Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Jason in Enid]

my frends we can , take pctures/s of gold targets not only with the old polarod . never use polaroid only i have seen . aniway i want to say that with digtals cameras we can find gold and the color of gold it is a perfect curcle .. ore more my frend he put a 2euro coin at 40cm depth and the foto that he take after. was the 2euro coin with the text on in crazy .... but true. and only with a digittal camera , and cheap not expensive equipment .

No, it can't. what you are saying is impossible under the laws of physics.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

No, it can't. what you are saying is impossible under the laws of physics.

unless what tutestain was referring to, was the ability of a "certain camera" can take "pictures of gold". Well, gee, SURE ! All cameras can take "pictures of gold". I can take my smart phone out right now, and snap a pix of a gold item. The bigger question is: Can it differentiate THAT target, from other types metals ? And the answer to that is: No. Unless someone shows us in a double blind test.

 

[elh]

Why stop with a double blind test why not go ahead with quads and then double blind them?? all the double blind stuff sounds sick after watchin
Randy boy set it up to defeat all testing. No end to it is there? Just ruin a good thread is all it amounts to.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Why stop with a double blind test why not go ahead with quads and then double blind them?? all the double blind stuff sounds sick after watchin
Randy boy set it up to defeat all testing. No end to it is there? Just ruin a good thread is all it amounts to.

YEAH! How dare somebody expect actual, unbiased, repeatable result! HERETICS!!! Don't you attack the faithful!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Elh, I'm glad that your "pro" view is spelled out. Whenever an "unconventional" method of TH'ing is proposed, it takes a brave person to challenge the "conventional" views. Because history is filled with stubborn old-fogies who ... yes ... were left being wrong, in the historical scheme of things. Eg.: flat earth vs round earth, heavier than air flight, etc... All such things that were said to have been impossible by the conventional normal thinking of the time.

And so too for TH'ing methods. I remember myself and my buddies laughing at anyone who would use those new-fangled motion detectors (6000d , Red Baron, etc...). Because they looked like they were golfing. And we KNOW that's not the proper way to swing a metal detector. Imagine our surprise when we saw what they were bringing in to the monthly show & tell @ the md'ing club meetings. Doh! We silently humbly went out and bought them for ourselves.

So with all this in mind, I relish being able to read a contrary view. To understand the mindset, the data, the pro/con arguments, etc.... Because I certainly don't want to be left on the laughing stock block of history ! With all this in mind, I am studying your replies deeply, for actual substance, to challenge my own self:

.....after watchin Randy boy set it up to defeat all testing. No end to it is there? ....

Yes: This is the normal come-back to any failed tests to the unconventional methods: "The test was un-fair". So let's look closely at this accusation: Are you aware that when the test protocols are pre-arranged, they are agreed to BY BOTH SIDES ? So that ... prior to the start, if one side sees an "out" (ie.: more plausible explanations, or possible subconscious manipulation, etc...) that the other side can point this out, and plan the test to safeguard against such un-fair factors ? AND THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS (not just for the skeptic's side).

So when you see a failed test for the proponents: Rest assured the proponent entered the test acknowledging ahead of time what their method's ability was, and the protocols for the test was to contain. So ... pray-tell ... how can the proponent claim afterward: "The test was unfair" ?

As for the proponent declining to be tested in the first place, this gets a little more complicated. Because, since they've declined to be tested in the first place, no one can ever point to a test protocol that was supposedly "unfair". If you can point to a "randi" protocol double blind safeguard that was "unfair" (set up to defeat the proponents), then I beg of you to lay in on the table. Please tell us what that was. PERHAPS YOUR RIGHT ! I would love to know what it was.

But to simply say "the test was unfair" simply begs the question: "How?"

Example: I can claim I'm a straight A Calculus math student. But if someone hands me a Calculus test and says "show me", I could answer: The test is unfair. Ok, does that make my claim to be a straight A calculus student beyond dispute ? Or is the burden of proof on me to SHOW how the calculus test is unfair ? Seems to me that the burden of proof is on me to show how the test was unfair. Notice I'm not disagreeing with you that it's possible that, yes: The test is unfair. I'm just asking you to spell out "how?"

....Just ruin a good thread is all it amounts to.

No no no, the thread is not "ruined". I/we very much want pro/con input. Your input is VERY valuable. To get to the root of the matter (dissect claims and defenses) is NOT to "ruin" a thread. If no one on the "proponent" side of things came to the defense of the proposition: Then the world would still be considered flat. Heavier than air flight would still be deemed impossible. People would still be swinging BFO's and Compass 77b's etc.... Thus PLEASE do not be dissuaded. I sincerely WANT to know if this technology is possible.

 

[Jason in Enid]

To condense Tom's words for the layman, If it works, I'll use it! I dont care if it's waving bubblegum on a stick, if it finds treasure I'll use that method. Why did people finally accept the earth was round? Someone demonstrated it was. Why do we have airplanes? Someone made one and demonstrated it worked. Why did the VLF detector replace the BFO? People looked at the finds and were proved that it worked better.

SHOW ME that dowsing, LRL, auras, etc actually work and I'll hang up my detector and use your method. Balls in your court

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... SHOW ME that ....

Good post Jason. This is how all the unconventional claims of history became mainstream accepted: the proponent's showed the doubters. Hence history was changed, and it became "conventional" accepted fact.

Strangely though, this very factoid (that UN-conventional became accepted/conventional) is often time pointed to AS THE REASON we should not doubt an unconventional claim. Hence rather than your line-of-reasoning becoming the reason NOT to believe (unless evidence were shown), on the contrary: To the believer faithful, this line of reasoning becomes their reason for believing anything (no matter how strange the claim) to be true.

But this only takes in half the formula: Yes it's true that the scoffers were wrong about the flat vs round earth. But notice that only became true WHEN IT GOT PROVEN TO BE ROUND. So to put that in practice here: The fact that sometimes "scoffers were wrong", is ONLY true when evidence proving the un-conventional got put on the table.

And, if a test to prove "round" vs "flat" earth were unfair, then it's only fair to ask the opposing view "how is the test unfair?" Perhaps it is. We're just asking "how ?"

 

[elh]

Very good tom, never let it slip. Bravo, U be's rat up on top o' the world. NOW write a good llloonngggg book on all that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

huh ?

 

[Jason in Enid]

Very good tom, never let it slip. Bravo, U be's rat up on top o' the world. NOW write a good llloonngggg book on all that.

huh ?

I think he's attempting sarcasm?

 

[elh]

I think he's attempting sarcasm?

So to jason, very good sounds like sarcasm?? Try this one - have a nice day. Did not the mod say be friendly??

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So to jason, very good sounds like sarcasm?? Try this one - have a nice day. Did not the mod say be friendly??

Nobody is being unfriendly. We are taking an intellectual look at the pro's & con's merits, of the evidences for a claimed-treasure-hunting device.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Nobody is being unfriendly. We are taking an intellectual look at the pro's & con's merits, of the evidences for a claimed-treasure-hunting device.

The problem today is that too many people dont know how to discuss things. They internalize and personalize every concept they hold as if it were religious dogma. When you disagree with those thoughts they feel as though you are making a personal attack on them, then they make personal attacks (attacking the poster, not the post)on the other side of the debate. This is why so many discussions become fights.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... When you disagree with those thoughts they feel as though you are making a personal attack on them, ....

Yes, you can not disagree with someone's views on an md'ing subject, lest you be said to be insulting, antagonizing, badgering, etc.... And then you get banned or time-out.

NOTE: I do agree that it's possible to get those labels legitimately . Eg.: name-calling, and/or "not stopping till they cry uncle", etc... But on the other hand, yes: Some people have thin-skins, and complain to the mod's for anyone who questions or challenges their views

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes, you can not disagree with someone's views on an md'ing subject, lest you be said to be insulting, antagonizing, badgering, etc.... And then you get banned or time-out.

NOTE: I do agree that it's possible to get those labels legitimately . Eg.: name-calling, and/or "not stopping till they cry uncle", etc... But on the other hand, yes: Some people have thin-skins, and complain to the mod's for anyone who questions or challenges their views

It does not matter if member complains or a mod stumbles on it, when it violates our rules it violates our rules, if it doesn't it doesn't.

"If you disagree with another member's post, make your comments in a polite and respectful manner."

"Don't attack, provoke, insult, or deliberately offend anyone."

"All members are equal, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, education, or experience. Never take a superior tone with, or "talk down" to, anyone"

We have another rule too.

"Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators, however, disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the forums. Please feel free to PM the person directly rather than air your dirty laundry in public. "

 

[elh]

Tom, I have something to speak of and want your opinion on it after I post. I will pose a question ( after a little comment ) and will ask your
'' how to '' on it. Do you think you can do that?
Thanks
Tater Patch elh I may later change my avatar to '' .50 Cal Tater ''

 

[Tom_in_CA]

elh, not sure what you're asking if I can do. But will give it my best shot .

 

[XLV]

can i put my 3 cents worth into this .......the treasure hunters ive seen use this method and worship it are the same ones that use LRL they go hand in hand ...i had a pocket full of gold and guess what it wasnt seen by the camera or the LRL 4 feet away it must of been the wrong time of the day the earth magnetic field was off ( i forgot 2 types of gold natural and heated) .......i guess i know who invented this ....some can even locate treasure over the internet ..... ......but remember when your at the bottom of the hole (50 feet ) tell the investors it was the residual and someone removed the treasure from under 20 feet of water ( they had 4 pumps ).... the so call oro can be seen threw 30 feet of dirt ....i thought 30 feet of dirt could stop gamma rays . x-rays , etc ....i guess im using the wrong equipment spock beam down some new equipment and put the shields up they might spot our gold

 

[Tom_in_CA]

can i put my 3 cents worth into this .......the treasure hunters ive seen use this method and worship it are the same ones that use LRL they go hand in hand ......

Interesting observation. Yes it seems that when someone is the type to buy into one "unconventional" means of TH'ing, then they are generally prone to fall for other types dreamy eyed methods too.

 

[lesjcbs]

can i put my 3 cents worth into this .......the treasure hunters ive seen use this method and worship it are the same ones that use LRL they go hand in hand ...i had a pocket full of gold and guess what it wasnt seen by the camera or the LRL 4 feet away it must of been the wrong time of the day the earth magnetic field was off ( i forgot 2 types of gold natural and heated) .......i guess i know who invented this ....some can even locate treasure over the internet ..... ......but remember when your at the bottom of the hole (50 feet ) tell the investors it was the residual and someone removed the treasure from under 20 feet of water ( they had 4 pumps ).... the so call oro can be seen threw 30 feet of dirt ....i thought 30 feet of dirt could stop gamma rays . x-rays , etc ....i guess im using the wrong equipment spock beam down some new equipment and put the shields up they might spot our gold

666: Did you first test your camera to see if it will work before you rushed to judgment? There is a test you can do to find out first, you know .