Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

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)

:OWA:
Exceptionally good post and revelation. My hat and retired U.S. AIR FORCE Aircraft maintenance Officer Retired salute goes to you.

I just realized there are probably some in this and other threads who are arm chair treasure hunters only. But my sympathy goes to those who are physically unable to go out, no matter their age. It

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real of Tayopa]

genttlemen, I used dowsing to locate my knife at times to gain the confidence of some of the Indians, and thus gain access to a story. I would have them hide ny knife, then find it by dowsing, but for some reason I never used it to find a treasure - lack of confidence ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... 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.....

Sure. I know guys that roll their eyes at the "unconventional methods". Yet simply skip any post dealing with the subject. Ie.: They don't care, as you say.

I guess you can ask yourself why do you (personally) have any topic that interests you. Ie.: if you love Harley Davidsons, or NFL, you're going to tend to watch those things, gab with people about the pro's & con's of certain NFL teams or Harleys, etc... But if you had no interest in Harleys and NFL, you'd flip the TV channel, skip posts dealing with those topics, etc...

So it boils down to what is your "bee in your bonnet" ? For me, I just became fascinated with "how do the proponent's answer these points-of-reason? " and "Can I be convinced with new evidence that I hadn't previously considered?"

And if the proponents openly SAID it was nothing but positive thinking placebo, you'd be correct in all your assessment. But as I say: They are NOT saying that. They are chalking it up to some scientific explanation (even if yet, as of now, unknown un-discovered science). Most of them distance themselves from any mystical or supernatural explanation. Lest it immediately devolve into occult or divination. If they came right out and just SAID that was the source of the power, that would be fine. To each his own. But if they appeal to science as the explanation, then it enters into the realm of tech talk & assessing their data /reasons/rationale.

 

[lesjcbs]

Sure. I know guys that roll their eyes at the "unconventional methods". Yet simply skip any post dealing with the subject. Ie.: They don't care, as you say.

I guess you can ask yourself why do you (personally) have any topic that interests you. Ie.: if you love Harley Davidsons, or NFL, you're going to tend to watch those things, gab with people about the pro's & con's of certain NFL teams or Harleys, etc... But if you had no interest in Harleys and NFL, you'd flip the TV channel, skip posts dealing with those topics, etc...

So it boils down to what is your "bee in your bonnet" ? For me, I just became fascinated with "how do the proponent's answer these points-of-reason? " and "Can I be convinced with new evidence that I hadn't previously considered?"

And if the proponents openly SAID it was nothing but positive thinking placebo, you'd be correct in all your assessment. But as I say: They are NOT saying that. They are chalking it up to some scientific explanation (even if yet, as of now, unknown un-discovered science). Most of them distance themselves from any mystical or supernatural explanation. Lest it immediately devolve into occult or divination. If they came right out and just SAID that was the source of the power, that would be fine. To each his own. But if they appeal to science as the explanation, then it enters into the realm of tech talk & assessing their data /reasons/rationale.

And the above are words from an arm chair treasure hunter.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And the above are words from an arm chair treasure hunter.

And you have a valid claim to that statement, because I do not dowse. Nor mess with cameras that are supposedly able to differentiate gold from other background objects . And haven't spent time "trying it", etc.... Thus: Who am I to comment on the subject ? Right ?

And as such, Congratulations : You are now guilty of what's known as the "Genetic Fallacy"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

 

[lesjcbs]

You are completely and totally wrong by thinking in its 8000 + years history, nothing has ever been found while "dowsing" by anyone, any time, or any where. You are guilty of having a closed mind that is tighter than a steel trap to that fact. You forget, dowsing and using a steel rod to poke in the ground to pin point a target, was all past generations had to locate metals, and they were good at it. The camera is a recent and new technique.

Keep worshiping science as your God, and you will gain nothing.

I kind of feel sorry for you. You need some professional psychiatric help.

Tomorrow I will post some dowsing finds over in that thread and maybe a camera find in this thread. In both cases I will have my lucky 7 charm on me.

Sleep well tonight.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You are completely and totally wrong by thinking in its 8000 + years history, nothing has ever been found while "dowsing" by anyone, any time, or any where..... .

You must be thinking of someone else. Because I will be the first to acknowledge that people "find" things with dowsing, and ... sure.... even differentiating gold with cameras too, I suppose. There will be no shortage of people who line up (yourself included ) with items they found.

But the million dollar question is, the definition and criterias for the word "found" and "finds".

Because if you take 100 pictures, and 1 of them shows an anomaly over a gold item in the landscape, was that evidence that the camera "found" the gold ? Or was that eventual random chance odds ? If you wave a rod at enough likely looking ruins, and dig enough holes (esp. if you use a detector to "pinpoint") and then find something, does that count as a "find" ? Or was that anecdotal ?

But in any case, no, I don't deny there are "finds". Depending on how a person defines "finds".

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Tom, when the free talking stops I have them (The Indians or whomever) hide my knife which I then find by dowsing, it opens previous closed doors of information. As for the camera, there are many lines of force surrounding every object, so far we haven't id'ed many of them by immersion but they now have instruments that effectively id for an element, one of these days they will develop a camera and film that will positively id the energy given off by the element

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I have them (The Indians or whomever) hide my knife which I then find by dowsing, ...

Yes. Anecdotal stories abound, of "finds" like this. It's just a shame that whenever it's come to actual double-blind controlled test experiments : It turns out to be hunches, subtle terrain clues, random chance eventual odds, etc....

 

[lesjcbs]

Yes. Anecdotal stories abound, of "finds" like this. It's just a shame that whenever it's come to actual double-blind controlled test experiments : It turns out to be hunches, subtle terrain clues, random chance eventual odds, etc....

No it is not a shame that dowsing cannot be tested successfully in a double blinded test (DBT). Every event in our lives cannot be tested, verified, substantiated, proven in such a manner. The real tragedy and shame is in the minds of those who have been brain washed into thinking it must be that way. To think that way is very limiting and ignores hunches, intuitions, the subconscious, and sensing abilities that even the hard core DBT advocates have and use every day.

How blessed and fortunate past generations were to not be robbed of these gifts, qualities, and talents like so many have today. No wonder old timers yearn for the "good old days".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Every event in our lives cannot be tested, verified, substantiated, proven in such a manner....

Really ? Ok, let's put that to the test: Can metal detectors be tested, verified, substantiated, and proven in this manner ?

For example: If you prop up the detector on a table , set it to a slight threshold hum. Then you choose 100 random people off the street. All of whom have zero md'ing experience. Each of them waves the quarter in front of the coil. Ok, you tell me: Will it beep for all 100 persons ?

If detectors be tested in this fashion, why not the "unconventional" methods ?

As for "past generations": I certainly wish that the amt. of-time that some belief was held/practiced had a direct correlation to factualness. But unfortunately, it does not. History is FILLED with silly notions that we've since abandoned. Eg.: That the earth is flat, throwing virgins into volcanoes, etc.... Thank goodness we were "robbed of those gifts and qualities", eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Every event in our lives cannot be tested, verified, substantiated, proven in such a manner....

And studying your quote further, I notice that you say "event" and not "method". Ok, I was morphing that statement into the question of TH'ing "methods", like cameras & dowsing.

But I notice you say "event", not "method". If, by that, you mean spiritual things (beyond the physical meat and bones, beyond the here & now, etc...) I would agree with you. That yes: There are some things that are NOT measured by science. Because that is not the proper tool for measuring . Just like you and I don't weigh a chicken with a yard-stick. We use a scale, instead of a yard-stick, to weigh a chicken. Thus yes, I'd agree with you that not everything in life can be put into a test tube.

Is that what you were referring to ? Ok, if so, then: In context of the thread's discussion (unconventional TH'ing methods) is that what you were referring to ? If so: Fine. But then you've opened up another can of worms entirely. By removing this from a scientific technical explanation discussion, you have just moved it into the realms of supernatural, spiritual, etc.... Is that the "power" that you say allows these things ? (cameras, rods, etc... ?)

 

[lesjcbs]

Really ? Ok, let's put that to the test: Can metal detectors be tested, verified, substantiated, and proven in this manner ?

For example: If you prop up the detector on a table , set it to a slight threshold hum. Then you choose 100 random people off the street. All of whom have zero md'ing experience. Each of them waves the quarter in front of the coil. Ok, you tell me: Will it beep for all 100 persons ?

If detectors be tested in this fashion, why not the "unconventional" methods ?

As for "past generations": I certainly wish that the amt. of-time that some belief was held/practiced had a direct correlation to factualness. But unfortunately, it does not. History is FILLED with silly notions that we've since abandoned. Eg.: That the earth is flat, throwing virgins into volcanoes, etc.... Thank goodness we were "robbed of those gifts and qualities", eh ?

You know exactly what I mean as we are on the subject of dowsing, not throwing virgins into volcanoes and the likes. Further more, I not only said testing I also said verified, substantiated, proven... Heck, we could DBT whether or not one can jump to the moon on a Pogo Stick. So why trifle with words, or is it because of your DBT mind set?

Along the way here, you keep trying to suggest, describe, relate, and compare dowsing as an act of dowsers trying 100 times to find something, then through random chance, suddenly finds something. You are wrong and are being deceptive on your part to describe it that way. That is not how it works.

How is it that you came to want to rely on the DBT so much that even if you wanted to, you can not break free of it? In my case with dowsing, I was once a hardcore skeptic about it. Then one day I picked up a pair of dowsing rods and the rest is history.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I was once a hardcore skeptic about it. Then one day I picked up a pair of dowsing rods and the rest is history.

Because you "found" things. Which was Discussed in # 1407 . And to which I have no doubt as to your experiences. It's just a shame it can't be tested. To put those silly skeptics to rest, once-for-all.

And still waiting for your answer as to-why-science (double blind testing, etc...) isn't the proper measuring tool for it. I'm assuming that it's because it relies on something mystical or spiritual. Right ? In which case, I'd agree with you. But then as I say: The moment you start down that path, is the moment you've opened up an entirely different can of worms.

 

[Huntster54]

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.

Well, here is a quick digital from my cheap 45 dollar night camp cam. Set up obviously on my back deck. Early morning and some condensation left over from the warm to cooler nighttime. Are those 'orbs' locating all my aluminum table set? Is there gold under my deck? I don't think so this time. Do my orbs look like the other treasure orbs from this threads image? You and I know the answer. I submit it isn't orbs signalling treasure, but maybe something else in filtered photography could possibly give a clue.

 

[lesjcbs]

Because you "found" things. Which was Discussed in # 1407 . And to which I have no doubt as to your experiences. It's just a shame it can't be tested. To put those silly skeptics to rest, once-for-all.

And still waiting for your answer as to-why-science (double blind testing, etc...) isn't the proper measuring tool for it. I'm assuming that it's because it relies on something mystical or spiritual. Right ? In which case, I'd agree with you. But then as I say: The moment you start down that path, is the moment you've opened up an entirely different can of worms.

Nothing mystical or spiritual about it. Simply what Einstein said about the human nervous system which you can read in my signature block below.

Can a mother who is miles away from home sensing something is wrong and be correct be tested in a DBT? Can a wife, mother, father sensing their son was not killed in battle across the world be tested in a DBT? Like dowsing, all these things which come from the same sensing source happen all the time, have their results and you ask for a DBT for dowsing?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... the human nervous system which you can read in my signature block below....

Then it's "science". Albeit "undiscovered" science. Eh ? And as such, can be tested (even if only for those "with the correct human nervous system"). So that it can be shown NOT to be: Hunches, subtle terrain clues, eventual random chance odds, and other more-plausible explanations. Right ? In other words, since it's science (and not mystical/spiritual) it could be tested. Even if, for sake of argument, we test only those individuals who have the right nervous system.

You seem to be jumping back and forth. Because earlier, it appeared you were saying it is OUTSIDE the realms of science to test. But now that you're saying it's scientific (albeit undiscovered) . Then that should lend it to being testable.

BTW: Although Einstein was a genius, You're aware that he was on record as saying various things that turned out be blunders, mistaken predictions, etc... Eh ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Then it's "science". Albeit "undiscovered" science. Eh ? And as such, can be tested (even if only for those "with the correct human nervous system"). So that it can be shown NOT to be: Hunches, subtle terrain clues, eventual random chance odds, and other more-plausible explanations. Right ? In other words, since it's science (and not mystical/spiritual) it could be tested. Even if, for sake of argument, we test only those individuals who have the right nervous system.

You seem to be jumping back and forth. Because earlier, it appeared you were saying it is OUTSIDE the realms of science to test. But now that you're saying it's scientific (albeit undiscovered) . Then that should lend it to being testable.

BTW: Although Einstein was a genius, You're aware that he was on record as saying various things that turned out be blunders, mistaken predictions, etc... Eh ?

It was already explained by Einstein.

Are you aware or do you wish to ignore that your so called science has had to rethink things in the past and had to change their so called long held facts.

Attacking the messenger (Einstein) does not change the message and that is what you are trying to do.

I went dowsing today. I will post my picture on Monday. Right now, since I am using my smart phone and cannot do that with it yet, I am signing off until then.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....

Are you aware or do you wish to ignore that your so called science has had to rethink things in the past and had to change their so called long held facts....

When science does a correction, d/t new data (like flat earth vs round earth, heavier than air flight, etc...), then .... at no point ... was it not scientifically testable. In fact, the MERE FACT that it could be corrected , SHOWS that it's subjected itself to tests. Which then over-turned prior erroneous notions. The reason they "re-think" things, is because new data, that can be scientifically tested, corrects for a prior incorrect notion/belief.

And since Einstein has explained that it's something to do with the human nervous system (which, btw, can be measured ), then .... I'm so glad that we can agree then, that this is scientific and testable . Not powered by mystical or supernatural or spirits or spooks.

Thus: We both agree it can be double-blind tested, right ? A little bit of a shift from post # 1410 then, eh ?

 

[Carl-NC]

It was already explained by Einstein.

Les, was Einstein ever wrong, about anything?

Are you aware or do you wish to ignore that your so called science has had to rethink things in the past and had to change their so called long held facts.

Probably the single greatest attribute of science is that it can and will change, and follow the evidence wherever it goes. Sure, there can be stubborn personalities who stick to wrong theories -- even Einstein was guilty of that -- but in the end, the evidence always wins. This is what separates science from religion (or any kind of belief system), and why science is the overwhelmingly best way to determine truth, as far as we can determine it.