Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[boogeyman]

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, jeeze this is getting old with you. Lessee if I can dumb it down a little more for ya.

Have I made any claims? No. That's been determined. Ok, set that aside so you don't get confused.

OK, pay attention here, read it twice if you need to. Have you made a claim? Yes. You claim this system doesn't or couldn't work. Ok, I'm asking you to provide proof of >your< claim. Now we're talking about the claim >you< made. This is why the burden of proof is on you. Do you expect us to provide proof of your claim? Take ownership of your claim. Think you understand now? If you can't then I guess we can assume your claim is false or that's the only thing left to keep your ego inflated. Come on Sheldon! I know you can do it! I just know you aren't that dense. Oh please do it without dissecting this line by line, we know what's all about. Just another tool to spin things eh?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

.... we don't need Toms 0.0% experience input.

Correct. We need those with 100% experience (I agree). Ok, where is it ?

The video's you've posted ? If so, what is your point by point refutation of how my more-plausible explanations lack merit to explain the videos ? How is my pointing out that the author himself admits as such, fail to register to you as a de-merit to those videos ? Got any other videos or evidence ? I'd be happy to take a look at them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Have I made any claims? No. ...

Really ? Seems to me that you're on the side of the affirming view . Aren't you ? The whole point of the thread that: "Digital cameras can see buried gold". You're going to great lengths to defend this view. Is that not a "claim" ?

.... Have you made a claim? Yes. You claim this system doesn't or couldn't work...

What is "this system" ? (think hard). The "system" is the "claim" that digital cameras can see buried gold". Right ? Hence , as you see, I'm responding. I'm not the one making the claim. I'm the respondent. Your own vocabulary/wording carries this as implicit.

..... This is why the burden of proof is on you....

The burden proof would "be on me", if I had failed to address evidences shown to me. Then yes, it would be. What happened to my explanations of lesjcb's videos ? Was that not responding (ie.: carrying a burden of proof to address) ? How was my explanations in #1068 lacking ?

 

[WesP]

Why are there no base line photos to show that these orbs don't appear with no silver or gold in the photo. All these orbs appear to me to be spherical abberation caused by low quality lens. I believe it was Midis that said he had trouble with a quality camera working with this method. I'd like to see the same photos taken with a lens cover on the camera to compare to the filtered pictures. Being a narrow minded, show me the proof kind of guy I'm going to go out on a limb and say I believe the whole thing is a figment of someones imagination. They have deluded theirselfs into believing it works so no one is lying here. They actually believe it is taking place. Just my opinion. Keep the good fight Tom. You will never change their beliefs but it's good to see scientific based mind are out there. As for me I say "Show me the MONEY! Until you do it's all a FAIRY TALE.......

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Why are there no base line photos to show that these orbs don't appear with no silver or gold in the photo. .......

Correct. This is what's known as double-blind tests, to ensure it's not random chance, wishful thinking, or that it lends itself to more plausible explanations.

Thanx for the support.

 

[WesP]

I watched the videos. All I can say is if that's the best proof you can come up with good luck. Your test is riddled with holes. How do I know your cameras don't produce the same orbs with no precious metal present. Have you read the paragraph I posted from the article on IR photography. They found orbs in some of their photos caused by abberations in some lens. The cheaper the camera the more abberations. That could be why Midis said quality cameras don't always work. The manufactures work very hard to eliminate the abberations. I find this entire idea to be a figment of someones imagination. That's my opinion. Keep up the good fight Tom. You'll never change their minds but it good to see them challenged. I say "Show me the MONEY" Until you do it's just a Fairy Tail. Oh and "Cold Fusion" How's that working out for you true belivers?

 

[lesjcbs]

I watched the videos. All I can say is if that's the best proof you can come up with good luck. Your test is riddled with holes. How do I know your cameras don't produce the same orbs with no precious metal present. Have you read the paragraph I posted from the article on IR photography. They found orbs in some of their photos caused by abberations in some lens. The cheaper the camera the more abberations. That could be why Midis said quality cameras don't always work. The manufactures work very hard to eliminate the abberations. I find this entire idea to be a figment of someones imagination. That's my opinion. Keep up the good fight Tom. You'll never change their minds but it good to see them challenged. I say "Show me the MONEY" Until you do it's just a Fairy Tail. Oh and "Cold Fusion" How's that working out for you true belivers?

WesP: Stay with Tom and I guarantee that you will get no where with this technique.

Yes,hot spots are sometimes there and I know a hot spot or flash when I see one. When they are there, knowing how to work around them is key. You are not the only one around here who has read about lens hot spots and lens designs. Having encountered them along the way, I know how to work around them when they show up, which has all come from much testing and experimenting. It's called work.and luck has nothing to do with it.


I have the same camera and filter he uses in his video. I am not going to say at this time but there are two things he could have done to get better and very consistent results. But, you are not ready for the truth anymore than Tom of Ca is.

Night night all..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... But, you are not ready for the truth anymore than Tom of Ca is...

Ready and eagerly waiting. Night-night to you too

 

[Carl-NC]

Hard to believe this thread is almost 9 years old, and in 9 years nothing useful has come out of it. I briefly jumped in 7 years ago because of some really bad information getting posted, but quickly gave up because the bad just kept getting worse.

Les, are those videos the state-of-the-art? I don't know whether to file them under Bad Photography 101 or Wishful Thinking 101. Either works. A quote near the end of Part 2 sums up the sad state of the situation: "We have experimented with this for about 2 or 3 years and are still scratching our heads." He could have just said, "We don't know what the heck we're doing."

Is this the best it gets? Anything to look forward to in the next 9 years?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Carl, you are a breath of fresh air. As usual.

.... nothing useful has come out of it.....

Oh, to the contrary: The theme that has jumped out in the last year is that it's not up the claimants to prove it. It's up the skeptics to dis-prove and show it DOESN'T work. I'd call that progress and "useful". Wouldn't you ?

But let me save you some time: If you (carl-nc) set about to test it, and found it "lacking", you would be shot down in flames, and nothing would be resolved. Your tests would mean nothing. It would only mean: a) you needed more practice, b) you weren't doing it right. c) well gee, it's still in the experimental phases, d) durned those sun-spots anyhow.

So give up and admit it works. Lest you be: 1) close-minded, 2) not teachable 3) close-minded to the truth.. Etc... etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... A quote near the end of Part 2 sums up the sad state of the situation: "We have experimented with this for about 2 or 3 years and are still scratching our heads." He could have just said, "We don't know what the heck we're doing."....

and that's not the only part where, if you listen closely , even the author/maker himself is admitting possible random chance, no rhyme or reason, non-success, etc...

I , like you , gave it a fair hearing. Gave it 30 min. of my life. Tried hard to see the proof. And found it lacking (like the author himself did). And I begged the proponents for added proof. To point me to which post towards the beginning was perhaps "proof" (since, admittedly, I didn't come on till way-late as well). But no links are forthcoming. Aside from the recent links to the 3 videos currently under scrutiny.

 

[lesjcbs]

OK, jeeze this is getting old with you. Lessee if I can dumb it down a little more for ya.

Have I made any claims? No. That's been determined. Ok, set that aside so you don't get confused.

OK, pay attention here, read it twice if you need to. Have you made a claim? Yes. You claim this system doesn't or couldn't work. Ok, I'm asking you to provide proof of >your< claim. Now we're talking about the claim >you< made. This is why the burden of proof is on you. Do you expect us to provide proof of your claim? Take ownership of your claim. Think you understand now? If you can't then I guess we can assume your claim is false or that's the only thing left to keep your ego inflated. Come on Sheldon! I know you can do it! I just know you aren't that dense. Oh please do it without dissecting this line by line, we know what's all about. Just another tool to spin things eh?

Boogeyman:

It looks like they are getting real nervous about the information you asked for in post #1079, and which I later PM'd to you.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Boogeyman:

It looks like they are getting real nervous about the information you asked for in post #1079....

Huh ? We're not nervous at all. And I've studied post #1079, how are we supposed to be "nervous" about something that's utterly between you two ? Is it evidence to squash the skepticism ? If so, bring it on. We're all ears. I'd love to have this ability, if it existed.

All I can figure from post #1079 is Boogeyman and you are speculating/wondering why it doesn't work sometimes, yet does work other times. I'll venture a guess: Random chance. If you take 1000+ pix (as the video guy did) at a certain splotch of ground, at a known-spot, then ... yes ... eventually a couple of them are going to have anomalies where some blur or blotch can be dreamed up that fits on a spot.

If I'm wrong, and it's repeatable double blind , and on wild targets (not tame only) then.... I'm all in. I'll be the first to buy and implement it.

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom and Carl:


OK boys, here is a very short list of posts in this thread showing cameras catching auras. Since I just got my camera, and am in the early stages of getting to know it and testing it on my targets, I might eventually post my results too.

Enjoy,


Post#
1
21
26
42
51
88
89
144
185
305
325
416
524
627
691
712
869
870
871

 

[Carl-NC]

Les, I'm very familiar with all the photo "evidence" that's been put forward. They're absolutely awful. Orbs? Seriously? These guys don't know what causes orbs in photos? So they pretend they're due to buried gold. Or ghosts. Or aliens. Or gold buried by alien ghosts on Oak Island.

I've personally done a lot of work with testing the aura concept. Yes, all the way back to the SX70; I still have an SX70, and even have some original film for it. The older the film, the more auras you'll see; but not because there are any real auras there. Rather, the SX70 just takes bad pictures. Digital methods are just as delusionary as Polaroid, maybe more so because you personally get to manipulate the image until it fits what you want to see.

If you have a desire to get beyond make-believe, here's an idea for your testing: Switch from buried treasure targets to dog turds. Yup, find dog turds and do your photo shoots on them. You'll get the same results with dog turds as you get for buried test targets. Then you'll have to figure out how you're gonna discriminate between gold and turd.

 

[sprailroad]

Hard to believe this thread is almost 9 years old, and in 9 years nothing useful has come out of it. I briefly jumped in 7 years ago because of some really bad information getting posted, but quickly gave up because the bad just kept getting worse.

Les, are those videos the state-of-the-art? I don't know whether to file them under Bad Photography 101 or Wishful Thinking 101. Either works. A quote near the end of Part 2 sums up the sad state of the situation: "We have experimented with this for about 2 or 3 years and are still scratching our heads." He could have just said, "We don't know what the heck we're doing."

Is this the best it gets? Anything to look forward to in the next 9 years?

NINE years now? OK. Here's a thought for Carl and Tom, apparently fella's you have not obtained a copy of "The Successful Treasure Hunters SECRET manual" as mentioned in post # 5 by Midas. You do not have the SECRETS needed! Problem solved, glad I could be of some help.

 

[Tpmetal]

OK, jeeze this is getting old with you. Lessee if I can dumb it down a little more for ya.

Have I made any claims? No. That's been determined. Ok, set that aside so you don't get confused.

OK, pay attention here, read it twice if you need to. Have you made a claim? Yes. You claim this system doesn't or couldn't work. Ok, I'm asking you to provide proof of >your< claim. Now we're talking about the claim >you< made. This is why the burden of proof is on you. Do you expect us to provide proof of your claim? Take ownership of your claim. Think you understand now? If you can't then I guess we can assume your claim is false or that's the only thing left to keep your ego inflated. Come on Sheldon! I know you can do it! I just know you aren't that dense. Oh please do it without dissecting this line by line, we know what's all about. Just another tool to spin things eh?

The lack of belief does not equal a claim of anything. It simply says I have not received any evidence to support your claim enough to be proven. The burden of proof is presented when someone says "hey this does that" or claims "this is a fact". The people asserting this is true will never ever ever be believed until submit their beliefs to the proper scrutiny of the scientific method. The scientific method I remind you is not just cherry picking info and plugging it into your theory. It often means actively trying to disprove your own theory and adjusting it for variable and information achieved during testing. You need REPEATABLE AND RELIABLE results before you can even claim any theory to have a hint of validity. EVEN THEN you results could be flawed from any number of factors. In which case you test for any factors you can think of and use ALL of this information, not just what fits your narrative the best. I often wonder how many dowsers and such also believe in flat earth. They both seem to follow the same rationality of how they "prove" their theory but ignore any and all evidence that might not fit their narrative.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Lesjcbs, thanx for taking the time to track down the post #s you feel carry the most evidence. I've studied all those post #s . I appreciate your time to give me what-you-see as evidence. Really.

I'll comment on several of them individually. But for the rest, they .... in my opinion, are lumped into Carl's explanation:

.....you personally get to manipulate the image until it fits what you want to see.....

What that means is: If you take 1000 pix of a known spot, then eventually, you'll find some anomaly or blotch that you attribute to the camera seeing the buried object . It is failing to explain A) that blotches and anomalies appear on various other pix where no metal is present, and B) fails to explain why it can't be replicated/repeated. Thus I write them off to random chance. Dust particles being "orbs" that drift past the camera lens. Or lights that streak in from left or right into the pix, etc...

In #42, #416, & #627 Where Midas & Real de Tayopa shows actual coins as a result of the process : In Midas case: A camera was used. In Real de Tayopa's case: Luminous gasses/lights (popular lore in Mexico). These could be d/t they took their devices/beliefs to a spot already suspected . Eg.: field where it's known that old coins have been found with md'ing. Or in Real's case: A story/suspicion already in place (eg.: "such and such is suspected to be here via historical citations. So someone goes there , and imagines lights and fumes in their mind). Real de Tayopa & I have had long talks on this. And he concedes that lot of the lore & superstition down there, is just that: Lore & superstition.

Then they turn on a detector to "pinpoint". Then lo & behold, finds metal. Can you see how this could just be random chance turning on a detector in a spot-already-suspected ?

And I know the probable response: SO TOO DO MD'rs HEAD OUT TO THE MOST LIKELY SPOT to test new detectors, right ? Eg.: stage stops, ruins, old defunct picnic resorts, etc... Hence why do we hold the double standard against the unconventional method promoters ? Why shouldn't they, likewise, be testing the instruments at "the most likely spots"? Just like an md'r would do. Right ?

Ok, sure. But can you see how it can still lend itself to the "eventual random odds" in "spots already likely". And that even without the camera, if Midas had simply gone md'ing in the field, He would likely have found the same exact objects. Remember: There's SO much history in England, that they often time don't even have to do research to find coins-in-fields. Just simply ANY continuously cultivated field there , that's had 2k years of cultivation, ... if you walk around with a detector long enough, you'll find metal. Maybe even a few good coins. That's exactly what the British hunters do.

#51 is a skeptics post view. Not sure why you listed that page #

#691 I already commented on this in post # 1068

I could go to any of those photos, find similar anomalies (light spots, blurs, etc...) and equally say: What's there ? How is that blotch any different than the one you circled where you'd buried a bar or coins somewhere else in the pix ? You see how this is just the memory bias trick ?

And on some with blaring lights on a spot in the ground, it almost looks as if they were using a flash ! Or if not, won't a divot in/on ground (where you just buried something, hence ground un-even) affect with shadows ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... "The Successful Treasure Hunters SECRET manual" as mentioned in post # 5 by Midas. You do not have the SECRETS needed!.....

Wish I had the book. Would love to critique and analyze it . You seem to allude to "secrets" it has, that will resolve the debate. Right ? Wonder why none of the "secrets" have come out here on 74 pages of nearly 1100 posts ??

 

[Carl-NC]

apparently fella's you have not obtained a copy of "The Successful Treasure Hunters SECRET manual" as mentioned in post # 5 by Midas.

No, I have it. It's full of the same awful photos. Very sloppily written. Also have Matacia's book (Finding Treasure Auras). Equally useless.