Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

All I got to say is hats off to you sir! thats cool as hell. Darwin was laughed at too orginally.Your making history thats all that counts!

If this is true, why doesn't the government just re-task all their "assets", and dig up these vast caches? If digital cameras can see this, don't you think airborne, and space borne cameras can too? The only "treasure" here is being reaped by the guy selling this info to lucky(read gullible) folks.
 IS that a buried cache "aura" I see on Google Earth?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, just a reflection on my laptop

HH
Steve
look an aura lol

good morning:  My apol., I hadn't realized that Wan and others had  posted.  I will addressWan first, thenthe others in sequence.

Wan you posted -->If your presuming these photons were emitted underground, then it's hard to explain why they would then reflect off objects above ground, as in the pics. Or react with camera lenses and film for focusing and pictures for that matter.
************

?? I never suggested this nor photons, but that the cameras may be designed to respond to other frequencies than just Ir or visible ones.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->        but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
**********
K agreed
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs.  
**********

Your explanation does not satisfactorily explain  the term 'sensitivity' .   Sensitivity is a given factor under fixed parameters,  including time.   Accumulation over time is not a measure of sensitivity as
such.  
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->  In the most general sense, any non-visible frequency that shows up as a visible color on film shifted the effective frequency in some manner. Otherwise you wouldn't see it on film either,
**********

I hate to be picky, but IR records as IR, this is why we use film that is sensitive to the IR frequency.  The same applies to our hand held IR detectors.  The Polorid system of color photography only records initially in two frequencies (colors) it then uses the difference between the combination to produce the third color.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted --> In reference to Geo chem prospecting     "No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected".
***********

Hmm sorry, but it is precisely a chemical reaction that is being indicated / used / measured.  the final indicator is another frequency which is interpreted as a color.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here.
***********

On the contrary, I post no restrictions, I am completely open,  hence the  operation could be feasible
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->  If earth, which includes a wide variety of materials, is so transparent, then why does it reflect so readily off the trees and ground, or react with the cameras CCD for that matter? Such absurdities are beyond excessive.
************

The Earth is transparent to many frequencies and energies, and opaque to many other
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   I merely stated that metatheory should be avoided as justification for any theory. Nor did I use metatheory to argue against any theory of yours
*********
Fascinating  post ?
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

you posted --> Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test
***********

Nor have you addressed it.  It is really extremely simple in theory, but, due to 'our '-   not scientific  -  limited  resources and knowledge, we have to go by trial and error feeling our way.

May I referr you to -->       http://www.physorg.com/news140715260.html       to realize just how little we know and the ex potential advances in all fronts of science still unpublicised.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
 KJ You posted --> this is true, why doesn't the government just re-task all their "assets", and dig up these vast caches?
*********
Because many think like you.  Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought  and resisted.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->If digital cameras can see this, don't you think airborne, and space borne cameras can too?
**********
Of course they could, if modified, and they are modiified to study distant celestial objects.
************

You posted -->  The only "treasure" here is being reaped by the guy selling this info to lucky(read gullible) folks
********

I have no doubt that he is interested in selling the book, just as the scientific authors of early books on scientific investigation on flight were, most of which ended up in the discard pile, while a pair of unknowns ------  just flew.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

Ypu posted -->IS that a buried cache "aura" I see on Google Earth?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, just a reflection on my laptop
********

You must have the same problem that I do, a shiny nose.  Move the light to a different angle.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

Swr------ hmm,  k,  HI.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s.   -->    http://www.physorg.com/news          

good morning:  My apol., I hadn't realized that Wan and others had  posted.  I will addressWan first, thenthe others in sequence.

Wan you posted -->If your presuming these photons were emitted underground, then it's hard to explain why they would then reflect off objects above ground, as in the pics. Or react with camera lenses and film for focusing and pictures for that matter.
************

?? I never suggested this nor photons, but that the cameras may be designed to respond to other frequencies than just Ir or visible ones.

I qualified my statement with "if". It wasn't a claim of what you suggested, as there is a great paucity of specifics in what you are claiming. I was merely covering such a possible consideration given what has been provided.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->        but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
**********
K agreed

Then on what grounds do you defend your less than specific claim that we should take this serious? I think I have giving this serious consideration, and it still fails.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs.  
**********

Your explanation does not satisfactorily explain  the term 'sensitivity' .   Sensitivity is a given factor under fixed parameters,  including time. Accumulation over time is not a measure of sensitivity as such.

Given that the cheap camera CCD is in fact the detector claimed in use here, it's more than reasonable that whatever 'fixed' sensitivity is required is satisfied by that cheap CCD. Thus even if you define "sensitivity" in terms of some fixed time frame and limited to some predefined photon density, the claim as provided in fact claims to be sensitive enough. This essentially moots 'sensitivity' as an issue at all.

Filters of any kind do not increase sensitivity to a given frequency, rather they reduce the noise from other frequencies so it's not drowned out in the signal. Using spectral analysis there's no need for such filters at all, because each frequency is by design separated out individually. We even have prototype cameras that store the light information to make pictures, instead of storing the pictures. Thus we can take picture, with whatever focus, filter, etc., we choose at any later time.

You are overestimating the ignorance of present science and technology, apparently in order to justify the claims of the camera on the grounds of ignorance in science and technology.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->  In the most general sense, any non-visible frequency that shows up as a visible color on film shifted the effective frequency in some manner. Otherwise you wouldn't see it on film either,
**********

I hate to be picky, but IR records as IR, this is why we use film that is sensitive to the IR frequency.  The same applies to our hand held IR detectors.  The Polorid system of color photography only records initially in two frequencies (colors) it then uses the difference between the combination to produce the third color.

LOL, problem is if the film pixels emitted in the same IR spectrum it recorded from then your eyes wouldn't be able to see it on the film any more than you could see it in real life. Thus it is not the color "IR" you are seeing on the film, but another color used to represent the IR spectrum, thus a shifted false color spectrum. This would in fact be a frequency shift if you can see some non-visible light spectrum on the film at all.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted --> In reference to Geo chem prospecting     "No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected".
***********

Hmm sorry, but it is precisely a chemical reaction that is being indicated / used / measured.  the final indicator is another frequency which is interpreted as a color.

Geochemical prospecting is nothing more or less than spectrographic analysis and/or taking actuall samples to test. If you want the sample to emit its own radiation (assuming it's not radioactive), then you stick it in a gas chromatograph or something similar. Otherwise it works in the same way your eyes use spectrographic analysis to distinguish between the grass and the dirt it's growing out of. Any direct chemical prospecting requires taking actual samples and chemically testing them, not taking pictures.

Here I must ask for any credible reference to make your case. I would provide such a reference except I can't provide what doesn't exist.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here.
***********

On the contrary, I post no restrictions, I am completely open,  hence the  operation could be feasible

Ok, after a second look at your statement I'll accept you made no such claim. There's a problem with being "completely open" as you describe here. I am open to all sorts of weird notions lacking effective sound evidence, yet I can't rightly claim or invest belief in such notions, nor falsely claim a selection bias of available data constitutes evidence.

Worse still, in this case, remaining "completely open" appears to require rejecting specific empirical data, i.e., direct observations. Like claiming to be open minded about having 11 fingers but one is invisible and untouchable. It wouldn't be so outrageous if a specialized CCD was in use, rather than a cheap mass produced version with well defined specs. Yet it would still be silly to believe a priori.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->  If earth, which includes a wide variety of materials, is so transparent, then why does it reflect so readily off the trees and ground, or react with the cameras CCD for that matter? Such absurdities are beyond excessive.
************

The Earth is transparent to many frequencies and energies, and opaque to many other

Of course, but it's not the ground opacity that is at issue here, it's the combination of ground and lens transparency with leaf, ground, and CCD opacity, as evidenced by the reflective profiles in the pics. It's this psychotic combination of opacities that is a problem. Not to mention the absurdity of failing to notice such an obvious electromagnetic source before, given the ubiquity of the technology used here. You should realize that there is no unknown regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, even if we've never detected it before.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->   I merely stated that metatheory should be avoided as justification for any theory. Nor did I use metatheory to argue against any theory of yours
*********
Fascinating  post ?

I went ? at the strangeness of your response to. There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

you posted --> Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test
***********

Nor have you addressed it.  It is really extremely simple in theory, but, due to 'our '-   not scientific  -  limited  resources and knowledge, we have to go by trial and error feeling our way.

How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic physical mechanisms like a theory we have 11 fingers mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, but 10 the rest of the week? The 11 finger theory is rather simple also, but appealing to "limited resources and knowledge" doesn't help the case for it in the least.

May I referr you to -->       http://www.physorg.com/news140715260.html       to realize just how little we know and the ex potential advances in all fronts of science still unpublicised.

Pointing to an article entitled "Topical use of estradiol may stimulate collagen production in aging skin" is more than a little weird. I also know how to take pictures of objects using light that never reflected off the objects in the picture. I even understand how this bit of weirdness works, yet even this weirdness doesn't help the case for the camera trick described here.

You have used an "appeal to ignorance" a lot here as a defense. This is unfortunately a straight forward well defined logical fallacy. In response to KJ you made the following statement:

Because many think like you.  Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought and resisted.

Advances in science are "fought" because that is how we know they are real, when the science stands up to the scrutiny. Science cannot work without this "fight". Only it's not a "fight", rather it's simply part of the peer review process. For every advance hundreds of would be advances failed this so called fight, for good reason. Because it was wrong. Saying we should believe this camera trick because we are --deleted-- of what we don't know is tantamount to throwing away ALL science, and calling every claim, no matter how silly, science.

Even with this care and discipline imposed by this so called "fight", I can pretty much guarantee that many more corrections to what we think we know is coming. The so called fight never ends. Yet not one of these corrections will change one iota about the phenomenology we have observed. General Relativity did not change the empirical validity of any measurement whatsoever made under classical theory. Yet an honest look at the camera trick appears to require physical rules that are both valid and invalid at the same time. Saying: We'll we don't know everything, doesn't change the absurdity of it.

Nothing would be more exciting to me than for someone to show me something I don't understand. Such things do exist, but I despair of attempting to explain the nature of my failings given the nature of the arguments made here. Yet a claim, coupled with the claim I should believe it solely on the grounds of my ignorance, does not in itself constitute a phenomena in need of understanding. Given that my ignorance is ostensibly the justification given for believing it, with "it" remaining undefined, I have nothing left to offer this thread. If some real data is offered I might reconsider.

Digital Camera  no Filters  Silver.... Blue Aura...  Was there silver there Yes. Though i share this picture ,You can belive it are not,but i'am a belive now.

Good evening WAN: You posted -->  There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.
*********

Perhaps, but??
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic
***********
interesting reply ?? 
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->I qualified my statement with "if". It wasn't a claim of what you suggested, as there is a great paucity of specifics in what you are claiming. I was merely covering such a possible consideration given what has been provided.
*********
Referring to photons Being  emitted under ground,   I am unaware that I ever said this?_________________________________________________ ____________________

You posted -->You posted -->        but in depth physics is out of the question at this time
**********
K agreed
Then on what grounds do you defend your less than specific claim that we should take this serious? I think I have giving this serious consideration, and it still fails.
**********************

 Defend?  no need to defend something that is still in the basic theoretical stage??
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->Given that the cheap camera CCD is in fact the detector claimed in use here, it's more than reasonable that whatever 'fixed' sensitivity is required is satisfied by that cheap CCD. Thus even if you define "sensitivity" in terms of some fixed time frame and limited to some predefined photon density, the claim as provided in fact claims to be sensitive enough. This essentially moots 'sensitivity' as an issue at all
***********
Why do you insist upon Photon sensitivity? Any frequency can be modified to enter the sensitivity range of the CCD carrying the original information.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted-->You are overestimating the ignorance of present science and technology, apparently in order to justify the claims of the camera on the grounds of ignorance in science and technology
****************
 On the contrary, I have readily admitted that it could easily and quickly be solved if science applied itself to the problem. However, since there is no immediate  push, it is up to 'us' to experiment, just as the Wright Bros did.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->  problem is if the film pixels emitted in the same IR spectrum it recorded from then your eyes wouldn't be able to see it on the film any more than you could see it in real life. Thus it is not the color "IR" you are seeing on the film, but another color used to represent the IR spectrum, thus a shifted false color spectrum. This would in fact be a frequency shift if you can see some non-visible light spectrum on the film at all.
**********
  I fail to see where I have ever suggested otherwise???
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted-->Geochemical prospecting is nothing more or less than spectrographic analysis and/or taking actuall samples to test. If you want the sample to emit its own radiation (assuming it's not radioactive), then you stick it in a gas chromatograph or something similar.
***********
Having used, overhauled and re calibrated AA units, I am quite familiar with them.  They are not used in Geochemical prospecting. It would be uneconomical.   Geochemical prospecting is simply the inexpensive chemical reaction of selected samples in the field, which indicates the presence of minerals by reactions, which include color changes. 

Crude example, put a drop of nitric acid on the suspected Cu specimen. let it sit for minute or so, then rub a clean iron nail across it.  Any Cu in the Nitric acid solution will then transfer to the nail coating it with relatively pure Cu.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted --> Any direct chemical prospecting requires taking actual samples and chemically testing them, not taking pictures
***********
Have you ever heard of testing for Hg by simply coating a flat surface  with a UV sensitive materiel then placing the suspected specimen between the apropriate. UV source and the screen.  Rising Hg vapors will block the UV excitation and appear as opaque fumes or haze.  This can be recorded  visually or with a suitable device such as  a simple CCD camera, no effective difference.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->It wouldn't be so outrageous if a specialized CCD was in use, rather than a cheap mass produced version with well defined specs
**********
Am I to understand that you said that it would be 'impossible' in one way or another to modify the orig freq. to one that the cheap CCD can register?  Sigh.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________
You posted --> You should realize that there is no unknown regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, even if we've never detected it before
*********
I believe that I have stated such before???
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->I went ? at the strangeness of your response to. There's likely some confusion over what a metatheory actually represents.
********

Not really, it is simple --> metatheory is a set of interlocking rules, principles, or a story (narrative), that both describes and prescribes what is acceptable and unacceptable as theory - the means of conceptual exploration - in a scientific discipline._
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you posted -->How can I address a range of possible phenomenologies, all of which appear to require rather psychotic physical mechanisms like a theory we have 11 fingers mondays, wednesdays, and fridays, but 10 the rest of the week? The 11 finger theory is rather simple also, but appealing to "limited resources and knowledge" doesn't help the case for it in the least
****************

Now that is close to a metatheory, however, where does the psychotic factor enter?
_________________________________________________ _______________________________
You posted-->  In response to KJ you made the following statement:

Quote from: Real de Tayopa on Apr 29, 2010, 09:41:58 AM
Because many think like you.  Every advance in science, especially in Medicine, has been bitterly fought and resisted.
Advances in science are "fought" because that is how we know they are real, when the science stands up to the scrutiny. Science cannot work without this "fight". Only it's not a "fight", rather it's simply part of the peer review process. For every advance hundreds of would be advances failed this so called fight, for good reason. Because it was wrong. Saying we should believe this camera trick because we are --deleted-- of what we don't know is tantamount to throwing away ALL science, and calling every claim, no matter how silly, science.

********
Unfortunately most fights are from top Peer pressure.  Science is rampart with sorry examples of the supreme peer resisting anything that rocks his position of being the ultimate authority in a particular field,  even to destroying an upstart whose conflicting theory is late proven to be correct.  Nuff said.

Incidentally just what IS science?   What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

Isn't that just what they are attempting to do in here?
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->Nothing would be more exciting to me than for someone to show me something I don't understand
***********
Then relax and contribute, instead of attempting to discourage.   To discourage implies that you now all phases of the subject, hence it is closed..

Don Jose de La Mancha





_

Ok for all of you giving midas a hard time quit i myself have gotten strange colors before on my grandmothers old Sun 660 polaroid i have really just never figured out what the color,blur, which i now know is from coins or something whish i knew this 3-5 years ago.

--------Also midas i want to know one thing where is the world could you get one of these special filters how often would i have to change it.

THaNK YoU MiDaS for your post

Digital Camera  no Filters  Silver.... Blue Aura...  Was there silver there Yes. Though i share this picture ,You can belive it are not,but i'am a belive now.

Sorry, but what you are seeing is what's called a hot pixel. They can be seen as red, blue, or green little blips in your images. They appear when a certain pixel in your sensor starts to malfunction, or if your shooting higher ISOs with a cheaper camera.

Everning camera guy:  *****  excellent post, that does happen.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I find this all very interesting and I'm loving the idea. I think its only a matter of time before the technology gets good enough to see more and more of what we can't see. I know they can see certain things from space using specialized equipment. What I'm wondering is how soon will it be before we can "see" the chemicals that was mixed in with old glass to give it its color. I believe that we aren't to far away from detectors that can help us locate old glass thats underground. Does anyone think that old bottle dumps can be found by the amount of metal trash that is often buried with it? Everyone here is screamin' gold & silver but I'd like to see this applied to more aspects of treasure hunting. Swiz

[Does everyone in here have a Doctorate in Metallurgy or Physics??Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics knows that most everything breaks down over time and unlike substances that come into contact with each other will produce some kind of chemical reactionSo, isn't it possible that someone may have stumbled on some technique or device that can detect these chemical changes??]

Does everyone in here have a Doctorate in Metallurgy or Physics??
Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics knows that most everything breaks down over time and unlike substances that come into contact with each other will produce some kind of chemical reaction
So, isn't it possible that someone may have stumbled on some technique or device that can detect these chemical changes??

there is also some eight balls on here that profess to know all things. bet they can't name all the animals like adam did.

Good morning swr:   You posted --> Does everyone in here have a Doctorate in Metallurgy or Physics??
Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics knows that most everything breaks down over time and unlike substances that come into contact with each other will produce some kind of chemical reaction
So, isn't it possible that someone may have stumbled on some technique or device that can detect these chemical changes??


  ''well..not really'.     But someone has stumbled on to the technique of writing/selling a book that is completely useless about that very subject. Talk about a hosing!
****************

You know this for sure What is your reliable referrence ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hmmm,  well explain this pic-10oz. silver bar buried 10 inches 3 days ago.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Post a picture of  10oz  of silver......Please....for the one's that don't belive.

Good morning my investigative - scientific friends.  The term 'scientist' keeps being brought up, as if the titled ones are seated on the side of the LORD.  I feel that many reading these posts are a bit turned off on experimenting with the present subject, since they feel inferior, yet the higher education degrees do not in themselves make a true scientist.  They merely confirm that that person has completed a specified course in a field of study, not a statement of  'intelligence or actual independent thinking ability'.

In many cases, since you have not absorbed a certain level of previous canned data on a  subject, you mind is actually far more productive  since you will try and consider things, that others locked into conventional thinking cannot conceive.  It does not really matter for the purposes of this series of posts whether you fully understand what you are trying to do, or work with, what IS important is your efforts, thinking, and trying.

For example, I can show you how to grow perfectly healthy, Sun loving plants inside of a closed box down in a light tight basement. All colors and pigments are exactly the same as for the same plants being grown in the sunlight. Conventional scientists will tell you that this is impossible, yet??

The same applies to those that are attempting to develop long Range  sensing devices (LRL).  While they perhaps cannot explain scientifically how they are supposedly working , nevertheless, every so often, they perform as hoped for, but not on demand, nor every time.

Always remember that the baby staring at a thingy hanging above his crib, studying it to decide if it is good to eat or play with, is a scientist in every conventional description.  The only difference is the level of study, and background knowledge, which may also turn out to be faulty..

Don Jose de La Mancha    *Tropical Tramp*

Hi Sitsi,
You don't need to wait six weeks. Four days to a week is sufficient for the phenomenon to be captured through IR photographs.
I feel the good results will be in the 700-800 nm range. Above this, pictures will tend to be very dark.
Make sure you use a good photo editor to enhance it.
In my case, I used a simple Sony cybershot (CCD) with a double layer of exposed film. Not even a professional fiter. In these cameras, the gold location appear in a blue-green mist. This is expectable as David already pointed in his book that the best cameras for this are the SLR types which show a much more distinguishable redish color.
Great idea and effort of your part testing different models and reporting it here, so we know the differences among them.

And yes, ionic emanations are one of the events involved.

Hello Sitsi,

Hang in there and do not give up!

Your're just accomplishing the impossible!  Smile!

I am just starting learning how to take photos.  Out in the field I took 2,000 this past week.  There will be another 2,000 done as soon as I have a chance to review the first series of test.

This method, and your skill at using it may be your ticket to making a recovery which will leave you with a smile going from ear to ear.

Your welcome to go prospecting with me any time.

Barton

Also...David mentions that it is best not to remove the hot mirror on the camera, for this can cause too much IR and wash out the aura.  My experience suggests this also, as I had to stack 3 filters to get my posted result.  The camera used was professionally modified, with the hot mirror removed.  I will be testing 3 other unmodified cameras:Sony DSC-P31, Nikon P6000, Canon 350D.  I am considering a new Canon 7D, it has live preview like the the Sony and Nikon point and shoots listed.   This is very helpful when composing the shot with the dark filters in place.  Its the latest model, but will it be sensitive enough to IR??? I need to determine exactly what combination of camera, lens, filter, angle, temp, and time of day is optimal(and repeatable).  Obviously, I have a tremendous amount of work ahead of me- all this testing... with great respect to all of you, Sitsi 

I am new to this site, but I have been working on the same thing. I have a Nikon D200 with the hot mirror not removed.  I have a 10 oz silver bar buried at 8" depth. I took 30 or so pictures with different combinations of a 720nm, 760nm, 850nm, 950nm, and 1000nm.  I used abode lite room for the software. I placed the target both in the center and on the side of the pic and then ran it Thur the software, with no luck.. I am not sure but I think that the hot mirror blocks most of the Ir and it may be blocking the aura.   I thought that since I have the same camera, we might do the same tests, with some variation.
rabbit

Rabbit,     point a TV remote into the camera lens to see the stock D200 is sensitive to the IR beam.  If it is, you will see on the LCD screen after the exposure.  With the hot mirror removed the D200 is crazy sensitive to the IR, enough so it becomes nearly impossible to capture the aura.  I've been thinking of getting a used stock D200 on Ebay just to test it against my modified one.  I have purchased a used Coolpix 6600(8MP), and two Canon 350Ds for further testing also.  I won't stop testing til I refine this method to produce a reliable result. 

How long ago was the silver buried?  Important that it receive full exposure to the sun for at least a few hours.  No shade or tree canopy...

Ledwick and Heinemann used CCD based cameras to image the orbs-they believe the older CMOS sensors are too insensitive to IR, and the newest cameras have too effective hot mirrors...I always search beyond the parameters of my subject matter to get new ideas/inspiration-this is why I mention the orb research    Sitsi

The 10 oz bar has been in the ground for 6 weeks, it is in a plastic bag, I don't know if that will make a difference.  I may put one with out the bag in another place.

rabbit

Hmmm, not sure if bag will make a difference...my test garden has the silver buried naked-perhaps I should update it with some bagged silver... 

here is the clearest of the orb pics I took(Sony Cybershot 2MP).  Water droplet or real orb??  Sitsi     

I never seen an orb, or anything like that lets us know what you think it is.
thanks rabbit

Just a note...am in Denver area today, decided to do quick test of my garden(silver only buried 8 days).  Temp about 94F, no clouds, so I shoot with the Canon 350D and 2 lenses(kit and Tamron 17-35).  The results are so radically different...bewilderingly so!  The results from the Tamron are so spectacular I will not post until I go back and retake everything at different angle, time of day, etc.  I could see the aura after the 2 sec. post-shutter LCD image.  When enhanced on the Arcsoft its just unbelievable-so back I go tomorrow for more testing.  The kit lense produces a blue mist, but some of the plants turn blue also-very confusing...why the radical, and I mean RADICAL, difference from just the lenses?  I don't get it for right now, will be back in 3 weeks or so...Sitsi

Hi Sitsi,
Did yo also get the silver aura as blue? This is odd. In David's pictures, silver aura appears as orange, and he even states that it differs from the redish look for gold.
You are using the same camera, the Cannon 350d, but a different set of filters. His is Cokin, yours Tamron.
Looking forward to see the pictures.
In my Sony cybershot, CCD type, gold appears as blueish green. But this is with a raw developed film layer. I don't find a cokin filter around here. There are people selling 720nm filters claiming as IR Xray filters. Don't know if it's the same.
Anyway, I found that the Arcsoft is the best and ideal editing program to use. Maybe their algorithms make a difference. I am studying a way of applying their algorithms in a real time filtered view so you get an image trough lenses 'in loco'.
Keep posting.
Regards.

Just a note...am in Denver area today, decided to do quick test of my garden(silver only buried 8 days).  Temp about 94F, no clouds, so I shoot with the Canon 350D and 2 lenses(kit and Tamron 17-35).  The results are so radically different...bewilderingly so!  The results from the Tamron are so spectacular I will not post until I go back and retake everything at different angle, time of day, etc.  I could see the aura after the 2 sec. post-shutter LCD image.  When enhanced on the Arcsoft its just unbelievable-so back I go tomorrow for more testing.  The kit lense produces a blue mist, but some of the plants turn blue also-very confusing...why the radical, and I mean RADICAL, difference from just the lenses?  I don't get it for right now, will be back in 3 weeks or so...Sitsi

sitsi
I have taken a lot more pictrues with a greater amount of combinations of the 720nm,760nm,850nm,950nm, and 1000nm ir filters, with the nikon D200, with out anything.  It must be  the hot mirror that is still in tack causing the problem.  If there is a test that you would like me to do let me know. 

rabbit

THIS IS A PICTURE OF MY FRIENDS KID HE TOOK WITH A CAMERA PHONE. NOTICE THE IMAGE BEHIND THE GIRL I TOLD HIM TO LOOK INTO THE WALL IT REMINDED ME OF THE POLOROID PICTURE. BUT HE IS SCARED BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SEES IN THE PICTURE.

Orbs...

I do not have a lot of photography expertise, but have participated in a few ghost hunts. In the vast majority of cases orbs are produced by dust, bugs, or suspended water droplets caught in/outside (not sure which) of a cameras focal length. All orb pictures I've seen have been produced with a flash and usually in low light conditions.

Some claim a paranormal connection with orbs. I have taken a couple of pictures that do defy the focal length explanation. One orb was so blue it amazed me. However, I also think the flash in a camera enery waves within certain sections of the spectrum that "excite" globs or spheres of gases in the atmosphere - similar in principal to flourescent lights - creating orbs. My theory here.

Or, they can be the energy traces of long-dead Jesuits, prospectors, outlaws, or your grandma out to show you where the loot is buried.

Just my take on orbs. 

I thought I would rerun this picture that I took in New Mexico a few years back.
The Green flash is directly over a copper mine.  I don't know how to crop the
picture, but interesting neverthe less.  Picture taken on a Nikon L1 pocket digital
with no filters, auto exposure.  I wasn't expecting anything, but here it is.
Rich

i call bull crap BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP JUST LIKE A LRL NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE THING WITH A LRL NOTHING BUT EXCUSES THEY CANY EVEN COME WITH WITH A VIDEO SHOT WITH TIME AND DATE ON IT FOR PROOF AND AGAIN I CALL BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP

and i  will keep calling bull crap  untill some one uses a lrl or digital camera to produce a site and video tape it on a camcorder that has time and date on so you cant stop in between time and salt the dig site with hard proof that those two hoaxs are proven right  BULLCRAP

well, i guess you want some bullcrap on your grave huh? that's all you will ever have or see as long as you have that attitude. just take your time and die happy.

Treasure Finder... did you ever have the picture analyzed? I'd like to learn more since it is an interesting shot, especially with a mine being (coincidentally?) there.

hardscrabble, go back to pic # 336 and you will see a similar spot on a cave wall. that cave was used by the japanese in ww 2.

tenclaw...

I looked at the pic on #336. It appears to me to be more of an orb. To me, the other pic looks like a flash or bulbous streak of self illuminated green. It caught my attention since it seems to be in scale. In other words, actually in the distance - though that could just be a mistake of the eye.

On #336... I've seen many, many orbs of all sizes, colors, textures, etc. in paranormal photographs. I've taken dozens of them myself. Most are dust, water droplets, bugs, etc. caught by the flash within the focal length of the camera (but a lot of folks out there think all orbs are spirits, etc.).

Hardscrabble,
No I didn't have the picture analyzed by anyone but you guys.  I wouldn't know who
to go to for analysis and expect there would be a bunch of opinions pro and con from
experts also.  I make no claim of any sort, though I have shot lots of photos with SX-70
polaroids hoping to come up with something.  SX-70 pictures will frequently show streaks
or orbs if the roller are dirty or have dried developing paste on them which happens a lot.
I have taken lots of pictures with the SX-70 over mines and know micron deposits and
have never gotten anything that you could take to the bank.  I have also taken lots of
pictures with Kodak infrared film (color and black and white) and haven't seen anything
of use there either, though I have seen Infrared pictures taken by others showing blue
or purple haze over supposed gold deposits.  I wasn't able to personally verify any of
those locations.  If it works at all, I believe it sometimes shows up, but not always, that
is maybe why results are inconclusive.
This green flash was totally surprising to me as I wasn't expecting anything, I was just
documenting where I was.
Keep searching, Rich

c

WHY NOT USE A I/R SECURITY CAMERA ? I HAVE ONE THAT WAS MADE INTO A PORTABLE 12 VOLT SYSTEM !! I WILL SEE IF IT WORKS !! IT IS MADE TO SEE I/R ONLY AND SHOULD WORK BETTER IF THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON !!!

Hi Audioswamp,
As far as using a specialized IR camera, if you use an IR video camera check
and see what part of the spectrum it is picking up.  Most cameras will pick up
from 400 nanometers to around 700 nanometers.  Below 400 nanometers glass
blocks the spectrum and above 700 nanometers film is not sensitive.  In a digital
camera there are filters to block the infrared besides it being much dimmer in
light output.  If you use a R72 filter on a digital camera and up the exposure,
you will block out the spectrum from 400-720 nanometers and esentially have
an infrared only camera like your video camera.  Incidentally Kodak Infrared film
is sensitive to visible light plus infrared from 700 to 900 nanometers. Also,
according to Kodak, 700-900 nanometers won't show heat, you need to go
much further into the spectrum and have a cooled camera or the whole camera
will make the whole image glow.  I think the advantage to a IR video camera
is that it probably is more sensitive and maybe the contrast is different also.
Let us know what you find out.
Rich

if this was covered before forgive me. 

what are the thermal properties of gold.   Is there a way to light up gold with radiation say at night and would the gold absorb that radiation and hold it better than the ground around it ? One could use thermal imaging and see the results and hopefully see the precious metals and other valuable in the ground.

HI Gold_Striker
I believe all metals would pick up the surrounding ground temperature at
different rates and cool at different rates.  Therefore I believe with a thermal
imaging camera you may see buried metals  as the ground is heating or cooling
depending on how deep they are buried.  But I also believe in that part of the
IR spectrum your imaging camera would be pretty expensive.  In other words,
a common digital camera wouldn't pick up that far into the IR.  I also believe
that some other factor is responsible for the occasional orbs, flashes or odd
effects sometimes seen over precious metal.  Let us know if you get to try out
a IR imaging camera.
In many Central American countries there is a strong belief in seeing "Treasure
Lights" over treasure, and that is with the naked eye.  More experimentation has
to be done yet.
Rich

gold striker...

Gold is very dense, so I would assume it would retain thermal energy for a longer period. I would also think that a big chunk of it near the surface (if enough heat has been absorbed), would show up on a thermal image. But, I am certainly not an expert on the subject. The difference could be so slight as to not get picked up.

I've read somewhere on TNet that some sort of outgassing or nuclear breakdown happens and that it shows up in digital pictures. That sounds sort of far fetched to me. Somebody within the forum should be able to better answer your question.

Who delete sitsi's  mails , is there anybody who remembers  the filters he uses.

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!

Well put Airborne! I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with you that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. To forestall a line of silly posts regarding my basic intelligence, reasoning, or whatever,  I was associated with MENSA, with a certified variable IQ of 140 -160. Binet,   I am a duly elected member of the elite Explorers club, and a certified  Tropical Tramp, I.E. Treasure Hunting Bum.

                                   www.Explorers.org
[/quote]

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.

Maybe they appear negative to you, because they don't serve your agenda? Ya know....kinda like how crooks/criminals don't particularly care for Law Enforcement Officers, and call them names? Stop being a hater and add to the thread in a positive nature  

Crooks/criminals? Who said I was talking about you SWR? Like I said I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with others that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here with negative comments.

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.

Maybe they appear negative to you, because they don't serve your agenda? Ya know....kinda like how crooks/criminals don't particularly care for Law Enforcement Officers, and call them names? Stop being a hater and add to the thread in a positive nature  

Crooks/criminals? Who said I was talking about you SWR? Like I said I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with others that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here with negative comments.

Poor wording, I am not implying that you are a crook or a criminal SWR. I just meant what makes you think that I was referring to you when I was replying to Don Jose de La Mancha?

Morning guess who:  Bk, was extremely busy.  Gracias.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Morning guess who:  Bk, was extremely busy.  Gracias.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Good morning Don Jose de La Mancha ~ It's refreshing to see theories put forth without all the silly name calling. I'm on the fence with this one. I asked the author of the book if he would check a photo if I sent him one, but he has not responded.

good morning swr, I have multitudes of books in my library which take the opposite sides on almost any subject   For example, from Randi being a saint to to being a proven liar and pedophile.  So to me, basing your faith or belief on any 'one' book, pro or con, is rediculous.  A good book should open your mind to further investigation, not close it.

swr, you also stated -->In review...'.some us did give it a try'. All of us have had crappy results.
**************

May I ask you just what did 'you' do and what equipment did you use, and under which conditions?

Don Jose de La Mancha

This has probably been answered in this thread already, and excuse my ignorance... I would imagine that gold is a very stable element therefore (comparatively speaking) there would be very little "decay" to register on anything. Also, it doesn't "outgas" and radiation, etc.  (electromagnetic energy) has little effect upon it - at least I think so since it's used for shielding in space. So, other than some sort of heat differential because of its mass, what is the picture "seeing" exactly? Thanks.

HI hardscrabble  one: Now you are acting like a true investigative scientist,  asking questions, seeking new data and answers where there possibly are none 'yet', instead of simply saying "it can't work. pseudo science".

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s.  Your other post regarding bull -----  doesn't give you any laurels, but this one does

Don Jose... can't anybody take a joke around here? Besides, I think my thread is entirely appropriate. Where else can you get your bulltwinkle and a grain of salt? I provided one. Lighten up folks! Like some of you guys never dug a dry hole. Gotta have a sense of humor.

Hi Hardscrabble ~ I think Don Jose was paying you a compliment. The "It's pseudo science bullcrap" people that have nothing positive or constructive to add to any threads on this site are a just a boring waste of time, so I just use the ignore user function with respect to their useless comments. I can see that you are probably inclined to think that this digital camera thing does not work, but I tend to agree with Don Jose that your last comment about this was your best one. I agree about a sense of humor, but I can see how the bullwinkle thing might be misinterpreted. I have no idea if the digital camera thing works or not but I am open to anything that might have some sort of scientific basis that has a possibility of working. At this point, I'm inclined to think that this falls into the may be possible but i don't know for sure one way or the other realm.

Morning HS:  Unfortunately that is all that the so called sceptics have been capable of posting so far.  since they cannot answer /  discuss simple theoretical questions, they degrade into personal remarks or simple ignore.

After a period, the advocates just get tired and respond the same way.

Don Jose de La Mancha

10claw... what the h-e-double toothpicks did you say?

Don Jose... seriously though, exactly what are the metals in question (gold for example) emitting that gets picked up? As I stated before, I would think that gold is pretty stable. That being said, I could more see some device emitting waves that somehow "excite" the metal at the molecular level and in the process spark radiation (popping electrons?). In that case what would be detected are those particle emissions. But, wouldn't that take some pretty fancy and powerful equipment to accomplish - if it's even possible? 

As far as expensive and complicated equipment goes, not too many years ago if you told someone you were going to take pictures without any film & send them out for the whole world to see you'd of gotten laughed off your bar stool. Can we really say what can / can't be accomplished with a camera and a handful of filters? I have the book & filters, but haven't had enough time to do any REAL experimenting. But now with cooler weather and a little more time I'll prusue this further after the holidays.

I still haven't gotten a decent answer from the nay sayers, skeptics, scientist wanna be's etc.

Question: Why exactly won't it work. Can you show me positive proof it won't work?

Seems some of my earlier posts got lost/deleted. But I'm still asking the question. I got a couple of vague article clippings from the skeptics but nothing definitive proving this technique absolutely will not work.

Don Jose... seriously though, exactly what are the metals in question (gold for example) emitting that gets picked up? As I stated before, I would think that gold is pretty stable. That being said, I could more see some device emitting waves that somehow "excite" the metal at the molecular level and in the process spark radiation (popping electrons?). In that case what would be detected are those particle emissions. But, wouldn't that take some pretty fancy and powerful equipment to accomplish - if it's even possible? 

Or the gold could be reflecting natural rays.  In which case, narrowing down the wavelengths (visible and otherwise) that AU reflects would be a good start.  Then it becomes an equipment issue (and lots of experimentation....)

I still haven't gotten a decent answer from the nay sayers, skeptics, scientist wanna be's etc.

Question: Why exactly won't it work. Can you show me positive proof it won't work?

There isn't a decent answer for proving a negative.

A better question would be...why will it work. Can you show me positive proof it will work??

Those questions are answerable. There are no known scientific principles validating it works. There is no positive proof it will work.

Other than some internet banter, and the promise from the author it will work...there is nothing definitive proving this technique absolutely will work

Like I said I'm working on this as time permits, either way I'm going at it with an open mind eiter way.
 This is the type of answers you get from the skeptics, nothing just a re-direct or flipping it back to you. If you are completely positive it can't work, I'd assume you've done some pretty extensive research yourself possibly with some help from the scientists over at the Randi Foundation. And you have some pretty good documentation showing that it does in fact not work. I still would like someone to answer my question without the re-directs. True I haven't done enough with the system to prove it will work on a consistent basis or not but I would like YOU to show me the research it doesn't. Seems you must know quite a bit about this system, please share your facts with us might save us some time in our own research.

SWR Please please please! What ever you do! Don't go past Catalina and fall off the edge of the earth! I'd really miss your posts! (with a friendly joking tone of voice).

Excuse me?!?! Did SWR just make an assumption? I have purchased a copy of the book and recieved another copy as a gift. Bantering about unknowns?!?! Like I said, Skeptics will never directly answer your questions, always a mis-direction, a reply with another question, attacking your knowledge or experience etc etc.

Simply, I asked. Since you're so absolutely positive this system will not work please show me some definate documentation or a "scientific" study showing why it "will not work". If you're so committed to your beliefs there should be some sort of science proving your statement. The rest of us are at least trying this method with open minds.
Hmm.. Wonder if SWR thinks metal detectors are a bunch of Hoo Doo too since they shoot unseen waves of energy into the ground to locate metal objects. You can't put your hands on these magical waves eminating from these metal detectors or see these magical waves so they are Hoo Doo and a metal detector can't possibly work.

Open your mind and open your possibilities.

so does it work or not?

Good morming swr, back:  you posted -->  There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground. Science is beyond such silliness.
***********

Interesting,  I suppose that also covers taking a picture of where a living being was yesterday by means of their residual frequency also?   hmmm

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist

There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground.

There is evidence that digital cameras are sensitive to a wider spectrum than the human eye.

They will show UV light as bright white.  I noticed this when pointing one (I don't remember if it was a video or still camera) into our kitchen one day, while there was a bug catcher that used UV to suck flies into a water trap.  There was just a big white light where the bug catcher sat.

Someone mentioned that the digital pickups are also sensitive to IR.  I haven't checked how mine react to IR; but I know that some cameras emit IR as a light source, and have an IR video mode.

So, at least half of your statement above is incorrect.

Maybe what you meant to say was that you "believe there is no evidence that the presence of gold underground can result in detectable changes in light above that ground."

Is that what you meant to say?

HI swr, you posted -->"Trying to prove a negative is a silly circular argument. There is no scientific principle in a digital camera taking a picture of gold producing an aura underground and radiating above ground. Science is beyond such silliness."
***************

Odd, but, "there is no scientific principle' is a negative statement, no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Why is the 'invisible aura' reflecting off the leaves above it?  This is absurd.

Sounds like BS to me...

Why is the 'invisible aura' reflecting off the leaves above it?  This is absurd.

Sounds like BS to me...

Hmmm...... Don't just sit there Try it! Prove it wrong or prove it right. Then you'll have something to post.

Simple question, how do you identify a particular piece of jewelry on a person that is wearing several??



Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

SWR---

By definition, "aura" can be any type of emanation, either of matter or energy.

It is commonly known that gold, in combination with other materials and/or energies, is capable of producing various "emanations."

It is also commonly known that various materials are capable of either reflecting or producing light which is above and below the visible spectrum.

Digital cameras are sensitive beyond both ends of the "visible" light spectrum.

Therefore, it is illogical to say that some kind of phenomenon where the presence of gold underground results in an effect which can be seen by a digital camera, is impossible.

If you still think it's impossible, then which (of the) sentence(s) above do you think is untrue?

Why is the 'invisible aura' reflecting off the leaves above it?  This is absurd.

Sounds like BS to me...

Hmmm...... Don't just sit there Try it! Prove it wrong or prove it right. Then you'll have something to post.

I have no interest in trying to prove it right, or wrong..If you employ this technique thats great...I for one do not believe it works....I put this in the same class as dowsing, and other hocus pocus....But im sure you have found lots of gold with this......If I were going to waste my time with this, it would be a double blind test for sure.....

Gallileo:  Obviously you are relying upon pred, or faulted materiel.. Dowsing   'does exist',   everyone can do it to a different extent, however, just as all of us can play base ball, only a few reach the majors, the rest simply sit on a couch and watch via Tv.

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to live, not live to exist".

Gallileo:  Obviously you are relying upon pred, or faulted materiel.. Dowsing   'does exist',   everyone can do it to a different extent, however, just as all of us can play base ball, only a few reach the majors, the rest simply sit on a couch and watch via Tv.

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to live, not live to exist".

I think I will just stick to my Metal Detectors, but whatever anyone else does is fine by me...As long as were all having fun.....Dowsing, and related paranormal stuff may be for real, but I am a skeptic, I guess you would say..I would have to see it work under tightly controlled conditions......HH to you...

Hi Galileo:  Hmm,  when I saw someone actually find something out in the field, I frankly couldn't care less if it was under strictly controlled conditions or not.

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to live, not live to

Tayopa put it exactly.

I myself am a sittin on the fence skeptic, that's why I'm trying to see if this system works consistently. It's really sad to see people who just say bullpuckey, I don't understand it so it can't work. If we go at things with open minds and experiment/test we'll either discover a new tool to use in our searches or something that doesn't work. But we'll never know if we just sit on our hands and poo poo everything. I'm sure glad skeptics aren't in abundance! If they were. we'd still be living in the stone age. Imagine Marconi sitting on his hands saying bullpuckey it can't  work 
I've just acquired the same type Olympus camera David used in his tests. I'll be trying it after the holidays and a couple projects get finished up. To the rest of the people out there testing I wish the best of luck to you.

Happy Holidays & Merry Christmas!!

Paranormal...

I've been researching a cache. I need a name - "the" name. At first glance it would seem easy (in this case A should lead to B which in turn will narrow things immensely). Been beating my brains out going to archives, digging through death certificates, etc., etc.

The other night I dream of a directory, covers torn off, inside yellowed with age, and a name and date (1943) written in pencil on the front leaf. So, the next day I'm thinking, "That was a weird dream."

Did I write the name down? Nope. Now, there's "paranormal" mixed with a dose of idiot for you.

Paranormal...

I've been researching a cache. I need a name - "the" name. At first glance it would seem easy (in this case A should lead to B which in turn will narrow things immensely). Been beating my brains out going to archives, digging through death certificates, etc., etc.

The other night I dream of a directory, covers torn off, inside yellowed with age, and a name and date (1943) written in pencil on the front leaf. So, the next day I'm thinking, "That was a weird dream."

Did I write the name down? Nope. Now, there's "paranormal" mixed with a dose of idiot for you.

Heh Heh Sounds like me except I write things down! Only problem....... I've got a desk full of scraps of notes, and I'll be dipped if I can tell you what 97% are related to Hmmm.......which is worse?

boogeyman...

Well, check to see if any of them is a woman's name - maybe my dream was sent to you via some paranormal psychic connection. Happy holidays!

boogeyman...

Well, check to see if any of them is a woman's name - maybe my dream was sent to you via some paranormal psychic connection. Happy holidays!

Nope thank God paranormal connections aren't run by the USPS!

Well folks, I finally read most of the pages of this very long post. Lots of hooey, lots of BS from the know-it-all piled higher and deeper bunch. And then there are a few rays of light (Toyopa), a few willing to expt., a few fence sitters. After reading a couple of pages I found I could skip the naysayers and read Toyopas very nice and usually polite rebuttals and showing the p-h-d bunch don't know squat.

I applaud all your efforts friends - but the cake is in the eating. Prove or disprove it with experiments and REAL equipment.  I for one KNOW there are radiations around precious metals and lesser emanations around none PGM objects. In all the preceding there are a few nuggets but you'll not find them as they are obscure.

My background - lots of IR experience designing and building military projects that are electro optical. Also, build custom EO and regular electronic toys for folks and myself when there is something worth pursuing. Many years ago I read the Matacea book and decided to do a bit of EO experimenting. Those digital cameras are nice for what they are designed for but lousy for what you are trying to do. What you need is a sensor tuned to the IR with some real sensitivity. When you block out the non IR portion with filters, exposed film, etc. you are also cutting down the IR signal. I am amazed that Midas got anything and maybe they are just artifacts. Repeatability is a key factor in the scientific method.

And for you p-h-ders I got a few degrees myself, and Toyopa, most of mensa types I,ve known couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag with a flashlight and a sharp knife.

So my recommendation, build yourself a sensitive IR detector and get out there in the field and test it, test it, test it... The reason I say "build" is the IR stuff out there doesn't have the form factor you need. And you don't need a lot of education. Don't let the piled higher and deeper bunch blunt your keen interest. If you do, they have won and you have lost a big prize.

There is a pony in all the HS.

Onward!

goldfinder...

Build one of those gadgets you're talking about. Then, if it works, IM me and I'll buy one from ya. Did I just say, "buy one from ya?"

Seriously though, I imagine that conceptually speaking there could be some value to the ideas presented in this thread. However, I don't see how an element as stable as gold will just pop off particles that an IR based gadget could pick up unless something really gets the constituent atoms very, very excited. In fact, if such particles are released, why would an IR meter pick them up period? Wouldn't they have to be in the correct band of the spectrum in order for it to work? Or, would it pick up upon some by-product of the process? 

Granted, I don't have a PhD in anything (except maybe drinking), but it just doesn't sound right.

goldfinder...

Build one of those gadgets you're talking about. Then, if it works, IM me and I'll buy one from ya. Did I just say, "buy one from ya?"

Seriously though, I imagine that conceptually speaking there could be some value to the ideas presented in this thread. However, I don't see how an element as stable as gold will just pop off particles that an IR based gadget could pick up unless something really gets the constituent atoms very, very excited. In fact, if such particles are released, why would an IR meter pick them up period? Wouldn't they have to be in the correct band of the spectrum in order for it to work? Or, would it pick up upon some by-product of the process? 

Granted, I don't have a PhD in anything (except maybe drinking), but it just doesn't sound right.

I don't see value of IR either. Plain and simple - IR is heat radiation. I do see how it would enable highlighting old roads, previously dug up soil (different heat adsorption than surroundings), etc. and indirectly enable someone to deduce location of buried treasure or whatever. From the IR sensors we developed for the military, it was truly amazing what you could see with it. Almost like x-ray vision in some instances. The reality is in testing. Someone who has a pretty good idea of a treasure location could probably use the IR as another tool to pinpoint. This is application of existing technology in a different arena. If you are serious get a real IR camera.

I do know that oil companies and mineral exploration companies use IR and other spectral bands to locate potential new exploration areas. Lots of them buy satellite and aerial scans in various spectral bands. How they analyze the date is their trade secrets which is what some of you are really going to have to discover/uncover but don't yet realize.

Using existing off the shelf visible light cameras is a non-starter as far as being useful. These type of cameras are made for the visible spectrum of light. They have filters, lenses, and sensor tuned to the visible spectrum. To try and adapt them really needs lots of modifications. For example, a lens for visible light can be a cheap piece of glass or plastic. IR needs a lens that will transmit IR readily. And other spectral bands need different material lenses. Same with the sensor. AND these spectral band parts just by themselves cost more that a good camera at WalMart.

Real research w/ optics is expensive. One of my friends has just spent over $30,000 for his fancy homebrew telescope so he can view the stars in different spectral bands besides visible.

So like a said - there is a pony in all this BS somewhere. But our are going to have to pay the piper to find it.

Gold24k

Hardscrabble---

I don't know whether or not signs of gold underground can be detected with a camera, but I think it's not impossible that it could.

I have seen several sources over the years, stating that there are many reports of the phenomenon occurring, where it can even been seen with the naked eye, with precious metals having then been found at the location.  That, of course, is not proof.

Gold does seem like a very stable element, since it doesn't tarnish or rust.  But there are several chemicals which will dissolve it completely.  Cyanide, iodine, thiosulfate, chlorine gas, and the popular aqua regia acid mixture, are among them.  Many households, especially if there is a swimming pool, already contain chemicals which, when properly combined, will dissolve gold very nicely!

There is a current theory that all gold deposits are formed when super heated steam drives it way up through the earth, carrying dissolved gold, and other precious metals, plus other stuff.  Gold ores are often a hardened "soup" of many different materials (some of which are very toxic).  And sometimes it precipitates in mass, forming gold wires, crystals, or large pieces, of fairly high purity, within various types of host rock.

So, for ore anyway, who knows what possible combinations of materials commonly associated with gold deposits might off-gas something which could be seen above the surface somehow?

Refined gold, such as coins and bullion, might be considered less likely to produce anything detectable, but when buried underground, who knows?

Gold being very conductive might have something additional to do with it, too.

My opinion is that ultimately, things are what they are, and if it happens, it happens.

 

I don't see how IR Infrared would be much use in locating gold underground unless there would be a temperature difference in the soil...It is great for finding heat sources, but you can bet if it worked good for gold finding the "guvment" woulda been on this years ago..I would like to see some named scientist put there two cents in on this, or at least some reports from respected labs....Most of these ideas, and this goes for LRL's also have been dismissed by the scientific community at large..There is a reason for this, they don't work...You can bet someone has spent millions of our tax dollars to find out...I would be the first to get in on something that is a sure thing to locate gold, and other valuables....Please tho this is just my opinion, with that and a dollar 50, I can get a cup of coffee, so don't none of you take this personal, if you say it works for you, great..You should have quite a tidy some stuffed away by now...If it were me, im not sure I would share my "good thing".....HH to all....Just my two cents..Tom

I don't see how IR Infrared would be much use in locating gold underground unless there would be a temperature difference in the soil...It is great for finding heat sources, but you can bet if it worked good for gold finding the "guvment" woulda been on this years ago..I would like to see some named scientist put there two cents in on this, or at least some reports from respected labs....Most of these ideas, and this goes for LRL's also have been dismissed by the scientific community at large..There is a reason for this, they don't work...You can bet someone has spent millions of our tax dollars to find out...I would be the first to get in on something that is a sure thing to locate gold, and other valuables....Please tho this is just my opinion, with that and a dollar 50, I can get a cup of coffee, so don't none of you take this personal, if you say it works for you, great..You should have quite a tidy some stuffed away by now...If it were me, im not sure I would share my "good thing".....HH to all....Just my two cents..Tom

Does gold lose it's heat slower than dirt does? If it does I think this might make a good argument for using IR just after sunset to look for gold.

Everything I heard about these types of visual indicators seems to be the result of fumes or vapor above the ground.   

Everything I heard about these types of visual indicators seems to be the result of fumes or vapor above the ground.   

Something that can detect heat like IR seems more likely to me if there is a temperature difference in the soil.

The regular photos I've seen showed something like a glowing vapor issuing upwards.  And some people posting that they have seen the same thing, and that others who are knowledgeable about it have described it to them, and that it was an indicator.

The IR photos on this forum looked more like an area temperature difference.

That's about the extent of my knowledge of the subject.

Everything I heard about these types of visual indicators seems to be the result of fumes or vapor above the ground.   

There are no fumes, or any other thing given off by gold....

gallileo60---

I agree.  But see my post #428, above.

I've seen the effect with the old Polaroid cameras where gold was actually found, but not the effect being described here with digital cameras. I have no idea what caused the old Polaroid camera film to show this aura, but the gold was recovered below the spot where the photograph was taken. I think there is a possibility that IR could work based on heat if gold cools more slowly than it's surrounding soil does, but I don't think this is what causes what can be seen in old Polaroid camera photos.

guys, you might want to print gold & bacteria on your search engine in your computer and see what you come up with. i would be interested in what you think about how raw gold is processed under ground using cyanide and other natural ground compounds to dissolve gold into nuggets? some say it produces positive ions that works its self to the grounds surface,and, will work on long buried coins too. maybe or maybe not ?  looks like the mining industry is trying to use it to find their gold veins plus other countries are studying it ,but, does this bacteria cause enough activity in the ground with gold to cause a aura on the surface?  bacteria or micro organisms are all over this  planet ,and, they do a lot of things. maybe someone can add to this. thank you

hayman...

True, I haven't read every single post on this thread, but yours is the first one I've seen that makes any sense. Gold eating bacteria? Crazy? I don't think so. Now, this ion stuff... hmmm.

Thanks for a very interesting post!

I wonder what attracts these plants to areas bearing gold?

http://www.delange.org/DesertTrumpet/DesertTrumpet.htm

http://www.arizonagoldprospectors.com/Desert_Trumpet_Plant.htm

i was going to say one more thing about this bacteria. i was rereading my post,and,i put in positive ions in one of the sentences ,so, that got me to thinking, that sounds like electical stuff,so,i printed bacteria electrons in my search engine. boy did that open up a big door . i seen some university studies,science daily magzine,and others state that micro organisms do in deed produce electrons while working on metals and other things. when you see these big ships that are sunk below the ocean,and,you see all that crust all over them on t.v. that's micro organisms working on metal. we need a micro biologist on this forum to say if this stuff is true or not! i'am not a scientist,so,i do not know! EE THR, a person would have to do a study on the internet or a library to see why these plants grow near gold ore.    thank you.

Bacteria electrons? I'm not a biochemist, and this is a new term to me. I guess it shouldn't be so surprising if everything is made up of atoms and electrons. I know bacteria is used to clean oil cargo ships, but don't know the mechanism. I just heard about a guy who makes a gizmo that he says can find gold based on everything having a certain frequency, but I don't know if electrons can emit certain frequencies. Has anybody heard of this theory?

Guess Who...

As far as I know, all elements have some sort of frequency signature. How that works I don't know. From what I've read, light (electromagnetic energy), gets molded into various kinds of matter.

On the bio side... I think the bacteria thing is very interesting. And, bacteria do outgas. The nature of the gas may be the point. Interesting.

Thanks Hardscrabble ~ Resistivity makes sense to me if different metals posses different amounts of conductivity. I guess it's a little difficult to understand inert metals emitting frequencies.

GUESS-WHO---

Gold generating it's own EMF radiation is one thing, but we all know that it is capable of re-generating signals it receives, as it does with metal detectors!

It is also known that everywhere on this planet is flooded with various types of radiation, either from the sun, or other natural and man-made sources.

When you consider that mix, plus the various chemicals and minerals associated with gold deposits, or even just surrounding buried gold coins or bullion, all interacting, there are a lot of possible factors to consider.

hardsrabble: if these bacteria was to work, my, no.1 thing is to see if infared or if a dog could sniff out these signals from this interaction.one thing about bacteria  that i do know is that when you make wine it does produce gase and when you make bread it does rise,but that's not metal.bacteria is all over the place when you see dead tree roots turning white when they decompose,and, you see other things in nature that bacteria works on ,and, some of the metals you dig out of the ground with a metal detector don't look the same way when they were lost it makes you wonder?

GUESS-WHO---

Gold generating it's own EMF radiation is one thing, but we all know that it is capable of re-generating signals it receives, as it does with metal detectors!

It is also known that everywhere on this planet is flooded with various types of radiation, either from the sun, or other natural and man-made sources.

When you consider that mix, plus the various chemicals and minerals associated with gold deposits, or even just surrounding buried gold coins or bullion, all interacting, there are a lot of possible factors to consider.

Thanks EE THr ~ So do you think the gadget I mentioned above might be possible?

gallileo60---

I agree.  But see my post #428, above.

I find it quite possible that a camera could capture an air temperature difference on  whatever medium it is using...It could be some metal in the ground  is releasing heat back into the air, and causing a smear on film, or whatever...I have also seen people claim to have captured pictures of "spirits" , or whatever on film..You can bet if there was a reliable way to find gold with a camera the US government would have already gotten to most of it...Not to mention mining company's have spent millions looking for gold, and other precious metals..I tend to put this with the LRL's, but as I have said in the past, if it works for you GREAT...Hell, if it was me, I would not tell anyone it worked, and have lots of gold....No insult intended to anyone, and I do not want to discourage anyone.... BUT, Now who has taken a random picture, and went, and dug gold at that spot??

Don Jose... seriously though, exactly what are the metals in question (gold for example) emitting that gets picked up? As I stated before, I would think that gold is pretty stable. That being said, I could more see some device emitting waves that somehow "excite" the metal at the molecular level and in the process spark radiation (popping electrons?). In that case what would be detected are those particle emissions. But, wouldn't that take some pretty fancy and powerful equipment to accomplish - if it's even possible? 

Gold is very stable, as is evidenced by its lack of corrosion in saltwater...It does not out gas, and it does not produce a visible source of emissions, or a IR source that I am aware of.... I'm not sure what could excite gold in the ground enough to make it produce electron lose..It would have to be powerful, and the receiver sensitive..(IE; Costly) I'm sure there are instruments capable of this level, but I doubt if your average camera, be it IR, polaroid, digital, or whatever could detect this field..But hey, if your having fun, go for it..you know Computers have gold in them, so should not a picture of a computer cause the same effect...?? Does it have to be in the ground for a certain amount of time???

GUESS-WHO---

I'm not sure which gadget you're referring to, but all I know is:  "If it works---it works."

In other words, you would need to build one and test it.

 

GUESS-WHO---

Gold generating it's own EMF radiation is one thing, but we all know that it is capable of re-generating signals it receives, as it does with metal detectors!

It is also known that everywhere on this planet is flooded with various types of radiation, either from the sun, or other natural and man-made sources.

When you consider that mix, plus the various chemicals and minerals associated with gold deposits, or even just surrounding buried gold coins or bullion, all interacting, there are a lot of possible factors to consider.

Thanks EE THr ~ So do you think the gadget I mentioned above might be possible?

Gold does not have an EMF radiation that we know of. To radiate it must be stimulated to radiate EMF. It does however have so kind of radiation as I can sense it. I believe it is some kind of gravitational stress wave. So the work by Dr. Helmut Mueller on Global Scaling.

Good evening Gold finder:   thank you for your nice post'.


It was asked --. I've seen the effect with the old Polaroid cameras where gold was actually found.
********************************
I will let swr answer just how does a Polaroid land camera work?  Of course I expect a personal observation, not a copy and paste thingie as he usually does, which certainly does not indicate understanding..

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist"