I read a fair bit more than the sight article. I'm now quite curious about this training technique, and really enjoyed the cheetah analogy. That's definitely something to think about and look into.
I have a couple of comments about the sight article. I'm not a physiological expert on vision but some of my knowledge and understanding differs from the that in the article.
First the basic physiology is very good, and the concept diffence between image formation and vision are well presented.
I don't believe that cones are connected to only a single neuron.
I disagree with the statement "Essentially, we have two distinctly different vision systems that perform different functions". I feel that the separation is result of people trying to understand vision and as often happens create categories. In reality things usually exist in a range of states. My objection is really with the word distinct.
You talk about the high resolution of the macula and the poor resolution of the extreme peripheral vision. The receptor density does change, but not as dramatically as I had thought before checking some references. Visual acuity will be influenced by rod/cone density, as well neural connectivity, and utilization by the brain. I feel that an overly poor acuity would be attributed to none macula vision, based on the text and illustrations in the article.
I like your Bates, Samuri and PR references. I didn't know that people had followed on Bates' work.
Thanks for the link.
Iam2 
French scientist.
