Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

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 ?[QUOTE

See next post

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[lesjcbs]

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 ?

If I ever did, it would be by MY criteria and mine alone, not someone elses.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If I ever did, it would be by MY criteria and mine alone, not someone elses.

Ok. Which is why it remains in the realm of anecdotal personal subjective testimony.

 

[lesjcbs]

Who cares how it's labeled? A rose called by any other name remains a rose, and the rose here is the find, not the rhetoric.

I can guarantee you that mine and other dowsers I have personally talked to and communicated with have found tons of things under conditions and circumstances far tougher, harder, and more difficult than any phony sponsored DBT I have heard of or watched. The reason why these finds trump a DBT, is they happened at a time and place where it WAS NOT known beforehand if there was anything out there to be found at all. Yet things from trash items to gold that were buried below the surface, was found and dug up, even over very long distances.

Because the outcome of a dowsing DBT is known before the test begins, the DBT falls into "the realm" of being a farce. I see no valid reason for more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more dowsing DBT'ing to take place. All a DBT does is show that dowsing does not work like MD's do, and that was known by the test organizers before the test began. Still they pretend to not know and that is where the scam, the lie, and the set-up is. So, their real motive is to embarrass the dowser in public and sadly some dowsers suckered for it. So no I should not be willing to do a DBT, and I will not.

I say to those dowsers who are following this thread, it is important you continue your own testing as it applies to your dowsing style and technique. You will only benefit greatly from it.

On this topic, the following wisdom applies to you Tom and other skeptics: "None are so blind as those who refuse to see."

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Who cares how it's labeled? ....

Answer: Anyone who speaks and communicates. Because I'm going to let you in on a little secret Lesjcbs: "Words mean things".

... I can guarantee you that mine and other dowsers I have personally talked to and communicated with have found tons of things under conditions and circumstances far tougher, harder, and more difficult than any phony sponsored DBT I have heard of or watched....

Which is why it is mind-boggling that you guys wouldn't "rush to the challenge". Or ... instead of saying "mind-boggling", perhaps I should say: "revealing".

.... Because the outcome of a dowsing DBT is known before the test begins, the DBT falls into "the realm" of being a farce....

I fail to understand how the knowledge (by an un-biased 3rd-party doing the planting of the targets) causes the test to be a "farce". What the heck difference does that make, if that location of the targets are-not-known to the persons doing the testing, and the persons looking for the targets ? The person who "planted" them is ushered away back-stage. And is not a part of the eventual hunt. So what the heck difference did it make ?

Or how about this : What if a robotic device , with a random computerized placement ability, planted the targets ? Such that NO HUMAN BEING knows where they are ? Then would that suffice ?

..... I see no valid reason for more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more dowsing DBT'ing to take place. ....

How about this valid reason: "Because no DBT's have ever been successfully passed " All we have is anecdotal subjective personal testimonies. Which is fine. But they are not DBT's

.... All a DBT does is show that dowsing does not work like MD's do, ....

The purpose of a DBT is not to determine: "Do rods or cameras 'work like detectors' ?" Instead, the purpose of the DBT would be: Can the rods or cameras find things @ that can't be attributed to other more plausible explanations.

.... Still they pretend to not know and that is where the scam, the lie, and the set-up is.....

Yes. I have heard this fall-back line before. Any test that is failed, is: A scam, a trick, a lie, a set-up, etc.... No matter how-many-safeguards are put in place (ie.: terms set up before the tests even start), this is going to be the push-back line.

Don't you see how that's never ending ? I could fail a math test in high school or college, and promptly tell the professor: "The test was rigged". And "the test was a scam because you knew the answers ahead of time" .

Hence, on the contrary, the persons involved in those past DBT's went to great lengths to make sure that each side knew that there couldn't be any Tom-foolery going on. Hence I suspect that this post-failure claim of "rigged" is nothing more than a case of sour grapes (IMHO).

.... "None are so blind as those who refuse to see."

Sure. And that finger points both ways. Right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Since you skeptics are so bent on finding out how dowsing works, what's stopping you from taking two spare coat hangers out of your cloths closet, make a set of "L" rods and go dowsing your self? By doing so, you too will form your own take on it and do your very own DBT.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Tom, I have found out that if a man, mr woman, has partial success with dowsing they immediatly assume that they are a dowser,they are not ,they will lack lose confidense under lab trials and fail every time. I have mentioned that to establish confidence with the Indians I have them hide my knife then I retrieve it by dowsing, you would be surprised how it unlocks lips. and the stories pour ouy. I personally lack faith to use them o an actual hunt.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... and do your very own DBT.

Because in-so-far as the current discussion: It wouldn't hold any merit.

And .... hey, ...there's already been no shortage of persons who've done exactly as you propose: Gone out, tried it, and believe they're successful in finding things. And have no shortage of anecdotal finds and testimonies and claims. Right ? Thus let's focus for the moment on THAT subset of people . Ok, and guess what ? None of them have passed DBTs, and/or refuse to get DBT.

... then I retrieve it by dowsing....

No doubt yes. As I've said: Personal testimonials abound. But ...

.... I personally lack faith to use them o an actual hunt.

And I suspect that, like lesjcbs, this "lack of faith" would also extend to: Not subjecting it to Double-blind-testing. Right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom. After I mentioned 290 + hits out of 300 is hardly random chance, in post 1440 you agreed. Since we are ruling out random chance, and have not thrown in all the finds throughout dowsing history, and all other dowsers living today, to include TAYOPA'S record, then we should be able to put that skeptic claim to rest

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom. After I mentioned 290 + hits out of 300 is hardly random chance, in post 1440 you agreed. Since we are ruling out random chance, and have not thrown in all the finds throughout dowsing history, and all other dowsers living today, to include TAYOPA'S record, then we should be able to put that skeptic claim to rest

Correct. I do not question the 290 out of 300. I do not question the "finds" that dowsers point to. Neither do you. Thus, since neither of us is questioning it, then it boggles the mind why it's not a simple matter of showing-the-world in a DBT.

The only thing I'm questioning is the definition of "find" and "found". To some people, if they point their device at a likely looking ruin. And then pull out a detector to "pinpoint", then to them, it's a "find" that their wand made.

I have also seen people claim high rates of accuracy, yet .... they're not counting dry holes as failures. To them, they would count those dry holes in among the "290", since they can rationalize that there's gold dust in the soil, or a nearby nail must have triggered it. Or durned those sun-spots anyhow, so that day's hunt did not count towards the total. So to them, no hole is "dry". Thus their accuracy counts are very high. Depending on the rules-of-counting they're using.

But this is all a moot point. For sake of discussion I have granted that your figures are accurate. And for sake of discussion, have granted that maybe yours are not random chance, and have zero other explanations (subtle terrain clues, blah blah). Because I am trying to use that as all-the-more proof that .... therefore, .... all-the-more-reason why you would/should be RUSHING to show the world.

 

[lesjcbs]

WOW Tom, that is probably the longest yes answer I have ever received.

In all my shots, those few out of the 300 where my rods crossed but my detector remained silent when I scanned the area, I counted them as a miss, no rationalizing period.
So, let’s move on to the topic of "subtle terrain clues" and how they might fit in. I think they might be key to explain why dowsing works so well in the field and not in a DBT.
Here is a true story that combines dowsing, MDing, and IR pictures and which has clues in it.

From the story, the bandit made the heist solo, at around 7:30 P.M. on 13 December 1875. Because it was cold and the terrain is very rocky, he dug the hole where he planned to bury the gold bars, hours before the stage arrived. The ground was probably frozen solid also, it would be dark at that time of night, and he needed to be able to make a quick getaway.

The stage arrives, the passengers and driver go in the Inn to rest up, eat a warm meal, and prepare to continue their journey into the cold December night. They had a long way to go.
The bandit climbed onto the stage, rolled the Wells Fargo treasure box loaded with gold bars onto the ground. Because it is too heavy for him to lift, with his rope, he ties it to the saddle horn and the horse drags it off into the night and up a gully. He breaks open the box, takes out what his horse can carry with him and tack on, buried the rest in the hole he dug earlier, and throws the box down the gully. He also returned to the stage, takes the mail sack, goes through it and throws letters all over the gully area. He then rides off into the night. The story says the following morning, they found tracks of only one horse heading northeast off into the desert.

The story says he was killed shortly after breaking prison for that heist, but that is not true. He lived four (4) years longer after the break. He was killed in Wyoming alright, but by his Father-in-law who bashed in his brains with a mower pit man arm.

This story was published in a Treasure Magazine in the late 1960's. Like all published stories, lots of people read them, and even a few will try to find the treasure.
About five years ago, I went searching for this one. From the story, I found the place, the foundation of the Inn, the road the stage would have traveled on and other things. I searched the gulley with my dowsing rods and found nothing. I searched the gully for hours and hours and hours with my Whites TM 808 Twin Box metal detector, going back and forth covering every inch and found nothing. I searched the entire area with my camera and found nothing. I spent many hours there, looking and searching.
However, during all these trips and time, I had noticed, but DID NOT pay attention to what looked like a groove or slot in the gulley. It looked like it had been cut out by either water corrosion or dug out by someone in the past. At the top of this groove, there is a hole in the ground measuring about 3 X 3 feet. It is the only hole in the entire area. When I dowsed, my dowsing rods pointed in that same direction, but, as I stated, I found no treasure with any of my tools.

Even though I did not pay attention or look closely to that groove and hole over a space of about three years of returning to that area every summer, I eventually realized and now believe I found where the treasure HAD BEEN BURIED at one time, but I may never know for sure.

All the Wells Fargo detailed records on this heist and many others before that time, went up in smoke in the San Francisco fire in 1906. All that is left is Wells Fargo records saying the thief was killed.
So, do you see clues, subtle or not so subtle in this story? It is a true story.

NOTE: I always take my dowsing rods with me when I go out. I believe in using all available tools I have.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... the topic of "subtle terrain clues" and how they might fit in. I think they might be key to explain why dowsing works so well in the field and not in a DBT.....

Bingo. And I'm of the opinion therefore, that your rods are doing nothing at all . It's only just subconscious tilting to point to subtle terrain clues. There's no "attraction" of the rods to objects. It's simply tilting via gravity and hand movement .

Example : I know a guy here in CA, who was in on the first wave of md'rs who were using detector for nuggets. Back in the days before any specialty machines were made for nuggets. They were actually using 6000d (coin-machines ) super-tuned in all-metal mode, for nuggets in those days. That was the very early 1980s. He got SO SKILLED at reading landscapes, that if you took him to any gully or creek or dry-wash or tailings pile, he could instantly pick out the most likely spots to find nuggets.

Or to use me as an example: After nearly 40 yrs. of beach storm erosion hunting, I can go down after storms, look at the beach, and immediately tell you where mother nature has most likely left the pockets of targets. No rod necessary.

So too is what's at play with your 290 out of 300, IMHO : Nothing but subtle terrain clues. No power at all in dowsing. JMHO.

 

[lesjcbs]

Bingo. And I'm of the opinion therefore, that your rods are doing nothing at all . It's only just subconscious tilting to point to subtle terrain clues. There's no "attraction" of the rods to objects. It's simply tilting via gravity and hand movement .

Example : I know a guy here in CA, who was in on the first wave of md'rs who were using detector for nuggets. Back in the days before any specialty machines were made for nuggets. They were actually using 6000d (coin-machines ) super-tuned in all-metal mode, for nuggets in those days. That was the very early 1980s. He got SO SKILLED at reading landscapes, that if you took him to any gully or creek or dry-wash or tailings pile, he could instantly pick out the most likely spots to find nuggets.

Or to use me as an example: After nearly 40 yrs. of beach storm erosion hunting, I can go down after storms, look at the beach, and immediately tell you where mother nature has most likely left the pockets of targets. No rod necessary.

So too is what's at play with your 290 out of 300, IMHO : Nothing but subtle terrain clues. No power at all in dowsing. JMHO.

I know there are dowsers who say their rods move by themselves. I do not ecxpect mine to do that. So you are talking about someone else, not me.

I once saw on YouTube where some people tested this question and went to an airport for the experiment. The video showed the rods in a holder sitting on a table. No one was holding or touching the rods or holder. As airplanes passed by on takeoff, the rods in fact moved slightly.

The conclusion was that either the target needs to be moving or the rods need to be moving. They showed a large math equation after the demonstration. I don't know math so I cannot comment on it.

I believe our human nervous system, at the subconscious level, is capable of sensing electromagnetic energies from targets in the ground, and it is our hands that move the rods, from having received the impulse from the part of the brain that does that.

See Einstein's statement in my signature block below.

I just wonder what subtle terrain clues there are in places where I make long distance shots in open deserts, weeds and brush everywhere, on level ground, and the target is a buried bullet casing buried below the surface and cannot be seen by the naked eyes, even when standing next to it and looking down.

Do you have any idea what might be at work here as this happens all the time with people who dowse?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I do not ecxpect them to move by themselves. ...

Well then we are in agreement. Hence you could simply walk out to the same hunt locations, and just follow your gut hunches. with no rods. Just like md'rs do, when choosing where to start md'ing in a field, or on the beach, etc..... No rods necessary, since we agree they do nothing , have no power nor attraction. And the movement is merely the user subtly tilting his hands.

 

[lesjcbs]

Well then we are in agreement. Hence you could simply walk out to the same hunt locations, and just follow your gut hunches. with no rods. Just like md'rs do, when choosing where to start md'ing in a field, or on the beach, etc..... No rods necessary, since we agree they do nothing , have no power nor attraction. And the movement is merely the user subtly tilting his hands.

There are dowsers who in fact do that. It's called Body dowsing.
I personally like holding my rods.

So, since we ruled out "random chance" yesterday, what do you think is at work here?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... what do you think is at work here?

Subtle terrain clues.

 

[lesjcbs]

Subtle terrain clues.

Got an example that apples to long distance dowsing shots?

 

[Huntster54]

Really, you do realize that this thread WAS about digital camera techniques, and I DIDN'T hijack it, that was someone else. Now you two do need to start your own thread so your arguments and personal feud stay off this original thread about cameras.
Please.

Thank you.

 

[lesjcbs]

Really, you do realize that this thread WAS about digital camera techniques, and I DIDN'T hijack it, that was someone else. Now you two do need to start your own thread so your arguments and personal feud stay off this original thread about cameras.
Please.

Thank you.

I was wondering that too. So, see you over in the dowsing thread titled: "Can lucky number "7" be used in dowsing and in metal detecting for better performance?"

I believe someone wanted to equate taking pictures as being the same as dowsing.

I will copy and paste my last post I made here, over there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Really, you do realize that this thread WAS about digital camera techniques,... .

I'd wondered about that too. I dunno who/when it morphed into dowsing. I didn't do it either . Doh !

I was wondering that too. So, see you over in the dowsing thread titled: "Can lucky number "7" be used in dowsing and.....

Would love to continue the conversation. As you've been more-than-fair, considerate, etc.... But I believe that forum heading is only for affirming views. But .... lemme check on that particular thread .........

Got an example that apples to long distance dowsing shots?

I would say that: "terrain clues" start for any person, even when out-of-visual line-of-sight. For example, you start walking a certain direction, on a hunch. Then as you get closer to whatever set of trees, a prominent rock outcropping, a cellar hole foundation, etc... That THEN you are in line-of-sight, for the "subtle terrain clues".

Thus: The terrain clues eventually present themselves for WHATEVER direction your hunches tells you to start walking to. And it wasn't the rod that gave you the "hunch". Or the eventual "terrain clue". It was all in your brain and mind. Just as it is for any skilled md'r who wonders: "Where's the best place to start?"

But, let's just assume for the moment that this explanation is not adequate to explain how someone could have a "hunch" for something that is outside their visual range. Ok ? Let's just assume that ... therefore ... the rods *must be doing something* that "hunches" and "terrain clues" did NOT tell the operator about. Ok. Then all I can say is: This would be all-the-more-reason to let it be subjected to tests. If you're saying it's beyond random chances, subtle terrain clues, eventual odds, and so-forth, I'd say : Fine: Then with that level of confidence, then it would seem like all-the-more-reason to gladly let it be tested @ DBT.