Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[GUESS-WHO]

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.

Maybe they appear negative to you, because they don't serve your agenda? Ya know....kinda like how crooks/criminals don't particularly care for Law Enforcement Officers, and call them names? Stop being a hater and add to the thread in a positive nature

Crooks/criminals? Who said I was talking about you SWR? Like I said I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with others that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here with negative comments.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[GUESS-WHO]

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.

Maybe they appear negative to you, because they don't serve your agenda? Ya know....kinda like how crooks/criminals don't particularly care for Law Enforcement Officers, and call them names? Stop being a hater and add to the thread in a positive nature

Crooks/criminals? Who said I was talking about you SWR? Like I said I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with others that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here with negative comments.

Poor wording, I am not implying that you are a crook or a criminal SWR. I just meant what makes you think that I was referring to you when I was replying to Don Jose de La Mancha?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Morning guess who: Bk, was extremely busy. Gracias.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GUESS-WHO]

Morning guess who: Bk, was extremely busy. Gracias.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Good morning Don Jose de La Mancha ~ It's refreshing to see theories put forth without all the silly name calling. I'm on the fence with this one. I asked the author of the book if he would check a photo if I sent him one, but he has not responded.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning swr, I have multitudes of books in my library which take the opposite sides on almost any subject For example, from Randi being a saint to to being a proven liar and pedophile. So to me, basing your faith or belief on any 'one' book, pro or con, is rediculous. A good book should open your mind to further investigation, not close it.

swr, you also stated -->In review...'.some us did give it a try'. All of us have had crappy results.
**************

May I ask you just what did 'you' do and what equipment did you use, and under which conditions?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Hardscrabble]

This has probably been answered in this thread already, and excuse my ignorance... I would imagine that gold is a very stable element therefore (comparatively speaking) there would be very little "decay" to register on anything. Also, it doesn't "outgas" and radiation, etc. (electromagnetic energy) has little effect upon it - at least I think so since it's used for shielding in space. So, other than some sort of heat differential because of its mass, what is the picture "seeing" exactly? Thanks.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI hardscrabble one: Now you are acting like a true investigative scientist, asking questions, seeking new data and answers where there possibly are none 'yet', instead of simply saying "it can't work. pseudo science".

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. Your other post regarding bull ----- doesn't give you any laurels, but this one does

 

[Hardscrabble]

Don Jose... can't anybody take a joke around here? Besides, I think my thread is entirely appropriate. Where else can you get your bulltwinkle and a grain of salt? I provided one. Lighten up folks! Like some of you guys never dug a dry hole. Gotta have a sense of humor.

 

[GUESS-WHO]

Hi Hardscrabble ~ I think Don Jose was paying you a compliment. The "It's pseudo science bullcrap" people that have nothing positive or constructive to add to any threads on this site are a just a boring waste of time, so I just use the ignore user function with respect to their useless comments. I can see that you are probably inclined to think that this digital camera thing does not work, but I tend to agree with Don Jose that your last comment about this was your best one. I agree about a sense of humor, but I can see how the bullwinkle thing might be misinterpreted. I have no idea if the digital camera thing works or not but I am open to anything that might have some sort of scientific basis that has a possibility of working. At this point, I'm inclined to think that this falls into the may be possible but i don't know for sure one way or the other realm.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Morning HS: Unfortunately that is all that the so called sceptics have been capable of posting so far. since they cannot answer / discuss simple theoretical questions, they degrade into personal remarks or simple ignore.

After a period, the advocates just get tired and respond the same way.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Hardscrabble]

10claw... what the h-e-double toothpicks did you say?

 

[Hardscrabble]

Don Jose... seriously though, exactly what are the metals in question (gold for example) emitting that gets picked up? As I stated before, I would think that gold is pretty stable. That being said, I could more see some device emitting waves that somehow "excite" the metal at the molecular level and in the process spark radiation (popping electrons?). In that case what would be detected are those particle emissions. But, wouldn't that take some pretty fancy and powerful equipment to accomplish - if it's even possible?

 

[boogeyman]

As far as expensive and complicated equipment goes, not too many years ago if you told someone you were going to take pictures without any film & send them out for the whole world to see you'd of gotten laughed off your bar stool. Can we really say what can / can't be accomplished with a camera and a handful of filters? I have the book & filters, but haven't had enough time to do any REAL experimenting. But now with cooler weather and a little more time I'll prusue this further after the holidays.

I still haven't gotten a decent answer from the nay sayers, skeptics, scientist wanna be's etc.

Question: Why exactly won't it work. Can you show me positive proof it won't work?

Seems some of my earlier posts got lost/deleted. But I'm still asking the question. I got a couple of vague article clippings from the skeptics but nothing definitive proving this technique absolutely will not work.

 

[Zephyr]

Don Jose... seriously though, exactly what are the metals in question (gold for example) emitting that gets picked up? As I stated before, I would think that gold is pretty stable. That being said, I could more see some device emitting waves that somehow "excite" the metal at the molecular level and in the process spark radiation (popping electrons?). In that case what would be detected are those particle emissions. But, wouldn't that take some pretty fancy and powerful equipment to accomplish - if it's even possible?

Or the gold could be reflecting natural rays. In which case, narrowing down the wavelengths (visible and otherwise) that AU reflects would be a good start. Then it becomes an equipment issue (and lots of experimentation....)

 

[boogeyman]

I still haven't gotten a decent answer from the nay sayers, skeptics, scientist wanna be's etc.

Question: Why exactly won't it work. Can you show me positive proof it won't work?

There isn't a decent answer for proving a negative.

A better question would be...why will it work. Can you show me positive proof it will work??

Those questions are answerable. There are no known scientific principles validating it works. There is no positive proof it will work.

Other than some internet banter, and the promise from the author it will work...there is nothing definitive proving this technique absolutely will work

Like I said I'm working on this as time permits, either way I'm going at it with an open mind eiter way.
This is the type of answers you get from the skeptics, nothing just a re-direct or flipping it back to you. If you are completely positive it can't work, I'd assume you've done some pretty extensive research yourself possibly with some help from the scientists over at the Randi Foundation. And you have some pretty good documentation showing that it does in fact not work. I still would like someone to answer my question without the re-directs. True I haven't done enough with the system to prove it will work on a consistent basis or not but I would like YOU to show me the research it doesn't. Seems you must know quite a bit about this system, please share your facts with us might save us some time in our own research.

SWR Please please please! What ever you do! Don't go past Catalina and fall off the edge of the earth! I'd really miss your posts! (with a friendly joking tone of voice).

 

[boogeyman]

Excuse me?!?! Did SWR just make an assumption? I have purchased a copy of the book and recieved another copy as a gift. Bantering about unknowns?!?! Like I said, Skeptics will never directly answer your questions, always a mis-direction, a reply with another question, attacking your knowledge or experience etc etc.

Simply, I asked. Since you're so absolutely positive this system will not work please show me some definate documentation or a "scientific" study showing why it "will not work". If you're so committed to your beliefs there should be some sort of science proving your statement. The rest of us are at least trying this method with open minds.
Hmm.. Wonder if SWR thinks metal detectors are a bunch of Hoo Doo too since they shoot unseen waves of energy into the ground to locate metal objects. You can't put your hands on these magical waves eminating from these metal detectors or see these magical waves so they are Hoo Doo and a metal detector can't possibly work.

Open your mind and open your possibilities.

 

[Mr.Jody]

so does it work or not?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morming swr, back: you posted --> There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground. Science is beyond such silliness.
***********

Interesting, I suppose that also covers taking a picture of where a living being was yesterday by means of their residual frequency also? hmmm

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

 

[EE THr]

There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground.

There is evidence that digital cameras are sensitive to a wider spectrum than the human eye.

They will show UV light as bright white. I noticed this when pointing one (I don't remember if it was a video or still camera) into our kitchen one day, while there was a bug catcher that used UV to suck flies into a water trap. There was just a big white light where the bug catcher sat.

Someone mentioned that the digital pickups are also sensitive to IR. I haven't checked how mine react to IR; but I know that some cameras emit IR as a light source, and have an IR video mode.

So, at least half of your statement above is incorrect.

Maybe what you meant to say was that you "believe there is no evidence that the presence of gold underground can result in detectable changes in light above that ground."

Is that what you meant to say?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI swr, you posted -->"Trying to prove a negative is a silly circular argument. There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground. Science is beyond such silliness."
***************

Odd, but, "there is no scientific principle' is a negative statement, no?

Don Jose de La Mancha