Lesjcbs, let's look at your post, line-by-line :
No. The "notion" is the thread's opening claim. It's the persons advancing an extraordinary claim (that cameras can be made to find gold) that bears the burden of proof. NOT the person who says "Prove it". You've heard the old addage: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. It's not on the skeptics to prove it
DOESN'T work. It's on the claimants to prove it DOES work.
Because, I remind you, even if someone knocked themselves silly trying to disprove a notion, it would never end. You would just say they're not using it right. Or need more practice. Or that moon-beams or solar sun spots must've affected the results that day. Etc.. etc... etc... In other words: No one can EVER disprove it (unless some sort of double-blind pre-agreed-upon set of specifics and standards to-the-claim were agreed to by both side at the outset. And even then I fear that ..... if the cameras failed, the excuses ("rigged/unfair tests, bad vibes", etc...) excuses would simply be rolled out.
Really ? You've been able to replicate this in a controlled setting, such that it's beyond "other plausible explanations", and can be shown to be a repeatable phenomenon ? WONDERFUL ! Now we're talking . Ok, I'm all ears: Where's the proof ?
Wait, I'm a little mystified. On the
previous quote, it sounded like you'd gotten it mastered and proven. But now you're still in the test phase ? Hmmmm
Lesjcbs, do you see the logical fallacy you just put forth ? Your analogy (Henry Ford) has a BIG implied implicit starting point, in order to qualify for the rest of your analogy. Namely: That it works. If it does, then yes, the Ford analogy works. Because, we all know from history, that Ford's invention worked, and you've been a fool to have not invested back then. But don't you see the logical fallacy here ? We're discussing whether this works or not. Your illustration simply ASSUMES it does. Ok, says who ? Where's the proof ?
You are falling afoul of : " Assuming what you are trying to prove, as evidence for your proof of it". Only once you've proven your starting premise, can you invoke the Ford illustration.
IN THE SAME WAY as if I gave you an example of someone who invested in a supposed new technology that turned out to be
non-functional: The investor looses all his $$. If I gave you that illustration, you'd say: "That doesn't apply. Because this camera thing DOES work. Hence your bad-investment story is non-applicable". Right ? Thus so too is the good investment Ford story not applicable, till we've arrived at a starting premise of "
this works".
This is 100% true, assuming a starting premise. That it works. If it doesn't work, then your statement falls apart. Once again this is assuming one's own point of view as a "given", when said-point-of-view has not even been proven yet in the first place.
I have an open mind. As long as the evidence points to "it works". For example, I could say all the same things in your last quote regarding any absurd claim (Eg.: Tennis shoe covered in peanut butter finds treasure). I GUARANTEE you that you would not "study it" . Nor would you would not be "patient and diligent". You would not "have an open mind", etc...
On the contrary: You'd say "hogwash". Right ? And the burden of proof would be on me to prove otherwise. You would have no obligation to study tennis shoes, lest you get pinned with the moniker "close-minded" and "non-patient", etc...
? I'm not that arrogant. I'm (as stated before) experimenting & learning & looking at this with an open mind. Maybe you're working so hard at disputing this and coming up with all this fairy tale junk you missed it. The only claims anyone has made here is you claiming it can't possibly work. You're so desperately trying to sway or twist things to fit your negative picture of how the world works I think you're missing some stuff, or ignoring things. You've made the claim this can't work numerous times. You're saying my example of the auras in Colorado are bunk, is that based on you not hearing of it, never researched the historical documents or even been there & talked to some of these people face to face? So, once again I have to ask, Do you REALLY think these people would've continued running into the mountains for a few hundred years for nothing?? Do you fish? Do you poo poo fishing because you don't catch any fish? Ok, you gather up your fishing equipment head out and get skunked what do you do? Do you go home research, study, share with others, learn that maybe something as simple as a pulltab on a hook works maybe even better than a $30 jig ? Or do you jump on the fishing web sites And arrogantly claim fishing is ALL bunk because you claim it is. As you've stated yourself you have have 0.0% experience with this, So how can you be all knowing? You haven't even expended the effort to learn, just spewed some Great Randi stuff. At least Randi figured out a way to make money on it. How about trying to add something positive here? Nope no ego boost doing that, is there? You're making a claim there is no way this can work. Do you have ANY proof it doesn't work to provide? Can you with your vast all knowing experience enlighten us? I mean without all the unicorn & flaming ridiculous junk? Can you? Come on Sheldon with your 0.0% of experience you should be able to come with something that that backs up YOUR claim this can't possibly work. And we'll give you time to go back and re read my claims. DING! times up! How many did you find. I'm going to back off this a little...... I would feel really bad if I was the cause of you getting another time out.
