Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Tom_in_CA]

.... It works for me but evidently does NOT work for naysayers....

Then if it could be shown, with actual wild (not tame/buried test objects), then the world would "beat a path to your door". And they would cease to be naysayers. So If I were you, I'd Run, not walk, to get this double blind tested and shown.

That wasn't "spreading mud balls around" to have said that/this, right ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[elh]

Then if it could be shown, with actual wild (not tame/buried test objects), then the world would "beat a path to your door". And they would cease to be naysayers. So If I were you, I'd Run, not walk, to get this double blind tested and shown.

That wasn't "spreading mud balls around" to have said that/this, right ?

You sure worry a lot about '' show me'' don't you? If I did you would still throw mud.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If I did you would still throw mud.

Absolutely wouldn't "throw mud".

How do you think that various md'ing technology evolutions of the past took hold ? And sold tons of machines ? Because: Guess who was coming into the club meetings (and/or web forum show & tells) with the goodies for bragging rights ? THE GUYS WITH THE BEST NEWEST TECHNOLOGY , that ... in hindsight, got proved. And those of us who were slow to adopt, or had our doubts as to the awkward way you had to swing the coil, or the strange sounds this new tech. emitted, were left red-faced.

Been there/done that. Someone even points out a flagged signal, and I swing over it, and DON'T HEAR A THING. He proceeds to dig a barber dime. You can BET that those of us who were in a "wait and see" mode, RUSHED out to buy the new machine. And no.... didn't sling mud when "shown" .

That is what is known as supply & demand capitalist system . Ie.: "build a better mousetrap" addage.

Thus yes, the "system" is "show me". And no, they don't "thow mud" when shown. Sorry.

 

[DizzyDigger]

Okay dizzy, it is all clean. Now go back and look at two of my posts which clearly mark exact spot of the buried items.
I know they are there because I buried them to practice on. It works for me but evidently does NOT work for naysayers.

ELH, first off, I am not your enemy, so lose the attitude..OK?

I went back and looked/downloaded your images, and after carefully
looking them over I've got a few questions.

You shot those pics with a Canon EOS Digital, and it appears it was
night/dusk when you took them. Why are the images so poor?

There are also numerous light reflections on the images...why?
That camera should be able to take that shot with a longer exposure
and give you a viewable image. Instead, you shot that at ISO 400,
and a 1/20th of a second exposure. Again, why?

What changes did you make during processing with Paint.Net?

I did see a dull spot in the image..is that where the treasure is
supposed to be? If so, I can add little dark spots like that all
over the image in my image processing program (Lightroom 4.0).
Did you add those marks in post-processing?

FWIW, the questions are so that I can better understand the
processes you've used to locate the precious metals. What
I would really like to do is see if I can reproduce your results,
but I can only do that if I know your method/process.

In science we learn something even when the desired result/response
is not achieved. Factual results should be repeatable when the test
is done using the same method and parameters.

I'm game to give it a try if you're willing to work with me on it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ELH, first off, I am not your enemy, so lose the attitude..OK?

I went back and looked/downloaded your images, and after carefully
looking them over I've got a few questions.

You shot those pics with a Canon EOS Digital, and it appears it was
night/dusk when you took them. Why are the images so poor?

There are also numerous light reflections on the images...why?
That camera should be able to take that shot with a longer exposure
and give you a viewable image. Instead, you shot that at ISO 400,
and a 1/20th of a second exposure. Again, why?

What changes did you make during processing with Paint.Net?

I did see a dull spot in the image..is that where the treasure is
supposed to be? If so, I can add little dark spots like that all
over the image in my image processing program (Lightroom 4.0).
Did you add those marks in post-processing?

FWIW, the questions are so that I can better understand the
processes you've used to locate the precious metals. What
I would really like to do is see if I can reproduce your results,
but I can only do that if I know your method/process.

In science we learn something even when the desired result/response
is not achieved. Factual results should be repeatable when the test
is done using the same method and parameters.

I'm game to give it a try if you're willing to work with me on it.

Excellent post. Part of science and testing is to look for other plausible explanations to a perceived outcome.

 

[lesjcbs]

I want to weigh in on this technique.

If an explanation has been posted why this technique ABSOLUTELY CANNOT AND WILL NOT work. I missed it. All I see are questions and objections about what has already been posted.

My experience with it has been similar to the pictures already posted, with a few differences.

On several occasions, after taking pictures of where I buried 10 smashed aluminum soda cans, my computer screen was full of not just one or two orbs, but was chuck full of orbs.

There has been talk about parameters. I know one parameter is the camera must be able to sense IR. A Canon 20D WILL NOT, but a 350D will.

To find out, turn your camera on and while pressing any button on a TV remote, see if you can see those light's on the remote in your camera's view finder. If you can, that camera will work. If you do not see the remote lights, that camera, will not work as designed.

I hope to be able to post pics shortly that will show a screen full of orbs.

 

[elh]

I want to weigh in on this technique.

If an explanation has been posted why this technique ABSOLUTELY CANNOT AND WILL NOT work. I missed it. All I see are questions and objections about what has already been posted.

My experience with it has been similar to the pictures already posted, with a few differences.

On several occasions, after taking pictures of where I buried 10 smashed aluminum soda cans, my computer screen was full of not just one or two orbs, but was chuck full of orbs.

There has been talk about parameters. I know one parameter is the camera must be able to sense IR. A Canon 20D WILL NOT, but a 350D will.

To find out, turn your camera on and while pressing any button on a TV remote, see if you can see those light's on the remote in your camera's view finder. If you can, that camera will work. If you do not see the remote lights, that camera, will not work as designed.

I hope to be able to post pics shortly that will show a screen full of orbs.

That's the way Les. Keep on till you get it right. I like to watch the naysayers spit and splutter all over it as they don't know
how long I have been at it and the fact that they don't know I have already done the science thing they keep screaming about. THAT is proof that all they want is more argument .......................... I rest my case. End of story.

 

[DizzyDigger]

THAT is proof that all they want is more argument .......................... I rest my case. End of story.

Well then...that settles it.

And of course you simply ignore my post with honest questions. You
refuse to answer because you can't.

As said, I was more than willing to give your technique an honest
shot. Had hopes, but it seems I was just wasting my time.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... If an explanation has been posted why this technique ABSOLUTELY CANNOT AND WILL NOT work. I missed it.....

Strangely, the exact opposite could also be said :

"If an explanation has been posted why this technique ABSOLUTELY CAN AND WILL work, I missed it"

The key words in this is: " ... ABSOLUTELY CAN AND WILL..." I have no doubt that anecdotal testimonial-type blotch pictures get shown. And I have no doubt they could be proof-positive.

However, the key words are "ABSOLUTELY CAN AND WILL ". That seems to imply double-blind repeatable. Ok, I'm game. Let's see it.

 

[jcc]

Thinking about the how it could work side, and not the never will work side:
There might be some slight change in infrared images of plants in silver or other mineral rich areas that could be caused by trace elements, and seen with infrared photography...

The flip side:
Having worked as a professional photographer while working through college (newspaper, sports, wedding and mortgage file photos[before digital in the 1980's $25 for three photos was good money{front, back, street}]) I see a lot of flare and glare in the pictures I reviewed in this thread.

If LRL works for you, keep doing it.

No offense meant to either side.

 

[lesjcbs]

I did not think then of saving those pictures of my computer screen full of orbs. The thing is, as I remember, all the pictures were taken with similar circumstances (parameters).

I know better now.

So why will it absolutely not or cannot work?

 

[lesjcbs]

Here is an article about scientific arrogance.

It's not about using cameras, but is about environmental issues.

It explains why arrogance in the scientific mind exists in the first place, which applies to using cameras to spot metal aura's.



Go to: https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/93crarrog.html

Enjoy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here is an article about scientific arrogance.

It's not about using cameras, but is about environmental issues.

It explains why arrogance in the scientific mind exists in the first place.

Go to: https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/93crarrog.html

Interesting article. Thanx for posting. But I'm curious: Wouldn't that finger point both ways ? Ie.: To the extent, yes, it could apply to a scientist who tries to "poo-poo" some notion, Yet .... So too is the person making the initial claim (of whatever the notion/claim is) ALSO being .... in effect ... a "scientist" also. So the claimant could be equally accused of arrogance as well, eh ?

To apply that to the subject at hand: If someone (as is evidenced in this 85 page thread) goes to try to scientifically explain how cameras can be made to find gold. Then ... all of the sudden, THEY TOO are "appealing to science". So how is it that the "arrogance" finger (which we all might be guilty of), not potentially point at them own selves too ?

 

[lesjcbs]

You say: "To the extent, yes, it could apply to a scientist who tries to "poo-poo" some notion."

Scientists are glaringly guilty of using the word notion, that implies doubt about a subject or idea.

I would think a scientific explanation would have been posted why this technique will not work. Could it be because of the posts, and I listed them, showing finds using this technique?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You say: "To the extent, yes, it could apply to a scientist who tries to "poo-poo" some notion."

Scientists are glaringly guilty of using the word notion, that implies doubt about a subject or idea.

I would think a scientific explanation would have been posted why this technique will not work. Could it be because of the posts, and I listed them, showing finds using this technique?

As for asking where scientific explanations for why it "will not" work :

a) I believe there has been several attempts, on the 85 pages, to do this. Whether or not you accept those push-backs, is another issue. That's fine if you don't buy into them. But don't think that the contrary view hasn't tried to post "why this technique won't work "

b) I don't believe that it's on the part of the skeptic to try to show how it won't scientifically work. On the contrary : The burden of proof would be on the side of the claimant, not the skeptic, right ?

c) Even IF "scientists" did come on to make push-backs to the various "pro" view theories, they would just enter into a permanent game of wack-a-mole. Which works like this: If the claimant can make ANY sort of hypothetical contingency of how something *could* remotely possibly happen, then it's as if it's on the skeptic's side of the balance to 100% show it CAN'T be true. It becomes never ending, that goes into 20 pages of type of lense glass, country of origin, what color shirt the tester person wears, the outside air temperature at the time the pix was taken, the date on the gold coins in the test box, whether or not it's random, whether the test took xyz factor into account, etc... It NEVER ends.

So it becomes very unappealing for any skeptic to enter that type lion's den So, for me, I just cut to the chase , turn the burden of proof onto the claimant, and say: Let's see some double-blind test results. Not anecdotal photos, which could have more plausible explanations. Not pulling a detector out to "pinpoint" in a place that was likely crawling with metal objects in the first place, etc.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And I'm still waiting for you to address why the science arrogance finger can't point both ways ? If the claimant uses science to make his claim, he's not accused of "arrogance". Why is it that the "arrogance" finger only gets pointed, when someone pushes BACK with science ?

Why doesn't the finger potentially get pointed both ways, since EACH side is appealing to science for their proofs or rebuttals ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

And again, no one has to prove anything to any one, pro or con.

 

[lesjcbs]

And I'm still waiting for you to address why the science arrogance finger can't point both ways ? If the claimant uses science to make his claim, he's not accused of "arrogance". Why is it that the "arrogance" finger only lets pointed, when someone pushes BACK with science ?

Why doesn't the finger potentially get pointed both ways, since EACH side is appealing to science for their proofs or rebuttals ?

"But there is one area where scientists have a strong tendency to be arrogant, and that concerns the understanding of science itself. Many natural scientists have a low opinion of the ability of non-scientists to make sense of the world."

Because of the speed Tom read the article I referred to in my post #1272, which was exactly one(1) minute after I posted it, I sincerely doubt he read it at all. If he did, fantastic, he is a speed reader of the highest order.

I have no proof this technique works, yet. But it is clear scientists think that everything new or different from established norms, is "some notion". I can only suppose that is because they wear beards, glasses, work out of laboratories, and pontificate about their level of formal education.

Read that article I posted in post 1272.

Now since I publicly said I personally do not have proof yet, it is now your turn to show what proof you have that this technique will not work, or admit you have none either.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But there is one area where scientists have a strong tendency to be arrogant, and that concerns the understanding of science itself.....

Ok. I am referring to the USE of science, to bolster an assertion/claim, or attempt to debunk said claim. Regardless of whether the person is an actual scientist, by profession. And sure, let's assume that "Scientists are arrogant". Ok. Then my response is :

A) that doesn't make their scientific observations wrong,

B) this maligning of "scientists" (granting that it's true, for sake of argument) would merely lead to off-hand dismissal of ANYTHING a scientist said on the subject . Right ? After all, they're a scientist. And all scientists are "arrogant", eh ? So we can't trust anything they say ?

C) neither of us is scientists anyhow, right ? Hence this doesn't apply to the discussion anyhow, right ?

.... Now since I publicly said I personally do not have proof yet, it is now your turn to admit what proof you have that this technique will not work.

Thanx for acknowledging your lack of proof of the camera method. I too will admit therefore: I have no proof that it won't work. So that puts us at an impasse. Except for me to say: The burden of proof wouldn't be on my side anyhow. It would on the claimant, not the skeptic.

 

[lesjcbs]

"So that puts us at an impasse. Except for me to say: The burden of proof wouldn't be on my side anyhow. It would on the claimant, not the skeptic."

There have been many posts in the past on this subject and thread by people showing the results of their tests, some even showed the retrieved target. Yet at the same time, nothing by way of proof it does not work has ever been posted by any skeptic. Again if it happened, I missed it.

Therefore, the very ratio or weight of posts showing retrieved target's to zero (0) from skeptics evidence carries the day and wins the case.


Need I explain further
about the rules of evidence?