Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Jason in Enid]

That's OK Tom.

HAHAHA, in other words "no I cant produce proof".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

HAHAHA, in other words "no I cant produce proof".

x2. But .... watch it , or you'll cross into "badgering"

 

[elh]

TOM, I suppose you missed post # 870. enough said from my side. you either believe it or not. not badgering, BUT, I am not fool enuff to post
anything like what you wish. Just be careful and not call folks liars.

 

[Jason in Enid]

x2. But .... watch it , or you'll cross into "badgering"

Hey, this is the research forum, fair game. I stay out of the dowsing and metaphysical crap forums for that reason. If they want to bring this up outside of their safe zone, all discussion is fair game as long as it isnt insulting or name calling etc

 

[Rawhide]

After trying to duplicate the experiment I was unable to see gold buried. I did learn a lot about light, spectrum's, and how such things as touch screens work. I worked with some optics while in military service and will say there is some great optics out there. While you could find voids and areas cooler in the ground like old path or cold air. My F75 is the only thing that I know that can find disturbed dirt. But again it can not take a picture. Now OKM has some great videos on their detectors and about as close as seeing gold in a picture as you will get. I still do wonder though if lightening really does like gold in the ground? Also blue fog early in the am would that indicate gold also?

 

[lesjcbs]

TOM, I suppose you missed post # 870. enough said from my side. you either believe it or not. not badgering, BUT, I am not fool enuff to post
anything like what you wish. Just be careful and not call folks liars.

Elh:

Nothing like wanting someone else to do the work for them. Once they have the proof in hand, they will be the first in line to try to take credit. On this one though, they are too late. I listen only to Dave V. who has figured it out and no one else. Time and persistence will prevail.

 

[Peyton Manning]

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

yeah, right on
and if bloodletting didn't make people healthy so many doctors wouldn't have done it

 

[lesjcbs]

TOM, I suppose you missed post # 870. enough said from my side. you either believe it or not. not badgering, BUT, I am not fool enuff to post
anything like what you wish. Just be careful and not call folks liars.

Elh:

​

Such personality types will never find the truth because if something does not work for them in the first three tries, they think it will not work for anyone. They are afflicted with the classic nay say syndrome and want someone else to do all the work and research for them. I would not be fool enough to show them proof either. Just feel sorry for them.

I did 20 years in the Air Force and I can tell you that a very large portion of what the military has comes from civilian research sources that got started like what is going on here.

None the less, the daily pass word in the military seemed to be that no matter how good or valid an idea was,the assumed conclusion was: "No, that will not work". Such attitude is in their minds like a dreaded disease. Many times during my career, I heard it and it made me sick.


​

 

[lesjcbs]

After trying to duplicate the experiment I was unable to see gold buried. I did learn a lot about light, spectrum's, and how such things as touch screens work. I worked with some optics while in military service and will say there is some great optics out there. While you could find voids and areas cooler in the ground like old path or cold air. My F75 is the only thing that I know that can find disturbed dirt. But again it can not take a picture. Now OKM has some great videos on their detectors and about as close as seeing gold in a picture as you will get. I still do wonder though if lightening really does like gold in the ground? Also blue fog early in the am would that indicate gold also?

Casca: You say you tried to duplicate the experiment and worked with some optics in the military. No you did not duplicate it. You fell short. If you had duplicated, you would have gotten the same results. Even before you started experimenting, most likely your work with optics in the military had already given you an attitude or a mind set that it would not work anyway and all you were doing was proving that it would fail for you. It goes like this, combat plans are conceived by geniuses are executed by idiots. Get the point?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Interesting conversation here guys.

TOM, I suppose you missed post # 870.....

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry I missed that. I do see a pix. And a streak of light coming up . Not unlike various streaks of light someone could/would get in any random photograph. But you're saying that THIS particular light pointed you the way to a jar of coins, eh ? I see that now in your post. Thanx.

So I was about to ask : Where's the rest of the details ? Eg.: any other factors that led you to that spot, to search in the first place? Was it a planted test of jar of coins? Or wild ? a detector to "pinpoint" ? etc.... But I see you've added:

.... enough said from my side. ... I am not fool enuff to post anything like what you wish. ....

So I'm assuming that means you'll not be posting anything except a pix with a light streak. Plus text wording. That's fine. I wish that post of finds could be further scrutinized . To ensure other more plausible explanations weren't at play. But ... oh well.

.... Just be careful and not call folks liars.

Not calling you or anyone a "liar". I know you're quite sincere. So the word wouuld not be "liar" from the skeptics camp. Perhaps : "Mistaken". There are some times more plausible explanations for things, that can be attributed to something where the attribution isn't correct. But that doesn't make the believer a "liar". They can be quite sincere.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

After trying to duplicate the experiment I was unable to see gold buried. ... .

Casca: When I read this post of yours, I could predict already what the faithful's response would be. It would be: That you must therefore be doing it wrong, or need more practice.

So you see Casca: A skeptic can NEVER try it, to disprove some unconventional theory like this. If they go to present their findings that it "doesn't work", then the faithful will merely claim: "You didn't practice enough" or "you didn't do it right", etc... See ? And sure enough, that's exactly the come-back lines that arose.

..... ... Also blue fog early in the am would that indicate gold also?

Oh puulleeaassse let's not go there. This type superstition is very popular in 3rd world Latin countries. (Mexico, etc...) They think a glow, or a flame, or a vapor, etc.... will rise from the places where gold is buried. That is for another thread entirely. Needless to say, it is nothing but folklore.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Nothing like wanting someone else to do the work for them.....

Lesjcbs, but don't you get it ? If someone here DID "try it" (Like casca did) and found there to be zero results, it would not be accepted. You would merely say they must have done it wrong, or didn't practice enough, etc... So why is it wrong for the proponents of an unconventional method like this to be asked : "Show the proof" ? Why is the burden of proof on the skeptic to prove it CAN'T be done (which would summarily be dismissed anyhow). It seems to me that it's quite fair for the burden of proof to be on the side of the person's who are making the claim. Not the other way around.

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

yeah, right on
and if bloodletting didn't make people healthy so many doctors wouldn't have done it

Jeff, you're playing with fire I too see that avetar slogan that Lesjcbs has. And I too think the same thing. Ie.: They used to throw virgins into volcanoes to control the weather. Right ? Lots of things were done in antiquity that were nothing more than superstition. So the fact of the age or nationality of a belief has no bearing on the truthfulness or workability of it. But.... this post is not about dowsing. And heaven help you if you go there to try to question that .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Such personality types will never find the truth because if something does not work for them in the first three tries, they think it will not work for anyone. ...

Exactly as predicted. The person who tries it, to decide whether or not it works, will simply be told "you didn't try it long enough". If he tried it 3 times, well ... he should try it 5 times. If he tries it 5 times, well, ... he should try it 10 times. If he tries it 1 yr, well ... he needs 2 years. If he tries it 2 years, well .... he needs 4 years. And so forth into infinity.

It's the perfect shut down line on any attempt to question it. And if the skeptic, therefore , says to the faithful: Show us the proof, then the come-back lines are equally circular, as we are seeing here. The faithful will say "try it and see" . Or they'll say this:

....I would not be fool enough to show them proof either....

Perhaps I'm wrong ,but is this along the lines of not showing your trophies, for fear of thieves, claim-jumpers, and the IRS ? If so, this is a common reply from those using un-conventional means. They will assure you that they do indeed find big ticket treasures. But no proof will ever be forthcoming . When the skeptic says "show me", they will respond just as you did.

I have tried to point out that md'rs post show & tell ALL-THE-TIME. Hence why not the practioners of unconventional methods? They will say: That's because md'rs are just getting the individual coins or rings. Or small bread & butter caches. As opposed to those using these unconventional controversial means are getting the big-ticket treasures. Hence fearing thieves, IRS, and claim-jumpers. Thus no show & tell.

 

[Peyton Manning]

I just am a fan of logic ( I never have learnt how it is wasted on non logical thinkers)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... "No, that will not work". Such attitude is in their minds like a dreaded disease. Many times during my career, I heard it and it made me sick. ...

Lesjcbs: If Casca or I told you that we have a perfect TH'ing method: It involves smearing peanut butter on a tennis shoe. Toss the shoe into the air. Wherever it points to when it lands on the ground, is the direction of treasure. You would presumably say: "That's silly. It will never work". But if you said that about our tennis shoe method, what's to stop us from saying the very thing you just said ? At some point there ARE things (like my shoe method) that can be summarily dismissed out the starting gate. As utterly silly and un-workable. Or ...at a minimum, where the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Casca: You say you tried to duplicate the experiment and worked with some optics in the military. No you did not duplicate it. You fell short. If you had duplicated, you would have gotten the same results. Even before you started experimenting, most likely your work with optics in the military had already given you an attitude or a mind set that it would not work anyway and all you were doing was proving that it would fail for you. It goes like this, combat plans are conceived by geniuses are executed by idiots. Get the point?

Yes. The point is: No one can ever go to test and disprove an unconventional TH'ing method. Because, just as you've done here: Their results will be summarily dismissed as not-having-done it right.

 

[lesjcbs]

Exactly as predicted. The person who tries it, to decide whether or not it works, will simply be told "you didn't try it long enough". If he tried it 3 times, well ... he should try it 5 times. If he tries it 5 times, well, ... he should try it 10 times. If he tries it 1 yr, well ... he needs 2 years. If he tries it 2 years, well .... he needs 4 years. And so forth into infinity.

It's the perfect shut down line on any attempt to question it. And if the skeptic, therefore , says to the faithful: Show us the proof, then the come-back lines are equally circular, as we are seeing here. The faithful will say "try it and see" . Or they'll say this:



Perhaps I'm wrong ,but is this along the lines of not showing your trophies, for fear of thieves, claim-jumpers, and the IRS ? If so, this is a common reply from those using un-conventional means. They will assure you that they do indeed find big ticket treasures. But no proof will ever be forthcoming . When the skeptic says "show me", they will respond just as you did.

I have tried to point out that md'rs post show & tell ALL-THE-TIME. Hence why not the practioners of unconventional methods? They will say: That's because md'rs are just getting the individual coins or rings. Or small bread & butter caches. As opposed to those using these unconventional controversial means are getting the big-ticket treasures. Hence fearing thieves, IRS, and claim-jumpers. Thus no show & tell.

It was 1,000 time for Thomas Edison: As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times.The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." Imagine what it would be like if Edison had quit, just simply quit?


From some of the posts I have read on this subject of digital Cameras capturing auroras, like Edison, it is gong to take some, including myself for one reason or the other, 1,000 or more times to get it right. Evidently it took Dave V. of England 3 years of testing to get it right. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is impressive and inspirational, as it is guys like him that makes the world that much better.

How committed is one is the foundation to it all and commitment does not go well with the microwave generation who wants things now, not later and quits after 3 attempts.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Actualy, is was 1,000 time for Thomas Edison: As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times.The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."


From what I have read on this subject of digital Cameras capturing auroras, like Edison, it make take some, including myself for one reason or the other, 1,000 or more times to get it right. Evidently it took Dave V. of England 3 years of testing to get it right. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is impressive and inspirational, as it is guys like him that makes the world go around and that much better. How committed is one is the foundation to it all.

Lesjcbs, You are a good sport. And I like that you think out your responses. It shows you are giving fair game to what others have written to question things. And I respect that very much.

As for what you've written here , the analogy (light bulb, for example) does in fact hold water ONLY if the following premise is a "given" : That the item being discussed can work. So for example, we know that light bulbs DO work. But how is that necessarily a starting premise for the gold-photograph issue ?

Or let me put it this way: If I told you it was possible for you to put an elephant in a plastic sandwich baggie, you might say "that's impossible". And if you or I tried 10 or 100 times and couldn't do it, what's to stop me from giving you the exact same Edison light-bulb analogy ?

Do you see that the light-bulb Edison example only works because it's true that a light bulb *could* be invented. Contrast to an elephant in a sandwich baggie which will forever be impossible. Or how about my peanut butter covered tennis shoe ? It will forever be unworkable, despite the Edison example. No amount of practice or testing or effort can make an impossible task become possible.

 

[lesjcbs]

Lesjcbs, You are a good sport. And I like that you think out your responses. It shows you are giving fair game to what others have written to question things. And I respect that very much.

As for what you've written here , the analogy (light bulb, for example) does in fact hold water ONLY if the following premise is a "given" : That the item being discussed can work. So for example, we know that light bulbs DO work. But how is that necessarily a starting premise for the gold-photograph issue ?

Or let me put it this way: If I told you it was possible for you to put an elephant in a plastic sandwich baggie, you might say "that's impossible". And if you or I tried 10 or 100 times and couldn't do it, what's to stop me from giving you the exact same Edison light-bulb analogy ?

Do you see that the light-bulb Edison example only works because it's true that a light bulb *could* be invented. Contrast to an elephant in a sandwich baggie which will forever be impossible. Or how about my peanut butter covered tennis shoe ? It will forever be unworkable, despite the Edison example. No amount of practice or testing or effort can make an impossible task become possible.

Oh, but you can put an elephant into a sandwich bag if the bag is big enough. The challenge is to make the bag big enough to put an elephant in it, not how to make an elephant smaller than it already is and sandwich bag can be made to that size. Maybe you are thinking there is an attempt here to make elephants smaller, so to speak.

Dave V is not the first to do this technique. Others in the past did it with special plastic film cameras which set the stage and showed it is possible. Dave V. simply found out how to do it with digital cameras. Read post #1 about early camera film being discontinued.

I don't remember for sure, but it was right around 2004 or 2005 when I was told by a Metal Detector Dealer in Provo Utah about how some guys used special plastic film in a Kodak camera, taking pictures from an airplane off the coast of California, and found an old ship that had treasure in it. I never forgot that moment in that shop and that was the last I heard of the technique until I found this thread here in TN.

So, when I found this thread, it rang an extremely loud bell for me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok then. I'm all game to see something (results) beyond staged tests.

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok then. I'm all game to see something (results) beyond staged tests.

I think that just like the rest of us, you are going to have to grab your camera, put a filter on it and go find out for yourself.

P.S. I had to laugh about your post #892 where you tell Jeff he is playing with fire. LOL.

Good night all.