Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

.... more treasure has been found with dowsing than you'll ever find looking for the ...BEALE.........

And it's a wonder we never see any of them on the "today's find" section. Yet md'rs finds show up en-masse there daily. Even good and valuable finds. So why not the dowser's finds ? Let me guess: They're afraid of thieves, claim-jumpers, and the IRS. Right ?

And as for your rm6 getting a coin where your grandad's wand pointed to: I got news for you: Anywhere mankind has habitated for any length of time, you can turn on a detector, wave it around, and will .... gasp ... find metal. Maybe even a coin. I can wave a wand at any likely looking ruin or park, then turn on my detector, and I bet I get a beep off something.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[lesjcbs]

And it's a wonder we never see any of them on the "today's find" section. Yet md'rs finds show up en-masse there daily. Even good and valuable finds. So why not the dowser's finds ? Let me guess: They're afraid of thieves, claim-jumpers, and the IRS. Right ?

And as for your rm6 getting a coin where your grandad's wand pointed to: I got news for you: Anywhere mankind has habitated for any length of time, you can turn on a detector, wave it around, and will .... gasp ... find metal. Maybe even a coin. I can wave a wand at any likely looking ruin or park, then turn on my detector, and I bet I get a beep off something.

My story about Sam not wanting to pay the price of a pick and shovel, is not only about him making a huge mistake, it is also about how small thinking he is.

Now I got news for you Tom, if you really want to know the protocol and some things found using this method, you are going to have to put out a few dollars to buy Midas' book and find out for yourself what they are. Otherwise, you are your own worst enemy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My story about Sam not wanting to pay the price of a pick and shovel, is not only about him making a huge mistake, it is also about how small thinking he is......

Yes. Sam's "thinking was small". You know how we know that ? We know that because the entire starting premise of your story is that gold was there. Then in that case, sure, Sam's "thinking was small".

So too with the cameras that can see/differentiate gold. If that starting premise is true, then sure: My thinking is small.

So too is it unicorns: You can't say they don't exist (that would "make your thinking small"). But on the contrary, you would tell me: That's silly. And you'd be right: The burden of proof would be on the unicorn believer to prove they exist, not the non-believer to prove they don't exist. And it wouldn't for a moment make the non-believer to be a "small thinker".

You keep getting the burden of proof direction backwards. And keep using illustrations that only work if the starting premise is true. Yet if the starting premise has NOT been established yet, then it can not be used as a starting premise.

What works for unicorns works for the gold-camera thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Post Script:

There's a saying that capsulizes what you are doing:

"Assuming what you are trying to prove, as evidence of your proof for it".

 

[FingerChili]

65 pages? Wrong.

Now it's 66

 

[lesjcbs]

Post Script:

There's a saying that capsulizes what you are doing:

"Assuming what you are trying to prove, as evidence of your proof for it".

Tom:

Several years ago, I served on the bench as a Pro Tempore Judge. This is a substitute Judge when the full time Judge is not available. In that capacity, I sentenced people to jail, fines, signed warrants, and Orders Of Protection (OAP). It was a great experience. That having been said, COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. The honorable lesjcbs presiding. Please be seated.


Mr.Tom, your statement of the claimant having the burden of proof is correct but is irrelevant in this matter as the burden of proof has already been met, many times over.


MrTom, you have requested of this court that a protocol of digital Cameras being used to capture metallic auras, including gold and silver be produced for your inspection. Your request is hereby and forever denied for the following reasons:

1. It would be a waste of this courts time as said protocol already exists in Midos' book on page 82, and it is in detail.
2. In his book, Midos gives not only the protocol, he also documents finds in text and pictures.
3. This court knows that Midos is not the first person to use this technique but is simply the first to write about it. If there are others who wrote about it, this court is not aware of them.
4. This court is aware of others who, more than 10 years ago, flying in an Airplane and using this technique, located a sunken Spanish Galleon off the coast of California. This court understands they asked Kodak to produce a special film for them and Kodak did.
5. This court understands others using this very technique have found treasures along the Old Spanish trail
6. There are those on this web site who claim this method is old technology. This court has no reason to doubt that claim.


MrTom of CA. In the past, you have made fun of, ridiculed, and mocked this technique, simply because you were not personally made aware of it. Because of your attitude and demeanor, I will now pronounce a sentence on you:


You are to buy his book. When you receive it, you are to go to your favorite easy chair, lean back, open it up and read every word in it no less than five times. If you fail to do this, you will be held in contempt of court and you don't want that to happen to you now do you? I thought not.


This pronounced sentence cannot be appealed and there is no possibility of parole.


Court adjourned. (BANG, down goes the gavel).
Take him away officer.

 

[DizzyDigger]

Tom,

I am assuming the role of an Appellate Court judge, and have reviewed
this case, along with the alleged facts in evidence.

Case is summarily dismissed due to a complete lack of credible evidence.

Disbarment charges are pending against Judge Les for the obvious attempts
at selling a book, and his error filled attempts at legitimizing false evidence.

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom,

I am assuming the role of an Appellate Court judge, and have reviewed
this case, along with the alleged facts in evidence.

Case is summarily dismissed due to a complete lack of credible evidence.

Disbarment charges are pending against Judge Les for the obvious attempts
at selling a book, and his error filled attempts at legitimizing false evidence.

Your honor:

If the court pleases.


An error occurred in the lower courts following statement:
“Mr.Tom, your statement of the claimant having the burden of proof is correct but is irrelevant in this matter as the burden of proof has already been met, and many times over.”


The lower courts statement is now amended to read: “Mr. Tom, your statement of the claimant having the burden of proof is correct and that proof has been met many times over. The author produced tons of proof in picture and in written form in both his book and in this forum.”


Your honor, since in our system one is “innocent until proven guilty”,the burden of proof is upon Mr. Tom of CA and followers to prove the author wrong in his claims and evidence, and that has not been done to any degree by them.


Therefore,this lower court welcomes any and all attempts by the appellate court to rule as stated. The lower court knows of a surety the Appeals court ruling will be found in total error and over turned by the supreme court of the land, that court being the people themselves who use this method.


Thank you.

 

[3cylbill]

yup tom in ca ...ya got me i never found nuttin......a wannabee.....but I wouldn't wannabee....like you...

 

[lesjcbs]

yup tom in ca ...ya got me i never found nuttin......a wannabee.....but I wouldn't wannabee....like you...

3: The problem the appeals court would have here is the fact that Midas has presented tons of evidence in this web site and in his book. His evidence comes from years of research and development. On the other hand, Tom of CA has produced no evidence at all to support his claim. Nothing,. Therefore, the court could only rule in favor of Midas. To do otherwise is not justice in any sense of the word. In short, time is not on the side of Tom of CA.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Mr.Tom, your statement of the claimant having the burden of proof is correct but is irrelevant in this matter as the burden of proof has already been met, many times over....

Les: Yours and dizzy-digger's posts brought a smile to my face. Thankyou (and I mean that sincerely) for writing all that out. You made some very good points.

Here's an analogy: If I asserted that little green aliens were living on the top of Mt. Everest. And pointed you to a book that had "the proof" on page 82. I guess you'd have to agree with me that there ARE "little green aliens" up there, UNLESS you got the book, studied page 82, and gave me reasons why it wasn't conclusive. Eh ?

Or ... at best .... I would have to conclude that "I don't know". Like: being an agnostic, not an atheist. Until I've read your book and shown you "more plausible explanations" to explain it away. If so, then you too would have to conclude there *might* be little green aliens on Mt. Everest, UNLESS you bought the book, and disproved it.

I think you can see you would say "hogwash" to the little green aliens, right ? EVEN if you didn't buy the book. Right ? So too do I tend to say "hogwash" to the idea of cameras being able to see/differentiate gold.

If something could be done in a controlled environment on sample objects (that definitely showed the different between gold, aluminum, brass, copper, etc....) then would it have any impact on the REAL world ? I mean, where/when/how could someone use that to actually go out and find anything ? Are you going to aim it at a mountain, a city garbage dump, or whatever ? Then develop the film, observe where gold is, and then walk out and pick it up ?

I am not going to buy the book (too much of a cheapskate, and feel like you'd engage me in a game of wackamo). But I'll compromise and tell you that when the day comes where I see finds made with this method on "today's find" section, that do not have "more plausible explanations" (random chance, or using a detector to "pinpoint" in areas that were "likely areas" to begin with), then I'll believe. Yeah yah, I know, I'm a wimp for not buying and reading the book. But I have a feeling that any "more plausible explanation" I could give, would be dismissed by you.

 

[lesjcbs]

Les: Yours and dizzy-digger's posts brought a smile to my face. Thankyou (and I mean that sincerely) for writing all that out. You made some very good points.

Here's an analogy: If I asserted that little green aliens were living on the top of Mt. Everest. And pointed you to a book that had "the proof" on page 82. I guess you'd have to agree with me that there ARE "little green aliens" up there, UNLESS you got the book, studied page 82, and gave me reasons why it wasn't conclusive. Eh ?

Or ... at best .... I would have to conclude that "I don't know". Like: being an agnostic, not an atheist. Until I've read your book and shown you "more plausible explanations" to explain it away. If so, then you too would have to conclude there *might* be little green aliens on Mt. Everest, UNLESS you bought the book, and disproved it.

I think you can see you would say "hogwash" to the little green aliens, right ? EVEN if you didn't buy the book. Right ? So too do I tend to say "hogwash" to the idea of cameras being able to see/differentiate gold.

If something could be done in a controlled environment on sample objects (that definitely showed the different between gold, aluminum, brass, copper, etc....) then would it have any impact on the REAL world ? I mean, where/when/how could someone use that to actually go out and find anything ? Are you going to aim it at a mountain, a city garbage dump, or whatever ? Then develop the film, observe where gold is, and then walk out and pick it up ?

I am not going to buy the book (too much of a cheapskate, and feel like you'd engage me in a game of wackamo). But I'll compromise and tell you that when the day comes where I see finds made with this method on "today's find" section, that do not have "more plausible explanations" (random chance, or using a detector to "pinpoint" in areas that were "likely areas" to begin with), then I'll believe. Yeah yah, I know, I'm a wimp for not buying and reading the book. But I have a feeling that any "more plausible explanation" I could give, would be dismissed by you.

I too had fun with my post. It brought back memories of days gone by. No, you are not a wimp, just a skeptic of the highest order and that's OK. So see ya later.

 

[FingerChili]

Tom, amazon has a preview of the book, I read about 10 pages. I'll concede that's not comprehensive.

What I read says the cameras are picking up (near)IR, you should be taking pictures pointing north or south on a warm, sunny day, and that if you can't find your test target with the first image, keep taking pictures until you find your test target.

If this is real, wouldn't it be repeatable, easily recorded with an IR camera, and show up in every picture? Seems like if you keep taking pictures of your test spot, one of these times you're going to get lense flare, or your sensor heats up, and you equate that to this phenomenon.

I don't know why we need to buy a book, or read 67 pages of a forum to get the proof that could be shown in one post. I came late to this thread, so if there's proof in those 67 pages that I missed, please post the link. Does anyone have unedited RAW files showing this phenomenon?

If I can get my hands on a camera without an IR cut filter, I'll try it out. I'm open to learn.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....if you can't find your test target with the first image, keep taking pictures until you find your test target. .... If this is real, wouldn't it be repeatable,....

Good point finger-chili : A person trying to test or prove this, needs to guard against the psychology of "memory bias" . That's where if 10 times it fails, but 1 time it works, the human mind tends to disregard the first 10 failures (writing them off to "solar flares" or wind-blown dust particles, blah blah blah. Then on the 11th time, they get a funny glow or aura, they think "AHA ! It works !". (Conveniently forgetting , or dismissing with lame explanations, the first 10 failed tests).

In that case it becomes random chance. But not in the eyes of the believer. To them it merely means that the 10 failed tests had other reasons to account for the failure. And they will resolve to understand the 11th time , and give only the 11th test "credibility". Ie.: they do not see the first 10 as "dry holes". This is the same psychology seen in the defense of dowsing for instance: No matter how many failures, they're not seen as "failures". They are explained away by residual gold dust, or windy day, or sun-spots, or nearby magnets, etc... Hence they do not count as "dry holes".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... if there's proof in those 67 pages that I missed, please post the link. Does anyone have unedited RAW files showing this phenomenon?

If I can get my hands on a camera without an IR cut filter, I'll try it out. I'm open to learn.

Apparently all you need to see is page 82 And when/if you do see that page, study the context to see if there wasn't/isn't "more plausible explanations" at play.

 

[Backwoodsbob]

I don't think I've caught such on film. But I have caught things from my surveillance cameras. I've posted this before in another thread. Most of the time it comes from one side. You be the judge.

 

[Jason in Enid]

I don't think I've caught such on film. But I have caught things from my surveillance cameras. I've posted this before in another thread. Most of the time it comes from one side. You be the judge.View attachment 1554070

Is that an xray of your colon?

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Not hardly, just one of many thing seen at my haunted place.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Not hardly, just one of many thing seen at my haunted place.

Surely you're not serious. Why am I having mental images of the scene from Wizard of Oz, where the lion repeats over and over again: "I DO believe in spooks, I Do believe in spooks. I do I do I do I do"

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Surely you're not serious. Why am I having mental images of the scene from Wizard of Oz, where the lion repeats over and over again: "I DO believe in spooks, I Do believe in spooks. I do I do I do I do"

I knew you would reply. What do you believe in Tom? When you die that's it. The electricity in your body just stops. That fact you have a mental image mean there hope for you. One day that third eye will open. Come see me Tom and May God bless you.

Bob