Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[EllasMotherLoadTreasure]

how do i find the right filter? and would this work o a camera phone?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

..... What do you believe in Tom?....

Hi Bob. To answer your question: God ? = yes. Spooks ? = no. I have an md'ing friend who is in a growing fad of ghost-chasing enthusiasts. They go into old (supposedly "haunted") places, and set up super sensitive listening devices (tape recorders that can amplify the slightest mouse-peep). Then they all sit there silent as can be for an hour in the dark, in the middle of the night. They also set up all sorts of cameras that records all sorts of ultra-violet, thermal, motion, etc... Then they play back the tapes the next day. Listening for voices on their recorder. Or spotting anomolies in their videos.

He and I have had debates that the various things they're attributing to "spooks" are nothing more than dust particles that come drifting by in front of the lense. Or a creek in the floor from someone who shifted their weight (or a breeze outside, etc...). But nneeeooohhh, anything to them (esp. if the object looks like E.T.) is a spook. Or some 3 syllable sound is ...... most certainly ... a ghost saying "hello there".

As you can see, their imaginations have obviously gone wild. And they are failing to take into account memory bias (the million shapes that *didn't* look like E.T., or the sounds that *did* have an obvious alternative explanation.

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Hi Bob. To answer your question: God ? = yes. Spooks ? = no. I have an md'ing friend who is in a growing fad of ghost-chasing enthusiasts. They go into old (supposedly "haunted") places, and set up super sensitive listening devices (tape recorders that can amplify the slightest mouse-peep). Then they all sit there silent as can be for an hour in the dark, in the middle of the night. They also set up all sorts of cameras that records all sorts of ultra-violet, thermal, motion, etc... Then they play back the tapes the next day. Listening for voices on their recorder. Or spotting anomolies in their videos.

He and I have had debates that the various things they're attributing to "spooks" are nothing more than dust particles that come drifting by in front of the lense. Or a creek in the floor from someone who shifted their weight (or a breeze outside, etc...). But nneeeooohhh, anything to them (esp. if the object looks like E.T.) is a spook. Or some 3 syllable sound is ...... most certainly ... a ghost saying "hello there".

As you can see, their imaginations have obviously gone wild. And they are failing to take into account memory bias (the million shapes that *didn't* look like E.T., or the sounds that *did* have an obvious alternative explanation.

Tom , I was one of those who didn't believe in them. Not until I found things did they start showing themselves. The wife has a video of something that come up like he was pulling themselves out of a hole. Then walks away. She don't show it much. I've had one doing the same in a picture. You can see his face and what he is wearing. If you look at the picture of mine you can see a face. I had just cut a big tree that was on that side. Don't know if that has anything to do with it. They don't bother me now. Maybe a sign of things to come.
God's Blessings to all.
Bob

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... You can see his face and what he is wearing. s anything to do with it. They don't bother me now....

Bob, I will challenge you: On a breezy day, Lie on your back , and stare at the passing cloud formations.. I guarantee you that if you lie there long enough, you will eventually make out the shape of a bunny. A smile face. An angel. A big dipper. Etc....

Again, it's not to say that I don't believe in more than the "here and now". But if you point to video, camera, and tape recorder anomolies, and someone comes up with "more plausible explanations", then your whole enterprise (believing in more than the physical here and now) is going to look mighty silly. Ie.: it's not going to convince skeptics, since they will see the "more plausible explanations".

 

[Backwoodsbob]

Tom if I laid down on my back for any length of time. I will see nothing but my eyelids. Lol. Getting sleepy thinking about it.

 

[elh]

Sooooo, Backwoodsbob, Now you have have the straight of it, '' final answer '' so to speak straight as an arrow from Tom,
'' Ie.: it's not going to convince skeptics, '' Just like Santa Claus, ho ho ho

 

[Jason in Enid]

Sooooo, Backwoodsbob, Now you have have the straight of it, '' final answer '' so to speak straight as an arrow from Tom,
'' Ie.: it's not going to convince skeptics, '' Just like Santa Claus, ho ho ho

and you cant use rational thought and reason with a "true believer"

 

[WaterScoop]

Mind is like a steel trap

ONLY WORKS when it’s open...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

View attachment 1560522

Mind is like a steel trap

ONLY WORKS when it’s open...

And only be "open" to true things. Not false things.

 

[boogeyman]

And only be "open" to true things. Not false things.

Good assumption Sheldon er ah Tom. Gotta ask you. Have you ever modded a camera and gone out in the field and tested this technique? Did you ever actually go out in the field and tried this technique with a Polaroid before they quit making the film? Have you ever done anything with this technique other than read forums or what James Randi thinks? No? Well my friend "open" to true things. Not false things." is a pretty big assumption! Thanks for the Giggle! Made my day!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

View attachment 1560522

Mind is like a steel trap

ONLY WORKS when it’s open...

Here's an example: Do you believe in Leprechauns ? Probably not. But wait .... aren't you supposed to have an "open mind" ? In that case, you'd be WISE to have a "closed mind", eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Have you ever modded a camera and gone out in the field and tested this technique? Did you ever actually go out in the field and tried this technique with a Polaroid before they quit making the film? Have you ever done anything with this technique other than read forums or what James Randi thinks? No? Well my friend "open" to true things. Not false things." is a pretty big assumption! Thanks for the Giggle! Made my day!

Boogeyman, let's take this it's logical extension. By virtue of an example:

If I said to you "unicorns exist". And told you they're grazing in a pasture in a small town outside of Prescott, AZ. All you have to do is go there and look. You'd say to me "Nonsense. Unicorns don't exist". Right ? To which I'd say to you:

"Have you gone to Prescott, AZ and looked ? If not, how can you say there's not unicorns ? Thus they most certainly exist, UNTIL BOOGEYMAN PROVES OTHERWISE". Right ?

You see what you're doing is like that example: Trying to put the burden of proof back on me to prove that cameras CAN'T be used to find gold. Why is the burden of proof on me to disprove it ? Seems to me, just like in the unicorn analogy, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (you). Not the other way around.

 

[elh]

Boogeyman, let's take this it's logical extension. By virtue of an example:

If I said to you "unicorns exist". And told you they're grazing in a pasture in a small town outside of Prescott, AZ. All you have to do is go there and look. You'd say to me "Nonsense. Unicorns don't exist". Right ? To which I'd say to you:

"Have you gone to Prescott, AZ and looked ? If not, how can you say there's not unicorns ? Thus they most certainly exist, UNTIL BOOGEYMAN PROVES OTHERWISE". Right ?

You see what you're doing is like that example: Trying to put the burden of proof back on me to prove that cameras CAN'T be used to find gold. Why is the burden of proof on me to disprove it ? Seems to me, just like in the unicorn analogy, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (you). Not the other way around.

Unicorns DO exist, maybe not in Arizona but check the scriptures.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Unicorns DO exist, maybe not in Arizona but check the scriptures.

Perhaps. But Prescott, AZ didn't exist at the time of the scriptures. Or substitute leprechauns or Martians instead of unicorns.

 

[boogeyman]

Boogeyman, let's take this it's logical extension. By virtue of an example:

If I said to you "unicorns exist". And told you they're grazing in a pasture in a small town outside of Prescott, AZ. All you have to do is go there and look. You'd say to me "Nonsense. Unicorns don't exist". Right ? To which I'd say to you:

"Have you gone to Prescott, AZ and looked ? If not, how can you say there's not unicorns ? Thus they most certainly exist, UNTIL BOOGEYMAN PROVES OTHERWISE". Right ?

You see what you're doing is like that example: Trying to put the burden of proof back on me to prove that cameras CAN'T be used to find gold. Why is the burden of proof on me to disprove it ? Seems to me, just like in the unicorn analogy, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (you). Not the other way around.

Yes Sheldon. I've been to the Prescott area numerous times But! just because I didn't happen to stumble over a unicorn on those trips doesn't mean they don't exist. And I ask you again have you modded a camera? Have you ever used this technique in the field? Have you done anything except read about it on forums or the Randi Foundation web site? Unicorns!?!?!? that's the best comparison you can come up with!?!?! I always like how skeptics never give a straight answer always cockamamie comparison or a diversion from the question. Yes Sheldon! I'm putting the burden of proof not necessarily on you but on your statement or should I say assumption. So, what's your game? Did you get bored and decide to resurrect an old thread like you did on the dowsing area? So you could puff yourself up by beating others down with what you call debate?
Take care have a good day! Oh! Here's a little hint! If you turn the headlights off and use the driving lights when driving around in circles in the parking lots it helps you see through the cloud of dust! Might want to turn to the headlights off.

 

[boogeyman]

Perhaps. But Prescott, AZ didn't exist at the time of the scriptures. Or substitute leprechauns or Martians instead of unicorns.

Prescott did exist Sheldon. It just hadn't been named or incorporated yet. Gawd! I gotta knock that off I'm starting to sound like Tom! My apologies folks! Two Toms here is just too much!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes Sheldon. I've been to the Prescott area numerous times...

All I need to do is give the name of a city you've never been to. Or a book you've never read. And then , any assertion I can make (elephants that fly, persons with 5 heads, etc...) you can have no doubt on . Right ? Because if you haven't been to that city to dis-prove it, or read the book I'm telling you to find and buy, then this makes any assertion I can come up with, to be valid and true (till you've disproved it).

That's what you're doing to me. Both your replies here perpetually try to burden of proof back on me. It is my opinion that if someone says there's flying elephants, or 5 headed humans, or cameras that can find gold: Then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not the other way around.

It is not my job to go find a certain type camera, take 100 pix, buy and read a book, etc... in order to DIS-PROVE. It is the person making the claim who bears the burden of proof.

 

[elh]

All I need to do is give the name of a city you've never been to. Or a book you've never read. And then , any assertion I can make (elephants that fly, persons with 5 heads, etc...) you can have no doubt on . Right ? Because if you haven't been to that city to dis-prove it, or read the book I'm telling you to find and buy, then this makes any assertion I can come up with, to be valid and true (till you've disproved it).

That's what you're doing to me. Both your replies here perpetually try to burden of proof back on me. It is my opinion that if someone says there's flying elephants, or 5 headed humans, or cameras that can find gold: Then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not the other way around.

It is not my job to go find a certain type camera, take 100 pix, buy and read a book, etc... in order to DIS-PROVE. It is the person making the claim who bears the burden of proof.

So why keep blabbering about it. You've proven it to yourself, so let others believe what they will or will not believe.
I stand with the dowsing L rods and the cameras.

 

[Tpmetal]

Tom can be a pain sometimes, but he is right guys... any scientific or intellectual debate tends to have these rules. Like the one making the claim Is responsible for bearing the burden of proof. As in you can not claim anything and still hold a valid point unless you can back it up with reliable and tested proof. If I were to believe any of these claims you must do blind tests, with multiple controls, and be able to repeat the results consistently. I still have not seen a single soul do this yet. So until then people will continue to be called crazy or will be accused of passing on false information. You can not put this proof of burden on others if you want to ever be taken seriously. I am seriously all ears if you can show me a reliable and repeatable test based on the scientific method.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So why keep blabbering about it....

Because the proponents keep blabbering about it.

.... so let others believe what they will or will not believe...

Who said they can't believe ? They can believe anything they want.