Digital cameras CAN see buried gold - Page 70
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 70 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast
Results 1,036 to 1,050 of 1478
Like Tree516Likes

Thread: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #1036
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    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!
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  2. #1037

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ....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".

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... 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.

  3. #1038

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ... 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.
    DizzyDigger likes this.

  4. #1039
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    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!
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  5. #1040

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... 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
    Last edited by Tom_in_CA; Mar 14, 2018 at 02:46 PM.

  6. #1041
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    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!
    Whoops I was wrong! I did make a claim! I claimed this doesn't work in the deserts & David was wrong. Not fair! I should've said my experiments & tests didn't work for me. Could be I wasn't doing something right or he had only been using it in his area. Anyway! There you go Sheldon I did make a claim! Feel better now! Yeah, thought you would........
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  7. #1042
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View Post
    boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:



    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 gold 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
    Good job Sheldon!!!!!!!! Whoops though! Sorry You keep telling me I need to provide undisputable proof of my claim. Nice twist my friend! The title hmmmm.... Didn't start the thread not my title so you need to be barking up OPs tree. Hey! gotta give you credit! That was a brilliant twist! Good job!!
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  8. #1043
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View Post
    boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:



    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 gold 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
    what is the "it" A system or technique to locate metals. No claims being made by me. I haven't been able to devote enough time to testing or experimenting to come up with some arrogant claim like it absolutely works. Take your blinders off, drop your arrogance, and see the thread was started to share information hints etc. Good twist! Here ya go! I'll give you a freebie! Here's my claim, pay attention now. I haven't done enough work & experimenting to be able to say it works 100%. Shucks I'll give you another! I need to get out in the field more so I can make a claim! Have fun!
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  9. #1044

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ... I haven't done enough work & experimenting to be able to say it works 100%....

    Ok, then. Since you'd sparred with me over my skepticism, I just assumed you were of the camp that it's "100%" . Since you're not making the assertion (100% anyhow), then...... ok then. Sounded like you were an adherent.

  10. #1045
    us
    Jul 2011
    Pocket dowsing L- Rods shown above. Whites Beach Comber, Bounty Hunter Sharp Shooter II, Whites TM 808, Canon 350D EOS Digital Rebel XT DSLR Camera.
    848
    306 times
    Metal Detecting
    Folks: Tom of CA is the one with a "notion". The rest of us know the truth as we have done, and are doing what Tom listed in post #1038. Thank you Tom. In fact, this is an incomplete listing and we are doing more by testing, testing, testing, and more testing.

    Tom of CA is like an old Grandma I once heard about. A man asked her grandson to invest $500.00 in his invention. Grandma told the Grandson not to as it would not work any way. So the Grand son did not invest in the new invention. The inventor was HENRY FORD and his cars. You fill in the blanks Tom of Ca.

    It's like the good book says: First comes the word (Keep and open mind to it), then act on the word (Study, testing, patience, diligence), then comes sure knowledge. Those of us who have done these things, and more, now have a sure knowledge of this technique.
    boogeyman likes this.
    Einstein said: I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time.

    If dowsing does not work, the Spanish would not have used it as much as they did.

    Practice makes perfect, even in dowsing.

  11. #1046
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View Post
    Ok, then. Since you'd sparred with me over my skepticism, I just assumed you were of the camp that it's "100%" . Since you're not making the assertion (100% anyhow), then...... ok then. Sounded like you were an adherent.
    There you go again. I can't figure you out!

    1. You have a serious reading comprehension problem?
    2. Your ego demands you to twist others comments to prove your always right.
    3. You're (I'd hope not) just an Alpha Henry that delights in trying to rile up other people.

    Ok, My statement.
    1. I wholeheartedly believe this technique does work. Period!
    2. I'm not 100% = Since I haven't been able to make it work 100% (not working for me in desert areas) I wouldn't feel good about standing up & making a claim!
    3. I haven't been able to put enough time into testing experimenting to make ANY claim. But I will keep trying to make progress as time permits.
    4. My firm belief is just because I haven't seen it or experienced it, that does not mean it doesn't exist! Sorry not that arrogant.

    Ok? I can't dumb it down any further. OK, WERE DONE HERE.
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  12. #1047
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Maybe this will help some of you that would like to try this. My neighbor saw me taking pictures of my planted gold. We got talking and he was interested and showed me his camera. He has a case with I think every filter known to man but his camera lens isn't threaded to accept a filter holder. We went to Depot and got the rubber part of a compression coupler showed him we could cut a strip of it to slide on his camera & slide a filter in the other end. He's got a video camera that has a lens with a smaller diameter than his filters. We found a gray rubber reducer I think for the line from a dishwasher to garbage disposer. A little tight but it worked! If you can't find a filter with the right diameter, you're not out of luck!

    I picked up some sheet rubber while we were there. Got to thinking my cell phone can be set to work with this. I could cut the hole needed in the rubber & just hold the filter over the lens with no light leaks. Anyone beat me to this idea?
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  13. #1048
    us
    Jun 2006
    Out in the hills near wherendaheckarwe
    WHITES, MINELAB, Garrett
    4,190
    2789 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Forgot! Was looking at some old Polaroid cameras yesterday and a lady told me she'd heard Polaroid was going to start making the film packs again. Anyone heard this? Any truth to it? Boy wouldn't that be cool!!!!!!
    I know it's here, just need a bigger coil!

    I think I know what my last words will be....
    "Hold my beer and watch this!"

  14. #1049

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Lesjcbs, let's look at your post, line-by-line :

    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    Folks: Tom of CA is the one with a "notion"....
    No. The "notion" is the thread's opening claim. It's the persons advancing an extraordinary claim (that cameras can be made to find gold) that bears the burden of proof. NOT the person who says "Prove it". You've heard the old addage: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. It's not on the skeptics to prove it DOESN'T work. It's on the claimants to prove it DOES work.

    Because, I remind you, even if someone knocked themselves silly trying to disprove a notion, it would never end. You would just say they're not using it right. Or need more practice. Or that moon-beams or solar sun spots must've affected the results that day. Etc.. etc... etc... In other words: No one can EVER disprove it (unless some sort of double-blind pre-agreed-upon set of specifics and standards to-the-claim were agreed to by both side at the outset. And even then I fear that ..... if the cameras failed, the excuses ("rigged/unfair tests, bad vibes", etc...) excuses would simply be rolled out.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    .... The rest of us know the truth as we have done,...
    Really ? You've been able to replicate this in a controlled setting, such that it's beyond "other plausible explanations", and can be shown to be a repeatable phenomenon ? WONDERFUL ! Now we're talking . Ok, I'm all ears: Where's the proof ?

    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    ..... we are doing more by testing, testing, testing, and more testing. .....
    Wait, I'm a little mystified. On the previous quote, it sounded like you'd gotten it mastered and proven. But now you're still in the test phase ? Hmmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    .... So the Grand son did not invest in the new invention. The inventor was HENRY FORD and his cars. You fill in the blanks Tom of Ca.....
    Lesjcbs, do you see the logical fallacy you just put forth ? Your analogy (Henry Ford) has a BIG implied implicit starting point, in order to qualify for the rest of your analogy. Namely: That it works. If it does, then yes, the Ford analogy works. Because, we all know from history, that Ford's invention worked, and you've been a fool to have not invested back then. But don't you see the logical fallacy here ? We're discussing whether this works or not. Your illustration simply ASSUMES it does. Ok, says who ? Where's the proof ?

    You are falling afoul of : " Assuming what you are trying to prove, as evidence for your proof of it". Only once you've proven your starting premise, can you invoke the Ford illustration.

    IN THE SAME WAY as if I gave you an example of someone who invested in a supposed new technology that turned out to be non-functional: The investor looses all his $$. If I gave you that illustration, you'd say: "That doesn't apply. Because this camera thing DOES work. Hence your bad-investment story is non-applicable". Right ? Thus so too is the good investment Ford story not applicable, till we've arrived at a starting premise of "this works".

    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    .....(Keep and open mind to it), then act on the word (Study, testing, patience, diligence), then comes sure knowledge. Those of us who have done these things, and more, now have a sure knowledge of this technique.
    This is 100% true, assuming a starting premise. That it works. If it doesn't work, then your statement falls apart. Once again this is assuming one's own point of view as a "given", when said-point-of-view has not even been proven yet in the first place.

    I have an open mind. As long as the evidence points to "it works". For example, I could say all the same things in your last quote regarding any absurd claim (Eg.: Tennis shoe covered in peanut butter finds treasure). I GUARANTEE you that you would not "study it" . Nor would you would not be "patient and diligent". You would not "have an open mind", etc... On the contrary: You'd say "hogwash". Right ? And the burden of proof would be on me to prove otherwise. You would have no obligation to study tennis shoes, lest you get pinned with the moniker "close-minded" and "non-patient", etc...
    Last edited by Tom_in_CA; Mar 16, 2018 at 03:34 PM.

  15. #1050

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10052 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Boogey: Dissecting your post :

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ....2. Your ego demands you to twist others comments to prove your always right.....
    This is odd. Seems to me that you're no less "trying to prove your right". Eh ? WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE. That's the purpose of a forum, eh ? To compare pro's and con's to see which methods work Versus which methods don't. And the pros & con's thereof . The finger (of "who thinks they're right") points both ways. You're no less certain of your views. And that's perfectly fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... I wholeheartedly believe this technique does work. Period.....
    But then you turn right around and say :
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... I'm not 100% = Since I haven't been able to make it work 100% ....
    See the contradiction ?

    As for the "making it work 100%" : Be careful of random odds. If you take enough pictures, at enough test landscapes, and eventually get a planted gold target to emit some certain glow or color, by fiddling and distorting lenses and filters : Be aware that pictures and objects could be random odds. Ie.: eventually, sure, you can get your test gold item to glow or show up in some way different than the surrounding objects. So you think "Aha! It worked". But this is subconsious memory bias. You're forgetting all the pix where nearby copper or aluminum or wood "glowed" a funny color too. Or the repeat test of the exact same pix, where you took 2 steps to the left, and did not get the phenomenon to repeat. Don't you see how you might just be getting random odds ?

    Similar to some who points my tennis shoe treasure device at enough ruins and likely spots. Then dig enough holes (using a detector to pinpoint). And then .. let's say, you one-day find a treasure. Ok, did that mean the tennis shoe worked ? Or was digging enough holes around enough likely ruins bound to fall on the random odds ? So too would I be cautious of any individual uncanny results of someone thinking gold came out on film different. Unless it can be repeated in double-blind staged tests: It could be random odds of normal picture variances.


    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ...just because I haven't seen it or experienced it, that does not mean it doesn't exist! .....
    Ok, let's try that out in-the-real-world. Apply your above statement to the following assertion: "unicorns" (or Godzilla, or leprechauns, or ... whatever) exist. Boogeyman has neither seen nor experienced them. Yet I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you'd say "hogwash. Those things don't exist" (barring proof to the contrary). Right ?

    Thus: Do see the logical self-implosion of the above statement, when applied to anything else ?

 

 
Page 70 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... 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