Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

No, I have it. It's full of the same awful photos......

I wondered why .... if it held the smoking gun proof (ie.: the "secrets"), that the info simply didn't just come out here. I suspected it would be more of the same as what we've seen here . Namely, more plausible explanations and wishful thinking. But ... want to be fair. So in my post #1099, I did not want to come out and say "It will probably be more of the same inconclusive material". Because as long as I haven't read it personally, that opinion would have been dismissed out of hand.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[lesjcbs]

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?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Folks:[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Forthose of you who have been following this thread, you will know thatI have said that if you follow Tom or Carl or anyone else like themfor that matter, you will get nowhere with this technique. Here iswhy. In this post above that I reply with a quote, Carl says thatseven years ago, “HE GAVE UP.” In other words he QUIT. Dear reader, do quitters ever learn or win? [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Inpost # 1038, Tom lists things we know about skeptics on this subject. One is they will not learn. He is correct. Tom has written he will not buy Midas'book. This is another way of saying he is not willing to learn. Dear reader, can anyone learn anything at all from a closed book?[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ihave said ti before and I say it again here, If you follow Carl orTom, YOU WILL GET NO WHERE WITH THIS TECHNIQUE! [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thanksfor the revelations Tom and Carl.[/FONT]

 

[lesjcbs]

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 ??

Actually they are but because you refuse to read the book, you don't and never will recognize them until you do.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....., Carl says thatseven years ago, “HE GAVE UP.” In other words he QUIT. Dear reader, do quitters ever learn or win?


Inpost # 1038, Tom lists things we know about skeptics on this subject. One is they will not learn. He is correct. Tom has written he will not buy Midas'book. This is another way of saying he is not willing to learn.....

Lesjcbs, don't you see the logical fallacy here again ? I've pointed it out to you before, and you continue to perpetuate it. And here it is:

Everything you've said in your post # 1102 is true ! Yes, can you believe I've said that ? Yup, it's true. Carl and Tom are close-minded , refuse to learn, gave up, quit, etc...

*HOWEVER* to make your post #1102 to be true, there's one slight detail we must assume: That the claim works. That cameras CAN be made to find gold. If that statement is true, then yes, everything else you're saying is true. Hence pity poor Carl and me.

*BUT WAIT A MINUTE* : Isn't that what we're discussing in the first place ? Is: "Does it work ?" Thus the only thing your post does, is to fall afoul (again) of the logical fallacy of:

"Assuming what one is trying to prove, as evidence of their proof for it".

Your statement only makes sense when/if we assume your starting premise. Then, sure, it's true. But since when has that been proven ? Carl has your book. He's commented fairly on it. I've seen the evidence here on this forum (which, correct me if I'm wrong, the book is just more-of-the-same according to Carl).

If it's got something better than blotchy inconsistent random blob/blur photographs, then by all means, I'm game to see it.

But alas, I bet that even if you sent me the book, or I bought it, and dis-assembled it page by page with more plausible explanations , random odds, and wishful thinking, that you would summarily dismiss me. And if I tried it and found that it didn't work, you'd say I "need more practice". If Carl tried it for a week with no results, then that merely means he needed 2 weeks. If he tried for 2 weeks with no results, then he should try for 4 weeks. If not in 4 weeks, then 4 months. And so on till infinity. AT NO POINT does it ever "not work". It merely means "need more practice". After all: Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods didn't become professional golfers over-night. Right ?

Thus it will be impossible to dis-prove it to you. Contrast to us (speaking for myself): I am VERY willing to be "taught" and "shown the evidence", if something compelling, with no other more rationale more likely more plausible explanations weren't at play.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Actually they are but because you refuse to read the book, you don't and never will recognize them until you do.

Ok, so you dismiss me because I don't "buy the book". But guaranteed: It wouldn't make a difference even if I did, and even if I read it, and even if I tried it. Carl has done all of that, and you summarily dismiss him. So as you can see, it will do no good. You will keep "moving the goal posts".

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl says thatseven years ago, “HE GAVE UP.” In other words he QUIT.

Les, I gave up posting on this thread because of all the Horribly Wrong information being tossed about with no room or tolerance for RealScience. Weren't worth my time.

I've been messing around with aura photos off&on for over 10 years. Started with the SX70. Did some work with digital point-n-shoot, then DSLR. I've yet to see any results that even give a hint of being anything useful, especially when comparing photos of buried targets with photos of non-targets (dog turds). Results are the same. You could try that, too, if you're really interested in learning.

I now work for a company that not only makes metal detectors, but also night vision products. Both consumer near-IR and military thermal stuff. My next step is to do some tests with modified night vision. Even though my own testing has convinced me that treasure auras are completely bogus, I do think that IR techniques can still be useful in analyzing ground density. Maybe applied to treasure hunting. But I'll also continue to look at the fringe claims just for funsies, and also because I'm writing a book on fringe-claim treasure hunting methods. Stuff people believes works, but doesn't. The make-believe methods.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....I've been messing around with aura photos off&on for over 10 years. ..... I've yet to see any results that even give a hint of being anything useful, ...... Results are the same. ....

Well this simply means you didn't practice long enough. (or weren't doing it right, etc...) 10 yrs. must've not been enough. You should give it 15 yrs. And if in 15 yrs. the results still show nothing conclusive, then it merely means you need 20 yrs. And so on, till infinity. NEVER GIVE UP. Keep trying. Otherwise you're a "quitter" who "refuses to learn" Get with the game here Carl .

 

[boogeyman]

Actually they are but because you refuse to read the book, you don't and never will recognize them until you do.

Hey les, sent you a PM tellme what you think!

 

[boogeyman]

Well this simply means you didn't practice long enough. (or weren't doing it right, etc...) 10 yrs. must've not been enough. You should give it 15 yrs. And if in 15 yrs. the results still show nothing conclusive, then it merely means you need 20 yrs. And so on, till infinity. NEVER GIVE UP. Keep trying. Otherwise you're a "quitter" who "refuses to learn" Get with the game here Carl .

Ok Tom, Not sure if you're selective editing again. You're right! This thread has been going for around ten years! Let me do a little dissection here. OK, ten years out of that ten years I've maybe put in less than ummm 10 or 15 days all told. Ok, how in the heck can you expect me to be arrogant enough to make a claim either way without putting in the work. Sorry pal 10 days don't cut it. That's why I've made no claims. You always seem to selectively forget that fact. And before you go off on that route, nope didn't make OPs claim! It sounded interesting so decided to go down the path & experiment, still going down the path & experimenting.

Just my observation here. You're like a little attention starved child. Kind of like when you go to a family gathering and are having a nice conversation, and here's little Tommy jumping on everyone's shoes interrupting. You wish his dad would give him a little prod & tell him to go outside and play so the grownups can talk. OK we get it! You don't have anything positive to say on this subject! Once again we started out trying to share ideas & trade notes not some big debate complete with twisting dissecting etc. Do something useful! See if the mods will give you something like "Toms Debating Forum" or start a debating thread. I truly wonder how many visit this thread with good ideas or something to share and don't even bother because they don't want to deal with Toms antics.

 

[boogeyman]

Hey Les sent you a PM tell me what you think.
Thanks,
Boogeyman

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Sorry pal 10 days don't cut it. ....

Selective editing ? 10 yrs. came from post # 1106. So I'm totally lost as to what you're referring to @ "10 days".

As for the rest of your post, I certainly DO wish name-calling were a conclusive form of logical debate on a subject. But alas, it's not. I too could hurl things at you ("Your mother wears army boots", etc....). And what evidence would that lend to my side of the discussion ? Absolutely nothing at all. Likewise: the name calling and characterizations you ascribe to me are doing nothing to decide: Can cameras take pix of buried gold ?

 

[Carl-NC]

I truly wonder how many visit this thread with good ideas or something to share and don't even bother because they don't want to deal with Toms antics.

Boogey, what do think there is that has to be dealt with? You don't have to read his posts, nor do you have to respond to them. It's a choice.

 

[boogeyman]

Selective editing ? 10 yrs. came from post # 1106. So I'm totally lost as to what you're referring to @ "10 days".

As for the rest of your post, I certainly DO wish name-calling were a conclusive form of logical debate on a subject. But alas, it's not. I too could hurl things at you ("Your mother wears army boots", etc....). And what evidence would that lend to my side of the discussion ? Absolutely nothing at all. Likewise: the name calling and characterizations you ascribe to me are doing nothing to decide: Can cameras take pix of buried gold ?

Go back & re-read twice if you need to Dang! Do we have to explain everything to you? Oh, BTW My mother did wear combat boots, I'm not kidding.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I truly wonder how many visit this thread with good ideas or something to share and don't even bother because they don't want to deal with Toms antics.

It depends on the type person. If they want "good ideas", they'll welcome contrary views. So that they can refine their own views in the face of critical peer analysis. But if they can't deal with logical objections to their views, and consider anyone that disagrees with them to be guilty of "antics", then you're right: The latter type wouldn't like it.

B-man: When I go to consider a new detector (like the debates going on about the ox right now) : I do NOT go to the posts of those that AFFIRM it (at least not necessarily and only). Instead I purposefully seek out those reviews that have found it to be lacking in some way. And then study to see why they have come to their conclusions . What did they compare it to ? Was their results skewed in some way ? etc..... Otherwise, if I only read affirming views, I'll simply conclude it's the best thing since sliced bread, and rush out to buy it.

So as you can see, some people go to forums to seek the pro's & con's. Not just the pro view of an item. That's the whole purpose of a forum. It's not learning if you only ever listened to or considered a single view.

 

[lesjcbs]

It depends on the type person. If they want "good ideas", they'll welcome contrary views. So that they can refine their own views in the face of critical peer analysis. But if they can't deal with logical objections to their views, and consider anyone that disagrees with them to be guilty of "antics", then you're right: The latter type wouldn't like it.

B-man: When I go to consider a new detector (like the debates going on about the ox right now) : I do NOT go to the posts of those that AFFIRM it (at least not necessarily and only). Instead I purposefully seek out those reviews that have found it to be lacking in some way. And then study to see why they have come to their conclusions . What did they compare it to ? Was their results skewed in some way ? etc..... Otherwise, if I only read affirming views, I'll simply conclude it's the best thing since sliced bread, and rush out to buy it.

So as you can see, some people go to forums to seek the pro's & con's. Not just the pro view of an item. That's the whole purpose of a forum. It's not learning if you only ever listened to or considered a single view.

Tom,you say you want compelling evidence. To be compelled is to be forced. The good book tells us the that needs to be compelled is an unwise and slothful servant.

Carl,you said you “gave up.” In other words you are a quitter. WOW. A very counter productive combination.


What little snow we have had is almost melted away and the weather is warming up now. Therefore, I am going to go away from this thread for two or three weeks, possibly longer. I have some work to do,some places to go, and of course, some pictures to take.


I will catch up ya'll in the near future.


Bye for now.

 

[Peyton Manning]

what post shows gold that a digital camera found?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

what post shows gold that a digital camera found?

The list of post #'s is on post # 1094. Do you consider those compelling evidence ?

 

[Peyton Manning]

another picture of the gold coin on a silver round - the auras are repeatable at times.View attachment 1512663

crapola, dig it and show us the coin!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

crapola, dig it and show us the coin!!

No problem. He could do that. It's a planted coin. So of course he already knows it's there.

 

[elh]

No problem. He could do that. It's a planted coin. So of course he already knows it's there.

You saw him plant the coin? If you did'nt then you don't really know for sure do you?