Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Darke]

Les, was Einstein ever wrong, about anything?



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.

The person Einstein was talking to was the son of a doctor who used dowsing to diagnose people. Einstein admitted he knew nothing about dowsing but would read the papers from Dr. Peisach.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Huntster54]

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 ?

Wait. Was that the only known comment about dowsing attributed to Einstein? If so, Einstein didn't explain a thing. Only that Einstein had a thought that it may have to do with the nervous system. Unless Einstein has a scientific report on solely Dowsing, then Einstein just commenting it might be something doesn't make it science.

I can say the space shuttle used liquid fuel, but that doesn't make me a rocket scientist.

I see that Darke responded more succinctly than I did more or less to this prior comment: "It was already explained by Einstein". Which was untrue.

 

[Huntster54]

Les, was Einstein ever wrong, about anything?



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.

Ah, but we must forever be diligent for even Science can be corrupted for nefarious ends.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

he,he, you can weigh a chicken with a yard stick.

 

[boogeyman]

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

Did I say that!?!? No Sheldon you don't get to twist things to fit your agenda. Actually, my first thought was I'd like to see what Carl did to get the result without you jumping in with both feet. Jeeze dude didn't your mother give you any attention when you were young??

While I'm thinking about it. Twice now you've given the account of being ripped off by a guide on some expedition in Mexico. You lost some $$. I'm sort of wondering if this is where all this deep seated hate of dowsing & alternative methods is coming from. So you got naively ripped off by some bad man milking you for $$ for an LRL or something, so you lump all of us into the same pile. And before you start spewing again, where have I made ANY claims? I've pointed at things I've tried because hopefully somebody might read it & with their fresh eyes see something I missed or messed up on. All of this thread has been sharing, experimenting, learning and trading information except for all the negative garbage you've been spewing. I think I understand you now. Thanks for recounting the story how you got ripped off! I should've caught it the first telling. I'm really sorry you've had to live with all this pent up inside. I really am!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Did I say that!?!? No...

Well I'm glad to hear that. Because, if you haven't noticed: Carl is on the side of skepticism, when it comes to these issues of cameras that can differentiate gold in landscapes, dowsing, and LRL. Thus if I was wrong , and you haven't disagreed with his conclusions, then: I'm glad to hear that. Welcome to the "dark side"

.... Twice now you've given the account of being ripped off by a guide on some expedition in Mexico. You lost some $$....

No, I wasn't "ripped off". We discussed (on his insistence) the need (or lack-thereof) to buy rods and an LRL (that he'd seen advertised in the treasure-mag's of that era). That was in the months leading up to our departure from the USA. That got me spurred to interest, in having an ACTUAL explanation for them. So I researched, at the time. I ended up convincing him that we're not going to buy them. Thus ... no ... I was not "ripped off".

It was a wonderful trip. No caches, but we did get some relics and old coins.

..... All of this thread has been sharing, experimenting, learning and trading information ...

Agreed ! That's what forums are for. Right ? Bingo. And as such: You have to accept that there will be persons on BOTH the "pro" view and "con" view, of the value of methods, equipment, etc.... If all you ever got was a pro-point of view, (lest it be labeled "negative garbage" that a person is "spewing"), then no one is ever going to get dissenting opinion.

The "con" view is EXACTLY what's steers buyers to choose the best detector for their jobs. Right? Thus: I'm SO SORRY boogeyman, but that's simply the flip side of the coin. If I proposed my tennis shoe as a TH'ing device, and you came on record as saying "that's ridiculous", can I call your statement: "Negative garbage" and "spewing" ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Einstein may have said some goofy things, but the "Great Randi", the magician, admitted to being a liar as that is what magicians ARE, liars. Too bad those in his sponsored dowsing DBT audiences, or some who watched the video on youtube, did not see the fraud, the scam, and the magic he was selling. His magic was in suggesting that for dowsing to be of any value, it should work like a MD. When it did not, as he already knew, he declared that once and for all, "dowsing does not work." Then he walked out of the room. All he proved was that dowsing does not work like a MD. If you learn a few magic tricks, you will understand and know what a liar you become.

Tom: As for what I said in post 1410. You know what I meant, and you left out that I said: "dowsing cannot be tested successfully in a DBT." Do I need to spell it out for you?

REAL Tayopa, come to think of it, one can weigh a chicken with a yard stick, but one has to be around live chickens to know how. The same principle applies to dowsing.

Carl says DBT is the best way to get to any truth. No it is not. For dowsing truth, just ask dowsers and they will tell you the truth. I understand dowsing works for most people. Ask and you shall receive, knock and it will be opened to you.

Maybe if you Tom had taken along some simple dowsing rods on your treasure hunt in Mexico, you just might have found the treasure, assuming it was still there. Dowsing rods can be made out of coat hanger wires costing only a few cents, or even from wire found on the ground. But you cut yourself short on available tools to do the job with. Every time I read your account this weekend, I could only shake my head as the fact is, you are your own worst enemy. Your guide was probably thinking something like: "Some Greengos, scheesh." Lesson learned?

About this picture. It is a picture of a dowsing shot I did. Then, using my MD to pin point, it beeped on two metal objects in the ground. Can you hear it go beeeeeeeeeeep / beeeeeeeeeeeep. Hoping to capture even a weak target aura, I took eight (8) pictures of the spot to see what there was to see and these two weak orbs appeared. Of the eight pictures, this was the best one. Two targets, two orbs. The only thing I did not do was dig the targets out as I was on a well manicured school lawn and did not want important people upset.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... the "Great Randi", the magician, admitted to being a liar as that is what magicians ARE, liars. ....

Not sure who this is addressed to. I haven't mentioned Randi, in any of this discussion.

.... . Too bad those in his sponsored dowsing DBT audiences, or some who watched the video on youtube, did not see the fraud, the scam, and the magic he was selling....

But yes, this I HAVE addressed. I have identified this common push-back, that you've cited here: That any tests that get failed, are tests that are : Rigged, fraudulent, scams , trickery-to-cause failure, etc... Just as you've stated here, right on cue.

... His magic was in suggesting that for dowsing to be of any value, it should work like a MD. ....All he proved was that dowsing does not work like a MD....

Huh ? Why can't dowsing be tested just like a detector, or any other claim, can be tested ? If there's nothing supernatural or mystical about it, and if it "works" as adherents say, then why oh why oh why can't it be tested ? YOU (the adherent) are the one saying "it works" and is "not mystical/supernatural". Ok, fine. Then why oh why can't it be tested , like a detector can easily be tested ?

....Maybe if you Tom had taken along some simple dowsing rods on your treasure hunt in Mexico, you just might have found the treasure...

And if I had taken dowsing rods to Mexico, and if I hadn't found anything, then: Would that have any bearing on this conversation of the workability-of-dowsing ? Of course not. Because you'd simply say A) I wasn't doing it correctly, or B) I need more practice, or C) Durned those sun spots anyhow. Right ?

As for your pictures and accompanying explanation: Yes, it is compelling. As are all the anecdotal testimonial finds associated with cameras, dowsing, LRL's, etc... (eg.: dudes posing next to jars of coins they found, etc...). Quite compelling. It's just an utter shame it can never be tested in a DBT. Because, as you say, it can't be tested

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... dowsing cannot be tested successfully in a DBT...

Why not ? If I were to say to you that I have a tennis shoe that is capable of finding gold and treasure, yet it can never be shown in any test , would you have any doubts about my tennis shoe ? If I questioned your doubts, and you said "because it hasn't been shown to be effective", all I would need to say is: "It can't be tested successfully in DBT". Right ? Then my tennis shoe is beyond question. Right ?


And I could say "simply take a tennis shoe to Mexico and try it out". Of course, when it fails, I simply say you were using the wrong brand of tennis shoe, and you need more practice, etc... Eh ?

 

[lesjcbs]

I guess I need to spell it out for you. Dowsing CAN be tested to show it does not work like a metal detector, and will pass that test in flying colors. Too bad the dowser took the bait and failed.

 

[lesjcbs]

As for your pictures and accompanying explanation: Yes, it is compelling. As are all the anecdotal testimonial finds associated with cameras, dowsing, LRL's, etc... (eg.: dudes posing next to jars of coins they found, etc...). Quite compelling. It's just an utter shame it can never be tested in a DBT. Because, as you say, it can't be tested [/QUOTE]

Careful here. Don't be so sure the camera technique will not eventually pass a DBT.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Dowsing CAN be tested to show it does not work like a metal detector, ...

Ok: So the "test" that it would pass, is only a test to show it doesn't work like a detector. But will NOT pass a test to show that it works to find goodies. I understand.

Then I reiterate : It's a shame it can't pass any DBT (by your own admission) . Because then the skeptics would be forever silenced

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok: So the "test" that it would pass, is only a test to show it doesn't work like a detector. But will NOT pass a test to show that it works to find goodies. I understand.

Then I reiterate : It's a shame it can't pass any DBT (by your own admission) . Because then the skeptics would be forever silenced

Oh but many dowsers have found goodies and trash in the field. I posted pictures of both money and trash I found while dowsing. Do you want to say I am a liar?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Oh but many dowsers have found goodies and trash in the field.....

Correct. Anecdotal stories and testimonies of finds abound. I have repeatedly acknowledged that. I am only sad that it can not be tested in a controlled DBT. To ensure that other more-plausible explanations weren't at play.

If "anecdotal stories and testimonies" were sufficient to prove things, then so-too could we never doubt Loch Ness, abductions by aliens, miracle pills of all sorts, bigfoot, Elvis is alive, people who believe they are Napoleon, etc...

.... Do you want to say I am a liar?

And as I have also repeatedly acknowledged: You (and other dowsers and camera-gold enthusiasts) are not "liars". I have utterly no doubt that you are quite sincere. And that you "find" things. It's just that the method can never subject itself (by your own admission) to testing

 

[lesjcbs]

Correct. Anecdotal stories and testimonies of finds abound. I have repeatedly acknowledged that. I am only sad that it can not be tested in a controlled DBT. To ensure that other more-plausible explanations weren't at play.

If "anecdotal stories and testimonies" were sufficient to prove things, then so-too could we never doubt Loch Ness, abductions by aliens, miracle pills of all sorts, bigfoot, Elvis is alive, people who believe they are Napoleon, etc...




And as I have also repeatedly acknowledged: You (and other dowsers and camera-gold enthusiasts) are not "liars". I have utterly no doubt that you are quite sincere. And that you "find" things. It's just that yuthe method can never subject itself (by your own admission) to testing

I said dowsing will not show in a DBT to work like a MD.

The find, be it trash or gold, from dowsing or pictures, trumps what you like to call anecdotal evidence.

It's really too bad you limited yourself on your trip to Mexico, simply because you see reports and pictures outside of the DBT on dowsing as anecdotal only.

BTW, if you had dowsed for your target and still did not find it, I would have said, good try. You left no stone unturned. There is always the chance someone else found it sometime in the past. Keep going!. It took MEL FISHER 16 years to find what he was looking for. Who are you and me to say I am entitled to find it the first time out. HORSE FEATHERS

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The find, be it trash or gold, from dowsing or pictures, trumps what you like to call anecdotal evidence....

If your "finds" were not able to be attributed to other explanations , then you'd be 100% correct. Ie.: If no other more plausible explanations (subtle terrain clues, eventual random chance, etc...) could explain your "finds", then yes: You'd be correct. That would trump all doubts. The trouble is, no one can ever determine this. Since, you yourself say : "It can't be tested" to make sure that other explanations aren't at play. Ie.: people just "have to take your word for it", because "it can't be tested". Ok.

.... It took MEL FISHER 16 years to find what he was looking for. Who are you and me to say I am entitled to find it the first time out....

Correct. Which is why the challenge, to a skeptic, to "try it" is not an effective way to decide the issue. Because, as you've done here, the proponent will merely say "You need to try it longer. After all, it took Mel Fisher 16 yrs. " Right ?

And: "After all, even md'rs don't find silver coins on all their outings, yet no one ever said that metal detectors don't work, Right ? So why the double standard for dowsing ?" I am fully aware of all these push-back lines. They perfectly stymie all the discussion, and are impenetrable.

 

[lesjcbs]

If your "finds" were not able to be attributed to other explanations , then you'd be 100% correct. Ie.: If no other more plausible explanations (subtle terrain clues, eventual random chance, etc...) could explain your "finds", then yes: You'd be correct. That would trump all doubts. The trouble is, no one can ever determine this. Since, you yourself say : "It can't be tested" to make sure that other explanations aren't at play. Ie.: people just "have to take your word for it", because "it can't be tested". Ok.



Correct. Which is why the challenge, to a skeptic, to "try it" is not an effective way to decide the issue. Because, as you've done here, the proponent will merely say "You need to try it longer. After all, it took Mel Fisher 16 yrs. " Right ?

And: "After all, even md'rs don't find silver coins on all their outings, yet no one ever said that metal detectors don't work, Right ? So why the double standard for dowsing ?" I am fully aware of all these push-back lines. They perfectly stymie all the discussion, and are impenetrable.[/QUOTE

You are the only one doubting. I don't doubt dowsing at all, and most certainly don't say hitting 290+ targets out of 300 while dowsing several years ago that were verified by either digging or MD scanning, as random chance. I stopped tracking at 300, but have continued finding things since then. Moreover, many of those hits and resultant finds were in places I had never been in before that moment from Arizona through Nevada, to California, and back. So say what you will, it matters not. The finds Trump, not your doubting.

Thanks to your so called scientific mind, this conversation is starting to sink lower than stupid.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... You are the only one doubting. ....

Really ? Ok, let's test that statement: Put the topic on the main pages of this forum, or especially a forum that involves technical md'ing discussions. Eg.: "Cameras that can discern gold in a landscape" or "dowsing". Then sit back and see what happens. See if I'm the "only one doubting". Ok ?

.... most certainly don't say hitting 290+ targets out of 300 while dowsing several years ago that were verified by....

Yes. As I've said : Anecdotal testimonials abound. No doubt ! It's just a shame that anecdotal testimonies are subjective, not objective. A shame they can't be verified by a DBT.

And since you have utmost confidence that it's beyond dispute, and it's "so verifiable" and "so true" and "so beyond random chance", then : Shucks, .... it seems to me that a DBT is the FIRST THING you'd want. Eh ? In order to put the matter to rest. Ie.: In-lieu of your confidence of workability, it just becomes doubly strange that you wouldn't want it tested. After all: If it's true, and you're that confident, then ... what's there to worry about in a test ?

But sure, we've been down this path before. And the answer is: It can't be tested. But then .... certainly .... since it can't be tested, then you can't fault a skeptic. Right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Really ? Ok, let's test that statement: Put the topic on the main pages of this forum, or especially a forum that involves technical md'ing discussions. Eg.: "Cameras that can discern gold in a landscape" or "dowsing". Then sit back and see what happens. See if I'm the "only on e doubting". Ok ?



Yes. As I've said : Anecdotal testimonials abound. No doubt ! It's just a shame that anecdotal testimonies are subjective, not objective. A shame they can't be verified by a DBT.

And since you have utmost confidence that it's beyond dispute, and it's "so verifiable" and "so true" and "so beyond random chance", then : Shucks, .... it seems to me that a DBT is the FIRST THING you'd want. Eh ? In order to put the matter to rest. Ie.: In-lieu of your confidence of workability, it just becomes doubly strange that you wouldn't want it tested. After all: If it's true, and you're that confident, then ... what's there to worry about in a test ?

But sure, we've been down this path before. And the answer is: It can't be tested. But then .... certainly .... since it can't be tested, then you can't fault a skeptic. Right ?

Ya right, 290 + finds out of 300 shots are just a random chance to only those who are blind, or mentally off cente. They are always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Like I said, this conversation is sinking below stupidity.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ya right, 290 + finds out of 300 shots are just a random chance ....

You're absolutely right. That's beyond random chance . Which is EXACTLY all-the-more-reason why you should be willing to subject it to a test. Eh ?