Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[boogeyman]

Sheldon, Have you been comprehending? Have I made ANY claims? 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saying my example of the auras in Colorado are bunk, is that based on you not hearing of it, never researched the historical documents or even been there & talked to some of these people face to face?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.

Anyone interested in experimenting or exchanging notes let's swing this conversation more towards the positive direction!

Whoops I was wrong! I did make a claim! I claimed this doesn't work in the deserts & David was wrong. Not fair! I should've said my experiments & tests didn't work for me. Could be I wasn't doing something right or he had only been using it in his area. Anyway! There you go Sheldon I did make a claim! Feel better now! Yeah, thought you would........

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[boogeyman]

boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:



Ok, so my kill-joy skeptical claim is the only claim going on here. Right ? Just making sure I understand you correctly. *BUT WAIT*, what am I claiming won't work ? Ie.: what is the "it" (in gold italics of your quote above) ? The "It" is the claim that (drumroll) .... digital cameras can see buried gold . Right ?

Then do you see therefore how your statement is self-suicidal ? That based on its own implied premise, that I am not the one making an only claim. But that, in fact, inferred by own your own statement that I am REPLYING TO a claim-on-the-table that has already been made.

Thus how do you get off saying I'm the only making the claim here ? The title of the post, and the ensuing thread, ARE the "claim". I came on rather late in the game to challenge the notion.

I know why you are trying hard to say that I'm the only one making the claim though (and its very revealing and clever). Because you know full well that the burden of proof lies on the one making the (original) claim. So I'm actually tickled with your quote above. Because it shows, subconsciously ... that you know who holds the burden of proof

Good job Sheldon!!!!!!!! Whoops though! Sorry You keep telling me I need to provide undisputable proof of my claim. Nice twist my friend! The title hmmmm.... Didn't start the thread not my title so you need to be barking up OPs tree. Hey! gotta give you credit! That was a brilliant twist! Good job!!

 

[boogeyman]

boogeyman, I only got so far as this part of your quote:



Ok, so my kill-joy skeptical claim is the only claim going on here. Right ? Just making sure I understand you correctly. *BUT WAIT*, what am I claiming won't work ? Ie.: what is the "it" (in gold italics of your quote above) ? The "It" is the claim that (drumroll) .... digital cameras can see buried gold . Right ?

Then do you see therefore how your statement is self-suicidal ? That based on its own implied premise, that I am not the one making an only claim. But that, in fact, inferred by own your own statement that I am REPLYING TO a claim-on-the-table that has already been made.

Thus how do you get off saying I'm the only making the claim here ? The title of the post, and the ensuing thread, ARE the "claim". I came on rather late in the game to challenge the notion.

I know why you are trying hard to say that I'm the only one making the claim though (and its very revealing and clever). Because you know full well that the burden of proof lies on the one making the (original) claim. So I'm actually tickled with your quote above. Because it shows, subconsciously ... that you know who holds the burden of proof

what is the "it" A system or technique to locate metals. No claims being made by me. I haven't been able to devote enough time to testing or experimenting to come up with some arrogant claim like it absolutely works. Take your blinders off, drop your arrogance, and see the thread was started to share information hints etc. Good twist! Here ya go! I'll give you a freebie! Here's my claim, pay attention now. I haven't done enough work & experimenting to be able to say it works 100%. Shucks I'll give you another! I need to get out in the field more so I can make a claim! Have fun!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I haven't done enough work & experimenting to be able to say it works 100%....

Ok, then. Since you'd sparred with me over my skepticism, I just assumed you were of the camp that it's "100%" . Since you're not making the assertion (100% anyhow), then...... ok then. Sounded like you were an adherent.

 

[lesjcbs]

Folks: Tom of CA is the one with a "notion". The rest of us know the truth as we have done, and are doing what Tom listed in post #1038. Thank you Tom. In fact, this is an incomplete listing and we are doing more by testing, testing, testing, and more testing.

Tom of CA is like an old Grandma I once heard about. A man asked her grandson to invest $500.00 in his invention. Grandma told the Grandson not to as it would not work any way. So the Grand son did not invest in the new invention. The inventor was HENRY FORD and his cars. You fill in the blanks Tom of Ca.

It's like the good book says: First comes the word (Keep and open mind to it), then act on the word (Study, testing, patience, diligence), then comes sure knowledge. Those of us who have done these things, and more, now have a sure knowledge of this technique.

 

[boogeyman]

Ok, then. Since you'd sparred with me over my skepticism, I just assumed you were of the camp that it's "100%" . Since you're not making the assertion (100% anyhow), then...... ok then. Sounded like you were an adherent.

There you go again. I can't figure you out!

1. You have a serious reading comprehension problem?
2. Your ego demands you to twist others comments to prove your always right.
3. You're (I'd hope not) just an Alpha Henry that delights in trying to rile up other people.

Ok, My statement.
1. I wholeheartedly believe this technique does work. Period!
2. I'm not 100% = Since I haven't been able to make it work 100% (not working for me in desert areas) I wouldn't feel good about standing up & making a claim!
3. I haven't been able to put enough time into testing experimenting to make ANY claim. But I will keep trying to make progress as time permits.
4. My firm belief is just because I haven't seen it or experienced it, that does not mean it doesn't exist! Sorry not that arrogant.

Ok? I can't dumb it down any further. OK, WERE DONE HERE.

 

[boogeyman]

Maybe this will help some of you that would like to try this. My neighbor saw me taking pictures of my planted gold. We got talking and he was interested and showed me his camera. He has a case with I think every filter known to man but his camera lens isn't threaded to accept a filter holder. We went to Depot and got the rubber part of a compression coupler showed him we could cut a strip of it to slide on his camera & slide a filter in the other end. He's got a video camera that has a lens with a smaller diameter than his filters. We found a gray rubber reducer I think for the line from a dishwasher to garbage disposer. A little tight but it worked! If you can't find a filter with the right diameter, you're not out of luck!

I picked up some sheet rubber while we were there. Got to thinking my cell phone can be set to work with this. I could cut the hole needed in the rubber & just hold the filter over the lens with no light leaks. Anyone beat me to this idea?

 

[boogeyman]

Forgot! Was looking at some old Polaroid cameras yesterday and a lady told me she'd heard Polaroid was going to start making the film packs again. Anyone heard this? Any truth to it? Boy wouldn't that be cool!!!!!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Lesjcbs, let's look at your post, line-by-line :

Folks: Tom of CA is the one with a "notion"....

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.

.... The rest of us know the truth as we have done,...

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 ?

..... we are doing more by testing, testing, testing, and more testing. .....

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

.... So the Grand son did not invest in the new invention. The inventor was HENRY FORD and his cars. You fill in the blanks Tom of Ca.....

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".

.....(Keep and open mind to it), then act on the word (Study, testing, patience, diligence), then comes sure knowledge. Those of us who have done these things, and more, now have a sure knowledge of this technique.

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...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Boogey: Dissecting your post :

....2. Your ego demands you to twist others comments to prove your always right.....

This is odd. Seems to me that you're no less "trying to prove your right". Eh ? WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE. That's the purpose of a forum, eh ? To compare pro's and con's to see which methods work Versus which methods don't. And the pros & con's thereof . The finger (of "who thinks they're right") points both ways. You're no less certain of your views. And that's perfectly fine.

.... I wholeheartedly believe this technique does work. Period.....

But then you turn right around and say :

.... I'm not 100% = Since I haven't been able to make it work 100% ....

See the contradiction ?

As for the "making it work 100%" : Be careful of random odds. If you take enough pictures, at enough test landscapes, and eventually get a planted gold target to emit some certain glow or color, by fiddling and distorting lenses and filters : Be aware that pictures and objects could be random odds. Ie.: eventually, sure, you can get your test gold item to glow or show up in some way different than the surrounding objects. So you think "Aha! It worked". But this is subconsious memory bias. You're forgetting all the pix where nearby copper or aluminum or wood "glowed" a funny color too. Or the repeat test of the exact same pix, where you took 2 steps to the left, and did not get the phenomenon to repeat. Don't you see how you might just be getting random odds ?

Similar to some who points my tennis shoe treasure device at enough ruins and likely spots. Then dig enough holes (using a detector to pinpoint). And then .. let's say, you one-day find a treasure. Ok, did that mean the tennis shoe worked ? Or was digging enough holes around enough likely ruins bound to fall on the random odds ? So too would I be cautious of any individual uncanny results of someone thinking gold came out on film different. Unless it can be repeated in double-blind staged tests: It could be random odds of normal picture variances.

...just because I haven't seen it or experienced it, that does not mean it doesn't exist! .....

Ok, let's try that out in-the-real-world. Apply your above statement to the following assertion: "unicorns" (or Godzilla, or leprechauns, or ... whatever) exist. Boogeyman has neither seen nor experienced them. Yet I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you'd say "hogwash. Those things don't exist" (barring proof to the contrary). Right ?

Thus: Do see the logical self-implosion of the above statement, when applied to anything else ?

 

[can_slaw]

I wondered why this post was constantly at the top of the "New Posts" on my feed, but never bothered to read it based on the age of the original post.
Goodness gentleman, it seems we have stopped trying to prove the theory in the original post, and instead are just trying to prove each other right or wrong.
I sure hope I don't offend anyone, but can't you both just agree to disagree and let a new post come across all of our feeds in the #1 spot?
No one is actually going to win this.........

 

[lesjcbs]

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...

Tom of Ca:


WOW,you do a great job of trying to convince others you are on the level. I now think you are not as genuine as you pretend to be. In fact,after all the noise you just put out in this post, you can not be that messed up in your thinking.


I believe you are here for some other reason than to preach logic. What is it Tom? Do you work for a Government agency like the CIA, FBI, or IRS with the mission to find out what treasures people have found and how, and then report it to your boss for further actions against your own countrymen?

 

[boogeyman]

Boogey: Dissecting your post :



This is odd. Seems to me that you're no less "trying to prove your right". Eh ? WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE. That's the purpose of a forum, eh ? To compare pro's and con's to see which methods work Versus which methods don't. And the pros & con's thereof . The finger (of "who thinks they're right") points both ways. You're no less certain of your views. And that's perfectly fine.

But then you turn right around and say : See the contradiction ?

As for the "making it work 100%" : Be careful of random odds. If you take enough pictures, at enough test landscapes, and eventually get a planted gold target to emit some certain glow or color, by fiddling and distorting lenses and filters : Be aware that pictures and objects could be random odds. Ie.: eventually, sure, you can get your test gold item to glow or show up in some way different than the surrounding objects. So you think "Aha! It worked". But this is subconsious memory bias. You're forgetting all the pix where nearby copper or aluminum or wood "glowed" a funny color too. Or the repeat test of the exact same pix, where you took 2 steps to the left, and did not get the phenomenon to repeat. Don't you see how you might just be getting random odds ?

Similar to some who points my tennis shoe treasure device at enough ruins and likely spots. Then dig enough holes (using a detector to pinpoint). And then .. let's say, you one-day find a treasure. Ok, did that mean the tennis shoe worked ? Or was digging enough holes around enough likely ruins bound to fall on the random odds ? So too would I be cautious of any individual uncanny results of someone thinking gold came out on film different. Unless it can be repeated in double-blind staged tests: It could be random odds of normal picture variances.




Ok, let's try that out in-the-real-world. Apply your above statement to the following assertion: "unicorns" (or Godzilla, or leprechauns, or ... whatever) exist. Boogeyman has neither seen nor experienced them. Yet I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you'd say "hogwash. Those things don't exist" (barring proof to the contrary). Right ?

Thus: Do see the logical self-implosion of the above statement, when applied to anything else ?

Re-read the last line of 1046 it's the one after 1045.
Here! I'll make it simple for you. Ok? I can't dumb it down any further. OK, WERE DONE HERE.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...Do you work for a Government agency like the CIA, FBI, or IRS with the mission to find out what treasures people have found and how,...

Yup. You got me. I'm a government shill sent here to try to dissuade you from finding the gold. We stand around in smokey dark rooms in trenchcoats. Smoking cigarettes watching your every move on computer monitors. Sshh, don't tell anyone . Muhahaha

... it seems we have stopped trying to prove the theory in the original post, and instead are just trying to prove each other right or wrong.
.........

Well, them continuing the assertion IS the "trying to prove the original post". But if you look closely, you see no such proof, eh ? I'd love to see the proof. Sheesk, I need to find some more gold coins. And a camera to just look at the landscape, would make it *sseeooo* much easier after all.

 

[WesP]

I've read some of this thread and since it's almost 10 years old I figured there would be a consensus one way or the other but apparently no one has produced any definitive proof that it is a viable method of finding precious metals. 10 years is a long time. How many cameras and filter combinations have been tested? How many treasures troves have been located with this method? If it's just a matter of wave lengths of natural light why has someone not just added band pass filters to a camera to only see the specific wave lengths? It either works or it doesn't. If it does Midis should be a rich man by now.
I read an article referenced back a ways about which cameras will work. It inclued this paragraph reguarding infared photography:

Lens Issues

Certain lenses can produce abnormalities when shooting in IR, namely hotspots. When looking at an image, a bright, discolored ring can be seen in the middle of the photograph when it has been affected.

Other issues can occur such as streaks over the image. These can be minimized is post-production, but are a real pain to deal with.

Currently, there is no truly comprehensive list to show what lenses work well, and what lenses produce hotspots, but DPAnswers have produced a respectable guide on a number of popular lenses to help you see what lenses could cause you problems when shooting.

Read the list of known affected lenses here on dpanswers.com.
Something to think about........

 

[can_slaw]

Yup. You got me. I'm a government shill sent here to try to dissuade you from finding the gold. We stand around in smokey dark rooms in trenchcoats. Smoking cigarettes watching your every move on computer monitors. Sshh, don't tell anyone . Muhahaha




Well, them continuing the assertion IS the "trying to prove the original post". But if you look closely, you see no such proof, eh ? I've love to see the proof. Sheesk, I need to find some more gold coins. And a camera to just look at the landscape, would make it *sseeooo* much easier after all.

This is a trap I am not interested in getting my leg caught in. I guess you guys need to get on the spandex, and jump in the ring for a good old fashioned WWE style smack down to settle this. Above that I doubt anything is ever going to convince either of you to believe the other.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... but apparently no one has produced any definitive proof that it is a viable method of finding precious metals........

Welcome to the game.

1) It's not up to them to PROVE it works. It's up to you to prove it DOESN'T work.

2) To even question the possibility that it works (or show more plausible explanations for anomolies they've noticed) you are hereby : Close-minded, impatient, non-diligent, etc...

.....How many treasures troves have been located with this method? ......

Fruitless question. Because, most certainly, if/when treasure-troves are found, the finders will remain mum. Only a fool would speak out and tell others. Lest he be at risk of govt. interference, claim-jumpers, thieves, and kidnappers. But rest assured, treasure troves are being found. We just can't tell you.

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom of Ca:

Here is some logic for you. Five months ago on October 29, 2017 you were posting here during nights only. At that time, you claimed to have a business of your own that required you to work nights.

Now you are on your computer posting in this forum during the day time, each day, every day. What happened? Because it was your turn, did your Government boss put you on the day shift? When will it be your turn to work the swing shift in your department?

It is only logical you need to hide your true mission identity. But, logic says, your new posting times betrays you.

Folks, go to page#58 of this thread and read my post #857. Then go to Tom's reply at post #859.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... What happened? Because it was your turn, did your Government boss put you on the day shift? When will it be your turn to work the swing shift in your department?

It is only logical you need to hide your true mission identity. But, logic says, your new posting times betrays you. ....

Wow, so the time of day I post betrays me as a secret govt. shill ? Hmmm

Yes I'm self-employed. Sometimes our work is at night, other times at day. Just varies. But wait, that's simply a ploy excuse to cover the *real* reason for the posting time discrepancies. Yup you're right: I'm secretly sent here to dissuade folks from finding the treasure rooms that we'd prefer not be discovered. You got me . Shhh, don't tell anyone

 

[lesjcbs]

Wow, so the time of day I post betrays me as a secret govt. shill ? Hmmm

Yes I'm self-employed. Sometimes our work is at night, other times at day. Just varies. But wait, that's simply a ploy excuse to cover the *real* reason for the posting time discrepancies. Yup you're right: I'm secretly sent here to dissuade folks from finding the treasure rooms that we'd prefer not be discovered. You got me . Shhh, don't tell anyone

Prove your claim. After all, according to you, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Additionally, you have not denied being employed by the government.

Your mission is not as you say "to dissuade folks from finding the treasure rooms that we'd prefer not be discovered", your mission is different. Your mission is to find out when someone recovers a very valuable treasure so the government can move in and take it from them. You do this by challenging people to post finds, no matter the method they used. The truth is, you really don't care about the method / s or technique as it was posted in the past that this technique is actually old news, but is now being done with DSLR cameras.