Posted: May 24, 2014 8:14 am
A pinhole effect created by scar tissue?
The "small amount of bloody flesh" perhaps included the undamaged fovea and some sclera. But with the cornea and lens gone, it would not have been possible for light rays to be focused on the fovea... unless bits of the shattered sclera were, perchance, to seal over the fovea in such a way as to leave a tiny hole. This hole could then have served to focus the light to a certain extent.
If one is myopic (short-sighted), one can see the effect in action...
* remove glasses/contact lenses.
* use a pen nib or sharpened pencil to make a small hole (about 1mm diameter) in a piece of paper.
* holding the piece of paper as close as possible to the eye, view a distant object (one that you would ordinarily see as blurred) through the hole. The image is substantially clearer than it is when viewed with the naked eye.
From the article:
Giovanni’s wife Rosa insisted that "a small amount of bloody flesh" remained in the socket when Savino was taken to the hospital. She denies that her husband received a "new" eye. "It was always with his own eye that he saw. It was a mess, but he could see out of it."
The "small amount of bloody flesh" perhaps included the undamaged fovea and some sclera. But with the cornea and lens gone, it would not have been possible for light rays to be focused on the fovea... unless bits of the shattered sclera were, perchance, to seal over the fovea in such a way as to leave a tiny hole. This hole could then have served to focus the light to a certain extent.
If one is myopic (short-sighted), one can see the effect in action...
* remove glasses/contact lenses.
* use a pen nib or sharpened pencil to make a small hole (about 1mm diameter) in a piece of paper.
* holding the piece of paper as close as possible to the eye, view a distant object (one that you would ordinarily see as blurred) through the hole. The image is substantially clearer than it is when viewed with the naked eye.