defensively and offensively. It is my belief that what I call “skin-vision” is OSP (Ordinary Sensory Perception), and the eyes are ESP (Extra Sensory Perception without the hyphen) .

I firmly believe that we humans receive “visual” information via our epidermis DNA, information which the magnificent data processor called “our brain” ordinarily ignores. Occasionally, though, our ever-analyzing subconscious startles us by alerting us to such things as clock readings. I also firmly believe that we have this vision from all sides, so it is not unusual to turn and find some visual of importance to us on display, such as the famous 11: 11 on clocks.

In Part II of this essay I intend to delve into the notion of light as a carrier frequency, much like radio signals carry information. I also intend to examine other field effects to which others have referred in various “extra-sensory” discussions.

Note – The author owes a big “thank you” to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake for his taking the time to scan this essay and make a suggestion about its composition that adds clarity to the treatise.

Article References

1. – “Sea Urchins See With Their Whole Body,” Esther M Ullrich-Làƒter, Sam Dupont, Enrique Arboledac , Harald Hausend, and Maria Ina Arnonec; Journal: PNAS 2011/04/26

2. – “Why Leaves Change Color,” Keith Tackett; U.S. Department of Agriculture; July 7, 2011

3. Chameleon.wmv NOTE – the video from YouTube called Super Chameleon kept changing locations and being deleted, so I downloaded it and removed the sound track (the latter being terribly inappropriate). There are no notes on any of the YouTube copies as to sources for the photography or attributions to authors.

4. The Mexican Blind Cave Tetra.

About the Author

Mike Pickett is a 1959 graduate of Cal Poly University with a major in applied mathematics, and specialties in Electronics Engineering and Physics. He did post graduate study at UCLA that included Space Physics under Dr. Sydney Chapman.

Specializing in Terrestrial and Extra-terrestrial thermo-magneto-hydrodynamics and computer system analysis, he worked on Inertial Guidance Systems, the Apollo program and Standardized Space Guidance System for North American Aviation. A rough draft of his memoirs have been posted on the Internet where it has provided an immense amount of information on the early years of the highly classified portion of aerospace efforts (

Later he became a public school teacher of Astronomy, Physical Science and Mathematics in Alaska and adjunct lecturer of Mathematics for Cal Poly University.

In 1979 he joined a group of Alaskan specialists in the design of an engine that would reach 200 MPG. The project was taken from them by the government and given to a major engine company. The engine was never produced, but so far 3 of their innovations have been put in production, offering just enough improvement in engines to keep the public happy. (

He presented a paper entitled “Evidence for a Pre-Adamic Catastrophe” in absentia at a symposium entitled “Frontiers of Knowledge and Implications for Theology” in Pasadena California in 1978. That treatise is being re-written, considering the abundance of new information available since the space program began. The treatise is based upon crater effects on the planet Mars and resulted in a reasonable approximation of the size of Planet 2.8.

He was granted Master’s Equivalency and became a long time adjunct lecturer of Mathematics for Cuesta College and Spokane Falls Community College. He has been a member of the IRE, IEEE, and Alaska Mountain and Wilderness Guides Association. He is also a co-signer of the “Global Warming Petition Project.” (


Wake Up World's latest videos


Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus


  • John Nauss

    I am not so sure it is the DNA that does the sensing. I think you will find it is more the “field” that is spoken of by biologist and physiologist, genetics professor, Bruce Lipton. I agree with him when he says the DNA is the blue print for replication. It is the field where it all happens so receptors on the skin cells etc., are similar to those on the retina…except they are fewer in concentration. To say it is the DNA is to say it is in the gonads of the cell…so that would mean I would be thinking or seeing with my gonads…the toroidal field holds the key, not just the DNA….