Digital cameras CAN see buried gold - Page 21
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 21 of 99 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 1478
Like Tree516Likes

Thread: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #301
    us
    Apr 2010
    Roanoke VA
    Gold Bug Pro
    42
    1 times

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    All I got to say is hats off to you sir! thats cool as hell. Darwin was laughed at too orginally.Your making history thats all that counts!
    DIGGING IN THE GRASS!

    Detector Used: F5 No.2

    Tools Used: Whites Bullseye 120mm,Nisaku Soil Knife,

    Chelsea Edge Knife,U Dig It Trowel,Whites Probe

    How much wood can a woodchuck chuck?Tons.More than you can count.Honestly.No one can chuck more wood than a woodchuck

  2. #302
    us
    Dec 2009
    NC
    Whites Classic III, Whites 4900dl pro plus
    36

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    If this is true, why doesn't the government just re-task all their "assets", and dig up these vast caches? If digital cameras can see this, don't you think airborne, and space borne cameras can too? The only "treasure" here is being reaped by the guy selling this info to lucky(read gullible) folks.
    IS that a buried cache "aura" I see on Google Earth?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, just a reflection on my laptop

    HH
    Steve
    look an aura lol
    yesterday I couldn't spell treasyur huntr, today I are one...hooked on fonics werked 4 me

  3. #303
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    14,603
    11819 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    good morning: My apol., I hadn't realized that Wan and others had posted. I will addressWan first, thenthe others in sequence.

    Wan you posted -->If your presuming these photons were emitted underground, then it's hard to explain why they would then reflect off objects above ground, as in the pics. Or react with camera lenses and film for focusing and pictures for that matter.
    ************

    ?? I never suggested this nor photons, but that the cameras may be designed to respond to other frequencies than just Ir or visible ones.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    You posted --> but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
    **********
    K agreed
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs.
    **********

    Your explanation does not satisfactorily explain the term 'sensitivity' . Sensitivity is a given factor under fixed parameters, including time. Accumulation over time is not a measure of sensitivity as
    such.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> In the most general sense, any non-visible frequency that shows up as a visible color on film shifted the effective frequency in some manner. Otherwise you wouldn't see it on film either,
    **********

    I hate to be picky, but IR records as IR, this is why we use film that is sensitive to the IR frequency. The same applies to our hand held IR detectors. The Polorid system of color photography only records initially in two frequencies (colors) it then uses the difference between the combination to produce the third color.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> In reference to Geo chem prospecting "No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected".
    ***********

    Hmm sorry, but it is precisely a chemical reaction that is being indicated / used / measured. the final indicator is another frequency which is interpreted as a color.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here.
    ***********

    On the contrary, I post no restrictions, I am completely open, hence the operation could be feasible
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> If earth, which includes a wide variety of materials, is so transparent, then why does it reflect so readily off the trees and ground, or react with the cameras CCD for that matter? Such absurdities are beyond excessive.
    ************

    The Earth is transparent to many frequencies and energies, and opaque to many other
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> I merely stated that metatheory should be avoided as justification for any theory. Nor did I use metatheory to argue against any theory of yours
    *********
    Fascinating post ?
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    you posted --> Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test
    ***********

    Nor have you addressed it. It is really extremely simple in theory, but, due to 'our '- not scientific - limited resources and knowledge, we have to go by trial and error feeling our way.

    May I referr you to --> http://www.physorg.com/news140715260.html to realize just how little we know and the ex potential advances in all fronts of science still unpublicised.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    KJ You posted --> this is true, why doesn't the government just re-task all their "assets", and dig up these vast caches?
    *********
    Because many think like you. Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought and resisted.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted -->If digital cameras can see this, don't you think airborne, and space borne cameras can too?
    **********
    Of course they could, if modified, and they are modiified to study distant celestial objects.
    ************

    You posted --> The only "treasure" here is being reaped by the guy selling this info to lucky(read gullible) folks
    ********

    I have no doubt that he is interested in selling the book, just as the scientific authors of early books on scientific investigation on flight were, most of which ended up in the discard pile, while a pair of unknowns ------ just flew.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    Ypu posted -->IS that a buried cache "aura" I see on Google Earth?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, just a reflection on my laptop
    ********

    You must have the same problem that I do, a shiny nose. Move the light to a different angle.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    Swr------ hmm, k, HI.

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    p.s. --> http://www.physorg.com/news
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  4. #304
    wan
    wan is offline
    us
    Apr 2010
    11

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    good morning: My apol., I hadn't realized that Wan and others had posted. I will addressWan first, thenthe others in sequence.

    Wan you posted -->If your presuming these photons were emitted underground, then it's hard to explain why they would then reflect off objects above ground, as in the pics. Or react with camera lenses and film for focusing and pictures for that matter.
    ************

    ?? I never suggested this nor photons, but that the cameras may be designed to respond to other frequencies than just Ir or visible ones.
    I qualified my statement with "if". It wasn't a claim of what you suggested, as there is a great paucity of specifics in what you are claiming. I was merely covering such a possible consideration given what has been provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    You posted --> but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
    **********
    K agreed
    Then on what grounds do you defend your less than specific claim that we should take this serious? I think I have giving this serious consideration, and it still fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs.
    **********

    Your explanation does not satisfactorily explain the term 'sensitivity' . Sensitivity is a given factor under fixed parameters, including time. Accumulation over time is not a measure of sensitivity as such.
    Given that the cheap camera CCD is in fact the detector claimed in use here, it's more than reasonable that whatever 'fixed' sensitivity is required is satisfied by that cheap CCD. Thus even if you define "sensitivity" in terms of some fixed time frame and limited to some predefined photon density, the claim as provided in fact claims to be sensitive enough. This essentially moots 'sensitivity' as an issue at all.

    Filters of any kind do not increase sensitivity to a given frequency, rather they reduce the noise from other frequencies so it's not drowned out in the signal. Using spectral analysis there's no need for such filters at all, because each frequency is by design separated out individually. We even have prototype cameras that store the light information to make pictures, instead of storing the pictures. Thus we can take picture, with whatever focus, filter, etc., we choose at any later time.

    You are overestimating the ignorance of present science and technology, apparently in order to justify the claims of the camera on the grounds of ignorance in science and technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> In the most general sense, any non-visible frequency that shows up as a visible color on film shifted the effective frequency in some manner. Otherwise you wouldn't see it on film either,
    **********

    I hate to be picky, but IR records as IR, this is why we use film that is sensitive to the IR frequency. The same applies to our hand held IR detectors. The Polorid system of color photography only records initially in two frequencies (colors) it then uses the difference between the combination to produce the third color.
    LOL, problem is if the film pixels emitted in the same IR spectrum it recorded from then your eyes wouldn't be able to see it on the film any more than you could see it in real life. Thus it is not the color "IR" you are seeing on the film, but another color used to represent the IR spectrum, thus a shifted false color spectrum. This would in fact be a frequency shift if you can see some non-visible light spectrum on the film at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> In reference to Geo chem prospecting "No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected".
    ***********

    Hmm sorry, but it is precisely a chemical reaction that is being indicated / used / measured. the final indicator is another frequency which is interpreted as a color.
    Geochemical prospecting is nothing more or less than spectrographic analysis and/or taking actuall samples to test. If you want the sample to emit its own radiation (assuming it's not radioactive), then you stick it in a gas chromatograph or something similar. Otherwise it works in the same way your eyes use spectrographic analysis to distinguish between the grass and the dirt it's growing out of. Any direct chemical prospecting requires taking actual samples and chemically testing them, not taking pictures.

    Here I must ask for any credible reference to make your case. I would provide such a reference except I can't provide what doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here.
    ***********

    On the contrary, I post no restrictions, I am completely open, hence the operation could be feasible
    Ok, after a second look at your statement I'll accept you made no such claim. There's a problem with being "completely open" as you describe here. I am open to all sorts of weird notions lacking effective sound evidence, yet I can't rightly claim or invest belief in such notions, nor falsely claim a selection bias of available data constitutes evidence.

    Worse still, in this case, remaining "completely open" appears to require rejecting specific empirical data, i.e., direct observations. Like claiming to be open minded about having 11 fingers but one is invisible and untouchable. It wouldn't be so outrageous if a specialized CCD was in use, rather than a cheap mass produced version with well defined specs. Yet it would still be silly to believe a priori.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> If earth, which includes a wide variety of materials, is so transparent, then why does it reflect so readily off the trees and ground, or react with the cameras CCD for that matter? Such absurdities are beyond excessive.
    ************

    The Earth is transparent to many frequencies and energies, and opaque to many other
    Of course, but it's not the ground opacity that is at issue here, it's the combination of ground and lens transparency with leaf, ground, and CCD opacity, as evidenced by the reflective profiles in the pics. It's this psychotic combination of opacities that is a problem. Not to mention the absurdity of failing to notice such an obvious electromagnetic source before, given the ubiquity of the technology used here. You should realize that there is no unknown regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, even if we've never detected it before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> I merely stated that metatheory should be avoided as justification for any theory. Nor did I use metatheory to argue against any theory of yours
    *********
    Fascinating post ?
    I went ? at the strangeness of your response to. There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    you posted --> Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test
    ***********

    Nor have you addressed it. It is really extremely simple in theory, but, due to 'our '- not scientific - limited resources and knowledge, we have to go by trial and error feeling our way.
    How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic physical mechanisms like a theory we have 11 fingers mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, but 10 the rest of the week? The 11 finger theory is rather simple also, but appealing to "limited resources and knowledge" doesn't help the case for it in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    May I referr you to --> http://www.physorg.com/news140715260.html to realize just how little we know and the ex potential advances in all fronts of science still unpublicised.
    Pointing to an article entitled "Topical use of estradiol may stimulate collagen production in aging skin" is more than a little weird. I also know how to take pictures of objects using light that never reflected off the objects in the picture. I even understand how this bit of weirdness works, yet even this weirdness doesn't help the case for the camera trick described here.

    You have used an "appeal to ignorance" a lot here as a defense. This is unfortunately a straight forward well defined logical fallacy. In response to KJ you made the following statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by Real de Tayopa
    Because many think like you. Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought and resisted.
    Advances in science are "fought" because that is how we know they are real, when the science stands up to the scrutiny. Science cannot work without this "fight". Only it's not a "fight", rather it's simply part of the peer review process. For every advance hundreds of would be advances failed this so called fight, for good reason. Because it was wrong. Saying we should believe this camera trick because we are ignorant of what we don't know is tantamount to throwing away ALL science, and calling every claim, no matter how silly, science.

    Even with this care and discipline imposed by this so called "fight", I can pretty much guarantee that many more corrections to what we think we know is coming. The so called fight never ends. Yet not one of these corrections will change one iota about the phenomenology we have observed. General Relativity did not change the empirical validity of any measurement whatsoever made under classical theory. Yet an honest look at the camera trick appears to require physical rules that are both valid and invalid at the same time. Saying: We'll we don't know everything, doesn't change the absurdity of it.

    Nothing would be more exciting to me than for someone to show me something I don't understand. Such things do exist, but I despair of attempting to explain the nature of my failings given the nature of the arguments made here. Yet a claim, coupled with the claim I should believe it solely on the grounds of my ignorance, does not in itself constitute a phenomena in need of understanding. Given that my ignorance is ostensibly the justification given for believing it, with "it" remaining undefined, I have nothing left to offer this thread. If some real data is offered I might reconsider.

  5. #305
    us
    Dec 2009
    Mena,Ar
    566
    296 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Digital Camera no Filters Silver.... Blue Aura... Was there silver there Yes. Though i share this picture ,You can belive it are not,but i'am a belive now.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSCF0159.JPG 
Views:	1635 
Size:	71.1 KB 
ID:	405847  
    May God Bless you.

  6. #306
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    14,603
    11819 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Good evening WAN: You posted --> There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.
    *********

    Perhaps, but??
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    You posted -->How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic
    ***********
    interesting reply ??
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted -->I qualified my statement with "if". It wasn't a claim of what you suggested, as there is a great paucity of specifics in what you are claiming. I was merely covering such a possible consideration given what has been provided.
    *********
    Referring to photons Being emitted under ground, I am unaware that I ever said this?_____________________________________________ ________________________

    You posted -->You posted --> but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
    **********
    K agreed
    Then on what grounds do you defend your less than specific claim that we should take this serious? I think I have giving this serious consideration, and it still fails.
    **********************

    Defend? no need to defend something that is still in the basic theoretical stage??
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    You posted -->Given that the cheap camera CCD is in fact the detector claimed in use here, it's more than reasonable that whatever 'fixed' sensitivity is required is satisfied by that cheap CCD. Thus even if you define "sensitivity" in terms of some fixed time frame and limited to some predefined photon density, the claim as provided in fact claims to be sensitive enough. This essentially moots 'sensitivity' as an issue at all
    ***********
    Why do you insist upon Photon sensitivity? Any frequency can be modified to enter the sensitivity range of the CCD carrying the original information.
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    You posted-->You are overestimating the ignorance of present science and technology, apparently in order to justify the claims of the camera on the grounds of ignorance in science and technology
    ****************
    On the contrary, I have readily admitted that it could easily and quickly be solved if science applied itself to the problem. However, since there is no immediate push, it is up to 'us' to experiment, just as the Wright Bros did.
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    You posted --> problem is if the film pixels emitted in the same IR spectrum it recorded from then your eyes wouldn't be able to see it on the film any more than you could see it in real life. Thus it is not the color "IR" you are seeing on the film, but another color used to represent the IR spectrum, thus a shifted false color spectrum. This would in fact be a frequency shift if you can see some non-visible light spectrum on the film at all.
    **********
    I fail to see where I have ever suggested otherwise
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted-->Geochemical prospecting is nothing more or less than spectrographic analysis and/or taking actuall samples to test. If you want the sample to emit its own radiation (assuming it's not radioactive), then you stick it in a gas chromatograph or something similar.
    ***********
    Having used, overhauled and re calibrated AA units, I am quite familiar with them. They are not used in Geochemical prospecting. It would be uneconomical. Geochemical prospecting is simply the inexpensive chemical reaction of selected samples in the field, which indicates the presence of minerals by reactions, which include color changes.

    Crude example, put a drop of nitric acid on the suspected Cu specimen. let it sit for minute or so, then rub a clean iron nail across it. Any Cu in the Nitric acid solution will then transfer to the nail coating it with relatively pure Cu.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted --> Any direct chemical prospecting requires taking actual samples and chemically testing them, not taking pictures
    ***********
    Have you ever heard of testing for Hg by simply coating a flat surface with a UV sensitive materiel then placing the suspected specimen between the apropriate. UV source and the screen. Rising Hg vapors will block the UV excitation and appear as opaque fumes or haze. This can be recorded visually or with a suitable device such as a simple CCD camera, no effective difference.
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    You posted -->It wouldn't be so outrageous if a specialized CCD was in use, rather than a cheap mass produced version with well defined specs
    **********
    Am I to understand that you said that it would be 'impossible' in one way or another to modify the orig freq. to one that the cheap CCD can register? Sigh.
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________
    You posted --> You should realize that there is no unknown regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, even if we've never detected it before
    *********
    I believe that I have stated such before
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    You posted -->I went ? at the strangeness of your response to. There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.
    ********

    Not really, it is simple --> metatheory is a set of interlocking rules, principles, or a story (narrative), that both describes and prescribes what is acceptable and unacceptable as theory - the means of conceptual exploration - in a scientific discipline._
    ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    you posted -->How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic physical mechanisms like a theory we have 11 fingers mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, but 10 the rest of the week? The 11 finger theory is rather simple also, but appealing to "limited resources and knowledge" doesn't help the case for it in the least
    ****************

    Now that is close to a metatheory, however, where does the psychotic factor enter?
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________
    You posted--> In response to KJ you made the following statement:

    Quote from: Real de Tayopa on Apr 29, 2010, 09:41:58 AM
    Because many think like you. Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought and resisted.
    Advances in science are "fought" because that is how we know they are real, when the science stands up to the scrutiny. Science cannot work without this "fight". Only it's not a "fight", rather it's simply part of the peer review process. For every advance hundreds of would be advances failed this so called fight, for good reason. Because it was wrong. Saying we should believe this camera trick because we are --deleted-- of what we don't know is tantamount to throwing away ALL science, and calling every claim, no matter how silly, science.

    ********
    Unfortunately most fights are from top Peer pressure. Science is rampart with sorry examples of the supreme peer resisting anything that rocks his position of being the ultimate authority in a particular field, even to destroying an upstart whose conflicting theory is late proven to be correct. Nuff said.

    Incidentally just what IS science? What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

    Isn't that just what they are attempting to do in here?
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    You posted -->Nothing would be more exciting to me than for someone to show me something I don't understand
    ***********
    Then relax and contribute, instead of attempting to discourage. To discourage implies that you now all phases of the subject, hence it is closed..

    Don Jose de La Mancha





    _
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  7. #307
    us
    Jun 2008
    effingham,il
    19

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Ok for all of you giving midas a hard time quit i myself have gotten strange colors before on my grandmothers old Sun 660 polaroid i have really just never figured out what the color,blur, which i now know is from coins or something whish i knew this 3-5 years ago.

    --------Also midas i want to know one thing where is the world could you get one of these special filters how often would i have to change it.

    THaNK YoU MiDaS for your post

  8. #308

    Jun 2008
    central mn
    Bounty Hunter Land Star
    50
    4 times

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Quote Originally Posted by okiedowser
    Digital Camera no Filters Silver.... Blue Aura... Was there silver there Yes. Though i share this picture ,You can belive it are not,but i'am a belive now.
    Sorry, but what you are seeing is what's called a hot pixel. They can be seen as red, blue, or green little blips in your images. They appear when a certain pixel in your sensor starts to malfunction, or if your shooting higher ISOs with a cheaper camera.

  9. #309
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    14,603
    11819 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Everning camera guy: ***** excellent post, that does happen.

    Don Jose de La Mancha
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  10. #310

    May 2003
    upstate ny
    457
    93 times

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    I find this all very interesting and I'm loving the idea. I think its only a matter of time before the technology gets good enough to see more and more of what we can't see. I know they can see certain things from space using specialized equipment. What I'm wondering is how soon will it be before we can "see" the chemicals that was mixed in with old glass to give it its color. I believe that we aren't to far away from detectors that can help us locate old glass thats underground. Does anyone think that old bottle dumps can be found by the amount of metal trash that is often buried with it? Everyone here is screamin' gold & silver but I'd like to see this applied to more aspects of treasure hunting. Swiz
    We are living in the moment, digging up the past for the future to see.

  11. #311
    us
    May 2010
    Rutland Vt
    Bounty Hunter Discovery 1100
    4
    2 times

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Does everyone in here have a Doctorate in Metallurgy or Physics??
    Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics knows that most everything breaks down over time and unlike substances that come into contact with each other will produce some kind of chemical reaction
    So, isn't it possible that someone may have stumbled on some technique or device that can detect these chemical changes??

  12. #312
    us
    Aug 2009
    495
    130 times

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    there is also some eight balls on here that profess to know all things. bet they can't name all the animals like adam did.

  13. #313
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    14,603
    11819 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Good morning swr: You posted --> Does everyone in here have a Doctorate in Metallurgy or Physics??
    Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics knows that most everything breaks down over time and unlike substances that come into contact with each other will produce some kind of chemical reaction
    So, isn't it possible that someone may have stumbled on some technique or device that can detect these chemical changes??


    ''well..not really'. But someone has stumbled on to the technique of writing/selling a book that is completely useless about that very subject. Talk about a hosing!
    ****************

    You know this for sure What is your reliable referrence ?

    Don Jose de La Mancha
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  14. #314
    us
    Dec 2009
    Mena,Ar
    566
    296 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Hmmm, well explain this pic-10oz. silver bar buried 10 inches 3 days ago. Post a picture of 10oz of silver......Please....for the one's that don't belive.
    May God Bless you.

  15. #315
    mx
    Nov 2004
    Alamos,Sonora,Mexico
    14,603
    11819 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

    Good morning my investigative - scientific friends. The term 'scientist' keeps being brought up, as if the titled ones are seated on the side of the LORD. I feel that many reading these posts are a bit turned off on experimenting with the present subject, since they feel inferior, yet the higher education degrees do not in themselves make a true scientist. They merely confirm that that person has completed a specified course in a field of study, not a statement of 'intelligence or actual independent thinking ability'.

    In many cases, since you have not absorbed a certain level of previous canned data on a subject, you mind is actually far more productive since you will try and consider things, that others locked into conventional thinking cannot conceive. It does not really matter for the purposes of this series of posts whether you fully understand what you are trying to do, or work with, what IS important is your efforts, thinking, and trying.

    For example, I can show you how to grow perfectly healthy, Sun loving plants inside of a closed box down in a light tight basement. All colors and pigments are exactly the same as for the same plants being grown in the sunlight. Conventional scientists will tell you that this is impossible, yet??

    The same applies to those that are attempting to develop long Range sensing devices (LRL). While they perhaps cannot explain scientifically how they are supposedly working , nevertheless, every so often, they perform as hoped for, but not on demand, nor every time.

    Always remember that the baby staring at a thingy hanging above his crib, studying it to decide if it is good to eat or play with, is a scientist in every conventional description. The only difference is the level of study, and background knowledge, which may also turn out to be faulty..

    Don Jose de La Mancha *Tropical Tramp*
    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

 

 
Page 21 of 99 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

detect silver coin buried on earth without machine
,

how to detect gold underground

,

how to detect gold without a metal detector

,
how to find buried gold
,

how to find buried gold with digital camera

,
how to find hidden gold in house
,

how to find hidden gold in land

,

program uv camera for sens metal underground

,
under ground searching cameras
,
underground treasure detecting cameras
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0