Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[DizzyDigger]

Considering there's now 68 pages to this thread, I believe the author
should just go ahead and send Tom a copy (complimentary) and allow
him to read it.

If it's all true and Tom hits paydirt, the author would have made a believer
out of his 2nd biggest skeptic, who's going to tell everyone he knows about
how a camera can take an image of gold under the ground.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[boogeyman]

All I need to do is give the name of a city you've never been to. Or a book you've never read. And then , any assertion I can make (elephants that fly, persons with 5 heads, etc...) you can have no doubt on . Right ? Because if you haven't been to that city to dis-prove it, or read the book I'm telling you to find and buy, then this makes any assertion I can come up with, to be valid and true (till you've disproved it).

That's what you're doing to me. Both your replies here perpetually try to burden of proof back on me. It is my opinion that if someone says there's flying elephants, or 5 headed humans, or cameras that can find gold: Then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not the other way around.

It is not my job to go find a certain type camera, take 100 pix, buy and read a book, etc... in order to DIS-PROVE. It is the person making the claim who bears the burden of proof.

Scuse me Making claims. I've been experimenting with this for awhile now. No I'm not 100% on it. Have talked with David several times. I'll happily dispute his claims it'll work anywhere. I've had negative results in desert areas of California Nevada & Arizona. I was getting better results from the Polaroid cameras. I'll gladly help anyone who wants to experiment too. Sorry Tom I'm not arrogant enough to make a statement like yours about the unicorns in Colorado. I'd be willing to make a statement just because I haven't seen a purple squirrel riding a unicorn led by big foot they don't exist! You almost made me spit coffee with your remark on buying a camera etc. etc. BUT you can arrogantly state it's all fairy tales. If you look at it, you really can't say much you've had 0% experience, used the system 0% and are going on skewed so called studies, but you can say it's all bunk. Others are at least making the effort to test this out. And before you throw it out there no I won't share pics. Lost a lot of my polaroids in a move (imagine seeing 15+ years of photos water damaged & stuck in a box shaped blob. what I've got now are part of a working project. Let a little air out of that ego take the blinders off look at things from all sides & you might learn. And YES Tom I'm putting the burden of proof on you and your claim it doesn't work can you prove it doesn't? Didn't think so.....

I read the TOC so if anyone would like the address of the company that does the camera mods if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself PM me & I'll help. The filters can be purchased from most camera stores, I can give you the addresses of shops I use.

To sum it up. My claims -
The Polaroid system was getting better results.
Davids assumption this system will work everywhere is wrong. (at least in my experiments) it won't work in desert areas of California Nevada or Arizona.

Here's a funny sweeper truck experience for you Tom. After being dusted numerous times we told the driver to knock it off. Next time we waited by the driveway to the business (couldn't write a cite on private property). As soon as the driver got on the street we lit him up. Since he had a taillight out, headlamp out of alignment enough to be a hazard to oncoming drivers & barely a muffler on it, we wrote him a cite for the infractions. The next time we were in the area same thing! Seventeen times!!!! All he needed to do was go down the street 3 1/2 blocks to (then Checker auto) spend $10 or $15 bucks go down and have the cites signed off, done deal. Ended up letting a couple go to warrant. Was in court waiting to testify and lo & behold who's sitting there? Yup! sweeper driver. Almost fell off the bench when the judge actually called him a dumb a$$. He fined him the max for the FTAs & gave him some hours of community service. I guess some occupations don't require much to get hired. As I say common sense should be classed as a lost art because common sense isn't too common anymore.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
. Didn't think so......

Boogeyman, I am on a detecting Excursion right now. Can't give your post full justice on this. But in short :

You say you are not 100% on this. How do you know you are not subject to memory bias in determining your results? in other words, if you take 100 pictures, and 99 of them show no difference from gold to other objects. You promptly forget and dismiss those. With excuses why they didn't work. But if the 100th picture works, you think "aha ! It worked"

Which fails to take random chance into the equation. You conveniently dismissed the other 99 photographs as being flukes. that's the same way some people think they're horoscopes come true. They're not considering all the bologna that never came true.

And again you want to put the burden of proof on me to disprove the notion. And again I claimed to you that bass-ackwards. in the same way if I said to you to disprove unicorns exist. If you say there's no photographs, I just tell you I lost all the photographs in a fire. Etc... etc...

 

[elh]

Boogeyman, I think you is done gone and hurt his feelins'.
When I started with the Canon camera I got no auras for a couple of weeks, then all of a sudden I got Auras on gold and silver buried for that particular purpose. Why did it not work the first time?? No one to this day can say 100% WHY it did not. Same thing with the aura coming in.
Just too many reasons that cam't be put in a glass tube to look at it. Also no way in H--- to do any common ground on the scienticals of it, one blind
two blinds or three nor ten thousand. Not practical to set up scientific test. Matter of fact the only test needed is do the work of trying.
Just like metal detecting, no way to tell ahead of time what will make the beep beep sound off. .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....Just like metal detecting, no way to tell ahead of time what will make the beep beep sound off. . ..

I disagree. If you take a metal detector and prop it up on the table and turn it on. Then take 100 random people off the street. Have them each wave a quarter in front of the coil of the metal detector. I bet you that it gives a beep all 100 times. Eh ?

 

[sjvalleyhunter]

I am on a detecting Excursion right now.

And why was I not invited??

 

[boogeyman]

Boogeyman, I think you is done gone and hurt his feelins'.
When I started with the Canon camera I got no auras for a couple of weeks, then all of a sudden I got Auras on gold and silver buried for that particular purpose. Why did it not work the first time?? No one to this day can say 100% WHY it did not. Same thing with the aura coming in.
Just too many reasons that cam't be put in a glass tube to look at it. Also no way in H--- to do any common ground on the scienticals of it, one blind
two blinds or three nor ten thousand. Not practical to set up scientific test. Matter of fact the only test needed is do the work of trying.
Just like metal detecting, no way to tell ahead of time what will make the beep beep sound off. .

True, He comes up with these arrogant claims things can't possibly work and yet refuses to show evidence as to why it isn't possible, yet demands you produce evidence. Then as you see in his post after yours starts with the comparisons of apples & oranges. Then he'll start in with the 99 out of a hundred and you forget all 99 but the 1!?!? You have to consider what he's said in the last few pages. He's never tried the system, never read the book, refuse to buy or get the equipment to experiment with, so we have someone with 0.0% experience telling us there's no way it can possibly work, and yet cannot provide anything to match his statement. I always like how these skeptics say you're looking at something one sided yet they've never looked at that thing from all sides. Your experimenting makes me think it might have to do with weather & soil moisture. Don't know what your conditions are there but sort of like detecting a field during summer when the soils dry getting few hits then going back after a good rain & get hits galore. Did you do the mods yourself? I type talked with a couple guys that wanted to try & were having problems. Asked them both & both said they were using cameras as they came from the factory. The one gentleman did remove the IR filter and was doing better. Never heard back from the other guy. If you do a little research, the Spanish have been going out in the Sangre de Christos in Colorado for generations chasing blue or green (depends which camp you're in) auras to find caches or pockets of gold. I think this might be the same thing or close. I really don't think they'd be doing this for a couple centuries if there was no successes. I'd be interested to hear what settings you're using if not just auto exposure. Take care!

 

[boogeyman]

I disagree. If you take a metal detector and prop it up on the table and turn it on. Then take 100 random people off the street. Have them each wave a quarter in front of the coil of the metal detector. I bet you that it gives a beep all 100 times. Eh ?

There you go Sheldon trying to compare apples & oranges........ Where the heck are you coming up with all this 100 stuff? I think you got your blinders on a little tight. Tell me why it doesn't work. Can you explain why it doesn't work without going down the unicorn fairytale road? Can you explain without regurgitating all that stuff from The Great Randi or the skeptic Society? Didn't think so....... I can't really make claims on what I haven't learned my ego just isn't big enough.
I truly feel sorry for you, can't imagine how much you've missed out on with all your negativity & tunnel vision instead of maybe learning something new. Even if it doesn't work we've still learned something! More fun than just sitting there poo pooing something.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And why was I not invited??

Huh ?

 

[sjvalleyhunter]

Yeah, sorry, I had been drinking a bit when I wrote that. I think with all the gold coins and such that you find, that one of these days you should let me tag along to one of your sites. [emoji51]

 

[elh]

I disagree. If you take a metal detector and prop it up on the table and turn it on. Then take 100 random people off the street. Have them each wave a quarter in front of the coil of the metal detector. I bet you that it gives a beep all 100 times. Eh ?

Well Tom, I see you are doing exactly like the liberals and cnn, abc, networks. You twisted the hell outta what I said. BUT, i guess plain english is not common to you,. Huh?

 

[elh]

True, He comes up with these arrogant claims things can't possibly work and yet refuses to show evidence as to why it isn't possible, yet demands you produce evidence. Then as you see in his post after yours starts with the comparisons of apples & oranges. Then he'll start in with the 99 out of a hundred and you forget all 99 but the 1!?!? You have to consider what he's said in the last few pages. He's never tried the system, never read the book, refuse to buy or get the equipment to experiment with, so we have someone with 0.0% experience telling us there's no way it can possibly work, and yet cannot provide anything to match his statement. I always like how these skeptics say you're looking at something one sided yet they've never looked at that thing from all sides. Your experimenting makes me think it might have to do with weather & soil moisture. Don't know what your conditions are there but sort of like detecting a field during summer when the soils dry getting few hits then going back after a good rain & get hits galore. Did you do the mods yourself? I type talked with a couple guys that wanted to try & were having problems. Asked them both & both said they were using cameras as they came from the factory. The one gentleman did remove the IR filter and was doing better. Never heard back from the other guy. If you do a little research, the Spanish have been going out in the Sangre de Christos in Colorado for generations chasing blue or green (depends which camp you're in) auras to find caches or pockets of gold. I think this might be the same thing or close. I really don't think they'd be doing this for a couple centuries if there was no successes. I'd be interested to hear what settings you're using if not just auto exposure. Take care!

Boogey, I was using the Canon as David said, same camera model, same settings, with the French made 720 filter and holder. no mods.
Sam (LOBO) Wolf said in his dowsing class that when there is a full moon and high tide the bluish aura can be seen with the naked eye. I can't prove
this next part but I think he used the moonbeam system since he told some one else about it.
Real De Toyopa ( spelling ) in Mexico found many Spanish coins at one place using the ''fires'' (aura) as it is called there. There is a lack of personal
information to be found on the subject because of the laws in the good ole U S of A. Remember Mel Fisher?

 

[lesjcbs]

People, people, people, go back and read, then re-read, then read again posts 1- 8 in this thread.

Then go to:

https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/an-in-depth-guide-to-infrared-photography-setup-and-capture--photo-9533

When all else fails, read the instructions.

SHEASH!!!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If you do a little research, the Spanish have been going out in the Sangre de Christos in Colorado for generations chasing blue or green (depends which camp you're in) auras to find caches or pockets of gold....

boogeyman, When you find some practice they did centuries ago, I do not know why that adds more credibility to a belief or practice. Why does the age of the belief make it more true ?

Because people 100's of years ago did all sorts of goofy things. That we've since "grown wiser" about. Eg.: they threw virgins into volcanoes. Because they thought that would help control the weather. Or they believed the earth was flat. Or they practiced leeching in medicine, etc....

So what added "proof" of a practice is there, to point out that people believed in it centuries ago ? If anything, the opposite would be true. I'd put more stake and reliance on modern notions (born out of skepticism that TESTED those old-time notions) .

Sorry.

 

[boogeyman]

boogeyman, When you find some practice they did centuries ago, I do not know why that adds more credibility to a belief or practice. Why does the age of the belief make it more true ?

Because people 100's of years ago did all sorts of goofy things. That we've since "grown wiser" about. Eg.: they threw virgins into volcanoes. Because they thought that would help control the weather. Or they believed the earth was flat. Or they practiced leeching in medicine, etc....

So what added "proof" of a practice is there, to point out that people believed in it centuries ago ? If anything, the opposite would be true. I'd put more stake and reliance on modern notions (born out of skepticism that TESTED those old-time notions) .

Sorry.

There ya go again Sheldon! What the heck does chucking virgins in a volcano have to do with detecting gold (by any means or technique) maybe your blinders are still a little too tight still. What does controlling weather have to do with anything!?!? No you're completely wrong on people only believing 100s of years ago. Why would people in Colorado & Mexico still be using that technique for 100s of years. Are you trying to say all these folks are stupid? Made me spit coffee! Leeching!?!? You need to do a little more reading and studying, it's been researched and proven to have positive benefits. The only reason it's not widely used is because of the ewwww effect and of course, we have tons of chemicals to provide( for a price). I'll do ya one better! Maggots! I've personally seen / witnessed geriatric patients with decubiduses that were almost to the bone. Lab raised maggots were applied then a piece of Vaseline gauze & oxygen. WHOAH!!!! Lo & behold!!! The tissues regenerated and after several weeks all that was left was a scar. Sounds like hookus pookus to you, but it's in the journals etc. You keep coming up with these apples & oranges gobblety gook and yet you can't / won't provide any factual proof to back up your arrogant claim it doesn't work. Explain to us why it doesn't work with your 0.0% experience. You seem to be incapable of providing ANY proof to back up your claims, yet you expect others to. Instead of spewing all this negative stuff why don't you experiment a little and add some results of your experiments? Can't do that? How's about getting out of the James Randi section and try the history section find the accounts from the Spaniards, or jump on Google and google up the articles of the Spanish finding gold in Colorado from a couple hundred years ago up to today? Oh wait!!!! You're a docent "working shoulder to shoulder with archaeologists" etc. So you should have access to materials & they should be able to point you to folks that can help you. So sad being all negative & arrogant imagine how much knowledge you've missed......... sad.

 

[boogeyman]

People, people, people, go back and read, then re-read, then read again posts 1- 8 in this thread.

Then go to:

https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/an-in-depth-guide-to-infrared-photography-setup-and-capture--photo-9533

When all else fails, read the instructions.

SHEASH!!!!

Very well said! Add in bring an open mind & the patience & diligence to study & learn. Your Einstein quote is spot on! We all should print it out and put it up over our desks!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... What the heck does chucking virgins in a volcano have to do with detecting gold.....

It (and leeching, etc...) has nothing to do with "finding gold". But it has EVERYTHING to do with testing the notion (which you had advanced) that: Practices done in antiquity , must therefore hold merit. Ie.: they wouldn't have done it then, if it hadn't been merit-worthy sort of inference. Here's your quote:

Quote from Boogeyman: " ...I really don't think they'd be doing this for a couple centuries if there was no successes... "

That notion, of how it was done in the ancient times, (thus implying some sort of merit) was what I was challenging. By showing an analogy of how the ancients did all sorts of goofy stuff. That we now know was simply goofy superstitions.

....Why would people in Colorado & Mexico still be using that technique for 100s of years. Are you trying to say all these folks are stupid?....

Stupid ? No. Mistaken ? Yes. Boogeyman, I don't doubt that some people "in Mexico and Colorado" still believe in such things. There are people who still believe in Loch Ness, people who believe Elvis is still alive, and that man never landed on the moon. So there is no merit-worthy "proofs", of any unconventional method of TH'ing, simply because A) They practiced it centuries ago, and B) some people still believe in it.

Those are not "proofs". Only proof is proof. And that fact that some people believed or believed, is not "proof".

.... You seem to be incapable of providing ANY proof to back up your claims, yet you expect others to......

Why WOULDN'T the "others" be expected to ? THEY ARE THE ONES making the claim. Not me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Thus, yes, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

In the same way if I said you that I have a magic tennis shoe, that when smothered with peanut butter, can find gold. Is it up to you to disprove it ? Or me to prove it ?

Oh, and if you tried my shoe method, and found that it didn't find gold for you, that wouldn't be conclusive. It would merely mean : 1) you need more practice, 2) you weren't doing it right, 3) durned that wind or sun-spots. 4) Fill in your own excuse. So you see, you can NEVER disprove my shoe method. And so, yes, the burden of proof would be on me to prove my shoe method, not you. So too is it with the camera method : The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Add in bring an open mind & the patience & diligence to study & learn.....

Inference being what ? That anyone who doesn't come to your conclusion :

1) Doesn't have an "open mind"

2) Hasn't been patient.

3) Hasn't been diligent.

4) Hasn't studied.

5) Won't learn.

Have I got that right ? And guess what ? : I would agree with all those implied statements *IF* the underlying contended notion were true. Then you'd be right: That anyone who failed to agree, is close-minded, non-diligent, and so forth. In other words, your post #1036 is doing the following fallacy:

"Assuming what you are trying to prove, as evidence of your proof for it". [Ie.: Simply saying it doesn't make it so.]

We are anxiously awaiting proof. And as soon as that proof is forthcoming, then yes: Everything you've said in #1036 is true. But until then, that "finger points both ways". I can equally say that, because you don't agree with me, that all those 5 points apply to you.

 

[boogeyman]

Sheldon, Have you been comprehending? Have I made ANY claims? I'm not that arrogant. I'm (as stated before) experimenting & learning & looking at this with an open mind. Maybe you're working so hard at disputing this and coming up with all this fairy tale junk you missed it. The only claims anyone has made here is you claiming it can't possibly work. You're so desperately trying to sway or twist things to fit your negative picture of how the world works I think you're missing some stuff, or ignoring things. You've made the claim this can't work numerous times. You're saying my example of the auras in Colorado are bunk, is that based on you not hearing of it, never researched the historical documents or even been there & talked to some of these people face to face? So, once again I have to ask, Do you REALLY think these people would've continued running into the mountains for a few hundred years for nothing?? Do you fish? Do you poo poo fishing because you don't catch any fish? Ok, you gather up your fishing equipment head out and get skunked what do you do? Do you go home research, study, share with others, learn that maybe something as simple as a pulltab on a hook works maybe even better than a $30 jig ? Or do you jump on the fishing web sites And arrogantly claim fishing is ALL bunk because you claim it is. As you've stated yourself you have have 0.0% experience with this, So how can you be all knowing? You haven't even expended the effort to learn, just spewed some Great Randi stuff. At least Randi figured out a way to make money on it. How about trying to add something positive here? Nope no ego boost doing that, is there? You're making a claim there is no way this can work. Do you have ANY proof it doesn't work to provide? Can you with your vast all knowing experience enlighten us? I mean without all the unicorn & flaming ridiculous junk? Can you? Come on Sheldon with your 0.0% of experience you should be able to come with something that that backs up YOUR claim this can't possibly work. And we'll give you time to go back and re read my claims. DING! times up! How many did you find. I'm going to back off this a little...... I would feel really bad if I was the cause of you getting another time out.

Anyone interested in experimenting or exchanging notes let's swing this conversation more towards the positive direction!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:

.... The only claims anyone has made here is you claiming it can't possibly work. ....

Ok, so my kill-joy skeptical claim is the only claim going on here. Right ? Just making sure I understand you correctly. *BUT WAIT*, what am I claiming won't work ? Ie.: what is the "it" (in bold italics of your quote above) ? The "It" is the claim that (drumroll) .... digital cameras can see buried gold . Right ?

Then do you see therefore how your statement is self-suicidal ? That based on its own implied premise, that I am not the one making an only claim. But that, in fact, inferred by own your own statement that I am REPLYING TO a claim-on-the-table that has already been made.

Thus how do you get off saying I'm the only making the claim here ? The title of the post, and the ensuing thread, ARE the "claim". I came on rather late in the game to challenge the notion.

I know why you are trying hard to say that I'm the only one making the claim though (and its very revealing and clever). Because you know full well that the burden of proof lies on the one making the (original) claim. So I'm actually tickled with your quote above. Because it shows, subconsciously ... that you know who holds the burden of proof