Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

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.

I thought it was you, making the claim, in post #1052. And I was merely confirming "yes I am". But yes: It appears you were only phrasing it in the form of a question. And my following assertion was .... yes ..... the claim that I am a govt. shill. And therefore yes: Therefore the burden of proof would be on me now . Right ?

Which brings up the perfect illustration for purposes of this thread: Since I won't , nor can I, provide evidence that I am employed as a govt. shill, then I do not expect you to BELIEVE that I am. And thus, by corollary : So too should you not expect me to believe that cameras can be made to find gold. Unless evidence were forthcoming.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[lesjcbs]

I thought it was you, making the claim, in post #1052. And I was merely confirming "yes I am". But yes: It appears you were only phrasing it in the form of a question. And my following assertion was .... yes ..... the claim that I am a govt. shill. And therefore yes: Therefore the burden of proof would be on me now . Right ?

Which brings up the perfect illustration for purposes of this thread: Since I won't , nor can I, provide evidence that I am employed as a govt. shill, then I do not expect you to BELIEVE that I am. And thus, by corollary : So too should you not expect me to believe that cameras can be made to find gold. Unless evidence were forthcoming.

When do you retire from Government employment?

 

[WesP]

How many people have posted of a sucessful outcome using this method? Surely in almost ten years there has been more then one or two.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How many people have posted of a sucessful outcome using this method? ....

Follow along long enough, and you will see that "successful outcomes" are not the measure of whether it works, or "success". The lack-of-success (proofs) here mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the pro/con debate. They (the lack of posted successes) can all be explained away easily.

 

[boogeyman]

Folks, This thread has been running a long time and has been resurrected several times. Some of you probably haven't started at the beginning. So most of the useful information or trading tips has gotten kind of buried. Tom has ben trying his best to commandeer the thread with his almost attacks and pages & pages of dissecting statements etc. Go back to the beginning Tom has admitted he hasn't tried this technique, read the books that are available, or even invested in the tools to try this. Read his posts and it quickly becomes evident he has no, 0.0% knowledge of this. OK, that would mean what he has posted isn't worth spit. If you have 0.0% experience or knowledge why would anyone be expected to listen to anything you say? Please go back and read from the start, his intent is to do nothing except puff up his ego & have everyone bow down to Tom the master debater. All the selective dissecting garbage is nothing but garbage. If you look at these posts it's obvious he's just trying to be an A1 alpha Henry. Folks, go over to the Dowsing forums and you'll see the same childish behaviors. He's been warned by the mods over there, and I think he didn't take their warnings there. Starting the same stuff here shows us he doesn't understand TNets house TNets rules.

Please go & read, it's plain as day. What useful information or knowledge has he provided? 0.0% Just being an A1 you know what. Hope we can get back to learning & sharing!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... childish behaviors. ...

Childish behavior is defined as anything that shows weaknesses in your viewpoint. Got it.

.... Folks, go over to the Dowsing forums and you'll see the same childish behaviors. He's been warned by the mods over there,...

Guess what the difference between that forum and other forums is ? Only affirming viewpoints are allowed there. To that extent, sure, the mod's came clear on that. Fine. You'll get nothing to challenge the dowsing . What does that have to do with here ? This unconventional method in this section of "techniques" is not limited to only an affirming view. So .... what's your point ?

As for the beginning of the thread, where you say there's posts that prove the workability of this camera/gold system, which particular post #'s are you referring to ? I recall no such proof. But if you can direct me to the #, I will address them.

 

[lesjcbs]

How many people have posted of a sucessful outcome using this method? Surely in almost ten years there has been more then one or two.

Wes:

Ifyou listen to Tom of CA, you will get no where with this technique. To see how this technique works, watch the following videos:





These are what Tom hopes everyone never see.


Enjoy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...These are what Tom hopes everyone never see....

Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

Got any better "proof" ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

Got any better "proof" ?

and more.. Be careful who you follow WesP.

 

[boogeyman]

Why would I hope no one sees those ? I'm ALL FOR bringing new technology to our hobby. Provided, of course, it stands the test. I've viewed all 3 of your videos, from start to finish. And I believe I can show more plausible explanations .


At 2.15 in the first video. I see no "gold aura" to differentiate one spot from any other. What's up ? Me thinks his imagination is running wild. Look for yourself. And did he aim his set up elsewhere ? where no gold exists ? To make sure that odd-ball color schemes don't simply exist everywhere you point the contraption ?

2nd video: Starting at .18 seconds. "Sometimes it works , sometimes it doesn't. " Huhh ? Well sometimes a broken clock reads 12 noon, other times it doesn't . So what's the point ? If you keep aiming a camera at a known spot, and take 1000 photographs, YES, you will eventually see something uncanny show up in a photograph. But that's like saying that you lie on your back, and look at the passing clouds long enough, you'll eventually see a bunny shape, a smile-face, a big-dipper, etc... Me thinks it's just random eventual odds, and nothing to do with what's in the ground. In the same way that passing cloud formations will eventually have an uncanny shape.

Starting @ 2:40 in the 2nd video, he admits: "No set pattern" huh ? Doesn't sound successful to me. And this is video proof ? Even the video maker himeself is giving this low grades. And this is proof ? The "orbs" he goes on to point out, look like nothing more than nearby lighting (street lights, sun-light, etc..) that streaks into the pix. At 6:30 he admits as such: "hard to say that it's not a sun refection." And admits to " taking over 1000 photographs ...... " Don't you see that he's just eventually going to come down on random odds that eventually, some anomoly occurs ?

It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?

This is quite revealing that this is the best proof the adherent can come up with. There's no proof here. The author himself admits, at the end of the 3rd video, that someone else can pick up the research where he's leaving off (as if this were even a possible working system to eventually be refined). So as you can see, nothing, even by his own admission, can be replicated, known, shown, etc... that passes double blind repeatable scrutiny. Everything here can be explained with more plausible explanations.

I say this with utmost respect. You are more-than fair. I'm glad that you gave me these to study. Believe me, I certainly wish this worked. I'd be the first to try it.

Got any better "proof" ?

Oh come on Sheldon! you aren't even trying anymore It would be like tossing my tennis shoe, blindfolded, over my left shoulder, 1000 times in the city park. And wherever it lands, I dig. I bet you that few times out of that 1000, that there's a coin within a foot of where it landed. Did that create merit for my tennis shoe ? Or was it eventual random odds and memory bias ?
You're using the same old junk from the dowsing forum......... Next thing you're gonna want a commission in the Cornell division of the Randi's elite force of regurgitators. Come on man I know you can do better!

We're still waiting for you to answer, Why this technique doesn't work! Man! You've had plenty of time to present your evidence for your claim it doesn't work. You demand proof yet you refuse to present your evidence. Here we go folks! Let's see the twist on that. Tom you can have a day or so, might be time for your nap. I know I know it's a real pain to have to go out & drive to cover vacations etc.

 

[lesjcbs]

Boogey:

I do believe the distance to the tent stake from where he is taking photographs is more than what he says. I put it at around 30 or maybe 40 yards. But his interpretation of what is in the enhanced pictures are accurate.

In post #5 on page #1 of this thread, Midas talks about seeing a target at 170 yards away and he shows that picture in his book. What this means is since it is detection at a distance, by definition, this technique is long range locating (LRL) at its best.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....You're using the same old junk from the dowsing forum........

Well I can't imagine why. Hmmm, how about : Because they both fall victim to the same explainable reasons ?

....We're still waiting for you to answer, Why this technique doesn't work!... .

Huh ? I'm still waiting for you to explain why the burden of proof is on me ? The burden of proof is on the one who's made the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And those videos, as I've shown/explained, have more plausible explanations.

 

[lesjcbs]

Well I can't imagine why. Hmmm, how about : Because they both fall victim to the same explainable reasons ?




Huh ? I'm still waiting for you to explain why the burden of proof is on me ? The burden of proof is on the one who's made the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And those videos, as I've shown/explained, have more plausible explanations.

OK Tom, without trying to prove anything, tell us why you have the notion this technique does not work? .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... tell us why you have the notion this technique does not work? .

Because no credible evidence has come forward showing that it does.

 

[boogeyman]

Because no credible evidence has come forward showing that it does.

Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......

 

[boogeyman]

Boogey:

I do believe the distance to the tent stake from where he is taking photographs is more than what he says. I put it at around 30 or maybe 40 yards. But his interpretation of what is in the enhanced pictures are accurate.

In post #5 on page #1 of this thread, Midas talks about seeing a target at 170 yards away and he shows that picture in his book. What this means is since it is detection at a distance, by definition, this technique is long range locating (LRL) at its best.

I see your point. As far as classing it as LRL I'm not ready to go that far. That's just my opinion from my experiments. Doesn't mean it is or isn't. I'll go back and look when I can. This is my "in the field laptop" and the screen resolution stinks. I've only been able to experiment in my test area so far. Like I said, this has been back of the shelve for me due to several other projects. What it'd take for me is getting out in a larger area & test for distance. If you can, can you give me some input or ideas why I get no (nothing zip nada)positive results in desert terrain? I don't think it's just location related as I've tried in Calif. Nevada, and Arizona. For that matter, anyone feel free to jump in with your ideas or experience. Thanks!

Tom you don't need to bother. You have 0.0% experience so your input means nothing to me.

 

[lesjcbs]

Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......

Boogey:

He is in a denial state of mind and cannot progress or be added to in knowledge. Not being added to is a way of saying to be stopped which has been his condition from the moment he joined this thread up to the present time. Anyone who follows him will be the same way.

First you hear the word, then you act on it, then comes the sure knowledge of the word. He has heard the word but he has failed to act on it for himself and thus remains ignorant and will remain so until he changes. Thus, he is not credited for anything of value.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Pretty bold statement there Sheldon. You got any proof? You have any thing concrete that says there is none? Didn't think so. I guess if almighty Tom says it isn't so it must be. Again you demand credible evidence to back up our claims & theories yet almighty Tom refuses to provide any of his claim.. Yet again you make the claim with 0.0% experience or knowledge. Doesn't help your credibility there......

boogey-person, how is it a "bold statement" to say that no evidence has been forthcoming ? All you need to do, to shoot my statement down, is to ....... drumroll ......: show evidence. If you did, then yes: My statement would be "pretty bold", non-credible, leaving me with 0.0% credibility, and acting like I'm almighty. So how is my statement pretty "bold" ? I'd say it's just stating the status of the conversation at this point.

Lesjcbs did a good job of putting some effort on the table. For which I am thankful. I studied it, & found it lacking, lending itself to more plausible explanations, and inconclusive. Heck, the video author himself said that too !


If you'd like me to go back and .... point by point refer you to the time-stamps of where these admissions occur, let me know. But I would request that if I take the time to listen/watch again for nearly 30 min. videos to provide you the time-stamps, that we agree ahead of time: That if I show the author did acknowledge these short-comings, that you admit , likewise, that this is not conclusive evidence. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my 30 minutes catching time-stamps to pass on to you.

Please remember that the burden of proof is on the side of the person making the claim. Not the person skeptical of the claim. UNLESS the person being skeptical had been shown point-blank-proof, yet failed to give a rationale response, then yes, the burden would be on me to explain how the "proof" being shown to me lacks merit. If my thoughts on the video's lack of merits doesn't hold water, then please let me know how my observations were in error.

I believe I did a good job at answering the videos Lesjcbs posted. I really didn't even need to comment much on those. Since, as said, the author/maker himself pretty much acknowledged that it has no rhyme or reason. And I believe I gave a good example of how selective memory bias could produce the fanciful blotches he thinks he sees.

 

[lesjcbs]

I see your point. As far as classing it as LRL I'm not ready to go that far. That's just my opinion from my experiments. Doesn't mean it is or isn't. I'll go back and look when I can. This is my "in the field laptop" and the screen resolution stinks. I've only been able to experiment in my test area so far. Like I said, this has been back of the shelve for me due to several other projects. What it'd take for me is getting out in a larger area & test for distance. If you can, can you give me some input or ideas why I get no (nothing zip nada)positive results in desert terrain? I don't think it's just location related as I've tried in Calif. Nevada, and Arizona. For that matter, anyone feel free to jump in with your ideas or experience. Thanks!

Tom you don't need to bother. You have 0.0% experience so your input means nothing to me.

I will PM you my answer as I do have one I think will help. True, we don't need Toms 0.0% experience input.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Boogey:

He is in a denial state of mind and cannot progress or be added to in knowledge. Not being added to is a way of saying to be stopped which has been his condition from the moment he joined this thread up to the present time. Anyone who follows him will be the same way.

First you hear the word, then you act on it, then comes the sure knowledge of the word. He has heard the word but he has failed to act on it for himself and thus remains ignorant and will remain so until he changes. Thus, he is not credited for anything of value.

I have read this through 3 times. Looking long and hard for something of substance to lend itself to the matter of "can cameras that can see buried gold/silver ?". But alas, nothing there

Nothing except to dismiss anyone that doesn't agree (who asks for evidence anyhow) as being in a denial state of mind, non-progressive, lacking knowledge, ignorant, adding nothing of value, etc.... All of which can be termed as name-calling (eg.: "your mother wears army boots"). Yet .... alas, .... nothing to lend to the conversation. Except to assume one's own conclusion, as proof of their evidence for it.