Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

.... and each group thinks the other group is batcrap crazy...

And the law of non-contradiction says that each one can not be right at the same time, in the same way. So which one is "batcrap crazy" ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

.... mark all of the water lines, (for the other homes) burried electrical cables and gas lines. ...

Hi Bill. Last I checked, this was a forum called "Treasurenet". Not "water net" or "utility-net". Whenever the subject of dowsing for goodies (gold, silver, etc... ) comes up, someone is sure to mention (like you here now) a case they saw someone dowse for water. And or (in your case here) utility lines of other sorts.

There's youtube videos of water dowsers failing to produce anything more than random chance. But let's just assume for sake of argument that what you saw/heard is true:

a) why aren't any of them claiming the prize money (the answer is in post # 759 above). And ...

b) Ok, great, what does this have to do with treasure ?

If the day comes that we see the proponents of this posting their finds on the "today's finds" show & tell section (like md'rs routinely do), then wake me up. I'll take a look. But they won't. And they have all their "go to" reasons to make them impenetrable:

1) we fear the IRS (funny, md'rs, even with some mighty valuable stuff, do so all the time)

2) we fear thieves (funny, md'rs never seem to fear that, and post show & tell all the time)

3) durned those sun spots anyhow.

4) We don't need to prove anything. Sure. ok. But then why do you whine when skeptics snicker at you for participating in nothing more than hocus pocus ? Prove it in double blind tests, and let's put the matter to rest once for all !

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom in Ca.:


To the best of my knowledge, yes,dowsing has not been proven under strict scientific protocol, and it probably never will. But that is by no means the last word. The finds in the field outside of strict scientific protocols fly into the face of science and are the last word.


Let me put it this way. Why is it we do not drive our cars down runways and lift of the ground and flyaway like we do in airplanes? Why is it we do not drive airplanes down freeways and streets like we do our family cars when we go to the mall? After all, they both have rubber tires, are made from the same materials, both have radios, both have engines, both have lights, both have seats, but most important of all, both gets you to where you want to go.


To put dowsing in a test the same way you would an electronic metal detector is an invalid protocol and therefore an invalid test. The reason is simple, like airplanes and cars, they work on different principles and methods.


Still the same, yes, when I started counting my hits, I in fact have found more than 300 items while dowsing. Would you like to say 300 consecutive finds / hits was a random thing?


Lets move this conversation over to the dowsing forum. See you there.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I've found as much as $400 by walking along and looking where I was walking. That was in a wallet (woman never even said "thank you"). On other occasions I have found three $20 bills. Also many coins, rings and other jewelry were found with my Mk I Eyeball before my detector passed over them.

Perhaps your "300 items" could have been found just as easily as by random looking. For gold to be apparent to a digital camera it would have to be line-of-sight and on he surface. So just walking around paying attention may work even better. Maybe I should charge folks $20 for a sheet of tips on how to be observant when walking.

I have taken many thousands of digital images. Many thousands of silver-halide film images before that. I worked for Ilford USA for several years. Film reacts to wavelengths in the visual spectrum. As do light sensors in cameras. The human eye can only see certain wavelengths whether in real life, digital or reproduced formats. Cameras CAN be used to change other wavelengths into our visual wavelengths - but we're not seeing UV or IR. We are seeing UV and IR shifted to were we can see it. A filter will not do that. Filters remove. They do not add.

 

[PirateLabs]

Hi Bill. Last I checked, this was a forum called "Treasurenet". Not "water net" or "utility-net".

Really?

 

[boogeyman]

Lesjcbs, on the one hand, you acknowledge this:



And on the next hand, you acknowledge this:



Huh ? Then why (oh why oh why oh why) haven't you simply collected this challenge reward money ? If it works, as you say, then certainly it should be child's play to collect the challenge $ ?


Then you say this:




This is not true. It has been double blind tested ample times by skeptics. And shown to have no attraction to precious metals. But the dowser proponents promptly dismiss the results. With come-back lines like:

a) the tester "didn't have the gift".

b) durned those sun spots anyhow

c) You have to "believe". And thus doesn't work for "skeptics" (huh ? sounds "spiritual" to me, if someone says that !).

d) The tester "needs more practice". If he tried it for a week, he should do it for a month. If he tried it for a month, it should be a year. If he tried for a year, he needs 5 yrs. practice. And so on and so forth to infinity. In the same way md'rs "don't find gold coins on their first trip out", so too do dowsers "need practice" (why the double standard for dowsers after all ?).

So you see lesjcbs, no amount of time trying to test dowsing will satisfy the dowser proponents. There's always these simple impenetrable webs of go-to reasons why they/you will dismiss the tests.

That is why the skeptics have put the burden of proof on the supposed successful dowsers, for THEM to show that it works. But at this point, the "impenetrable web" of excuses will show up as to why the proponents don't accept the challenge:

1) durned those sun spots anyhow

2) the observing scientists had magnets in their pockets to foil the results

3) The observers "didn't believe" thus bringing "bad vibes" into the test scenarios, thus foiling the results. (hmm, sounds "spiritual" to me !)

4) The successful dowser will adamantly claim results, yet decline to be tested. Because, he will say, "I don't have to prove anything to anyone". Besides the test criteria were unfair, etc...

But rest assured, it HAS been tested by scientists. Via mutually agreed upon test criteria. Done with supposed accomplished dowsers (so don't try the "wasn't experienced enough" come-back line). And in each case, shown to be nothing more than random chance.

If I'm wrong, and you can do it, then why aren't you stepping up to show a skeptical world, and claim some prize money ? I know, it's because of the above (a) to (d) and (1) to (4) reasons. Right ?

Tom,
"It has been double blind tested ample times by skeptics. " Are you referring to the Great Randi and his skeptic society crew?

Their methods of testing were stacked so badly even god couldn't pass their test methods. I'm not a real believer in psychics, but a girl was brought in to do the test, and as expected she failed and his million $ were safe. The reason she failed? There was a hole under a rack of electronics for cabling to pass through. A 2" dia hole down by the baseboard under a rack of electronics 3/4 full of cabling and the girl managed to see her mother flashing hand signals!?!?! And we're supposed to take these skeptics more seriously than the folks being tested There's lots more accounts of his / their testing that'll have you rolling on the floor.

I think what everyone misses is look at everything we didn't know 50 years ago, then look at what's being discovered everyday now.

If you go at ANYTHING in life with a it's all BS it won't work attitude I can guarantee nothing will work. What about history? WE know the Spanish were pretty smart and clever. We see all the drawings showing them dowsing with rods forked sticks and dip needles. History tells of the Spanish running out in the mountains around Pueblo looking for "the lights" with some success. If it didn't work don't you think they would've thrown away the tools a hundred years or so ago?

Same with cameras. Most people I've seen poo pooing the technique have tried once or twice and said "Yup it Don't work!" One mistake you'll notice is digital cameras have a UV filter built in. Unless you mod the camera or have it modded it doesn't matter what or how many filters you stack! If you have a handful of UV filters or gels try this. Put your camera on a tripod pointing at your area of interest. Take several shots with each filter and compare them. No change? There you go! Now stack all the filters and try it. No change? Maybe just a little darker? This is like trying to drive finishing nails with a sledge hammer! Yup it don't work. Ok, now we know what doesn't work, how about trying it with the proper tools and techniques instead of beating the it don't work horse to death?

Charlie, I don't think you ever told us how many attempts at doing this. Have you tried this more than once or twice? Have you experimented with different equipment or technique? How can you say for sure it doesn't work as adamantly as you do? Not to be a jerk, but to me it looks like you're looking at a jelly bean and just because it's blue you just know it's grape without tasting it.

 

[lesjcbs]

I've found as much as $400 by walking along and looking where I was walking. That was in a wallet (woman never even said "thank you"). On other occasions I have found three $20 bills. Also many coins, rings and other jewelry were found with my Mk I Eyeball before my detector passed over them.

Perhaps your "300 items" could have been found just as easily as by random looking. For gold to be apparent to a digital camera it would have to be line-of-sight and on he surface. So just walking around paying attention may work even better. Maybe I should charge folks $20 for a sheet of tips on how to be observant when walking.

I have taken many thousands of digital images. Many thousands of silver-halide film images before that. I worked for Ilford USA for several years. Film reacts to wavelengths in the visual spectrum. As do light sensors in cameras. The human eye can only see certain wavelengths whether in real life, digital or reproduced formats. Cameras CAN be used to change other wavelengths into our visual wavelengths - but we're not seeing UV or IR. We are seeing UV and IR shifted to were we can see it. A filter will not do that. Filters remove. They do not add.

Charlie: No, I made it a point to NOT COUNT those items that were on the surface and that could be seen with the naked eye as a hit.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....To the best of my knowledge, yes,dowsing has not been proven under strict scientific protocol, and it probably never will. But that is by no means the last word. The finds in the field outside of strict scientific protocols fly into the face of science.....

Why would those finds fly in the face of "outside strict scientific protocols". Are you acknowleging these finds are OUTSIDE scientific protocols ? Sure. I'll concede that But the problem is, you've entered into the world of magic and spirituality . That's fine. But then you also can't dismiss studying bird entrails, doing seances, using ouji boards to find treasures, etc.... Right ?

Go right ahead. But then don't turn around and say it's "scientific". Don't turn around and say there is some sort of scientifically explainable attraction rationale.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Perhaps your "300 items" could have been found just as easily as by random looking.....

Say it isn't so.

Charlie: No, I made it a point to NOT COUNT those items that were on the surface and that could be seen with the naked eye as a hit.

Here's where the trick of selective memory is at play. No one remembers to count the finds that were on the surface. They promptly dismiss those as coincidence. But when a find is made via rods, they only THEN remember their premonition and think "aha!. I knew it !". See the trick of memory bias at play ?

BTW, no one's discounting the truth of your "300 items". Anyone can find "300 items". Just point the coat hanger at enough likely ruins. Pull out the metal detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Dig enough holes. And .... presto, you'll find 300 items.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... " Are you referring to the Great Randi and his skeptic society crew?

Their methods of testing were stacked so badly.

I knew it ! I just KNEW the come-back line would be that the test wasn't fair. How do I know ? Because I've been down this path 1000 times before

But oddly, the terms of the testing were agreed to (to ensure no hanky panky) by BOTH SIDES. Before the tests even began. But the moment there's a failure on the side of the dowsers, you can be sure they'll be sure to claim "unfair testing".

....even god couldn't pass their test methods. .....

Then why did the dowsers or psychics mutually agree ahead of time to those test parameters ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I think what everyone misses is look at everything we didn't know 50 years ago, then look at what's being discovered everyday now .....

Yup, there it is: Scientists once thought the earth was flat. Scientists were wrong. Therefore everything you can muse (anything you can claim) is therefore "true". Since science once thought the earth was flat. Right?

So I can throw a tennis shoe in the air, and ... wherever it points when it lands, is the direction of treasure. Right ? If you say "that's silly", all I need to do is point you to that handy rejoinder of yours, right ?

..... History tells of the Spanish running out in the mountains around Pueblo looking for "the lights" with some success. If it didn't work don't you think they would've thrown away the tools a hundred years or so ago?.....

Ok, so now gold casts lights from as far away as "mountains", right ?

As for the practices of ancient cultures with "seeming success", let's put your proposition to the test boogeyman: Some ancient cultures threw virgin girls into volcanoes. So as to increase the crop yield and/or control weather. They reported seeming success. Therefore you and I must lend credence to this method. Right ? I'm only using your logic here.

Obviously the change in weather, or increase in crop yield, was just random coincidence. Right ? So too is it when someone thinks they "found treasure" with some odd-ball means like "chasing lights" or "pointing coat hangers". It's merely the trick of memory bias (aka selective memory). Ie.: coincidence where you only remember those premonitions that came true. And promptly forget those that didn't.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Are you referring to the Great Randi and his skeptic society crew? ... Their methods of testing were stacked so badly even god couldn't pass their test methods..... There's lots more accounts of his / their testing that'll have you rolling on the floor.....

Boogeyman, aren't you aware that all of the test protocols are agreed upon, by both sides, before they start ? So that later on NEITHER SIDE can claim "foul play". And no matter WHAT crew of "skeptic's society" (whether Randi or anyone else) did the double blind test, the dowsers would claim the same thing as you're saying now: "Foul play". Why do you think they go to such great lengths to set the ground rules ahead of time ? To stop this very nonsense ! (by EITHER side). It's such a convenient claim when you fail, but ... no ... I'm not buying it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I think what everyone misses is look at everything we didn't know 50 years ago, then look at what's being discovered everyday now......

Is this the "un-disovered " science line to fall back on ? If so, be aware, this can be used to bolster ANY claim whatsoever. NO MATTER how absurd or silly.

Example: If I throw a tennis shoe up into the air , I can claim that wherever it points to, when it lands, is the direction of treasure. If you try to tell me "that's silly", all I have to do is tell you that "science once thought the earth was flat". Right ? Therefore my present claim is beyond question and thus must be true, right ? I'm only going by your logic here.

.....If you go at ANYTHING in life with a it's all BS it won't work attitude I can guarantee nothing will work.......

Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. If you believe crazy unsubstantiated stuff, you will forever waste your time going the wrong direction. Hence a little skepticism and resulting logical thinking, will INCREASE your odds and finding treasure. Not decrease your odds.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....Same with cameras. Most people I've seen poo pooing the technique have tried once or twice and said "Yup it Don't work!" One mistake you'll notice is digital cameras have a UV filter built in........

Boogeyman, I confess to ..... so far .... concentrating on the dowsing parts of your post. Heck, it wasn't me who brought it up, so I wasn't the one to hijack the post But ok, now I'll return to the O.P. topic here:

To be honest with you, whenever I see someone try to bolster things like dip needles, lights/sparkles/smoke = treasure, and dowsing , I will admittedly be suspicious of whatever else they espouse.

But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt: If you can scientifically prove that cameras can be modified to show which item is gold, amidst a backdrop of thousands of objects which aren't gold .... then.... if I were you: I'd rush to make a scientific paper on this. Or simply get all the design protocols of the exact type (or lack thereof) filters which are needed, patent it, and sell it for millions. People will beat a path to your door !

Yet I see no one doing this. So you can hardly blame skeptics for saying "show me". It's great to claim, but no one seems to be doing it. Or patenting it. Or making a video of their show & tell finds done this way, etc...... I wonder why ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Why would those finds fly in the face of "outside strict scientific protocols". Are you acknowleging these finds are OUTSIDE scientific protocols ? Sure. I'll concede that But the problem is, you've entered into the world of magic and spirituality . That's fine. But then you also can't dismiss studying bird entrails, doing seances, using ouji boards to find treasures, etc.... Right ?

Go right ahead. But then don't turn around and say it's "scientific". Don't turn around and say there is some sort of scientifically explainable attraction rationale.

You just don't get it Tom, you just don't get it. So you think it is entering into a world of magic or spirituality, do you? If you do believe that dowsing is that, then it is you who is the one entering into the world of magic and spirituality. This will be my last post in this thread, which is not about dowsing. Meet me over at the dowsing threads and we will continue there, if you are up to it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... So you think it is entering into a world of magic or spirituality, do you?.....

Dude, it was YOU that said

........To the best of my knowledge, yes,dowsing has not been proven under strict scientific protocol, and it probably never will. But that is by no means the last word. The finds in the field outside of strict scientific protocols fly into the face of science..........

It wasn't me that said it So make up your mind: Is it scientific or isn't it ? If it's scientific, then how does it work ?

At this point I know you're going to rely on "un-discovered science" right ? So as to distance yourself from anything spiritual or hocus pocus, right ? Then in that case, you must subscribe to my tennis-shoe treasure finder. You can not find it suspicious or silly. After all, it too is merely "un-discovered science. Is that wonderful ? ANY claim (no matter how absurd) can be impenetrable by this handy rejoinder.

....... Meet me over at the dowsing threads and we will continue there, if you dare...........

T'net rules dictate that that forum is only for believers. If I'm not mistaken. So someone coming on with challenges or skepticism will ..... in short order .... be told this isn't the forum for them. Which is fine. But just know that I can't rise to your challenge, because I believe forum rules say ahead of time that forum is only for believers in it.

Many many persons, including myself, have tried. (Before being asked to not post on that forum). And trust me: It falls on deaf ears. And gets subjected to the endless impenetrable circular logic handy rejoinder "get arounds". Which are all fine and dandy. So long as you therefore lend equal credence to my tennis shoe method.

 

[RustyGold]

Actually, the OPPOSITE is true. If you believe crazy unsubstantiated stuff, you will forever waste your time going the wrong direction. Hence a little skepticism and resulting logical thinking, will INCREASE your odds and finding treasure. Not decrease your odds.

This^

If you gave a room full of monkeys bent rods and enough time, eventually they'd bend up all the rods a whole lot more.

 

[boogeyman]

Boogeyman, aren't you aware that all of the test protocols are agreed upon, by both sides, before they start ? So that later on NEITHER SIDE can claim "foul play". And no matter WHAT crew of "skeptic's society" (whether Randi or anyone else) did the double blind test, the dowsers would claim the same thing as you're saying now: "Foul play". Why do you think they go to such great lengths to set the ground rules ahead of time ? To stop this very nonsense ! (by EITHER side). It's such a convenient claim when you fail, but ... no ... I'm not buying it.

Well Tom by your responses I could guess you've never even looked at the testing Randi & the skeptic society used. Their testing & trials must've been stellar! Go do yourself a little reading on their site. When some of their people, some of them the ones running the tests were / are saying the tests were skewed that's gotta say something! Why do you think Randi retired? His fame just isn't there anymore, his society has lost members left & right, And Since you're so logical. Do you REALLY think a washed up magician was REALLY going to give up a million?

As far as your remarks about the historical uses of dowsing, you made me giggle! (It's nice to get a giggle first thing in the morning!) Try a little research on the Sangre de Cristos in Colorado. Families there have been looking for "the lights" for centuries and generations, with some success. This I know from seeing and hanging out with some folks that are 3rd & 4th generation there. No we can't say it's off gassing etc. because the scientific experts haven't told us so. I understand what you're saying if the scientists don't give their seal of approval it just ain't so.

acccckkk! Got cha! Before you go off on the if we can't see it it aint so spiel, Let me ask you Tom, How much gold have you found and squirreled away? Can you or would you want to prove it to me? NO? How about letting me come to your home and photograph all your gold? Maybe take a little piece to validate that's real, then can we go out to where you found it so we can validate you used a detector to find it? NO? Well Tommy ALL your experience and knowledge must be bunk correct? By what you're saying?

You seem to be dead set yet you don't seem to have any experience or have done any REAL research on this subject. You're poo pooing the Spanish folks in the San Luis valley area but you've probably never been there, talked to anyone there or even read more than a few pages on the subject. But you act like you're a great expert. Cracked me up with your tennis shoe remark. How can you state emphatically a tennis shoe won't point to gold if thrown into the air? Can you state for us your research and scientific evidence it won't? There must be some scientific papers published somewhere that says it doesn't work or you wouldn't have said that right? Or maybe it's something happening us lesser beings don't understand yet...........

My last question Tommy. Have you EVER tried to dowse with an open mind and no preconceived mindset whether it'll work or not?

YES - try some more with an open mind.
NO - You haven't, but you know absolutely it won't work because there's no scientific explanation.

Well folks, I'm about done here, Tommy will do his usual beat the heck out of it until everyone concedes and declares Tommy's right. Sorry there's no scientific documentation or proof so you all will have to research that.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Charlie, I don't think you ever told us how many attempts at doing this. Have you tried this more than once or twice? Have you experimented with different equipment or technique? How can you say for sure it doesn't work as adamantly as you do? Not to be a jerk, but to me it looks like you're looking at a jelly bean and just because it's blue you just know it's grape without tasting it.

Have you tried throwing your digital camera in the air and seeing if it lands on the ground directly above a gold deposit?

Neither have I - and for that same reason I haven't tried locating gold deposits by photographing them. I am THAT confident neither method has any basis in science or fact.

There is nothing about gold that would cause it to produce special effects.

Is there some unknown effect that would cause your mind to produce some noticeable effect on the image? Perhaps. But that's going down the "magic" path and, to me, seems unlikely. That's like the difference between someone seeing a ghost and someone believing they have seen a ghost.

Oh, but maybe it is because gold traps the heat and holds it longer than plants? Gold has the same linear coefficient of thermal expansion as concrete. Water has a LOT more. Different types of wood can have more or less thermal coefficient than gold.


Um, then because it has less . . . ?

No, silica based rocks and quartz have very much less so they would be "out-whatevering" gold.

So, it's not radiation, not thermal, what does that leave? Conductivity? Hey, I have something already that I know detects changes in relative conductivity. My metal detector!

 

[boogeyman]

Have you tried throwing your digital camera in the air and seeing if it lands on the ground directly above a gold deposit?

Neither have I - and for that same reason I haven't tried locating gold deposits by photographing them. I am THAT confident neither method has any basis in science or fact.

There is nothing about gold that would cause it to produce special effects.

Is there some unknown effect that would cause your mind to produce some noticeable effect on the image? Perhaps. But that's going down the "magic" path and, to me, seems unlikely. That's like the difference between someone seeing a ghost and someone believing they have seen a ghost.

Oh, but maybe it is because gold traps the heat and holds it longer than plants? Gold has the same linear coefficient of thermal expansion as concrete. Water has a LOT more. Different types of wood can have more or less thermal coefficient than gold.


Um, then because it has less . . . ?

No, silica based rocks and quartz have very much less so they would be "out-whatevering" gold.

So, it's not radiation, not thermal, what does that leave? Conductivity? Hey, I have something already that I know detects changes in relative conductivity. My metal detector!

Haven't tried throwing my camera in the air at least not on purpose! Never thought of checking to see if it landed on some gold, dang! BUT! that doesn't mean it wouldn't. Makes you wonder where we'd be if everyone who was that confident just said shuck it and gave up? It's just one of those things where if I haven't tried I've learned nothing absolutely nothing! At least when I'm done I don't have to live wondering if something worked or not. We all have detectors, and yes most of us are competent using them, but if you can narrow down a search area without weeks of swinging I'm all in for that! I'm not that well versed in science, but what I've learned re: dowsing is from hands on, and can I explain how it works or doesn't? NO Same with a jet engine. Can I explain how it works? Hell no! But they work.
Charlie in my opinion without any doubt you're a very intelligent person! The only thing that troubles me is you have no doubts dowsing doesn't / can't work yet you waste your time on a dowsing forum trying to convince the rest of us of that. Why waste your time?