Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

.... There have been many posts in the past on this thread by people showing the results of their tests, some even showed the retrieved target.....

Yes. I acknowledge that. And I have frequently called that "anecdotal" , as you'll recall.

"Anecdotal" = personal testimony, etc.... Not subjected to tests for more-plausible explanations, not double blind, etc.... In the same way we couldn't conclude big foot, or Loch-ness, or abducted by aliens, despite the MANY grainy photographs and insistent people who claim to have experienced or seen strange things.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[lesjcbs]

Evidence, even anecdotal evidence against no evidence wins the case.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Evidence, even anecdotal evidence against no evidence wins the case.

Ok. And would you apply this same standard of proof/evidence to other phenomenons that the general public might claim ?

 

[lesjcbs]

If you are a judge, yes as that is the standard until proof is presented to the contrary, and that has not happened. Like I said twice already, if it did, I missed the post.

So, until such evidence is posted explaining how it does not work, the verdict stands.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you are a judge, yes as that is the standard until proof is presented to the contrary,....

Interesting. Ok. Then let's say that you are the "judge". Someone comes to you , saying they saw Elvis alive. Their proof is: They show you a picture they snapped of him on the streets of Las Vegas last week. A splitting image likeness ! And they even got a tape recording of the voice of the person, and it certainly sounds like Elvis' voice.

You can not prove the picture WASN'T Elvis. You can't go to the grave and dig it up to test DNA of bones, d/t the next of kin deny your request to dig up the grave.

Thus, in your absence of proof that it ISN'T Elvis in that last week's pix and tape-recording, then by your standards: You would accept that it is Elvis ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Also, interestingly, if this standard for "anecdotal evidence" is court-room worthy like that: Then we would have to equally accept that pictures, where NO glows or lights were seen, is therefore equal evidence that the system doesn't work.

In other words: "anecdotal" and "random chance odds" claim: Can work both ways. Both for or against a proposition. The hypothetical judge, that you speak of, would equally have to accept the photograph that shows no glow.

That is why there needs to be more than anecdotal , both for, OR against, a proposition.

 

[lesjcbs]

That is right, but that is not what has happened in this thread.

Several posts show target's retrieved. So, it works for me, why not for you would be the final question that would
override no images at all and would win the case

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Several posts show target's retrieved. So, it works for me, why not for you ...

Ok, then to expand on the analogy, what would be wrong with this :

"Several posts show pix of Elvis walking the streets of Vegas alive. So it works for me, why not for you ..."

You would probably say: It's *more plausible* that there's another explanation for the Elvis seen on the streets. Right ?

Hence I too am waiting for a bit better evidence than anecdotal pictures. In the same way you'd probably wait for better evidence of Elvis = alive. Right ?

 

[XLV]

Tom your wasting your time .......these scams cost countless lives and dollars to stupid treasure hunters that are brain dead enough to believe in LRL dowsing and cameras finding gold

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok, then to expand on the analogy, what would be wrong with this :

"Several posts show pix of Elvis walking the streets of Vegas alive. So it works for me, why not for you ..."

You would probably say: It's *more plausible* that there's another explanation for the Elvis seen on the streets. Right ?

Hence I too am waiting for a bit better evidence than anecdotal pictures. In the same way you'd probably wait for better evidence of Elvis = alive. Right ?

To the one with the Elvis pix I would say, "Bring your LIVE Elvis in to court." To the one showing a pix of a retrieved target I would say: "Bring your target in to court."

BTW 666, I paid just a little over $20.00 for the book and no one has died from it.

If anyone is wasting time, it's me. But, for now, I don't mind,

 

[Tom_in_CA]

To the one with the Elvis pix I would say, "Bring your LIVE Elvis in to court."...

Aaahhhh, Ok. We're getting somewhere ! So you would agree the anecdotal evidence (last week's pix of Elvis walking down the Las Vegas strip) is not sufficient to prove Elvis is alive. You would want further proof. Eg.: Bringing Elvis to court, in this case.

SO TOO is it with our view of the unconventional TH'ing methods . (this camera method and ... uh .... certain others).

Sure: The anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies are interesting. And it may someday be proved that: The seeming results are not chalked up to other more plausible explanations. But without careful replicated tests (like bringing Elvis into court), then ... as you can see: Even you now agree that the evidence needs to be a little more scientific, for peer review.

 

[signal_line]

If the evidence was scientific then this thread would not be here. LOL

I realize people think they can change other people. That is not how it works. You can't change ANYONE. If a person is to change, the only way is if they are SICK AND TIRED OF THE WAY THEY ARE.

There is an expression, "If you think is is easy to change other people, just try and change yourself."

Even my saying this is totally futile (for both sides of this argument). LOL But maybe other people who have not set their thoughts in concrete might consider this.

 

[lesjcbs]

Aaahhhh, Ok. We're getting somewhere ! So you would agree the anecdotal evidence (last week's pix of Elvis walking down the Las Vegas strip) is not sufficient to prove Elvis is alive. You would want further proof. Eg.: Bringing Elvis to court, in this case.

SO TOO is it with our view of the unconventional TH'ing methods . (this camera method and ... uh .... certain others).

Sure: The anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies are interesting. And it may someday be proved that: The seeming results are not chalked up to other more plausible explanations. But without careful replicated tests (like bringing Elvis into court), then ... as you can see: Even you now agree that the evidence needs to be a little more scientific, for peer review.

For you and other skeptics (doubting Thomas types), this is true.

This makes skeptics slow in learning and even slower in finding the truth.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... this is true.

This makes skeptics slow in learning and even slower in finding the truth.

Strangely: Most people would consider "following the evidence to where it most likely points", to be the FASTEST in learning. And the MOST LIKELY way to find the truth. But .... oh well.

 

[lesjcbs]

The truth of this technique has already been published and used successfully by others than the author in this thread.

Try being optimistic for once Tom, and new and wonderful things about the world around you will open up to you.

Until then, you will remain stuck in a never ending loop of doubt, skepticism, and unanswered questions, all of which will put you way behind in finding the truth.

Not a good way to be.

 

[Grizz12]

I didnt read all 87 pages, did anyone spend a few bucks on a filter and give it a shot or did everyone just use this as a reason to complain about something

 

[lesjcbs]

I didnt read all 87 pages, did anyone spend a few bucks on a filter and give it a shot or did everyone just use this as a reason to complain about something

Yes, I bought the book, a camera, filter / s, and a tripod. The technique works well with camera in hand, but works slightly better with hands off, on a tripod, and set to a10 second shutter delay. There is no camera shake when on a tripod.

 

[Carl-NC]

I didnt read all 87 pages, did anyone spend a few bucks on a filter and give it a shot or did everyone just use this as a reason to complain about something

Yeah, here's my experience in Post 1127.

Also Post 1095.

 

[lesjcbs]

Cybercore, the concept of treasure auras is a farce. Pretend. Make-believe. Tain't try real. That said, if you want to join in the game, then you probably should get the recommended equipment.

David Villanueva (DV) recommends a Canon EOS 350D. If you get anything else and fail, this will be pointed out as the cause. Next, get an IR (pass) filter and attach to the lens; DV recommends a 720nm Cokin (square frame, probably A-style). Because the camera has a built-in IR blocking filter, at this point the two filters are blocking almost all the light to the sensor, across the entire spectrum. The resulting images will be extremely dark; pass them through gamma-correction software and, voila!, you have auras.

The "auras" you get are actually the result of luminance noise caused by too little light getting to the sensor. You can eliminate them by taking long exposure times, but that also eliminates the fun, which is why DV never recommends it. As I mentioned in a previous post, luminance noise is just as likely to show up photographing dog turds as buried treasure.

If you want to truly experiment with IR, then here's an alternative:

1. Get a camera with a CCD sensor. The Canon uses a CMOS sensor, and CCD has better low-light and IR sensitivity. My personal choice is a Minolta 7D, but they are almost collector items now. A possible good (and cheap) choice is a Sony Alpha A100, the follow-on after Sony bought Minolta. Should work just as well but I've never tried it.

2. Remove the internal IR filter. DV says Don't Do This, but if auras are really in the infrared region like he claims then it makes no sense to intentionally kill the IR light coming in, except for the fact that it produces luminance noise and people can pretend they are auras. There is plenty of info on the web as to how to remove the filter. You could replace it with an IR-pass filter (lots of IR photographers do this), but I recommend a glass spacer, and doing all the filtering at the front of the lens.

3. Get a variety of IR pass filters for the lens. Play around with the normal camera settings, and you will get some stunning IR photographs. Cut way back on the exposure time, or maybe throw in an IR blocking filter, and you can get a really dark image that can be post-processed to reveal either an aura or luminance noise. Depending on whether you were photographing buried gold or a dog turd.

While treasure auras are a bunch of made-up nonsense, IR photography is itself fascinating. And people have used IR imaging to look at ground density variations, to locate old roads, foundations, and the like. That is to say, IR is not useless in treasure hunting, but pretending it produces treasure auras is.

Here's my experience with this technique: lots of false orbs and from working this technique, I have come to pretty much know when they are false orbs. So the challenge is to know the difference.

I now quote directly from my MD instruction manual page 15: "You may encounter false signals as you proceed. False signals occur when the detector beeps, but no metal target is present."

It then goes on and explains why this happens and how to know when it happens. There is no mention about getting a different detector and modifying it.

So, how does one come to know the difference when it occurs? It's just like getting to know your MD; practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice then practice, practice, and practice even more.

It's as simple as that.

 

[XLV]

ive seen first hand many times LRL , dowsing , and digtal cameras used in scams to rip of investors ,,,and dont think that this B.S don't cost lives.... because where am at people will die digging to china in believing your orb stories ...