Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

I never asked for an analysis or breakdown of my question/s.

So how about it? Care to give it another try.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

... So how about it? Care to give it another try.

Nope. Because it's a loaded question and I know exactly where it's going

 

[lesjcbs]

Nope. Because it's a loaded question and I know exactly where it's going

I WIN!

 

[Carl-NC]

What did you win?

 

[lesjcbs]

What did you win?

Not a strange question coming from you since you tried to lump the first two choices into one, then completely ignored the last question (post #1364). If you don't want to answer the questions, I win. Simple. BTW, I reworded the questions.

I may have a picture or two today for all to look at. Stay tuned.

Please present what you have, if anything, that shows, hints, suggests, points to etc that this technique does not work at all, anytime, anywhere, no matter what.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If you don't want to answer the questions, I win.....

How about this concession Les (which I think Carl could agree with) : There is no doubt that if someone takes 100 pictures of random objects lined up in a distant landscape (one of the items of which is gold). Then studies the after-effects of the photography. That yes, you will no doubt be able to find a picture or two in there that have a distinct difference over the location where the gold had been .

To which you can probably conclude: "See it works !" & "It's merely a matter of perfecting the system and replicating this result". And then you can show the random "success" pix to others, defying them to tell you it didn't work , or they wouldn't have dug there.

But this is failing to take into account "Random chance" and "eventual odds". It's not taking into account the other 98 pix which showed the same blur over a non-gold item. Or the pix with no rhyme-or-reason to the bright spots.

It would be kind of like : I could claim I'm psychic and can correctly guess a playing card. All I have to do it guess "queen of hearts" 52 times. Even though up to 51 guesses might be wrong, yet .... guaranteed I will be right at least once out 52 guesses. Did that mean I'm psychic ? Or was it eventual random chance ?

... Please present what you have, if anything, that shows, hints, suggests, points to etc that this technique does not work at all, anytime, anywhere, no matter what.

The burden of proof rests on whom ?

 

[lesjcbs]

How about this concession Les (which I think Carl could agree with) : There is no doubt that if someone takes 100 pictures of random objects lined up in a distant landscape (one of the items of which is gold). Then studies the after-effects of the photography. That yes, you will no doubt be able to find a picture or two in there that have a distinct difference over the location where the gold had been .

To which you can probably conclude: "See it works !" & "It's merely a matter of perfecting the system and replicating this result". And then you can show the random "success" pix to others, defying them to tell you it didn't work , or they wouldn't have dug there.

But this is failing to take into account "Random chance" and "eventual odds". It's not taking into account the other 98 pix which showed the same blur over a non-gold item. Or the pix with no rhyme-or-reason to the bright spots.

It would be kind of like : I could claim I'm psychic and can correctly guess a playing card. All I have to do it guess "queen of hearts" 52 times. Even though up to 51 guesses might be wrong, yet .... guaranteed I will be right at least once out 52 guesses. Did that mean I'm psychic ? Or was it eventual random chance ?




The burden of proof rests on whom ?

The burden of proof rest, by way of evidence, on the claimant.

To see the results of that evidence, go to post #21.

Now where is your evidence in any form or format other than just talk? To the best of my knowledge, throughout the 10 years this thread has existed, through 93 pages with 1387 posts, you and other skeptics have produced , no, not one even tiny particle of evidence supporting your claim that it does not work, well, other than just talk.

 

[Huntster54]

The burden of proof rest, by way of evidence, on the claimant.

To see the results of that evidence, go to post #21.

Now where is your evidence in any form or format other than just talk? To the best of my knowledge, throughout the 10 years this thread has existed, through 93 pages with 1387 posts, you and other skeptics have produced , no, not one even tiny particle of evidence supporting your claim that it does not work, well, other than just talk.

Fascinating subject that just may be another worthy technique in ones treasure hunting arsenal. However, you don't appear to actually be concerned about the technique itself, the product, but more in selling your self importance of the propaganda. It's about making, no demanding people accept just your sentiments only about 'orbs' and aura's and that 4 pictures absolutely prove something works.

So, I'm done and done with your sentiments and I've never thought I'd ever need to ignore someone on a treasure hunting website. But I probably have to if I want to keep reading this thread.
Good luck with your endeavors, whatever they may be.

You wouldn't have any penny stock for sale by any chance?

 

[Darke]

Not a strange question coming from you since you tried to lump the first two choices into one, then completely ignored the last question (post #1364). If you don't want to answer the questions, I win. Simple. BTW, I reworded the questions.

I may have a picture or two today for all to look at. Stay tuned.

Please present what you have, if anything, that shows, hints, suggests, points to etc that this technique does not work at all, anytime, anywhere, no matter what.

Switch the camera to RAW so you don't have the compression artifacts. This will also keep several sets of data including full color data, multiple ISO and 2 stop settings on the XT. I cleaned up the noise on you other picture so the original flare and the reflection travel from the filter is visible if you'd like to see it..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The burden of proof rest, by way of evidence, on the claimant....

Ok, fair enough. And in this case, the "claimant" is the one saying that a camera can-be-made to differentiate gold .

.... To see the results of that evidence, go to post #21....

And to this point, I would respond the same way I did to your most recent picture. That: Yes, random pictures will eventually produce what seems like success. Just as if I guess Queen of hearts long enough, I will eventually be "successful" . And you just ignore all the pictures that turned out to show nothing whatsoever .

If those pictures could be done in a double-blind repeatable fashion, then sure: That would be compelling.

.... throughout the 10 years this thread has existed, through 93 pages with 1387 posts, you and other skeptics have produced , no, not one even tiny particle of evidence supporting your claim that it does not work, .....

Yes. Which as we've agreed: The burden of proof is not on the skeptics. And as I've said before: Even if a skeptic DID try to prove it "doesn't work", his data would be summarily dismissed. The believers would just say he wasn't using the right settings or filters. And that he needed more practice, etc.... Hence: the burden of proof, as you've agreed, is on your end.

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok, fair enough. And in this case, the "claimant" is the one saying that a camera can-be-made to differentiate gold .



And to this point, I would respond the same way I did to your most recent picture. That: Yes, random pictures will eventually produce what seems like success. Just as if I guess Queen of hearts long enough, I will eventually be "successful" . And you just ignore all the pictures that turned out to show nothing whatsoever .

If those pictures could be done in a double-blind repeatable fashion, then sure: That would be compelling.



Yes. Which as we've agreed: The burden of proof is not on the skeptics. And as I've said before: Even if a skeptic DID try to prove it "doesn't work", his data would be summarily dismissed. The believers would just say he wasn't using the right settings or filters. And that he needed more practice, etc.... Hence: the burden of proof, as you've agreed, is on your end.

A picture against talk and nothing but talk will win the day.

I've seen many a court case where one person brought pictures of the damage and won because the other one brought nothing. You bring nothing.

Post 21 has not just a picture, it has an explanation of the circumstances surrounding it. You lose the case as you present nothing but talk and more talk.

 

[lesjcbs]

Fascinating subject that just may be another worthy technique in ones treasure hunting arsenal. However, you don't appear to actually be concerned about the technique itself, the product, but more in selling your self importance of the propaganda. It's about making, no demanding people accept just your sentiments only about 'orbs' and aura's and that 4 pictures absolutely prove something works.

So, I'm done and done with your sentiments and I've never thought I'd ever need to ignore someone on a treasure hunting website. But I probably have to if I want to keep reading this thread.
Good luck with your endeavors, whatever they may be.

You wouldn't have any penny stock for sale by any chance?

You really should considering sticking with you gut feelings. Bye.

 

[Owassokie]

"Hail" ? No. Answer a challenge ? Yes.



That's exactly what T'net is. And to save someone time in pursuing an un-workable method, is *quite* "positive". Yes, we are "exchanging knowledge". It's working just as it should.

I'll add this. Tom, I agree that dowsing and the rest of the unscientific methods for treasure hunting are hokey. But I don't understand why you put so much effort into convincing people they are wrong. A person pursuing one of these methods may very well find treasure that they wouldn't have using conventional, scientifically proven methods. Call it placebo effect or whatever but it inspires them to spend time searching in places they might not otherwise search. I don't see it a huge negative that justifies trying to convince them otherwise. I don't see it as "un-workable". If anything, it inspires them to spend more time and effort looking for treasure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A picture against talk and nothing but talk will win the day....

You are basically back to asking us to *dis*prove it. Right ? And if I showed a "picture" vs "talk" (aka: experiment, took pictures, etc....) and if that showed : "Ineffective" , then: You know, full-well, that this would be summarily dismissed. The believers would say: "Weren't doing it right" , or "should have used a different filter/lense" or "need more practice" etc...

Thus can you blame us for not "showing a picture" to "answer your picture" ?

I have explained your picture(s) as : Not having fulfilled double blind repeatability tests (to account for eventual-random-chance). Maybe they would pass that test ? If so, I would be the first to line up to pay top-dollar to buy the machine. Just as in: Anyone who can invent a machine that can tell aluminum vs gold (on a size-per-size basis) will be a rich inventor-indeed ! So too will the inventor of a camera that can differentiate gold from other random targets be: A rich inventor indeed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'll add this. Tom, I agree that dowsing and the rest of the unscientific methods for treasure hunting are hokey. But I don't understand why you put so much effort into convincing people they are wrong. A person pursuing one of these methods may very well find treasure that they wouldn't have using conventional, scientifically proven methods. Call it placebo effect or whatever but it inspires them to spend time searching in places they might not otherwise search. I don't see it a huge negative that justifies trying to convince them otherwise. I don't see it as "un-workable". If anything, it inspires them to spend more time and effort looking for treasure.

Hey there Owassokie. I've gone on record before, as to "why I care less". In brief: I got caught up in Mexican treasure hunts in the early 1990s. While preparing for the excursion, with my interpreter/hosts, this subject came up. And at the time, I had no knowledge whatsoever. Other than "gut hunches" that it sounded like hocus pocus. And my host was about to spend $$ of our common pot $$ on some LRL's (that he saw advertised in TH'ing mags). And was going to bring rods, blah blah.

I suppose I could have said, as you suggest "who cares ? After all: The placebo affect might help. Eh ?". But when it came to $$ that I was personally putting into the pot, I took interest in the subject. Eg.: Why do i think it's silly ? After all: Hard to argue with pix of dudes posing next to jars of coins, eh ?

And actually, ... if it WERE attributed to "placebo" and only "inspiration" then: SURE ! You'd be right ! (can you believe I just said that ?) However, read deeper and you'll see that .... No, ... it's not chalked up to that ability, power, etc..... On the contrary: They will say it's: Scientific, explainable, etc....... Ok. You can't have it both ways. Which is it ?

 

[Carl-NC]

Not a strange question coming from you since you tried to lump the first two choices into one, then completely ignored the last question (post #1364). If you don't want to answer the questions, I win. Simple. BTW, I reworded the questions.

I may have a picture or two today for all to look at. Stay tuned.

Please present what you have, if anything, that shows, hints, suggests, points to etc that this technique does not work at all, anytime, anywhere, no matter what.

To explicitly answer your question, I dismiss treasure "auras" as nonsense, so I would simply ignore a photo such as you showed. As I've told you, I've looked at this a few times over the last 20-odd years, both SX-70 and digital, and everything I've seen is completely explainable by boring, mundane photographic physics. Like your photo in #1356. Like every other photo I see.

If you're using bogus treasure hunting methods expecting any of it to actually work, then you're wasting your time, and you lose. If you're just having fun with make-believe and no real expectations of a discovery, then keep having fun and call it a win. No big deal.

 

[lesjcbs]

To explicitly answer your question, I dismiss treasure "auras" as nonsense, so I would simply ignore a photo such as you showed. As I've told you, I've looked at this a few times over the last 20-odd years, both SX-70 and digital, and everything I've seen is completely explainable by boring, mundane photographic physics. Like your photo in #1356. Like every other photo I see.

If you're using bogus treasure hunting methods expecting any of it to actually work, then you're wasting your time, and you lose. If you're just having fun with make-believe and no real expectations of a discovery, then keep having fun and call it a win. No big deal.

Oh I indeed expect a lot out of this technique.

It goes like this: When all else fails, read and follow the instructions.

 

[lesjcbs]

To explicitly answer your question, I dismiss treasure "auras" as nonsense, so I would simply ignore a photo such as you showed. As I've told you, I've looked at this a few times over the last 20-odd years, both SX-70 and digital, and everything I've seen is completely explainable by boring, mundane photographic physics. Like your photo in #1356. Like every other photo I see.

If you're using bogus treasure hunting methods expecting any of it to actually work, then you're wasting your time, and you lose. If you're just having fun with make-believe and no real expectations of a discovery, then keep having fun and call it a win. No big deal.

This was a duplicate post.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....

It goes like this: When all else fails, read and follow the instructions.

So does this mean that if a person can NOT get a claimed-method to work, that means either :

a) The method does not work, or

b) they did not read and follow the instructions correctly ?


The way I'm interpreting you (because it also seems to go hand-in-hand with other "unconventional" TH'ing method proponents) is that you're going with option "B". Right ?

But why is that ? Don't you see that's a never-ending line ? The proponent will never have to accept that perhaps a method simply doesn't work. They can *always* say : "You didn't do it correctly" and "you need more practice" till infinity. There is NEVER a way to "put the debate to rest". Because this convenient fall-back push-back line perpetually stymies the conversation.

And now you know why a skeptic doesn't bother to try to DISprove any of the un-conventional methods. Because this roll-out line is sure to follow, if they point out any non-work-ability of the method. Either via their own efforts or anyone else's efforts they can point to, will be summarily dismissed as 1) the person needed more practice, 2) the person didn't read and follow the instructions, and 3) durned those sun-spots anyhow.

 

[Owassokie]

Hey there Owassokie. I've gone on record before, as to "why I care less". In brief: I got caught up in Mexican treasure hunts in the early 1990s. While preparing for the excursion, with my interpreter/hosts, this subject came up. And at the time, I had no knowledge whatsoever. Other than "gut hunches" that it sounded like hocus pocus. And my host was about to spend $$ of our common pot $$ on some LRL's (that he saw advertised in TH'ing mags). And was going to bring rods, blah blah.

I suppose I could have said, as you suggest "who cares ? After all: The placebo affect might help. Eh ?". But when it came to $$ that I was personally putting into the pot, I took interest in the subject. Eg.: Why do i think it's silly ? After all: Hard to argue with pix of dudes posing next to jars of coins, eh ?

And actually, ... if it WERE attributed to "placebo" and only "inspiration" then: SURE ! You'd be right ! (can you believe I just said that ?) However, read deeper and you'll see that .... No, ... it's not chalked up to that ability, power, etc..... On the contrary: They will say it's: Scientific, explainable, etc....... Ok. You can't have it both ways. Which is it ?

Tom, I'm with you on your example. If it directly affected me and my money, we'd have a problem. But my points go towards the common guy that comes to TN and enjoys looking for various types of treasure generally as a "hobby", not to make a living. I just think the non-scientific aspects of treasure hunting don't typically hurt people. Therefore, I'm just not as passionate about "educating" them. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could believe in some of the hocus pocus... maybe it would inspire me to get out and search (which is probably the most important aspect of treasure hunting)