Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

Hunter: Earlier you mentioned about dowsing in this thread, as if it and this technique are similar. They are not. A camera and the human nervous system are very different. I have a friend who dowsed a gold target 15 miles away. At first he did not believe it, but followed through on it. The farthest distance for a camera I read about was 250 yards on a previously unknown water pipe. Unfortunately, this does not happen all the time in every picture. In fact, most of the time it does not as things like temperatures, sky brightness (cloud cover), moisture etc are constantly changing through out any given day. In his book explaining this technique, DV addresses these factors in both pictures and in text.

Dowsing and this technique have only the long distance factor in common.

Dowsing is with hands on. This technique is done best with the camera sitting on a tripod, set on a 10 second delay, with your hands off the camera.

You also mentioned how the human mind can be fooled. The human mind will also default to the easy way out ie. If it does not work like a metal detector works, then it must not and never will work, and everything after that is just luck, random chance, being lucky etc. End of story.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Huntster54]

"You also mentioned how the human mind can be fooled. The human mind will also default to the easy way out ie. If it does not work like a metal detector works, then it must not and never will work, and everything after that is just luck, random chance, being lucky etc. End of story."

You're set solid in your mind that everyone doesn't believe dowsing. And probably called you a liar. Well, I had nothing to do with that and think the above contention isn't the end of the story at all. And I'm not even going to attempt to influence you in your locked mind but your comment is very defensively narrow minded. Since the dowser isn't anything like a detector, that comment doesn't make sense. But...
In dowsing, aren't you only the receiver? It's an interesting thought that you could be creating a hand shake type of connection where you are emitting a low energy field as well. So in a sense, you can be the detector itself.

I didn't say dowsing doesn't work, but that the results haven't been documented in any scientific testing that is recognized by reputable groups conclusively. And the reference to dowsing was a comparison to the difficulty in convincing people something is credible.

 

[Huntster54]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone and i don't want to hear about beliefs etc. we don't discuss about God here . we talk about a practical thing here that has two ways , either this technique is working and by using it someone can find buried gold or it's not working. it's that simple. because i've tested it in a test filed and only found orbs and bubbles in the pictures so far.

And Tsak, I apologize. For some reason I thought you were the OP showing the technique. I see now you are not and have been frustrated trying to get it to work.
My comments concerning what I said still hold and that you are correct most likely that all you are seeing is the artifacts so far.
Have you seen anything like the original posters picture?

 

[lesjcbs]

"Since the dowser isn't anything like a detectors,...". ? You got to be kidding.


Oh my friend, the dowser is the detector, unless you believe the rods or pendulum move on their own power.

Read in my signature block what I quoted Einstein said about dowsing and how he points to the human nervous system role in dowsing. My dowsing finds that number way beyond 300 (I stopped counting at 300 finds several years ago), and the history of dowsing, trumps any modern day double blinded test.

As for science. Science has been wrong so many times in the past it's beyond being funny. Relying on science and science only, is the address where the "locked and narrow mind" lives.

I will say this though, up to this time, my dowsing is far more reliable than taking IR pictures to spot or detect an unknown target. But I have seen enough aura's on test targets from time to time that it is worth it to keep studying the technique. It's as simple as that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Les , Les, Les, why why, oh why are we bringing "dowsing" into this ??

If you are willing agree that something along the lines of "dowsing" has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with whether "digital cameras can see gold", then you have just reduced this entire conversation into being along-the-same debate lines of dowsing. Ie.: Hocus pocus or scientific repeatable testing ?

I'm the first to admit that dowsing will NEVER be proved or disproved. Because of the perpetual "push-backs" of 1) Need more practice, 2) Dowser not qualified/gifted, and 3) Durned those sun-spots anyhow.

But I thought this entire thread about "cameras" was to-be-entirely a scientific one. Such that it COULD be tested. ??

If you've relegated it to the realms of "dowsing", then heck: Why even use a camera ? We can no longer even discuss whether it "works or not", because of the same slippery slope that presents itself if-ever-dowsing attempts to be tested (beyond anecdotal stories).

.... If you have practiced enough, you will know when you are on a target..... .

Yup. It's never that it doesn't work. If it "fails to work", that merely means the person didn't practice long enough. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Oh my friend, the dowser is the detector, unless you believe the rods or pendulum move on their own power......

then why oh why oh why will some dowser advocates go to GREAT LENGTHS to explain how the rods MOST CERTAINLY move under their own power. Ie.: some sort of "attraction". And delve into very long explanations. In fact, I could even quote a long-time-forum participant who has said THIS EXACT THING.

But i can almost guess the answer. It would be "Who cares how it works, as long as it works". Right ? And then the question would become "does it work?" Whereupon the anecdotal stories would be rolled out. Right ? Whereupon a skeptic would ask if those could be "tested" for repeatable workability. And .... it would go down-hill from there.

But let's get back to the cameras: Is it like dowsing ? Such that it relies on some sort of mystical vibe power from the photographer ? Or are we talking about "cameras", that anyone can take apart, do tests, get double-blind test results, etc.... ?

 

[lesjcbs]

then why oh why oh why will some dowser advocates go to GREAT LENGTHS to explain how the rods MOST CERTAINLY move under their own power. Ie.: some sort of "attraction". And delve into very long explanations. In fact, I could even quote a long-time-forum participant who has said THIS EXACT THING.

But i can almost guess the answer. It would be "Who cares how it works, as long as it works". Right ? And then the question would become "does it work?" Whereupon the anecdotal stories would be rolled out. Right ? Whereupon a skeptic would ask if those could be "tested" for repeatable workability. And .... it would go down-hill from there.

But let's get back to the cameras: Is it like dowsing ? Such that it relies on some sort of mystical vibe power from the photographer ? Or are we talking about "cameras", that anyone can take apart, do tests, get double-blind test results, etc.... ?

What do you think?

I know of people who could not find a thing using even a metal detector.

Cameras performance in a double blinded test remains to be seen.

Stay tuned, I might have some test pictures for you to look at and some test questions about them for you to answer this coming week.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I know of people who could not find a thing using even a metal detector.....

Good point !! Ok, let's take all of those people that you know. Let's say ........ that there's 100 of these people. Ok: If you ask all 100 of them to "wave a quarter in front of the detector". I'll bet it will "beep" for all 100 of them. Right ?

And if you bury a quarter in the ground at a few inches (a prescribed stated ability for said-detector), and point to the spot for those 100 people to "swing the detector coil over", I'll bet that it will beep for all 100 of them. Right ? No practice needed. Right ?

It won't matter how much md'ing experience they have. Right ? Ok, so why the difference for "cameras that see gold" ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom. I was not the one to bring up dowsing in this thread. Check post 1339.
Surely you are not worried about pictures and questions I will have for you about them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom. I was not the one to bring up dowsing in this thread. Check post 1339.
....

I have reviewed the history, and you are right. You did not introduce it. I stand corrected. I guess I saw your comments on the connection (?) in # 1341 and 1344 and just made the jump-in-conclusion. My bad.

.... Surely you are not worried about pictures and questions I will have for you about them.

"pictures and questions" about what ? Cameras that can discern gold ? Dowsing ? Sorry, I lost ya here.

 

[lesjcbs]

I have reviewed the history, and you are right. You did not introduce it. I stand corrected. I guess I saw your comments on the connection (?) in # 1341 and 1344 and just made the jump-in-conclusion. My bad.



"pictures and questions" about what ? Cameras that can discern gold ? Dowsing ? Sorry, I lost ya here.

Easy there. You'll see.

Several months ago we got rid of our laptop computer and replaced it with this smart phone. I love it. But if there is a way to post pictures on TN with it, I don't know how. So, we will all have to wait until I can go to our local library and post them on TN from there.

Sleep tight, I know I will.

 

[boogeyman]

Yes. And just as in a metal detector example: I acknowledged that this is not fair to say "it doesn't work" when a test is done that's beyond the contraption's stated abilities. We agree.

Ok, fine , then show that it works at ANY depth. That can't be chalked up to random eventual chances (blotches, blurs, naturally occurring eventual orbs or streaks, etc.... ). If it can be shown to repeatable @ double blind tests, at stated/claimed depths/abilities: Then the world will beat a path to your door.



It is not up to the skeptic to show it *doesn't* work. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to show that it works. Not vice-versa.

And you know full well that anyone who DID try to show "proof that it doesn't work", will simply be told "you weren't doing it right", or "You need more practice". Right ?

Why wouldn't a skeptic not be able to come up with one experiment or test that shows why it doesn't work? How many times have you gone out and tried this technique? What equipment have you used? What conditions have you tried your experiments in? Or you are just quoting from the Great Randis manual? I figured with the volumes you've spewed saying it doesn't work you'd be able to come up with one tiny bit of science proving it doesn't work. Sorry Sheldon I guess I was just trying too hard to give you some credit.

"The burden of proof would be on the claimant to show that it works. Not vice-versa." This reply / excuse is getting old. Not asking you to prove it just asking you to explain why it doesn't work. Can you accomplish that simple task? I figure with your vast knowledge regarding this you'd be able to whip out 16 paragraphs of scientific data. Yet all you can come up with is "The burden of proof would be on the claimant to show that it works. Not vice-versa." And yet again, "What claims have I made?" So far, I've passed on things I've tried or experimented with in the hopes someone might have better results or found something I've missed. Nighty night Sheldon! Sleep tight!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Why wouldn't a skeptic not be able to come up with one experiment or test that shows why it doesn't work? ...

Because the moment the skeptic presents such data from testings: It will be summarily dismissed by the believers. Who will claim the tester wasn't doing it right. Or that they needed more practice. No matter if they invested 6 months, the advocates will say they should have tried for a year. If the guy tries a year, they'll tell him to try 2 yrs. And so forth till infinity. At no-time does it ever not work. Eh ?

Example: I can devise a treasure hunt method that involves smearing peanut butter on a tennis shoe. Toss the shoe into the air. Wherever it points, when it hits the ground, is the direction of treasure. Repeat as necessary till you arrive at the treasure.

And then I can defy you to: "Prove my shoe method doesn't work". If you come back to me 6 months later with no treasure, the genius push-backs would begin : a) You weren't using the right brand of peanut butter. b) You need more practice. c) You had "bad vibes". d) Durned those sun-spots anyhow.

And ...... at no time, does my shoe-system not work perfectly mind-you. Right ?

So too is it with the "cameras-that-discern-gold" claim.

 

[Carl-NC]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone and i don't want to hear about beliefs etc. we don't discuss about God here . we talk about a practical thing here that has two ways , either this technique is working and by using it someone can find buried gold or it's not working. it's that simple. because i've tested it in a test filed and only found orbs and bubbles in the pictures so far.

As far as I know, the only claim of an aura recovery was by Don Danylyk, and that was using an SX-70. Supposedly a Polaroid photo of a house showed a "flare" at the chimney, and small cache was found hidden behind some loose chimney bricks. To his credit, Danylyk did further testing with the SX-70 and could never get any repeatable results, but he still believes the method worked, at least once.

If you read through this thread you will see lots of photos with flares and streaks, but I've seen no photos of any finds. And I can't recall anyone ever claiming that a digital photo aura resulted in a recovery. In his book, Villanueva attempts to claim success with his recovery of several gold coins in a field, but he makes it clear that the initial coin was purely accidental and the remaining coins were found with thorough metal detecting.

My own tests with both SX-70 and digital determined that the whole thing is bad photography combined with wishful thinking.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone ....

Here is an irrefutable push-back line you could/would get to this "evidence in finds" request : That ... yes .... they get "buried gold" with it. *HOWEVER*, they can't show you. They don't post show & tell. Because

A) they're afraid of the IRS coming to claim taxes, and

B) they're afraid that thieves will come target their house.

But rest assured: They find gold with it. Makes perfect sense, eh ? After all, you'd be a "fool to show off a big ticket treasure find", right ?

.... a Polaroid photo of a house showed a "flare" at the chimney, and small cache was found hidden behind some loose chimney bricks.....

This is what I would call "anecdotal" proof. That ...... yes .... anecdotal stories abound in these unconventional methods. But like you/he say: It was not repeatable. And that they were "pointing the thing in most likely spots", and "digging enough holes in likely areas", and "using a detector to pinpoint", etc...

History is FILLED with true accounts of people who found goodies , without even looking for them. Eg.: construction worker tearing down a wall. Ditch-digger digging a ditch. Person walking their dog who kicks at a rusty can top, etc... So HOW MUCH MORE SO will someone who is INTENTIONALLY looking for goodies, not eventually randomly find a goodie ? And then they can announce it was their gadget that did it, right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

A picture.

Look at this picture. There are two questions. Select what you think is the one correct answer for each question

1. What do you see or think this is a picture of?

A. Only one buried target.

B. A target made up of more than one piece.

C. Nothing, just orbs.

2. If you saw this picture in the field while hunting for a treasure, you would:

A. Investigate further.

B. Ignore it and move on.

End of test.

More pictures to look at coming your way soon. Stay tuned.

 

[boogeyman]

As far as I know, the only claim of an aura recovery was by Don Danylyk, and that was using an SX-70. Supposedly a Polaroid photo of a house showed a "flare" at the chimney, and small cache was found hidden behind some loose chimney bricks. To his credit, Danylyk did further testing with the SX-70 and could never get any repeatable results, but he still believes the method worked, at least once.

If you read through this thread you will see lots of photos with flares and streaks, but I've seen no photos of any finds. And I can't recall anyone ever claiming that a digital photo aura resulted in a recovery. In his book, Villanueva attempts to claim success with his recovery of several gold coins in a field, but he makes it clear that the initial coin was purely accidental and the remaining coins were found with thorough metal detecting.

My own tests with both SX-70 and digital determined that the whole thing is bad photography combined with wishful thinking.

There ya go!!! Sheldon! Read Carls comment here. Gotta give Carl credit! He's put in the effort to go out and experiment and actually try. From his comments he's done some research. Carls got credit in my book he put in the effort! Even if he didn't come up with the results we/he would like to see, he put in the effort he did some work! He didn't just sit back and spew some second grade examples.

 

[boogeyman]

Here is an irrefutable push-back line you could/would get to this "evidence in finds" request : That ... yes .... they get "buried gold" with it. *HOWEVER*, they can't show you. They don't post show & tell. Because

A) they're afraid of the IRS coming to claim taxes, and BEEN THERE DONE THAT. AUDITED TWICE

B) they're afraid that thieves will come target their house. BEEN BROKEN INTO ONCE, and neighbor was broken into with the only explanation from the cops was they thought his house was mine.

But rest assured: They find gold with it. Makes perfect sense, eh ? After all, you'd be a "fool to show off a big ticket treasure find", right ? Something that really bothers me is a question that keeps popping up in my mind. Why is it your focus is always show what you've found show your finds/treasure etc. Who do you work for? With your self professed archaeology work, and demanding proof of finds I sure wouldn't be surprised if your name pops up on the Ca. State Archie enforcement roster. Who do you work for?

And once again Sheldon, you need to change up the post-its on the wall. Zero effort, spewing the same old stuff. Boring Sheldon boring..... Pay attention to Carl! He's done the work, put in the effort!



This is what I would call "anecdotal" proof. That ...... yes .... anecdotal stories abound in these unconventional methods. But like you/he say: It was not repeatable. And that they were "pointing the thing in most likely spots", and "digging enough holes in likely areas", and "using a detector to pinpoint", etc...

History is FILLED with true accounts of people who found goodies , without even looking for them. Eg.: construction worker tearing down a wall. Ditch-digger digging a ditch. Person walking their dog who kicks at a rusty can top, etc... So HOW MUCH MORE SO will someone who is INTENTIONALLY looking for goodies, not eventually randomly find a goodie ? And then they can announce it was their gadget that did it, right ?

A) they're afraid of the IRS coming to claim taxes, and BEEN THERE DONE THAT. AUDITED TWICE

B) they're afraid that thieves will come target their house. BEEN BROKEN INTO ONCE, and neighbor was broken into with the only explanation from the cops was they thought his house was mine.

But rest assured: They find gold with it. Makes perfect sense, eh ? After all, you'd be a "fool to show off a big ticket treasure find", right ? Something that really bothers me is a question that keeps popping up in my mind. Why is it your focus is always show what you've found show your finds/treasure etc. Who do you work for? With your self professed archaeology work, and demanding proof of finds I sure wouldn't be surprised if your name pops up on the Ca. State Archie enforcement roster. Who do you work for?

And once again Sheldon, you need to change up the post-its on the wall. Zero effort, spewing the same old stuff. Boring Sheldon boring..... Pay attention to Carl! He's done the work, put in the effort!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... From his comments he's done some research. ...

Yup. And let me guess: You dismiss the results/conclusions he's come to. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A) they're afraid of the IRS coming to claim taxes, and BEEN THERE DONE THAT. AUDITED TWICE

B) they're afraid that thieves will come target their house. BEEN BROKEN INTO ONCE, ....

Thanx for confirming these fall-back-lines.

As for (A), it might be an interesting study to interview the various "today's find" posters (especially banner recipients), who found valuable items. Ie.: things they could easily turn around and sell for big money. Interview each of them and ask them: "Did the IRS show up on your door step?". I suppose that the push-back to that will be: That any of those items (which include occasional caches BTW) are small-potatoes bread-&-butter caches. Or singular coins worth smaller-values. Right ?

Thus we can rest-assured that Atocha-scale treasure legend stuff is being found. But the person's are just remaining mum, for-fear-of-the-IRS. Right ? It's entirely possible !

But then the problem is: ANYONE can claim "found treasures". And there's no way to sort it out, eh ? Don't forget, some people's definition of "found", is that they think they honed down a treasure to a certain meadow, certain cave, certain swamp, etc... And now it's merely a matter of getting heavy equipment to dig down 20 meters, and over-come govt. red tape. But rest assured, they've "found" (past tense) a treasure. Right ?

As for (B) : This one defies logic . Because if a thief wants to target houses of people that "likely have goodies" (ie.: the more affluent in society), they do NOT have to read md'ing forums, to "see who's found recent goodies". There's a much simpler way to assess which households likely have the most affluence and wealth: To simply drive down the street, and see what kind of cars are in the driveway. If someone has a late model high end Beemer or Ferrari, then .... odds are: They're well-off and affluent.

Also as for (B) : My business shop was broken into before. It had nothing to do with "treasures" or show & tell forum posts, etc.... It was just a routine burglary, of someone who just wanted to make off with tools. So I would not immediately attribute any break-in burglaries to "someone knew I md'd a goodie" . Because, a quick-look down the police-blotter column in the newspaper shows that ...... there's low-life scums, that do burglaries, all-the-time.