Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

I think you said it as accurately as could be said.   I would add that what could be contributing to this ionization is the suns radiating frequencies above 340nm which for gold is the photoelectric threshold,that is gold emits electrons when radiated with light 340nm and above.  Now we have a fairly solid basis for the light seen above gold with the electrons interacting with a gas similar to mercury vapor which adheres to gold in nature.  I have 3 mercury analyzers and this has become one of my favorite methods for locating gold as it's quick and easy.

Randy

Yes I am saying that.  The photoelectric effect on materials has been known for quite some time hence Photoelectric Spectroscopy.  So far it's the only scientific reason I can see for the ionization of gold which is what takes place when gold is hit with light at the threshold frequency and above.  Also Mercury vapor is around gold since it has an affinity for it and is in the soil in varying amounts.  Put the two together and it is a possibility.  Pure science albeit an rare occurance like St. Elmos fire or all the other strange natural events that occur in nature. 

It's only human to have a superstitious doubt until a closer examination uncovers the  possible physics behind something.

Go to google and type in photoelectric threshold.

Randy

After reading this entire thread several times, I have come to a conclusion.

Many folks are asking questions simply to pick apart the theory and the practice. Many of you drive automobiles, but most of you cannot explain the way a car's engine works on the mechanical level. Most people put gas in once a week and oil in once a year and go. Instead of arguing how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin, pull out your digital cameras and test the questions you're asking. The man is trying to help YOU for God's sake. If you don't belive him, don't. If you do, then great - get out there and find buried metal and make yourself rich.

I for one, believe it. I also believe there needs to be certain prerequisites for buried metals to be found. You can't just shot some pics out your back door and find Ft. Knox (unless of course, you live on the backside of the base!)  In application, you're using a UV filter. I've done a bit of research on the internet (I know, because everything you read on the internet is true) and it sounds like what we're looking for and what we're wanting to find is the halo of the UV reflection. I visualize it not unlike wearing a pair of sunglasses on a bright, sunny day and seeing the sun reflected off the windshield of a car. The sunglasses filterout all but the most powerful glare of the sun, and in somecases, you can even see the outline of the sun (not recommended!) With a UV filter attached and a photograph taken, you're looking for the reflection (that you cannot see with the naked eye) off of the gold or silver or whatever. Yes, it needs to be in the middle of the day when the UV is most intense (1000-1500.) UV radiation can penetrate soil to a depth of about 1-3 inches. I can reasonable assume that if the soil has been disturbed then it is not as dense thus it would penetrate deeper.

I for one, will be looking into this further and doing my own tests. If it doenst work, then it doesnt. But if it does, then I intend to find out for myself. Good luck everyone and again, do your own tests!

Good mormg Seden: Are your referring to a detector with a vertical surface which has been coated with a flourescencent materiel then placing a sample of the materiel to be analyized in front of it,  then subjecting the sample and screeen with the proper directional  frequency to activate the Flour. materiel.

Any gas / fumes arising from the suspected materiel for one reason or another, will block the passage of the activating energy of the flour. field, resulting in a movng, cloudy image of the vapor that is blocking the flouresence on the viewing surface.

This tech. can visually show any minute bits of Mercury for example, it is very sensative, and inexpensive..  

This same technique can be utilized in other forms, such as the Perklns AA Spectometer in which the speciman in a neutral soloution, is highly energized by vaporizing it while simultaneously passing  a precise frequency in two different paths, one directly to the receiver, the other passing though the vapor of the atomized materiel.   The result is then sent to the analyizer output, in which the resulting difference between the two is compared and a very precise measurement of the suspected materiel is measured..  

The source signal is generally a bit of the suspected materel inside a vacumn tube, whidh is vaporized by the electric current.  I.E.  gold for Gold analyisis, Silver for /silver , Arsenic/ arsenic,   Lead / lead etc etc.

I have had to maintain and overhaul/calibrate  The Perkins AA in the past. Fascinating machine, and it opened up my mind to many things that are just now being investigated in various forms.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Most Infrared aerial photographs are taken by the government between 12:00 P.M and 2:00 P.M.]

You may get a good reflection with 5:30 PM but I believe 5:30 AM is too early. There is not enough angle to penetrate the ground effectively. Most Infrared aerial photographs are taken by the government between 12:00 P.M and 2:00 P.M.

I'm not too sure this applies as the type of infrared used for thermal imaging for military and industrial purposes is in the ":far infrared" – 8,000 to 15,000 nm, and most these folks would be buying off the shelf stuff in the "near infrared spectrum" at : 700 to 1400 nm wavelengths.  The 12 -2 thing applies to all photography just because shadows are cut down - right?

Good morning Airborne:  I like your post, it is indicative of an inquiring, intelligent, mind and post. ***** !With useful data.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Oh yea... we all forgot about the water table effect!  Dang...

It's always easy to criticize. As I told SWR, you will end up bitter and grumpy and miserable.

I thought you were ignoring me?

I am and will never be bitter or miserable, however, I will be grumpy from time to time. 

It is my understanding that at least with a Polaroid system it takes at least two weeks after the gold has been buried before it will show up on film.

If the water table has anything to do with it, try to work it so the moon is directly overhead and at full or no moon even better. As the water table rises, the air in the soil is forced upwards. This is just my theory, haven't even tried any digital/IR filter photos.  Also, a dropping barometer will do the same thing to an extent.

Makes sense.  However the water table in my back yard is very deep so it shouldn't even be a factor.  Right?  I have taken several photos since depositing the coins in the ground and  I don't think that anything is visible yet.  I will post pictures soon for everyone's viewing enjoyment but it might be best to let the coins sit for a couple more weeks and then take some more pictures.   

SWR,

My post wasn't meant to sound like a "lambasting." My point simply was, at times it all sounds like a school-yard argument with no one really coming up with new info, just off the wall questions and crazy logic. Perhaps I'm the least educated person reading this, which would not suprise me. However, I doubt we have two dozen Geologists with minors in Astrophysics in the debate here.

The overall point I was driving at is this:

Skeptics, stop asking so many darn questions and start researching and testing to prove your position and posting your findings;

Believers, stop asking so many darn questions and start researching and testing to prove your position and posting your findings.

Yes, here on the boards, dialogue is good. I for one, find it a pleasurable way to stay awake at work!

Again, I think it's plausable, I simply don't have the time to test it out myself. I just enjoy being the armchair observer! 

To those who are doing thier experement about this claimed,


I doubt this is not gas,  this could be just an electromagnetic field.  Example if we have an area a, b and c with the same soil and color on it. Then electromagnetic field in a, b and c would be the same.  If we bury a coin in area b, electromagnetic field of b interacts with the electromagnetic field of the coin, so in my observation. The electromagnetic field in area b will be different to area a and c.  Thats were the camera capture comes in.  If you dont belive that this electromagnetic field can be capture then try to capture the open transmission line cables in different distances then you will see the rainbow like glow form this cables.  Or even in high voltage transmission lines you can see sometimes the waves of this magnetic field.

Hey  SACAR11…..Good information. I have always thought that the electric lines produced an oval signal. Either way we know that the signal does not come from them in an up or down direction. ..Art

Yeah remember Corona Discharge?

Hey could be.  Can you explain the Marfa lights of texas?  Check it out on Google Image,just might make you think just for a nanosecond about natural unexplained lights. 

Randy

To quote from a site on Marfa "according to local lore, the first settlers in marfa in 1883 saw the lights, long before automobiles or highways. the indians living on the land for a hundred of years previous saw them too."

So the mystery continues I'm afraid like it or not.

Randy

Hey could be.  Can you explain the Marfa lights of texas?  Check it out on Google Image,just might make you think just for a nanosecond about natural unexplained lights. 

Randy

If Marfa doesn't sell you, then head north to Watersmeet, MI to check out the Paulding Light www.backwoodswisconsin.com/paulding_light.htm

Diggem'

Believers, stop asking so many darn questions and start researching and testing to prove your position and posting your findings.

airborne, here's mine. notice the white spot at the right most of the picture? what do you think? this was taken at about 3pm perpendecular to the sun, south facing north. i use a homemade filter, 3 layers of unexpose old film. ive taken many shots of the soroundings but when i noticed this pic i tried taking another shot but unfortunately no more battery power.

sorry forget to attached my pic...here's it.

airborne, here's mine. notice the white spot at the right most of the picture? what do you think? this was taken at about 3pm perpendecular to the sun, south facing north. i use a homemade filter, 3 layers of unexpose old film. ive taken many shots of the soroundings but when i noticed this pic i tried taking another shot but unfortunately no more battery power.

Excellent pic!  What camera did you use - I see conventional and not digital?  Also - to what do you attribute the span of white spots across the bottom and top of the pic?

It almost looks like the --deleted--e spot you reference bleeds up (or down) from the left side of your "hot" spot.  What do you think that might be?

The span of white spots across the bottom (and top) are the sprocket holes from the 35mm film he used for his filter.

IMHO, with the shaft of vertical 'white' on the left side it appears to me that it may be a flaw. Perhaps a minute crease or fold in the 35mm film, or a spot where the layers are slightly separated. The white spot leads me to believe sunlight maybe directly hitting the inside of the film from above.

Did you dig and find anything there? I could be wrong (and in someways I hope I am!) but it would be great if you DID find something there.

I'm not trying to dog on you or your methods Searcher, I just want folks to understand something. I'm far from being a researcher myself, but I believe in removing as many fault-producing anomalies as possible. I know you may not have access or money to good equipment, but I implore you to do the best you can. Perhaps build a miniature frame and mount the film to it to remove all but the remote chance of an error? Or, get a heat gun and melt the film edges together. I believe you're tenacious attitude to find the truth is commendable. I only wish I had the time that some folks here seem to have - I'd love to play around with some theroies, esp. one such as this.

Keep up the good work, Searcher; And again, please tell me if you found something at that spot!

IMHO, with the shaft of vertical 'white' on the left side it appears to me that it may be a flaw. Perhaps a minute crease or fold in the 35mm film, or a spot where the layers are slightly separated. The white spot leads me to believe sunlight maybe directly hitting the inside of the film from above.

i agree with you airborne. so tomorrow ill take another shot using newly constructed frame made using the proceedure from instructables...ill take the shot at same place, same time, same angle as much as possible.

Hi all, I am testing this as well but the results have not been good so far. I purchased this book on the subject.
http://www.truetreasure.info/SecretEmanual.htm

Just to get a head start if there is anything to this. I have a filter I purchased and filters I'm combining for testing. The end result is to block visible light and only pass IR. I have targets buried for over 6 years. I'm not saying it does not work I'm only test like the rest of you. Here we have 100% humidity and may be a factor. So this testing will be over the winter days as well. I will purchase filter to only pass bands of IR and see if I get results. I will let this thread know what my finding are.

Tim

Excellent pic!  What camera did you use - I see conventional and not digital?  Also - to what do you attribute the span of white spots across the bottom and top of the pic?


jim, i use canon powershot sx110 but the filter frame are crude. i use three unexpose film making three layers and losely fasten inside a round cardboard. airborne cuold be right. it might be a result of a slight separation of layers. on the other hand, this picture is just one of about 5o pics taken and the sun was at my rightside at 3pm. ill take another shot tomorrow, same time same angle...lets see what we get.

Did you try any recovery methods to see for yourself if there was anything buried at that location?

i will, swr, but that would take some time and only if this is verified by other means of detection. if possible confirm it with bore drilling.

things like this would take a lot of comprehensive planing, like 80% planing 20% implementation. these things are buried at great depth. we have to consider logistics like heavy equipment, submersible pumps and etc. manpower, not only tecnically qualified but those you can trust with your life as well. yes, security is a must.

on top of that, there are a lot of other things we have to consider. otherwise, we will be puting a lot of hard earned money to waste.

Kind of going overboard there aren't ya? If the "glow" is generated by a single gold coin or small cache of gold coins 8" below the surface...there is no need to confirm it with bore drilling.

you are right, swr, but this field is freshly plowed ready for planting corn. dnt even have to dig, the cache could have been scattered all over.

i hope the weather will be sunny today. ill take another pic.

Excellent Topic. Where is Midas. He had very good information.

Well just to let everyone know what I'm doing. I had a older digital camera and took it apart last night removing the IR filter. If you do this by a cheap one! I'm using Congo blue and Rosco red filters in combinations for testing. I also have a cut negative from a 35mm file as a filter to test with. It's 10:00am here and the pictures that follow were taken at that time. The first 2 are raw IR, the second 2 are change in a picture viewer which I increased contrast and decreased brightness. If you want to download the IR photos from here and play with the adjustment go for it. So far I have not had any results. What does happen is if you play with the controls enough the brightest spots will stand out. Which means nothing. But on the other hand. I have others in my group testing on control targets that have been in the ground for over 5 years with results! I was surprised to see this photo. It's the last one in the group. First picture is about 1lb of nickles at the base of the tree. The second is 10lbs of lead about center the picture.

Now a little about this test site. This site was made to test the Arc-Geo Logger and Ground resistivity. The site is in KY. The mike can is at 5 ft. The lead is at 2ft and the tool box I believe is at 2 ft. What stands out is the one spot over the lead and the best is the area over the mike can! The glow covers the area where the backhoe dug! So this make me wonder maybe the IR can pass deeper into disturbed ground easier than normal ground can it be the mineral content in the ground? Whatever the case he did get this picture first shot! He used a 35mm neg over the lens and shot south to north. So maybe the reason I'm not seeing anything is because I don't have minerals here? Questions but still testing.

*

Don't forget to go back and read what I've posted about ground disturbances. There is an awful lot of pseudo science being thrown around in this thread. But your situation could probably be easily explained by considering that the ground that has been dug up by a back hoe is probably now a different makeup from the soil around it. So these areas may not drain the same way or may have slightly higher concentrations of weeds or other plant material that looks different on an IR picture. Note that this does not negate the usefulness of the IR camera approach for finding large hidden caches with significant ground disturbance. Just understand that there may be nothing more to it than that and that this would imply that all of this talk about ionization, glowing gases, and other such stuff could be completly made up. So you may not be able to find small gold nuggets or mineral deposits with these methods as has been claimed by the OP.

Good evening  MY friend SWR: I agree with  you, no ionic gas discharge nor aura is being photographed, but possibly a differential heat factor since we are in the infrared.   Like you, I have used aerial and terrestrial IR photography to find ground disturbances from the 1600's.  Old missions and trails.

Incidentally, I accidentally found a hidden Circle about 200 ft in diameter at Tayopa using IR and color separation photography.  I knew that it had to be there, but I couldn't find it, nor did any of the Indians up there know of it.  It was the key to locating the prime deposit  of Tayopa, and further proof that I had found Tayopa..

They had made it on a 45* slope by merely scraping away the top soil in a circle of 200 ft in diameter, with the ring width of approx. 25 ft.  It was originally visible as soon as you came up the lower barranca.  However,  with time, the soil was replaced and the new top growth prevented seeing it.  There was enough difference between the orig soil condition and the present to be easily seen with the photography.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Tim:  What filter did you use on the 3 rd and fourth pictures,  #'s   s 20100007 & s 20100003B

Don Jose de La Mancha

SWR WROTE  " We used aerial infrared over twenty years ago to find dumps, stagecoach roads, fort sites and the like. It is amazing, but you can see the wagon wheel impressions, building outlines and other items in the infrared that you cannot see in regular capture photography. "


This is very useful information. I too am looking for an old covered up mine. I don't have the Money to hire areal Photographers " YET " but i do have a camera and two feet. I will climb one side of mountain and photograph with IR at high noon. I just need the Old, Old trails leading to the mine. If i get Glows/ Auras that will be extra Icing on the cake. Thanks again !!!

Please understand I am not saying the spots are what the author claims. I even said that it may be due to the ground changes. I only posted the photo to show his first shots. Today he could not repeat the photo. He shot a number of pictures with no luck. I also shot 10 or more over control targets from 12:00 to 4:00 with no luck. Until I see repeatable shots and determine if it is IR and what band/range I cannot say this works at all. So far I have no proof it does. I ordered a 780 pass filter to test. I will work through the pass filters that are available and if I still see no repeatable photos on my control targets I will move on and drop this.

Sense I converted a camera to IR I will use it in some form. 

Tim

Mr Mike ( Mont ) are those auras right at where the coins are.

Tim,

I bought an IR scope off ebay for $75 + a 850nm filter for $25.  Since you've made the effort to convert your camera to IR, use it to detect subtle thermal differences for locating metals in soil.  This is best done close to sundown while the ground is warmer than the air.  There was an article on using this technique in a 1990 issue of the California Mining Journal so this is what I'll be doing.  In the true sense, your camera or scope becomes an Long Range Locator or in the case of the Landsat photos, a very long range locator.

I want to try an experiment by charging the soil with ~10KV using an 9 volt battery operated Ion Generator and arcing it to a ground stake,then try taking UV and Infrared photography so see if I can see some buried metal better with the HV.  Anyone besides SWR try this?

Randy

Thanks Mike (mont) I am getting ready to order the Canon EOS 350D or The Canon EOS 450D for 649.99. I think these Will do the Job. 10 Mega Pixles. I also plan to order the Cokin 720 NM IR FIlter for 52.00. Midas has been very helpful to me. For whatever reason if this doesn't work out I will still end up with a nice Camera to use at my sites. From what I see you Guys are on to something. 

Those of you that are testing, take the picture with the target area to the left or right of center. I found that the center will mostly always have a higher "brightness" than the rest of the picture. That area will always show something with changes to the picture controls to bring out the wanted effect. This way by shifting the real control target to the right or left of center if it works it will show up on both sides. You can see the there is nothing near the lead. The lead 10lbs is under the lump of grass on the right.

Tim

[not]

Those of you that are testing, take the picture with the target area to the left or right of center. I found that the center will mostly always have a higher "brightness" than the rest of the picture.

I totally agree. I suspect this is what Mike is seeing. He knows something should be there so he post processes the picture until it shows an "aura". Why doesn't he stop the post processing step sooner and declare defeat? Because he knows that something is there and he wants an aura to show up. Keep in mind that this is not what you will be doing out in the real world. How do you know when to stop the post processing step when you don't know if something is even there? It is a completely different matter to shoot a picture of a place that you have never been to or even know if something is there and then do some consistent post processing to come up with a spot with high enough probability that you would choose to waste time digging there.

Again, I'm all for the ground disturbance idea. It is easily backed by science and even common sense. There are known cases where it has proven to be useful. But shooting a picture and post processing the heck out of it so that it shows an "aura" exactly where you want it to is not science at all. It's wishful thinking. If you don't believe me, go out and try it in a real field test and see where it gets you.

see if a gold object or a baseball trading card gives the same effect

Nice point. I think that anyone trying this technique should use this as a litmus test. It is very common for people to only look at positive results for known targets of interest. If you put a baseball card in the ground and get the same results then you've definitely shown that your technique is suspect. You can make a chart of the possibilites (there are actually 8 of them) to try and show whether or not a result is desireable and helps prove that the technique works.

1) Unknown target of non-interest with a negative result - This is desirable. You didn't want to find the item and you didn't.
2) Unknown target of non-interest with a positive result - This is undesirable. You had a positive hit on something you didn't want to find.
3) Unknown target of interest with a negative result - This is undesirable. You had a negative result on something you wanted to find.
4) Unknown target of interest with a positive result - This is desirable. You found something you were looking for.
5) Known target of non-interest with a negative result - This is desirable. But because the location is known the data point is not entirely conclusive.
6) Known target of non-interest with a positive result - This is undesirable. You had a positive hit on something you didn't want to find.
7) Known target of interest with a negative result - This is undesirable. You had a negative result on something you wanted to find.
8 ) Known target of interest with a positive result - This is desirable. But because the location is known the data point is not entirely conclusive.

So if you look at the eight possibilities above you'll see only two that really matter in proving this theory: 4) and 1). In both cases you are dealing with an item whose presence is unknown. In one case you find something you are looking for based on a positive result. In the other case you don't find something based on a negative result. The former being the true measure of the value of the proposed theory. After all, we can spend all day not finding something that we don't want. I don't need IR photography to do that.

So this long winded explanation is really just a ridiculous way of saying that the only real test of the theory and usefulness of the technique is going out and finding something unknown that you were hoping to find. 

The camera I am using is probably not acceptable as is. I have tried to use a 950 filter and it comes out so dark I can't get anything out of it. For some reason the flash works all the time. The filter must be unsetting the exposure. I don't know what kind of camera to use, but this Canon is not it.

Mike, Which Canon are you using?

I have a Canon powershot... S2 15.  Is anyone using one of these in the experiments?

The camera I am using is probably not acceptable as is.

Mike, have you removed the internal IR blocking filter? Although the OP and the book cited say that this is not a requirement, I tend to believe otherwise. I really don't see how a standard digital camera is going to produce a decent usable image without removing the internal IR blocking filter. If you don't remove the internal filter then you have to do a tremendous amount of post processing of the image which destroys any hope of getting anything useful out of it.

Just to keep everyone up to date I ordered a 780IR bandpass filter for my sony night-shot. I will post some pictures after I get it along with pictures with the camera I removed the IR blocking filter. They will be raw so all can play with the settings.

Tim

Hi all
  I plan to do some testing over my test garden using infrared. I started testing last week, using exposed film. The milkcan image Tim posted is one of my images. I am using a DC3400 Kodak digital camera.
I ordered a Opteka 37mm High Definition II R72 720nm infrared X-Ray IR Pass Filter to use in the testing. I should have it by Monday.
 The 10 gallon milkcan in my test garden was buried in 2005 six feet deep, I also have other items in it buried in 2007. A large metal toolbox, Cast Iron, Brass, Aluminum, Copper, Lead, and have just buried 6 Silver quarters. All Items but the quarters should have a good Aura around them. So, I should have some good targets to test with. I have attached a picture taken of my test garden when the items were buried, and their location.     kybob

Well I got my 850nm filter today and it worked just fine on my Sony Cybershot.  The attached photo you see a pole and lattice to the left.  Straight out to the right of the pole are MANY buried copper radials that have been there since 1985 plus there's a 8' copper rod next to the pole  so I'm done with this experiment and will use my IR scope with the 850nm filter for locating soil temperature changes at sunset out in the goldfields.

Randy

Hi Ky-Bob good to see you join the testing. I should have my filter soon as well.

Tim

SWR, who gives a rats a$$ if it's gold,copper or silver?  Go back and  look at the aura pictures on pg.22 of David Villanueva's book.  Cut the crap, the book talks about various metals and you know it. 

Mike, you can get the Ion Generator I have for $3.95 here:http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G1783&variation=&aitem=1&mitem=1
As I explained, you'll have 2 ground rods, connect one to the negative terminal of the battery and rig up
a spark gap with one of the  pins.  Since this is extremely high impedance you cannot connect the high
voltage pins directly to the other copper rod as it will just short it out.

I think this has merit and from Prof. Bose's findings back in the late 1800's this puts out UV rays and I would suspect you'd need a UV filter to see the charged metal but then again who knows,maybe IR or nothing at all.

Just an experiment for you sarcastic critics out there, I'm not claiming I know for sure what the results would be so let's keep cool heads here in the spirit of experimentation and just fun!

Randy

SWR, who gives a rats a$$ if it's gold,copper or silver?  Go back and  look at the aura pictures on pg.22 of David Villanueva's book.  Cut the crap, the book talks about various metals and you know it. 

Mike, you can get the Ion Generator I have for $3.95 here:http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G1783&variation=&aitem=1&mitem=1
As I explained, you'll have 2 ground rods, connect one to the negative terminal of the battery and rig up
a spark gap with one of the  pins.  Since this is extremely high impedance you cannot connect the high
voltage pins directly to the other copper rod as it will just short it out.

I think this has merit and from Prof. Bose's findings back in the late 1800's this puts out UV rays and I would suspect you'd need a UV filter to see the charged metal but then again who knows,maybe IR or nothing at all.

Just an experiment for you sarcastic critics out there, I'm not claiming I know for sure what the results would be so let's keep cool heads here in the spirit of experimentation and just fun!

Randy
[/quote

E-field again, right Ill post my images later after the result of thios one.......

Hey  SACAR11…..Good information. I have always thought that the electric lines produced an oval signal. Either way we know that the signal does not come from them in an up or down direction. ..Art

Art,

The signal comes from the object in a circular direction, if you understand the north and south characteristic of this electromagnetic field which is essential function on the concept of motor.   Its oval signal if the conductor is rectangular such as bus bars but it is circular for wires and coils.


I'm not too sure this applies as the type of infrared used for thermal imaging for military and industrial purposes is in the ":far infrared" – 8,000 to 15,000 nm, and most these folks would be buying off the shelf stuff in the "near infrared spectrum" at : 700 to 1400 nm wavelengths.  The 12 -2 thing applies to all photography just because shadows are cut down - right?


During this time could you try using UV filters only instead of IR.

I received my 720 infrared filter today. It is too dark for my camera the way it is. Tim received his also today and the camera he removed the internal filter from, looks good using the same filter I have. I may have to go his route if this proves out. Attached is a raw picture from my camera. Tim sent me a picture from his and it is crystal clear. So I will stop testing until I get something working on this in.
kybob

Everything and every element on the earth and in outer space has an effect upon each other, either by gravitational attraction or by negative or positive attraction. That is how everything was put together in the Master's plan. Everyone believes Einstein to be one of if not the smartest man that ever existed, not true. Can anyone verify his theory of relativity? No, they can not. It is like a wild guess. You take an astronomical figure such as the (Speed of light squared) multiply it by mass and end up with supposedly the power of a nuclear blast or in this case energy. Anyone can say the same thing such as take the circumference of the earth, cube that and multiply it by the mass and it will equal the power of energy. All I am saying, all is not known and what is not known is made up until someone finds the correct formula to verify the facts. We all are guessing until we can verify all of the information and turn them into facts. We do not need a skeptic sitting on the sidelines, "OH, that will never work, it never has and it never will. I tend to look on the bright side, one day we will solve most of these mysteries, then the skeptics will have mud on their face as they did when world scholars believed the world was square or flat and if you traveled to far east or west you would fall off the Earth. In a way it is good to have skeptics, it makes knowledgable people try harder to find the root cause or the answers that man is always in search of. Keep it up SWR, we will only try harder to prove you are sitting still as we are moving on.

A question for SWR, "Can you tell me the power of a single electron?" You take gold for instance add a single electron to it's outer shell,  you know what it takes over 1,000 more degrees of temperature to melt the gold with one extra electron in it's outer shell. What is this new metal called by name? I am sorry one more question. "Take a single electron from the outer shell of yellow gold, do you know what you have then? A hint, you now have a liquid metal.

SWR never answered the above question so here is the answer. Add one single electron to yellow gold you have white gold or platinum. Take away one electron from yellow gold you have mercury. One is a liquid metal and the other takes over 1,000 more degrees to melt than does yellow gold. The power of one electron. Think about the power of all the molecules and atoms that make up our world and outer space. Then you can understand the mysteries of infrared photography, dowsing and one day much, much more.

No you don't. Changing the electron shell only gives you an ion. To change to a different element, you have to change the nucleus.

The 720nm band passes 720 up in IR. My Sony night-shot works great as does my camera I removed the IR filter from. But this poses a question. I did not see where the author removed the IR blocking filter. KyBob could not see or get a picture and he shouldn't get one because of the IR blocking filter. The 720 is designed to block all visible light and pass the IR range form 720 up. So what range is this guy seeing these supposed auras? The problem I have with this is the processing. If the aura is real you should not have to do much processing and the aura should be the same when the target area is shifted in the frame from left to right. From the books pictures it appears the brightness parts of the picture is being processed to be an aura.

So if this happening in the IR range and the camera has a blocking filter in it as Kybob does and he saw nothing because no IR is passing, whats up with all the pictures in his book? It's raining here today. There is a couple of shots I want to do. I want to shoot some more over my control targets with bother cameras using this filter and I have a place where there is an large anomaly to see if something shows up there. I will carry my camera on trips and take pictures over time to see if anything shows up. I will post the pics when I get to take them. It looks like rain all this week here.

This filter is used for crime detection, medical photography and detection of distribution of vegetation. Which comes to my first point; maybe disturbed ground would cause the area in the photos.

Tim

http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/infrared.html

Some good reading.

Tim

Add one single electron to yellow gold you have white gold or platinum. Take away one electron from yellow gold you have mercury. One is a liquid metal and the other takes over 1,000 more degrees to melt than does yellow gold. The power of one electron. Think about the power of all the molecules and atoms that make up our world and outer space. Then you can understand the mysteries of infrared photography, dowsing and one day much, much more.

I'm not even sure what the point to this rant is. Why do you assume that the number of electrons in a material has anything whatsoever to do with what it looks like in IR photography, to dowsers, and other mysterious claims that are constantly made on this board? This is just another attempt to make others feel inferior while you spout pseudo science with no facts or proofs to back it up.

[If the aura is real you should not have to do much processing and the aura should be the same when the target area is shifted in the frame from left to right]

But this poses a question. I did not see where the author removed the IR blocking filter. KyBob could not see or get a picture and he shouldn't get one because of the IR blocking filter. The 720 is designed to block all visible light and pass the IR range form 720 up. So what range is this guy seeing these supposed auras? The problem I have with this is the processing. If the aura is real you should not have to do much processing and the aura should be the same when the target area is shifted in the frame from left to right. From the books pictures it appears the brightness parts of the picture is being processed to be an aura.

Amen!

So if this happening in the IR range and the camera has a blocking filter in it as Kybob does and he saw nothing because no IR is passing, whats up with all the pictures in his book?

Amen again! I have not seen the book but I would guess that these pictures are exactly like what Mike originally ran into when he said that his camera is probably not adequate. The author took pictures and post processed the heck out of them to get anything at all. He did this on known targets that were centered in the view. He then declared victory because he got a positive result on a known target. Not exactly the type of thing that will lead you to finding unknown treasures out in the wild.

Which comes to my first point; maybe disturbed ground would cause the area in the photos.

Amen once more! Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. 

Here are 3 photos I took this evening using the camera I converted to IR and the 720nm filter. If anyone wants to play with the the first one feel free. The second and third shows the camera without the filter and with. I still cannot get any results.

Tim

Tim, It looks like that camera has sent you into the future-2016. Maybe you discovered something greater than IR for treasure.

Yeah i like being ahead of the game!

Tim

I have used a few non-digital and digital camera's and never was able to catch an aura with them, but perhaps others have. With that in mind, I have taken some IR photo's and don't understand the link between them and aura's.

Do aura's fit somewhere specific into the light spectrum with a particular frequency range?

For those interested in making their own digital camera capable of taking IR pictures:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Tak...-Pictures-With-Your-Digital-Camera/
(I think I posted this link a couple of years ago somewhere on TNet.)

More in IR photography:
http://www.jimchenphoto.com/digitalinfrared.html

Making "colorized" images with photoshop:
http://blog.epicedits.com/2007/04/1...how-to-make-a-color-infrared-photo/

Something I'm interested in, some info on UV photography:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html

As I've mentioned in the past, IR can detect color variations and has been used to locate ancient underground structures when images where taken at specific times of the day, or night when the object was either cooler, or warmer than the surface above. (This is my simplified explanation.)

F.

Mike the first photo is about 12 feet from the tree. At the base is a large amount of US nickles. I wil take more pictures in the field just for fun. I have silver in the ground but could not get anything over it either. I will put more in the ground and see what I get. The silver anomaly that I have on you-tube should have a large aura around it if this is real. As far as my camera goes I removed the IR filter and adjusted the focus. The camera see all light including the IR range. The pictures are clear and look find to me.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nNjnKQBUrNQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/nNjnKQBUrNQ</a>

This anomaly was seen by different detectors and ground resistivity. The sample showed almost 1oz of silver/ton! Bob will take pictures over this area as soon as he can and post them here. Too bad it was not silver coin....

Tim

I have taken several photos using my filters but also have not had any measurable results.  I may need to remove the internal IR filter for my camera or pick another one up that I won't feel so bad if I mess it up.  Unfortunately I am done for the rest of the year as I am having some surgery done to fix my ankle and will not be able to get around very well for the next six months or so.  I still believe that this solution can work, I just need to do the modifications to my camera.  I will file this information away until I am mobile and then I will hit it again. 

During this time could you try using UV filters only instead of IR.

SICARII, Can you tell me what does the USGS or EROS uses as filters when they take their infrared photos. They look like regular photos but they say they are infrared? What type of filters and shutters are they using? I tried to find it through the photos I have ordered but I could not find anything other than their photos, the best are taken at 20,000 ft. elevation.

Sorry beale I have no Idea. but still Im doing my part on this claimed

Question for those of you who have taken good aura pictures. I now have 3 different cameras, Sony night-shot, Samsung and Kodak both with the IR filter removed. I'm using the 720nm band pass filter still no auras. Photos are taken either N-S or S-N.

Can you please give your setup; filter, camera, angles and target size and length of time in ground?

Tim

Before I forget, here are the latest of my pictures as promised.  They have not changed from the first pictures I took.  I am going to post them as unmodified except for image size so as not to bog down the tnet servers.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/1247279746.Es.r.html

It seems that I was incorrect in thinking this effect may be a reflection of UV from the buried material.



Question: Does Ultra Violet (UV) radiation penetrate the surface of the
Earth?

...Even if by less than 12 inches? Can one assume that disturbed soil,
because through the act of digging or disturbing, is less dense and UV
may penetrate more so that soil that has not been disturbed?



Hello James,

As you probably know, UV radiation is a small band of radiation on the
very large electro-magnetic spectrum.  The wavelength range for UV is
approximately 400 to 200 nanometers (see link below for definition), and
falls between visible light and x-rays. The smaller the wavelength, the
higher the energy is of the radiation. 

There is often a misconception that the smaller the wavelength is (and
the higher the energy), the better the penetrating power of the radiation
will be. This is actually not true, except in the very high energy ranges
of x-rays and above.  An example of this is the penetrating power through
air:  Visible light, with lower energy than UV, is not absorbed when
passing through the atmosphere.  However, UV is partially absorbed by the
atmosphere.  The highest energy range of UV (called UVC) is completely
absorbed by the atmosphere, and does not reach the surface of the earth.
(This is a good thing, because UVC would kill us!)


The short answer to your question “Does UV penetrate the surface of the
earth” is NO.  Soil absorbs all of the UV radiation within a fraction of
an inch.  The best example that demonstrates this is the fact that some
animals, such as elephants will cover themselves with mud (wet soil) to
protect themselves from the burning effects of UV. Mud can be an
effective ‘sunscreen’ for people as well! This thin layer of “earth”
covering the skin effectively blocks the UV radiation.

The physics of exactly ‘how’ electro-magnetic radiation penetrates a
material is very complicated, and relates to how the photons of the
radiation interact with the atoms within a particular material.  It turns
out that UV radiation has the least penetrating power of all ranges of
the electro-magnetic spectrum.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Best Regards,

Jay Shapiro
 http://www.nanooze.org/english/articles/article4_howbigisananometer.
html

I have to add my 2 cents.  

First, I'm a spectral remote sensing engineer (Ph.d.) with 13 years experience contracting for the fed. gov't and I have published work that I can refer you to, if interested.  This thread is dancing around topics that are my profession.

Second, while I'm sure everyone means well, there is no scientific basic for the ‘treasure aura’ concept.  Metals don’t have some magical field around them unless there is a current applied and then it’s a plain magnetic field.  They don’t give off any radiation except by virtue of being hot (Wien’s law).  Even if they did, that field would not be recorded by an ordinary camera (digital or otherwise) because cameras are designed to respond to wavelengths in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum and if a body is hot enough to give off much light you don’t need a camera to find it (think red hot).

Third, if this was a technique that could be validated scientifically, it would be widely known, patented, and in use by people all over the world just raking in the cash.  

Fourth, the images presented as evidence can be easily recreated using elementary image processing techniques.  

Lastly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is no credible evidence in this thread supporting 'treasure aura'.

Search well and find big everybody!!

Jim


Notes to responses below:
1) The sensors in digital cameras are called silicon photodiodes and they loose their sensitivity ~1100nm.  The figure presents the spectral response of this type sensor.  BTW, there's lots of other types that respond to other wavelengths ($$$$$).

2) When light hits materials it does one or all of the following reflect, absorb, or transmit (conservation of energy).  Other than Ground Penetrating Radar I'm not aware of any EM radiation that is transmitted through dirt/soil/stone more than a few millimeters (light quartz sand) regardless of wavelength.  Not UV, not Near IR, not Short Wave IR, not Mid Wave IR, and no not Thermal IR.  

3) If this phenomena were real, then the object must be radiating energy for the camera to collect.  Where does this energy come from?  There are two possibilities reflectance and/or emission.   For buried objects, the reflectance option is out because light doesn’t propagate through dirt.  Emission is EM radiation from an object without being irradiated.  As an object is heated, it begins to give off EM radiation and this is governed by what is known as Wien’s law.  As I said above, for an object to give off much energy in the range of a Si Photodiode it would have to be very hot.  Objects in the ground are not that hot.  So, the emission option is out.  

Where does the “treasure aura” energy come from?  It’s not reflected and it’s not emitted and those are the only two options!  Tell me where.

4) Patents are fairly easy; they are expensive though.  Just search for “Patent Lawyer”.  An apparatus to find buried treasure would be patentable.  The plan would be: Use the ‘working’ prototype to find a bunch of swag, hire a lawyer, get the patent, lease the patent, retire the richest person in the world (in that order).

I agree with you that far IR does not show up on a common digital camera, but that does not prove that objects don't radiate or reflect other wavelengths. How in the world would a person patent this? You have said nothing.

P.S. What's with all the skeptics named Jim?

Actually, I believe he said plenty.   


If this worked, then the folks who knew of these techniques would Not be writing books about it, or posting details on the internet. 



And yes, I agree with the dose of caution, Jim.  My wallet will stay in my pocket--at least until I see banner finds made by folks "well versed" in this "technique."


   



Regards,



Buckles

Good morning Stogie Jim:

Rather impressive qualifications my friend.  In most points I have to agree with you, but in other cases, I have questions that do not fit into your broad statement due to various bodies  being exposed to the chemical, and  physical / electrical  configurations of the earth.  Metal does decompose, including Au.,  producing a broad range of visible, invisible, and electromagnetic anomalies.

Under specific conditions that have been outlined, it accumulates this product of decomposition in the form of a gas which falls into the visible spectrum. among others.  In this  case, they are apparently interested in the 'near' visible spectrum which cannot normally be seen, but hopefully through the sensitivity of reception of a camera can be converted into a visible picture.

I doubt that any human can see the X-Ray portion of the spectrum yet we utilize it daily for diagnostic  purposes in  the form of negatives and pictures.  So it is perfectly logical, in any form of the deductive sciences, to try to utilize the same factor  in this case.  

I might add "Try a long 'time exposure' my friends, it may fall under the same characteristics /  laws as Astronomical photography"..

Regarding heat,  I believe that thermal imaging cameras do a fine job on far less, less than the human body emits.  As a matter
of fact, thermal imaging is extensively used in Astronomy to measure the heat of distant Astronomical bodies.


Don Jose de La Mancha

Here some reading.

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp...pWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l456&enZone=Technology

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/...l282009/treasure_hunter_4-28-09.php

http://www.newscientist.com/article...lites-hunt-for-buried-treasure.html

Tim

Hi,

Perhaps someone would post a picture of a gold/silver object just laying on a table that shows the treasure aura.  Does treasure have to be buried to give off an aura?

Jim

NO, but to produce enough to be visible, viable,  or reactive  yes.  Being buried exposes it to many factors that are not there in air contact.

Don Jose de La Mancha

StogieJim, I agree with everything you said. But I think one of the most important points you made is this:

Third, if this was a technique that could be validated scientifically, it would be widely known, patented, and in use by people all over the world just raking in the cash. 

I don't know why the people here think that they are on the brink of discovering some new way of finding lost treasures. Thousands of people around the world (if not hundreds of thousands) have tried this by now and have not gotten it to work. I'm all for the idea that there are things left in the world that are unknown to science. But keep in mind that there are many things already known to science to not work. It is a two way street.

I'm happy to believe that you can potentially find treasures using cameras by photographing ground disturbances. The reason I keep harping on that is because many people join the discussion along the way and get swept up in what the latest posts are without going back and re-reading everything else. But I'm not willing to buy into the possibility of auras or other phenomenon that are supported only by pseudoscience and hand waving. No one has yet to show any tests that even remotely show that these phenomenons are anything more than wishful thinking and photographic processing tricks.

There are many people in this world that chose to spread hope through pseudoscience in order to sell things like books, LRL's, and other treasure finding gadgets. And it is natural to want to believe in it. I definitely WANT to believe in it. But I've seen no reason to get my hopes up at this point. But there is nothing wrong with having a healthy interest and performing tests on your own. Indeed, what we've seen here is that those who have attempted to test the validity of the aforementioned book have shown that it is probably incorrect in its assertions.

I had KyBob go to the silver anomaly and take a shot or two over that site. Because we know it has a large anomaly there and we can use it as a control site. The picture he took looks very good. No photo-shop needed. I asked him to post it here. It may be that targets that have been in the ground for many years to be able to have this aura. More pictures will be taken. I have a place near me that has the same large anomaly type. I plan on traveling to take pictures next week and see what shows up.

Tim

This may have already been covered, so forgive me if it has.
Has anyone thought that the aura could be due to a temperature difference in the ground? If there is metal in the earth, you would think that there would be at least a slight temp difference. And that could also explain the discrimination...different temps for different metals.
The cameras way of showing heat radiation. Could it be that simple?

Another thing I would be interested in learning is, how far does light penetrate the earth, on average.

I think this can best be explained by ground disturbance and moisture/temperature differences. I don't believe in auras and gases coming from gold.

But you have to believe in heat radiation. I'm just wondering if the camera pics up minute heat radiation (from the metal) which is invisible to the human eye, and then playing with picture editing we can, to some degree, highlight what was captured. I dunno.

Heat is possible I guess. One could use a hose pipe to cover the area and take before and after shots. One thing is for sure. The control pictures shows the shadow line and the area where the hole was dug. The IR shot shows the fog like cloud up off the ground and blocking parts of the shadow line from the trees. This is the best pic yet and more shots will be taken for sure.

Tim

Here is an update to my testing.
 I have a different camera now, it is a Sony DSC-S700 7.2 mega-pixal. I decided to make a trip down to a known site; we dug last year looking for Silver coins. We did not find Silver coins at the site, but when we had the soil tested and it contain .89  an ounce of Silver per one ton of dirt. Also it is highly mineralized with other minerals.
 First, a little history of this site. We spent 3 years testing and taking data from this site before we dug. The reason was, it is farmland, and we had to wait until the crop was harvested, and then being close to winter, the weather would turn sour on us. I first located this site using the LRL500 mfd appox. ½ mile away. I then pinpointed it, using The LRL500, PMR2, X-Scan, and an Earth field unit. My partner Glenn Bishop came up, and using his instruments he pinpointed the same spot. We then started using different metal detectors over the area connected to the ARC- Geo Logger, and placed this data into our computer software. We used two different pulse induction detectors, two different 2box detectors, and two different resistively meters. They all showed a strong target about 4 to 5 feed below ground level.
 If you look at part 1 and part 2 of Tim’s utube video he posted earlier on this thread
(Part 2 is listed below, after you view Part 1)  you can see the energy field ring of the target using The Garrett XL500 Pulse Induction with a 3 foot coil on the software.
 End of history lesson.
    I took my DSC-700 Sony down this morning. Temperature was 79 degrees, time was 11:am, I took the pictures facing North from South.
The first is a plain picture, showing the area we dug last year.
The second picture taken is using 35 mm film for filter. It did not show anything.
The Third picture taken using the 720 infrared filter. (This is the first picture I have taken that shows a possible aura; notice the gas coming off the center of the target area.
All 3 pictures are raw pictures just as they are downloaded from camera.
The forth picture I am sending, is picture I enhanced with software that came with windows Vista. All I did was turn the brightness up and the contrast down.
kybob
 

Here is the control picture of the same area. Notice the shaded area has a line with no shifting of the shadow. On the control photo I Lighten and darken tto see if the shadow line changed. What I found is it changed consistent through the shadow area.
1 is control
2 is control darker
3 is control lighter.
4 IR720 nm filter shot. This is not changed by software.
5 Filtered shot.

The first thing I notice about the IR photo is a cloud or fog floating above the anomaly. This photo has not been changed by software. You see it just like it came from the camera. Bob used a 720nm pass filter shooting due north. You can see that the cloud is in front of the shadow in the IR picture and changes the shading of the covered part of the shadow.

On the control picture of the same area. Notice the shaded area has a line with no shifting of the shadow. If you look at the IR photo you can see the fog rises.
Even making the image brighter and the shadow line is the same. This shows that the fog did not show up in the control image but it did when the IR filter was used to block all visible light and pass IR above 720nm.

This is very interesting indeed. If it was a bright area like in pass photos that area would have chaged in the control shot. But there was no change.

Tim

good afternoon Tim: extremely fascinating.  You are doing just fine.  Incidentally that haze in the pictures corresponds to the size and shape of the many fires / luminous gases seen down here, from which many treasures and simple metallic junk have been recovered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



JB: HI my friend:  Remember, all present science, was pseudo science in it's infancy.  Today's pseudo science is tomorrows advanced science. What it means effectively is that what we presently know is infinitesimal compared to what we don't know.

How do you explain the x-Ray thingie  as to not being similar to the presented theories / applications? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kentucky:  Heat re-radiaton is perfectly plausible under certain conditions, but it will almost be limited to the object or it's immediate vicinity, not indicated as a haze.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MTS:  You posted -->  I don't believe in auras and gases coming from gold.

**********
Why not??  What's so unique about Gold that it 'can't'  produce those reactions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s.   Evening SWR
 

MTS:  You posted -->  I don't believe in auras and gases coming from gold.


I didn't Either........ Until I saw them............. Several Times.

I went back this morning to the Silver site were I took the pictures yesterday and took another picture over the hole we dug last year. I wanted to do this about the same time to see if the aura would still show. The time was 11:10 am when I took the picture, the temperature was 74 degrees.
 I made a mistake in yesterday's post, I said I took the pictures South to North. I took them with my back to the North and facing South the same as today. It may not matter, but when you are doing research or testing, it pays to be as accurate as you can be.
kybob

Hi all
 I took some more pictures using the infrared filter. I am sorry to say I do not believe the halo I was seeing, is an aura coming from the mineral deposit. I have noticed a bright area in the center of each picture I took, but never thought too much about it until, Tim ask me to take one with the energy field off-centered in the picture. I did, and what I seen was the aura did not stay on the target but moved with the center of the picture. I am sorry if I got everyone hope up that this would work (mine included) but we have to accept facts.  I have attached a picture to prove this.
kybob

Yep! But the camera you are using still has the IR filter in it and may be adding to this problem. Anyway I will make a trip to an area that may prove promising. I will take different pictures over the course of the day and hope to see something. I still have not received the 1000nm filter. So I will be using the 720nm. I will post later in the week. Even though the picture are showing this spot in the center cased by the focusing of the lens. I still want to try all avenues before giving a finale say. And even if it does not prove to work I now have some cheap night vision stuff for caves and hunting at night when I don't want to be bothered.

Tim

HIO KYBOB:  I believe that it isn't a lens flare, but a simple change of perspective  or viewing angle.  The key may lie in the emitting object not being inside of the diamond shaped anomaly.  As drawn, if it actually lies outside of the diamond, then it location still remains in the center of the Len's field.

Incidentally, just what is this diamond anomaly?  Even the grass is higher etc over it??

Obviously more photographs are needed.

Don Jose de La Mancha

For those of you looking for an IR camera here's some on ebay.

http://photography.shop.ebay.com/it...cat=31388&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282

Tim

I'm trying to learn this camera and obviously I have a ways to go. I took this one at 9:30 which I think was too late. I opened the aperature and shutter all the way. I didn't realize how long the shutter speed was, several seconds and I was holding the camera without tripod. The first pic is the original, the second touched up with Zoom Browser EX. This is three ounces silver coins.

Hi Mike,

This is your original, with a one-stage enhancement in PhotoStudio.

Thanks Mr Midas, I sent for a Canon EOS 350d. It will be here in a few days. If this works and it leads me to Treasure you will know about it. If it don't I will still have a nice camera for Memories of Good Friends and Family.

Good morning my buddy SWR,    join me?:  I wonder why you didn't comment on my last post on the apparant visual shifting of the haze by two different angles ?  The Haze seems to actually exist, as evidenced by a pseudo 3 D  experiment.

Don Jose de La Mancha

This experiment could be carried out under controlled condition inside ?
Take 2 identical planters.
obtain enough soil to fill both containers with enough soil to fill them both compacted, also the soil should come from the same place and be thouroughly mixed before sharing it between the two planters.
Use a metal detector over the soil to ensure you are not introducing metalic objects into the experiment.
Fill one planter with soil and compact it.
Fill the second partly and place your gold/silver sample, then fill it the rest of the way and compact it.
If you have a uv light source availiable use it during daylight hours to heat the soil in the 2 containers for a few weeks, alternatively place the containers in a spot in the sun ensuring both get the same exposure to sunlight.
When enough time has passed place the 2 containers 1 at a time in the same spot  and "photograph" them.

Does this seem like a scientifically sound experiment ?
If so only one container should give off an aura ?

 

I'm not too fond of the topic name, as it feels misleading to me, but to each their own. Aura's aside, I do know and have posted in the past that IR and perhaps even UV can spot ground disturbance which are likely due to heat variations. I'm just wondering if anyone had thought of using an Image Intensifier, either alone, or in combination with IR, or UV? If I'm not mistaken, image intensifiers cover a wider range of the spectrum including X-rays and Gamma rays.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_intensifier
Or just Google it.

Just a thought.

F.
 

IR can give you added info on a site or help you do things in the dark. Check this vid I did showing a cable line that was put down about 3 weeks ago.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nF5cfMUe-E8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/nF5cfMUe-E8</a>

Tim

That is all I need. If I can find the Old Burro Trails leading to the closed / concealed mine It will be all I need. If I find an aura just more icing on the cake.

This experiment could be carried out under controlled condition inside ?
Take 2 identical planters.
obtain enough soil to fill both containers with enough soil to fill them both compacted, also the soil should come from the same place and be thouroughly mixed before sharing it between the two planters.
Use a metal detector over the soil to ensure you are not introducing metalic objects into the experiment.
Fill one planter with soil and compact it.
Fill the second partly and place your gold/silver sample, then fill it the rest of the way and compact it.
If you have a uv light source availiable use it during daylight hours to heat the soil in the 2 containers for a few weeks, alternatively place the containers in a spot in the sun ensuring both get the same exposure to sunlight.
When enough time has passed place the 2 containers 1 at a time in the same spot  and "photograph" them.

Does this seem like a scientifically sound experiment ?
If so only one container should give off an aura ?

 

You need 3 people:

Person 1 mixes the soil and plants the metal, labeling each planter "A" or "B" on the bottom where the labels can't be seen. Person 1 leaves the area, person 2 enters and randomly selects the containers and moves them to their final location, next to each other where they are exposed to the same conditions. Person 3 photographs both containers in one photo and looks for aura.

Actually, this still won't do it, since the photographer/ image processor has a 50/50 chance of "guessing" correctly; to be statistically significant, you need a minimum sample size of 30.

This experiment could be carried out under controlled condition inside ?
Take 2 identical planters.
obtain enough soil to fill both containers with enough soil to fill them both compacted, also the soil should come from the same place and be thouroughly mixed before sharing it between the two planters.
Use a metal detector over the soil to ensure you are not introducing metalic objects into the experiment.
Fill one planter with soil and compact it.
Fill the second partly and place your gold/silver sample, then fill it the rest of the way and compact it.
If you have a uv light source availiable use it during daylight hours to heat the soil in the 2 containers for a few weeks, alternatively place the containers in a spot in the sun ensuring both get the same exposure to sunlight.
When enough time has passed place the 2 containers 1 at a time in the same spot  and "photograph" them.

Does this seem like a scientifically sound experiment ?
If so only one container should give off an aura ?

 

You need 3 people:

Person 1 mixes the soil and plants the metal, labeling each planter "A" or "B" on the bottom where the labels can't be seen. Person 1 leaves the area, person 2 enters and randomly selects the containers and moves them to their final location, next to each other where they are exposed to the same conditions. Person 3 photographs both containers in one photo and looks for aura.

Actually, this still won't do it, since the photographer/ image processor has a 50/50 chance of "guessing" correctly; to be statistically significant, you need a minimum sample size of 30.

This sounds like one of those blind tests, but I don't know if it would be a single blind test, or a double blind test. I wonder if one could find enough blind followers to participate in this test? 

Actually, I don't know how well this type of test would work using planters. I've been mulling over the idea of "Aura's" and while I was initially, and continue to be somewhat sceptical, there may be some aspects of the idea that aren't totally inconceivable.

As admitted by posters to this topic, what I am seeing in the pictures posted here, isn't really an aura, it is an "enhanced" digital image that has been altered using software. And I could do similar things with photoshop to morph a tree into pointing at an "anomaly". That doesn't mean that there isn't something to the idea, just that the science isn't supporting the claimed observations. With this in mind, I thought I'd chime in and throw around a few ideas that could be possible causes of an "aura" detectable by unaltered digital imagery, that could be tested in a real world environment.

Firstly, while I don't know and established science doesn't seem to know, of any "emanations" caused by gold, silver and other precious metals that would result in an "aura" being detected by a digital imaging device, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Depending on the brand of digital camera, (there are differences between brands), it is possible detect images beyond the normal human range of sight and viewing infrared images, where there are infrared emissions to be detected, is an example of that. Other wavelengths can also be viewed using the right filters in combination with an emission source for that frequency. An example of this would be the security features embedded in common currency that are only visible using UV, and in some cases IR lighting, in combination with the appropriate filters for viewing.

What I'm thinking, is that maybe what is being detected, is not an aura emanating from a gold, silver, or other type of deposit, but rather from an interaction involving a combination of factors, that could include common background radiation, radon gas, common chemicals in the soil, and moisture in combination with temperature and light variations, etc. I know that scientists would normally like to measure possible causes of a claim involving an "aura" such as this in a controlled laboratory environment, but I don't know if it would be possible to recreate all the potential conditions in a laboratory setting.

So, while I'm not going to jump on the "Aura" bandwagon, I'm not going to totally dismiss the idea either. But, any time I see digital images altered using software that claim to illustrate some form of treasure lurking beneath, I'll take it with a grain of salt. 

F.

This experiment could be carried out under controlled condition inside ?
Take 2 identical planters.
obtain enough soil to fill both containers with enough soil to fill them both compacted, also the soil should come from the same place and be thouroughly mixed before sharing it between the two planters.
Use a metal detector over the soil to ensure you are not introducing metalic objects into the experiment.
Fill one planter with soil and compact it.
Fill the second partly and place your gold/silver sample, then fill it the rest of the way and compact it.
If you have a uv light source availiable use it during daylight hours to heat the soil in the 2 containers for a few weeks, alternatively place the containers in a spot in the sun ensuring both get the same exposure to sunlight.
When enough time has passed place the 2 containers 1 at a time in the same spot  and "photograph" them.

Does this seem like a scientifically sound experiment ?
If so only one container should give off an aura ?

 

You need 3 people:

Person 1 mixes the soil and plants the metal, labeling each planter "A" or "B" on the bottom where the labels can't be seen. Person 1 leaves the area, person 2 enters and randomly selects the containers and moves them to their final location, next to each other where they are exposed to the same conditions. Person 3 photographs both containers in one photo and looks for aura.

Actually, this still won't do it, since the photographer/ image processor has a 50/50 chance of "guessing" correctly; to be statistically significant, you need a minimum sample size of 30.

This sounds like one of those blind tests, but I don't know if it would be a single blind test, or a double blind test. I wonder if one could find enough blind followers to participate in this test? 

Actually, I don't know how well this type of test would work using planters. I've been mulling over the idea of "Aura's" and while I was initially, and continue to be somewhat sceptical, there may be some aspects of the idea that aren't totally inconceivable.

As admitted by posters to this topic, what I am seeing in the pictures posted here, isn't really an aura, it is an "enhanced" digital image that has been altered using software. And I could do similar things with photoshop to morph a tree into pointing at an "anomaly". That doesn't mean that there isn't something to the idea, just that the science isn't supporting the claimed observations. With this in mind, I thought I'd chime in and throw around a few ideas that could be possible causes of an "aura" detectable by unaltered digital imagery, that could be tested in a real world environment.

Firstly, while I don't know and established science doesn't seem to know, of any "emanations" caused by gold, silver and other precious metals that would result in an "aura" being detected by a digital imaging device, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Depending on the brand of digital camera, (there are differences between brands), it is possible detect images beyond the normal human range of sight and viewing infrared images, where there are infrared emissions to be detected, is an example of that. Other wavelengths can also be viewed using the right filters in combination with an emission source for that frequency. An example of this would be the security features embedded in common currency that are only visible using UV, and in some cases IR lighting, in combination with the appropriate filters for viewing.

What I'm thinking, is that maybe what is being detected, is not an aura emanating from a gold, silver, or other type of deposit, but rather from an interaction involving a combination of factors, that could include common background radiation, radon gas, common chemicals in the soil, and moisture in combination with temperature and light variations, etc. I know that scientists would normally like to measure possible causes of a claim involving an "aura" such as this in a controlled laboratory environment, but I don't know if it would be possible to recreate all the potential conditions in a laboratory setting.

So, while I'm not going to jump on the "Aura" bandwagon, I'm not going to totally dismiss the idea either. But, any time I see digital images altered using software that claim to illustrate some form of treasure lurking beneath, I'll take it with a grain of salt. 

F.

Good post!  You should be able to get auras from planters providing they are placed in direct contact with the ground.  However, bearing in mind that it has been scientifically proven that the observer in an experiment can influence the results, it would be a far easier experiment to use the method to just go out and find treasure.

In most cases the aura is visible on the 'raw' image, without using photo editing software as several images on this thread show.  However, a simple, one-click enhance on a photo editor makes the aura, position and nature of the target much clearer.  If anyone sees this as 'cheating', feel free to struggle on using raw images.

Midas

This does not apply to a human standing nearby simply watching what someone else is doing.   

I think what he is trying to say is that if the observer is also the tester then they can influence the results. For example, if you know where you planted something then you are likely to post process the image until it shows up to prove the point.

Hi,

This just keeps going round and round; what fun there is in confusion.

Victorio didn’t believe in auras “…Until I saw them............. Several Times.”  Here’s a tip if you used ALL CAPITALS your statement would be more persuasive.

Functional said "image intensifiers cover a wider range of the spectrum including X-rays and Gamma rays."  No, they don't.  They use silicon photodiodes which are sensitive to visible and near-infrared (~400-100nm).  Your reference clearly states infrared in several places and calls specifically out 800-900nm which is near-infrared.  

In a later post he also says “…established science doesn't seem to know, of any "emanations" caused by gold, silver and other precious metals that would result in an "aura" being detected by a digital imaging device, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.”  Perhaps not but, it does lower the probability to a very very very small value.  This very small number approximates the probability that treasure auras exist.

SomeGuy is correct about conducting a double-blind test and about the need for numerous repetitions to eliminate simple luck from the results.  Someone said “the difference between luck and skill is duration”.

Midas says ”You should be able to get auras from planters providing they are placed in direct contact with the ground.”  Why oh why on God’s green earth is this true?  Can someone explain this without hand-waving and faulty deductive reasoning?  An example of which is, all metals decompose therefore gold decomposes.   The conclusion is not valid because the first premise is not true.   Gold “… is unaffected by air, moisture and most corrosive reagents” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold).  This example is based on reply # 237, Real de Tayopa: “Metal does decompose, including Au.”  

Also, Midas says “… it has been scientifically proven that the observer in an experiment can influence the results.”   I suggest that he is mistakenly referring to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) which pertains to measurements made at the quantum level and may not be relevant to capturing treasure auras with digital cameras.  On the other hand, perhaps he meant the observer (the person) needs to have the right attitude, think the right thoughts, or have a pure heart in order to capture the elusive aura.  If that’s the case, then unless you plan on donating the found treasure to charity, your heart is not pure and this is why the aura will not reveal itself to you.

When folks fail to capture treasure aura, it's always something that the experimenter did wrong and never that the concept is founded on wishful thinking and ill founded logic.

SWR: I wish I could agree with you about coming to a consensus but, I don’t.  There are a few true believers, a few hardcore skeptics (these two will never agree), and a bunch who fall in between the two points.  They (without the benefit of education in chemistry, physics, or remote sensing) push around one loosely formed thought after another much like a gusty wind scatters leaves back and forth.  Therefore, this group will never settle or agree on anything.

The simple proof that treasure aura is nonsense is that even after a few books have been published and sold in the FICTION section, nothing has been patented, no equipment is for sale, and no one is presenting their finds in a credible arena.  The true believers will say that all the successful treasure hunters keep their methods/findings secret; but this transparent sophistry because it can't be disproven and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.  (A sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.)

Despite all the confusion, I’m sure everyone means well.  To those who want to believe, good luck.  To those who don’t know, don’t just assume aura exists and run around snapping images and ruining your cameras.  Do some research in remote sensing and start by theorizing (based on what is known about gold) what could cause the aura.  What is the nature of the aura (wavelength, strength of signal and noise), what equipment is capable of recording it then set up simple experiments to prove your theory and report on your methods and results.  Vague images that could be the product of image manipulation are not proof of anything.  That is the scientific process and valid theories will stand up to it while silliness falls by the wayside.

I won’t bother you with my rants anymore.

Jim

HI Jim:  you posted , among others ---> The conclusion is not valid because the first premise is not true.   Gold “… is unaffected by air, moisture and most corrosive reagents” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold).  This example is based on reply # 237, Real de Tayopa: “Metal does decompose, including Au.”
~~~~~~~~~
Sheesh Jim, you certainly haven't done your home work.  There are dozens of natural conditions in which Au decomposes in the ground. In doing so, it gives off energy which may be in the visible spectrum or anywhere else in the energy spectrum.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[with references]

My dear friend Don Jose,

Not enough homework?  My dear Sir, I’ve done enough homework to earn a Ph.D. in the field of Remote Sensing.  Also, I’ve been paid for 13 years of hard work in the field of Remote Sensing.  
Here is a link to one of my papers: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/f...milarity)%3Cin%3Emetadata&pos=1
These are my credentials; but, enough of the small talk.

What references can you give that supports your statement that the decomposition of gold “… gives off energy which may be in the visible spectrum or anywhere else in the energy spectrum”?  

If you can, please provide answers with references to at least fairly credible sources to the following simple questions:
 
1 What energy does gold give off as it decomposes?
2 What wavelengths are involved?  

Of course, I suspect that you will not be able to provide satisfactory answers or credible references.  

Instead, I predict you will prevaricate, hand-wave, and generally fail to answer my questions.  Perhaps you'll say: ‘I’ve done that so many times before’ or ‘It is so well known that I need not’ or ‘clearly you will never accept what you don’t understand’, blah, blah.

Your friend in the search for knowledge,

Jim

PS: Midas, would you like to answer these questions?

[with references]

If you can, please provide answers with references to at least fairly credible sources to the following simple questions:...

Neat trick. Now all you need do is say that the references (the ones you don't agree with) are not credible.

good morning Stogie, not belittling your scholastic achievement or abilities in any way, especially in your field,  but suggesting that you should study a bit more with an 'open' mind.  Many of the natural occurrences of Gold Decomposition or conversions / combinations in Nature are utilized in normal commercial recovery processes. Cyanide's, Halides, Acids, Mercury, and on.  Need I mention the Oceans?

All of these are found in the western states.  As you are undoubtedly aware, all chemical reactions can be described as ionic exchanges. These are simply put, electrical in essence or body which are generally measureable or calculable..  It is not outside of reason that many will be in the  visual or capturable ranges and are capable of being detected  in many ways

I suggest reading up on Atomic Absorption devices.  for example.  

As for a PhD, while admirable  in itself, does not automatically equate superior intelligence in my experience.  Many top names in the sciences and higher education were guests at my parents home In California.  I was made privy to many of them on a personal basis, most were brilliant people, but some ,  one in particular, was  a PhD in Geology.  He couldn't, literally pour it out of a boot with out help.

So please refrain from posting data on Education or titles for me, it falls on deaf ears, as for the others perhaps they may be impressed.

Don Jose de La Mancha