Digital cameras CAN see buried gold - Page 72
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 72 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 1,066 to 1,080 of 1478
Like Tree516Likes

Thread: Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #1066

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... childish behaviors. ...
    Childish behavior is defined as anything that shows weaknesses in your viewpoint. Got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    .... Folks, go over to the Dowsing forums and you'll see the same childish behaviors. He's been warned by the mods over there,...
    Guess what the difference between that forum and other forums is ? Only affirming viewpoints are allowed there. To that extent, sure, the mod's came clear on that. Fine. You'll get nothing to challenge the dowsing . What does that have to do with here ? This unconventional method in this section of "techniques" is not limited to only an affirming view. So .... what's your point ?

    As for the beginning of the thread, where you say there's posts that prove the workability of this camera/gold system, which particular post #'s are you referring to ? I recall no such proof. But if you can direct me to the #, I will address them.

  2. #1067
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by WesP View Post
    How many people have posted of a sucessful outcome using this method? Surely in almost ten years there has been more then one or two.
    Wes:

    Ifyou listen to Tom of CA, you will get no where with this technique. To see how this technique works, watch the following videos:





    These are what Tom hopes everyone never see.


    Enjoy.
    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.

  3. #1068

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    ...These are what Tom hopes everyone never see....
    Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


    At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

    2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

    Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

    It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

    This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

    I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

    Got any better "proof" ?
    Last edited by Tom_in_CA; Mar 17, 2018 at 06:22 PM.

  4. #1069
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View Post
    Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


    At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

    2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

    Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

    It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

    This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

    I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

    Got any better "proof" ?
    and more.. Be careful who you follow WesP.
    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.

  5. #1070
    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
    Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


    At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

    2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

    Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

    It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

    This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

    I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

    Got any better "proof" ?
    Oh come on Sheldon! you aren't even trying anymore It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?
    You're using the same old junk from the dowsing forum......... Next thing you're gonna want a commission in the Cornell division of the Randi's elite force of regurgitators. Come on man I know you can do better!

    We're still waiting for you to answer, Why this technique doesn't work! Man! You've had plenty of time to present your evidence for your claim it doesn't work. You demand proof yet you refuse to present your evidence. Here we go folks! Let's see the twist on that. Tom you can have a day or so, might be time for your nap. I know I know it's a real pain to have to go out & drive to cover vacations etc.
    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!"

  6. #1071
    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
    Boogey:

    I do believe the distance to the tent stake from where he is taking photographs is more than what he says. I put it at around 30 or maybe 40 yards. But his interpretation of what is in the enhanced pictures are accurate.

    In post #5 on page #1 of this thread, Midas talks about seeing a target at 170 yards away and he shows that picture in his book. What this means is since it is detection at a distance, by definition, this technique is long range locating (LRL) at its best.
    Last edited by lesjcbs; Mar 17, 2018 at 07:40 PM. Reason: Adding relevant information.
    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.

  7. #1072

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ....You're using the same old junk from the dowsing forum........
    Well I can't imagine why. Hmmm, how about : Because they both fall victim to the same explainable reasons ?


    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    ....We're still waiting for you to answer, Why this technique doesn't work!... .
    Huh ? I'm still waiting for you to explain why the burden of proof is on me ? The burden of proof is on the one who's made the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And those videos, as I've shown/explained, have more plausible explanations.

  8. #1073
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View Post
    Well I can't imagine why. Hmmm, how about : Because they both fall victim to the same explainable reasons ?




    Huh ? I'm still waiting for you to explain why the burden of proof is on me ? The burden of proof is on the one who's made the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And those videos, as I've shown/explained, have more plausible explanations.
    OK Tom, without trying to prove anything, tell us why you have the notion this technique does not work? .
    Last edited by lesjcbs; Mar 17, 2018 at 07:49 PM.
    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.

  9. #1074

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    .... tell us why you have the notion this technique does not work? .
    Because no credible evidence has come forward showing that it does.

  10. #1075
    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
    Because no credible evidence has come forward showing that it does.
    Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......
    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!"

  11. #1076
    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
    Boogey:

    I do believe the distance to the tent stake from where he is taking photographs is more than what he says. I put it at around 30 or maybe 40 yards. But his interpretation of what is in the enhanced pictures are accurate.

    In post #5 on page #1 of this thread, Midas talks about seeing a target at 170 yards away and he shows that picture in his book. What this means is since it is detection at a distance, by definition, this technique is long range locating (LRL) at its best.
    I see your point. As far as classing it as LRL I'm not ready to go that far. That's just my opinion from my experiments. Doesn't mean it is or isn't. I'll go back and look when I can. This is my "in the field laptop" and the screen resolution stinks. I've only been able to experiment in my test area so far. Like I said, this has been back of the shelve for me due to several other projects. What it'd take for me is getting out in a larger area & test for distance. If you can, can you give me some input or ideas why I get no (nothing zip nada)positive results in desert terrain? I don't think it's just location related as I've tried in Calif. Nevada, and Arizona. For that matter, anyone feel free to jump in with your ideas or experience. Thanks!

    Tom you don't need to bother. You have 0.0% experience so your input means nothing to me.
    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. #1077
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......
    Boogey:

    He is in a denial state of mind and cannot progress or be added to in knowledge. Not being added to is a way of saying to be stopped which has been his condition from the moment he joined this thread up to the present time. Anyone who follows him will be the same way.

    First you hear the word, then you act on it, then comes the sure knowledge of the word. He has heard the word but he has failed to act on it for himself and thus remains ignorant and will remain so until he changes. Thus, he is not credited for anything of value.
    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.

  13. #1078

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......
    boogey-person, how is it a "bold statement" to say that no evidence has been forthcoming ? All you need to do, to shoot my statement down, is to ....... drumroll ......: show evidence. If you did, then yes: My statement would be "pretty bold", non-credible, leaving me with 0.0% credibility, and acting like I'm almighty. So how is my statement pretty "bold" ? I'd say it's just stating the status of the conversation at this point.

    Lesjcbs did a good job of putting some effort on the table. For which I am thankful. I studied it, & found it lacking, lending itself to more plausible explanations, and inconclusive. Heck, the video author himself said that too !


    If you'd like me to go back and .... point by point refer you to the time-stamps of where these admissions occur, let me know. But I would request that if I take the time to listen/watch again for nearly 30 min. videos to provide you the time-stamps, that we agree ahead of time: That if I show the author did acknowledge these short-comings, that you admit , likewise, that this is not conclusive evidence. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my 30 minutes catching time-stamps to pass on to you.

    Please remember that the burden of proof is on the side of the person making the claim. Not the person skeptical of the claim. UNLESS the person being skeptical had been shown point-blank-proof, yet failed to give a rationale response, then yes, the burden would be on me to explain how the "proof" being shown to me lacks merit. If my thoughts on the video's lack of merits doesn't hold water, then please let me know how my observations were in error.

    I believe I did a good job at answering the videos Lesjcbs posted. I really didn't even need to comment much on those. Since, as said, the author/maker himself pretty much acknowledged that it has no rhyme or reason. And I believe I gave a good example of how selective memory bias could produce the fanciful blotches he thinks he sees.

  14. #1079
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by boogeyman View Post
    I see your point. As far as classing it as LRL I'm not ready to go that far. That's just my opinion from my experiments. Doesn't mean it is or isn't. I'll go back and look when I can. This is my "in the field laptop" and the screen resolution stinks. I've only been able to experiment in my test area so far. Like I said, this has been back of the shelve for me due to several other projects. What it'd take for me is getting out in a larger area & test for distance. If you can, can you give me some input or ideas why I get no (nothing zip nada)positive results in desert terrain? I don't think it's just location related as I've tried in Calif. Nevada, and Arizona. For that matter, anyone feel free to jump in with your ideas or experience. Thanks!

    Tom you don't need to bother. You have 0.0% experience so your input means nothing to me.
    I will PM you my answer as I do have one I think will help. True, we don't need Toms 0.0% experience input.
    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.

  15. #1080

    Mar 2007
    Salinas, CA
    Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
    13,667
    10056 times
    Banner Finds (4)
    Quote Originally Posted by lesjcbs View Post
    Boogey:

    He is in a denial state of mind and cannot progress or be added to in knowledge. Not being added to is a way of saying to be stopped which has been his condition from the moment he joined this thread up to the present time. Anyone who follows him will be the same way.

    First you hear the word, then you act on it, then comes the sure knowledge of the word. He has heard the word but he has failed to act on it for himself and thus remains ignorant and will remain so until he changes. Thus, he is not credited for anything of value.
    I have read this through 3 times. Looking long and hard for something of substance to lend itself to the matter of "can cameras that can see buried gold/silver ?". But alas, nothing there

    Nothing except to dismiss anyone that doesn't agree (who asks for evidence anyhow) as being in a denial state of mind, non-progressive, lacking knowledge, ignorant, adding nothing of value, etc.... All of which can be termed as name-calling (eg.: "your mother wears army boots"). Yet .... alas, .... nothing to lend to the conversation. Except to assume one's own conclusion, as proof of their evidence for it.

 

 
Page 72 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... 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

camera for gold detector
,
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
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0