Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

Dear Don Jose,

As I predicted, you did not provide answers to my questions nor did you provide any references that describe energy given off by decomposing gold.  We are all entitled to our opinions; but, if we present our opinions as facts...  Well, let's just say it seems intellectually dishonest.

Don Jose, my learned friend, I have an open mind.  A credible theory needs to be based on facts not mere conjecture as you have done.  Do you accept the theory that pigs can fly?  If not, then perhaps your mind is closed.  Only fools accept such silliness without question. I’m eager to hear your views but your extraordinary claims must be justified with facts and coherent logic. 

I do not claim superior intelligence by virtue of my degrees.  My credentials were presented to indicate that I have considerable experience in the field of spectral remote sensing which is very relevant to this thread.

Your dear friend,

Jim   

Kentucky Kache:  I hope you noticed that not even one reference was provided!  In this arena, for this topic, I’m prepared to be quite flexible.  A peer-reviewed journal would be best but, Wikipedia will do nicely; just something other than Don Jose’s statement or a reference to some other MD/TH forum where opinions fly and facts are scarce. 

Stogie Jim... enjoy your posts... I've been asking the same questions from a layman's point of view and just get dismissed as a non-believer in the fantastical.

Kentucky Kache:  I hope you noticed that not even one reference was provided!  In this arena, for this topic, I’m prepared to be quite flexible.  A peer-reviewed journal would be best but, Wikipedia will do nicely; just something other than Don Jose’s statement or a reference to some other MD/TH forum where opinions fly and facts are scarce. 

So, anything will do, even a Wikipedia article? That will make you believe it?

Good morning stogie:  At first I wasn't going to answer your, err, post, then thought that "what the heck", I am not doing anything important right now, especially since I am taking a break on the book, but can 'you' give me a peer review proving the   impossibility of it occurring?   Obviously none of any papers that you may have posted are acceptable.

As for the remark that "a Wikipedia  review is acceptable", well that doesn't deserve an answer, nor does it enhance my opinion of you favorably by using that as a reference.

But you are right  I have posted legitimate scientific peer reviewed data on the emission of energy in the form of visible light before, and again you are right, I will not take the trouble to go back and look them up for you if you aren't willing to do your own research on this subject.

Final note, the Scientific archives are loaded with peer reviewed subjects proving such a thing as this or that cannot  be,  yet  are now so common that every school kiddie knows the present successful use of them.  I do not trust any paper or published data on any subject that says this or that is impossible as it is all too often soon simply bypassed or overturned by doing it.

 Peer reviewed acceptance or papers, merely means acceptance on our 'present' level of knowledge, based upon how much of the reviewer's views or social position are invested in the subject, pro or con, which you will have to agree is an open door to flatly claim that 'we know it all' right now..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

I went back to review the claims:

Claim 1 (Midas, reply #4) “All buried metals produce some form of electromagnetic radiation or aura”.

Claim 2 (Pieced together from several posts (see below) by Don Jose de La Mancha or DJLM) If I understand him correctly, he purports that underground gold decomposes and thus gives off a gas which, when above ground, is visible to a sensor responsive to VIS-NIR wavelengths.

You can see we are presented with two theories: buried gold gives off radiation and buried gold gives off a gas.  Both effects can be sensed in the VIS-NIR (400-1100nm).

Many of us would like to see an unequivocal statement that supports one or both of these claims.  If you can find that (even on Wikipedia) and post it, I'll consider the treasure aura theory a bit more plausible.  If you can’t, then treasure aura is just your opinion.

DJLM, “I have posted legitimate scientific peer reviewed data on the emission of energy in the form of visible light.”  Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us the name of the journal, year, and the title of the paper.  I’ll get a copy of the paper and read it with great interest.  Perhaps you don’t have that data at hand or are too busy to post it?

No I cannot prove treasure aura is impossible (one can not prove a negative).  You are responsible for supporting your claims with facts.  This is what scientists do.  

Jim

Posts from which I inferred Don Jose’s position:
(DJLM, reply #93) ”Gold readily goes into a visible ionic stage”
(DJLM, reply #123) “Luminous gases from an ionic transformation of a buried metal”
(DJLM, reply #234) “Metal does decompose, including Au.,  producing a broad range of visible, invisible, and electromagnetic anomalies” [and the products of this decomposition] “accumulates… in the form of a gas which falls into the visible spectrum. among others.“
(DJLM, reply #240) In response to a question I posed in Reply #239 Does gold have to be buried to give off aura? “NO, but to produce enough to be visible, viable,  or reactive  yes.”
(DJLM, reply #249) “What's so unique about Gold that it 'can't' produce those reactions?” He is referring to (MTS # 244) “auras and gases coming from gold”
(DJLM, reply #273) Decomposing gold “… gives off energy which may be in the visible spectrum or anywhere else in the energy spectrum.”
If I have misrepresented your thinking Don Jose, accept my apology in advance.

But you are right  I have posted legitimate scientific peer reviewed data on the emission of energy in the form of visible light before, and again you are right, I will not take the trouble to go back and look them up for you if you aren't willing to do your own research on this subject.

I took the trouble - it took me about 10 seconds in a search.  Using only your name I searched for the terms "light" and "energy" in the same post... no promise as to what the post was about.

There were nine results I'll post links to here (the first link is this topic):

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,247873.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,231264.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,21665.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,159289.0.html  
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,65100.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,71044.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,41448.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,17338.0.html
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,27740.0.html

good afternoon Stogie my friend: you posted -->

(DJLM, reply #93) ”Gold readily goes into a visible ionic stage”
(DJLM, reply #123) “Luminous gases from an ionic transformation of a buried metal”
(DJLM, reply #234) “Metal does decompose, including Au.,  producing a broad range of visible, invisible, and electromagnetic anomalies” [and the products of this decomposition] “accumulates… in the form of a gas which falls into the visible spectrum. among others.“
(DJLM, reply #240) In response to a question I posed in Reply #239 Does gold have to be buried to give off aura? “NO, but to produce enough to be visible, viable,  or reactive  yes.”
(DJLM, reply #249) “What's so unique about Gold that it 'can't' produce those reactions?” He is referring to (MTS # 244) “auras and gases coming from gold”
(DJLM, reply #273) Decomposing gold “… gives off energy which may be in the visible spectrum or anywhere else in the energy spectrum
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basically, quite correct in 'this' series of posts, my friend, the others?

Don Jose de la Mancha

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

It's a golden oak, silly.   

HI SWR, you posted__> I took the trouble to review the links, and only found a broken link to Atomic AbsorptioSpectroscopy   

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

Sigh swr, this confirms my thoughts on your efficency in research.

Don Jose de La Mancha

        'Sigh swr, this confirms my thoughts on your efficency in research   '
                                                                        



                                                                            

[WILL NOT]

Fellows,

Real de Tayopa says: "I have posted legitimate scientific peer reviewed data on the emission of energy in the form of visible light before, and again you are right, I will not take the trouble to go back and look them up for you"

I put it to you that WILL NOT means CAN NOT.  

A true person of learning eagerly defends their position because they know the facts support them. Such a person is happy to present those facts to all who wish to see them.  

A hand-waver, a purveyor of superstition, a mere enthusiast, hides behind such prevarication as Real de Tayopa has exhibited in post after post.

In my opinion, treasure aura is bunk!

Yours,

James Sweet

 Ok I'll bite, I'll play Ginny pig, I have a Nikon D40... So what exactly do I need to make this work What filter do I need to buy and if there is anything I have to do extra, please say so hear and I will do it. So let's GO FOR IT !!!!

PLL

[WILL NOT]

Fellows,

I put it to you that WILL NOT means CAN NOT.  

A true person of learning eagerly defends their position because they know the facts support them. Such a person is happy to present those facts to all who wish to see them.  

A hand-waver, a purveyor of superstition, a mere enthusiast, hides behind such prevarication as Real de Tayopa has exhibited in post after post.

In my opinion, treasure aura is bunk!

Yours,

James Sweet

It is this kind of thinking that keeps you from BEING a true person of learning.
A true person of learning would never dismiss a thing just because it hasn't yet been proved by "mainstream" science. If so, nothing would have ever been discovered or invented. The only men who ever actually DID anything were open minded men who were willing to think unconventionally, even when it went against the know-it-alls.

PegLegLooker,

Welcome aboard.  What to do is hard to define.  You have to work through all the posts carefully picking up bits here and bits there.

Bear in mind I'm speaking for the opposition, as it were.  I don’t believe one word of this silliness.  In this thread, some have claimed:
1) Buried gold gives off radiation which is visible to an ordinary (above ground) digital camera or gold decomposes and gives off visible gas.
2) Aura was first captured with film (with a vague reference to UV light) then digital cameras were found to record aura but, now the effect is in the near-infrared. 
3) You need to remove the filters that restrict the camera to visible light and replace them with filters that restrict the light to 1000nm and higher for best results.
4) It’s best to look for aura after a rain.  (I think I saw this but, might be wrong.)
5) Someone suggested filling planters with dirt and a bit of treasure to create a simple controlled experiment and someone else agreed that would work, if you set the planters on the ground.  (Where does that come from?)

It goes on and on…  Take a look at the first post; I get a kick out of “David was horrified when Polaroid stopped making the film”.  I bet he was!

That’s the outline as I know it from reading the posts.  Some folks have posted images in which they claim to see aura but, I don’t find them at all convincing (especially the one in the first post).  Others have posted images collected while trying to capture aura and I do not see aura in those either.

Please read as many of the previous post as possible.  It gets tedious as there is little focus and folks commonly raise tangential even irrelevant issues; but, I’ll be interested in your opinion.

Jim


Kentucky: I'm just asking for a one or more facts that explain why aura is possible.  Proof comes through experimentation.  How do you feel about the theory that pigs can fly?  Is your mind closed to that possibility?

Hey Stogie ( great name ),
 I have heard that gold out in the California desert has been giving off a " aura " since the 1800's ( desert rats and miners have talked about these for YEARS ). I just thought I would " test " this theory by using my own camera and posts the results here. That way I'm not disputing his thought.... just putting them to the test..... If he is willing, I'm looking for a step by step and what filters I need to get, and then I will head out and take the pixs. And we will see....

PLL

Kentucky: I'm just asking for a one or more facts that explain why aura is possible.  Proof comes through experimentation.  How do you feel about the theory that pigs can fly?  Is your mind closed to that possibility?

It's just that science doesn't know everything. Everyone, scientist or not, are allowed opinions. And let's face it, much of science is opinion and guessing.
What about the things that science claim, but was actually invented by ordinary people? John Harrison's time piece is one example. As silly as this will probably sound to you, some things can't be understood by books alone. We have a history of thinking men, who DARE try NEW THINGS, and in doing so make great discoveries and inventions. Some of these men were scientists, and some were ordinary folk. What they all had in common is the ability to look beyond conventional thinking and imagine that there just MIGHT be new things to find. Many times If they had taken the leading views, they would never have looked any further. You might be right about auras. But, in my opinion, a real scientist would notice that word "might".

Yes, pigs can fly. Just put one on an airplane and find out.  
There was a time when a flying machine was an idea that made you look so silly, you wouldn't want to think it. But, Da vinci dreamed on. He was a pseudoscientist.

So far I have not been able to take a picture of an aura of about 4lbs of copper pennies that have been in the ground for over 5 years. These are the same pennies I found pictures on my site. I have about 500.00 invested in a canon 10d ir converted camera and filters. Not counting the 2 cameras I converted myself. I will use this equipment in the field so it's not a total lost. I also have my canon 20d non converted. I will be taking a trip out west on a hunt in October and will make planned stops at producing gold mine just to take a series of photos. I have talked to a friend that worked with Louis Matacia and tells me it is possible.

I will let this post know of my results if I get any. I have contacts in Mexico taking pictures over places where people have seen the blue flames at night. This is common there and some reach upwards to 50ft in the air. As high as the trees. For now I'm still taking pictures. Hope to have some results soon.

Tim

We have a history of thinking men, who DARE try NEW THINGS, and in doing so make great discoveries and inventions. Some of these men were scientists, and some were ordinary folk. What they all had in common is the ability to look beyond conventional thinking and imagine that there just MIGHT be new things to find. Many times If they had taken the leading views, they would never have looked any further

And there have been millions of men who have chased dreams that have never panned out simply because they WANTED them to be true. I'd like to poop gold but I'm not going to spend my whole life daring to try new things just to make that happen.  At some point you have to rely on scientific techniques in your investigation to either prove or disprove your theories. All of those thinking men who dared to try new things did so scientifically even though "science" was a bit behind the times. There is still a "scientific method" that should always be used and many of the people here chose to scoff at such things and pronounce that anything is possible and therefore worth pursuing. But some things that could be "possible" are also quite foolish. It is foolish to persue an investigation without using a scientific method for research.

I have to say that Tim Williams is the one person here who believes that this stuff could be possible who is also using a scientific method to prove or disprove it for himself. I applaud that. I have no problem with people studying and pursuing things that are beyond the norm. As long as they don't start throwing around wild theories as fact and costing others quite a bit of time and money by making false claims. There are many people doing that here. And when that happens you have to fall back on the scientific methods to separate fact from fiction. People who do that type of thing on purpose to profit from it are snake oil salesmen. This whole thread should have been removed from the start by the moderators in my opinion but that's a different discussion. 

It's easy to use the "science doesn't know everything" excuse to justify your beliefs. That's fine. But at some point you also have to recognize the cases where science "does know something" about what you are claiming.

We have a history of thinking men, who DARE try NEW THINGS, and in doing so make great discoveries and inventions. Some of these men were scientists, and some were ordinary folk. What they all had in common is the ability to look beyond conventional thinking and imagine that there just MIGHT be new things to find. Many times If they had taken the leading views, they would never have looked any further

And there have been millions of men who have chased dreams that have never panned out simply because they WANTED them to be true. I'd like to poop gold but I'm not going to spend my whole life daring to try new things just to make that happen.  At some point you have to rely on scientific techniques in your investigation to either prove or disprove your theories. All of those thinking men who dared to try new things did so scientifically even though "science" was a bit behind the times. There is still a "scientific method" that should always be used and many of the people here chose to scoff at such things and pronounce that anything is possible and therefore worth pursuing. But some things that could be "possible" are also quite foolish. It is foolish to persue an investigation without using a scientific method for research.

I have to say that Tim Williams is the one person here who believes that this stuff could be possible who is also using a scientific method to prove or disprove it for himself. I applaud that. I have no problem with people studying and pursuing things that are beyond the norm. As long as they don't start throwing around wild theories as fact and costing others quite a bit of time and money by making false claims. There are many people doing that here. And when that happens you have to fall back on the scientific methods to separate fact from fiction. People who do that type of thing on purpose to profit from it are snake oil salesmen. This whole thread should have been removed from the start by the moderators in my opinion but that's a different discussion. 

It's easy to use the "science doesn't know everything" excuse to justify your beliefs. That's fine. But at some point you also have to recognize the cases where science "does know something" about what you are claiming.

I'm willing to say that some of the most successful inventors and discoverers are among those who have chased dreams that have never panned out. But they didn't stop dreaming. Maybe it didn't work THIS way...let's try another way. Sometime they found ways that DID work, having exhausted many ways that didn't. And I'm guessing that some of them struggled with things that never had a chance of working. But that didn't stop them from dreaming of the next possibility. Yes, some of them DID use a scientific approach, but others knew nothing about science.

I'd say you and I agree more than you think. I'm not against science. I'm against people who say they believe in science, and then close their minds to possibilities of things they don't understand. Have you personally tried this camera method? Have you tried every possible avenue? I haven't, so I can't say that there's no possibility. Can you imagine Thomas Edison just dismissing something without first experimenting with every possibility? I can't

My point is, mainstream science has always laughed at new ideas by new people, and some of those new people are now famous for their works.

I'd say you and I agree more than you think.

Absolutely. I don't disagree with anything you've said.

My point is, mainstream science has always laughed at new ideas by new people, and some of those new people are now famous for their works.

True. But in many ways those people are the exceptions or edge cases. Millions of people chase dreams (and that's fine) and never get anywhere with them. I just caution against using the "science doesn't know everything" excuse all of the time because science knows a lot more than we give it credit for. It's easy to fall back on this excuse to try and convince ourselves that we aren't wasting time chasing our dreams. It is one thing to have a completely new and novel idea that contradicts science yet can eventually be proven using scientific methods. It is a completely different matter to wish for something so hard that you completely throw out science altogether and rely on wishful thinking to guide you down a road that many others have already gone down and failed.

I'm not sure why the people in this forum expect to be able to prove that auras exist when so many others have failed to do so. I think it's wishful thinking. But I'm willing to believe that it is still possible as long as people us a scientific method to prove it.

I'd say you and I agree more than you think.

Absolutely. I don't disagree with anything you've said.

My point is, mainstream science has always laughed at new ideas by new people, and some of those new people are now famous for their works.

True. But in many ways those people are the exceptions or edge cases. Millions of people chase dreams (and that's fine) and never get anywhere with them. I just caution against using the "science doesn't know everything" excuse all of the time because science knows a lot more than we give it credit for. It's easy to fall back on this excuse to try and convince ourselves that we aren't wasting time chasing our dreams. It is one thing to have a completely new and novel idea that contradicts science yet can eventually be proven using scientific methods. It is a completely different matter to wish for something so hard that you completely throw out science altogether and rely on wishful thinking to guide you down a road that many others have already gone down and failed.

I'm not sure why the people in this forum expect to be able to prove that auras exist when so many others have failed to do so. I think it's wishful thinking. But I'm willing to believe that it is still possible as long as people us a scientific method to prove it.

Agreed, but how do you know when your new or novel idea will eventually be proved using scientific methods? What I'm trying to say is, the only ones who ever laughed were those in the "know". Edison wouldn't have laughed at someones ideas. Edison himself was laughed at. All the great inventors were laughed at, but they kept on going. They tried and succeeded, or they tried and failed, but they tried. I would guess there were many others who tried and failed that we'll never hear of, because they were unsuccessful. But if men didn't do that, we would still be driving horse buggies. Of course, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Agreed. If people didn't continue in the face of adversity then we would still be living in caves. But the world is not black and white so it isn't a matter of either throwing science and common sense to the wind or not. I think the earlier example of pigs flying helps make this point. Hiding behind the common argument that there are still things that science does not yet understand would lead you to assume that your time is well spent trying to get pigs to fly. But science and common sense tell us that probably isn't the case. On the other hand, spending time and money trying to find an undiscovered planet in our solar system probably isn't such a foolish thing to do. It's not black and white. Not all things that are "undiscovered" by science are worth persuing if they've been persued to death in the past or common sense tells us that the probability of it being real is exceptionally remote.

Let's face it. The people here are not Thomas Edisons. And they aren't investigating something that is new or novel. They are investigating "pseudo-supernatural" claims that have been investigated over and over again by many people over the years (many of which are 10 times smarter than we are) without ever coming to a positive conclusion. So what makes us think that we are so special and this time we are going to solve this? A lot of time and money is being spent investigating this phenomenon. And if that's what people want to do then so be it. But hopefully they are going into this as an open minded skeptic instead of a wishful thinker who will believe anything. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread was started by a guy who is the author of a book on the subject and who stands to profit from people believing that auras can be captured by digital cameras. That is a FACT and is not slanderous in the least.

  Gentlemen:  I am extremely busy, taking a coffee break from business.  James, I thank you for a belly laugh in your post referring to me.  he  he heh e  I will be finished in a few hours and will be bk.  But frankly James, that post should cause you some embarrassment, I suggest that you delete it.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Good evening Ladies and gentlemen:To pick up where James and I left off-->

James, I have posted in many areas in TN on the associated  phenomena. You apparently have only reviewed this series, then made a very unscientific statement, definitely indicating a closed and / or depreciative mind.  You failed to mention the various treasures that  I have found, and posted, especially the recovery of 7 mule loads of 8 Reales, basically due to a fire / luminous gas - precisely what these gentlemen are attempting to see if they can record on film.

For you to say that it is impossible, borders upon the ridiculous since I personally have seen this luminous gas. If I, or many others have / can see it, the phenomena exists. The only question here, is does it also exist in other frequencies that do not lie in the visual spectrum?  Can it  be captured on another medium, such as film, in  'lesser'  quantities than are required for visual location.

For this luminous gas to be visual requires a specific set of circumstances. I have posted the description of the conditions that are apparently required for sufficient quantity of this gas to accumulate and to be visible.  As for the amount needed for other forms, that is the reason for the present series of experiments.


Don Jose de La Mancha

Kentucky and Friends: 

Absolutely, there is much more to learn.  What I’m trying to say with all this is that an organized approach (i.e. the scientific method: observe, gather facts, theorize, and test) will uncover truth faster than wild speculation followed by random testing.  Returning to the flying pigs theory (wild speculation) should we all point our cameras to the sky and shoot images in the hope that we get lucky (random testing)?   A theory based on facts is better than one that isn’t because it makes the testing phase more efficient.  That’s why I was pressing so hard in replies 274 & 282.

I saw some of Harrison’s chronometers in Greenwich and they had a replica oh H1 ticking away: it’s a beautiful thing.  And no screwing around, I choked up because seeing it helps you get some idea how hard he worked for so many years.  Again, we agree fully in that you don’t need the title of scientist or degrees on the wall to develop great things.  All those who practice the process: observe, gather facts, theorize, and test are scientists.  The Wright brothers are a great example because they rejected the common dogma and succeeded in something never before done.  However, like Harrison, they were able to do this because they practiced the scientific method and worked very hard.  Many others tried the wild speculation/test method; they failed and some died.  Progress requires tons of effort for every bit of insight.

Lastly, I respect your use of the word “might.”  I used “opinion” when I condemned aura (reply 289).  I’m not stating a fact because I can’t prove it’s impossible.  This point is at the heart of my problem with Midas and Real de Tayopa because that they make various statements as if they were facts, which is very misleading (I’m being nice).  If they had said something like “I believe buried gold gives off visible gas…”, I would never have bothered with any of this.  No one has to justify their opinion.

Peace all,

Jim

[X-rays]

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.  

Are you referring to this link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_intensifier
The one that starts the page with this statement:
"An Image Intensifier Tube is a vacuum tube device for increasing the intensity of available light in an optical system to allow use under low light conditions such as at night, to facilitate visual imaging of low-light processes such as fluorescence of materials to X-rays or Gamma rays, or for conversion of non-visible light sources such as near-infrared or short wave infrared to visible."

I admit, I was tired. Not asleep though.

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.

Small enough of a probability that I'm not going to trade in my gold pan, or metal detector any time soon.
<---------------------------------- snip ------------------------------------>
I won’t bother you with my rants anymore.

Jim

[/quote]

I heard a rumor that ranting is a punishable offence. 
Thankfully I usually only pop in when its late and I'm too tired for a long rant and the screen is looking kinda blurry.

F.

You failed to mention the various treasures that  I have found, and posted, especially the recovery of 7 mule loads of 8 Reales, basically due to a fire / luminous gas - precisely what these gentlemen are attempting to see if they can record on film.

We don't need to mention it as you appear to take every opportunity to mention it yourself. Yet... you have never given us any proof that you found this stuff solely due to some fire/luminous gas. You may have seen a fire or luminous gas but you have also said that these gases/fires are never over the gold in question and can be quite a distance away. So forgive me if I have trouble connecting your discovery of gold with the presence of some luminous gas that is supposedly never actually over the gold itself. Perhaps you could explain that a little better as it doesn't make much sense to me. It would be like me saying that pigs like to root around near gold but never near the gold itself. I find a pig rooting around and then find gold 200 yards away by following treasure signs. Does that mean that pigs can find gold? Or is it just a coincidence? Does the pig rooting around have anything whatsoever to do with the presence of the gold? Just because I claim cause and effect does not make it so. Have you found more than one cache based on gases/fires or is the one you claim to have found by this means the only one? Please elaborate.

With all due respect, fire/luminous gas is also not the same thing as an aura that is invisible to the naked eye but able to be captured by a camera. This thread is about capturing invisible auras yet you insist on comparing apples to oranges and lumping visible fire/gasses in with the lot. They may indeed be related somehow but not necessarily so and having you trumpet your claims as the truth without proof and claiming a direct correlation does nothing to help in this discussion. This discussion is about taking a picture of a location that has gold buried in it and post processing the picture to the point of being able to locate the gold directly. That is a far cry from finding a visible fire/luminous gas out in the field and then following treasure markers to some hidden cache. Even if fire/luminous gasses can point the way to hidden gold, it does not prove or have any relation to capturing auras using a digital camera. The OP and author of the book in question is making claims that do not rely on the presence of gases or fires. He is claiming that anyone can do this at any time with any camera.

jb7487 Wrote " you have never given us any proof that you found this stuff solely due to some fire/luminous gas."

These Gasses/ Fires are real and sometimes poisonous. I have seen these fires/ gasses myself.  I " WILL " also within a short time also recover a Treasure because of these gasses. Real de Tayopa has said that he and some people heard or knew about one of these fires in an area. He used a metal detector to pin point the location and recovered the Treasure. The reason Real de Tayopa keeps mentioning his find is because people keep asking for " PROOF ".  He does not mention it to brag. The man don't need to brag or proof anything to anyone. " HE OWNS TAYOPA ".  My God Sir, he even posted a photo of the treasure with his wife next to it. WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED. These gasses / Fires/ Auras what ever you wish to call them lead to Treasure.   Take it or leave it.   The less people that don't beleave us the more Treasure left in the ground for the rest of us that do beleave it.

ASI DE SIMPLE !!! 

Good morning  my friends:  Stogie, I thank you for your post, it clarifies many things  -- hmmm.-->

Real de Tayopa because that they make various statements as if they were facts, which is very misleading                       (I’m being nice).
~~~~~~~~~~~
In all posts or statements, some contain facts, some conjectures, some speculative data. many are simply of the stuff that dreams are made of --- today !   The same applies for any investigative  procedure, such as we have here, regardless of it's acceptability or conformability with the established protocols of Science, or Sciences own investigations for that matter..  To get outside of any box one must go to the dream world, otherwise there is no advancement since without it there  is no direction or goal.

In this case, the recovery of the 8 Reales was FACT, a photograph was shown, however it is readily admitted that almost anything can be submitted as proof on the net, including diplomas, experience, qualifications, etc.,etc. regardless of actually being factual or applicable . 

The Conditions necessary for a luminous gas to exist are based upon common chemical reactions with various metals, including gold.  These chemicals are found in the soil in varying strengths and quantities.  This, as well as the physical matrix of the soil itself, determines whether the buried metal develops a visible gas or not.  The exit point of a Luminous gas very  rarely occurs directly over the metal.

Personal observations while doing some Assay work on my mines and checking out the rumors of fires indicating buried metals, among a myriad of other things, has led to my formation of the postulate of the why and wherefore..

At no time have I flatly stated that this or that, regarding an actual luminous gas, is a fact..  I have always attempted to show the distinct or almost certainty of something occurring, but not a positive fact.  If you have seen any, please bring it to the room's attention.  I was taught in Premed, to never state that anything in Nature is fixed, especially after reading the Holistic Universe theory.  One interpretation  is that Theoretically, everything can exist simultaneously both pro and con, past present and future. Soooo?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Real de Tayopa has said that he and some people heard or knew about one of these fires in an area. He used a metal detector to pin point the location and recovered the Treasure.

See my point later on about cause and effect. But what this tells me is simply that the fire led to a "hunch" about a treasure being present. I may also be right in assuming that the presence of such gases and fires also improves the likelyhood that caves and caverns are present. And caves and caverns improve the likelihood of Spanish treasure caches being present in certain areas. Unfortunately, the area I live in is not such an area. But it is highly likely that although the gas indirectly led to finding a treasure, it was NOT necessarily caused directly by the treasure itself. This is a simple cause and effect relationship that appears to have been glossed over.

My God Sir, he even posted a photo of the treasure with his wife next to it.

Calm down. At no point have I doubted that he has found this treasure. I only doubt his claims that these gases come from gold. As stated before, gases can lead me to a treasure yet not come directly from the treasure itself.

These gasses / Fires/ Auras what ever you wish to call them lead to Treasure.   Take it or leave it.

Again, this thread is about seeing "auras" with a digital camera. I am happy to believe that the presence of visible gases/fires implies the presence of caverns which increases the likelihood of finding hidden Spanish caches in certain areas. I am not likely to believe that gold gives off visible gases without any sort of proof at all. Especially when the people claiming it here contradict themselves regularly by saying that the gas is never present at the gold itself and is often many hundreds of yards or even miles away. To me that implies that there is no direct cause and effect relationship that can be proven.

In this case, the recovery of the 8 Reales was FACT, a photograph was shown, 

I have never doubted the authenticity of the photo or that claim. I see no reason why you would make up such a thing. By the way, did you actually see the fire yourself or just hear from others that there was one in the area?

The Conditions necessary for a luminous gas to exist are based upon common chemical reactions with various metals, including gold.  These chemicals are found in the soil in varying strengths and quantities.  This, as well as the physical matrix of the soil itself, determines whether the buried metal develops a visible gas or not.  The exit point of a Luminous gas very rarely occurs directly over the metal.

This is what I'm talking about. You state this all as if it is fact yet provide no proof whatsoever of your claims. You don't say "it is possible that luminous gases are based upon common chemical reactions". You state that the "are based". You have no proof of this other than the fact that someone saw a luminous gas and then managed to find treasure in the area somewhere using a metal detector. This is all your own personal belief yet you belittle anyone out here who asks for proof or disagrees with you.

My intention is not to insult. My intention is to show that the OP and many people here are making grandiose claims about auras, gases, and fires in relation to treasure. Yet not one of you have provided one shred of credible evidence to back up your claims. I don't even require absolute proof. Just show me that there is a reasonable cause and effect relationship. But all anyone has done is provide pure speculation and fairly poor speculation at that. "Someone saw a gas which led me to go out searching in a certain area. I found treasure somewhere in the general vacinity. Therefore, gold gives off a gas". Well guess what? I saw a pig rooting around in the dirt yesterday. I took my detector and within 100 yards of the pig found a silver coin. Therefore, I believe that pigs can smell the gas that silver coins give off. Follow the pigs and find the silver. Now isn't that about the biggest crock of crap you've ever heard? Surely you would not believe such a thing. Yet my story is just as credible as yours.

If you want to spend your time and money chasing auras and gases then be my guest. But please don't state your beliefs as fact and attempt to belittle others who disagree with you.

Good afternoon JB:  You posted -->

I have trouble connecting your discovery of gold with the presence of some luminous gas that is supposedly never actually over the gold itself. Perhaps you could explain that a little better as it doesn't make much sense to me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decomposing metal is constantly giving off this luminous materiel, however in almost all cases, it isn't concentrated enough to be seen, especially in day light.  So for a visual sighting to occur it needs a special set of circumstances which also dictate where and when it may be visible. It is almost never over the actual deposit it self..

The basic conditions require an adobe type soil which is impervious and it must also contain the necessary chemicals, and naturally the metal..  As the metal undergoes this decomposition, one of the products is this luminous materiel, but in a dry  adobe soil it cannot escape, so it accumulates. Generally when the first rains arrive in the areas where Adobe soil is found, they loosen the soil enough so that the accumulated luminous materiel is able to escape.   Many times the layer over the metal isn't softened enough, so the gas continues  spreading out until it finds an exit.  This distance may be from exactly overhead to a100 meters.

It is just that simple.
****************************************************************************************************

You also posted -->

Have you found more than one cache based on gases/fires or
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, one other, but most finds were simply old pieces of scrap metal or tin cans from old campsites or ruins of old homes.,  So I personally do not go out of my way to look for the reasons for these luminous gases,  unless there is a backing story.
*****************************************************************************************************

You also posted -->

This thread is about capturing invisible auras yet you insist on comparing apples to oranges and lumping visible fire/gasses in with the lot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frankly, just what is the difference between an aura and a luminous gas?  The camera technique is a possible means of detecting an 'extremely low'  quantity of luminous gas, or as you state an aura, which is effectively the same.
******************************************************************************************************

You posted ->
He is claiming that anyone can do this at any time with any camera.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once the technique is perfected, if it ever will be, yes, I agree that it will be.

Just a few years ago, did anyone imagine that they could see a human behind a tree in daylight, or in a pitch black night, hundreds of meters away simply by the IR of his body,  and also capture this image on film???  Or even more fantastic see where he had been hours or days later?

Not long ago, I was sent an article by an scientist friend of mine who noticed that recently experimenters, utilizing extremely powerful Lazers, modified the atomic structure of aluminum, making it transparent.  Sheesh  who woulda thunk it?

Don Jose de La Mancha

It is just that simple.

It isn't just that simple because everything you just said is completely made up and not based on any scientific evidence or even common sense. You are telling me that gold decomposes in adobe soil and only adobe soil. Yet you fail to tell us just why this is. You also fail to tell us why so many people see these suppossed "treasure lights" in areas that are void of adobe soil. Finally, when you dug up all of those reales did you happen to notice how terribly "decomposed" they were? If these gases you speak of come from the gold decomposing, why is it that all of this gold treasure that everyone seems to dig up is not the slightest bit decomposed? You are pulling this stuff out of your butt and it doesn't even make sense. This gas is never around the gold, the gold is not decomposed at all, and the only reason why you associate these gases with treasure is because you truly want to believe it is true. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever really even seen these gases at all. You've never actually found any treasure that was directly related to them as far as I can tell.

Frankly, just what is the difference between an aura and a luminous gas?  The camera technique is a possible means of detecting an 'extremely low'  quantity of luminous gas, or as you state an aura, which is effectively the same.

I don't believe they are the same thing. You are trying to equate them which is why I'm questioning you about your gas claims in the first place. Put it this way. We have cameras that can sense the heat coming off of the street. Is this an aura? No. We have cameras that can see the luminous gas inside of a neon sign. Is that an aura? No. You are equating them simply because you perceive that they are both connected to finding treasure in some way. But your gases are not related to treasure at all as far as I can see. And visible auras are a myth created to sell books. So I see no correlation at all between what you believe to be true and the snakeoil being sold by the OP.

Sheesh who woulda thunk it?

Just because there are things that are unknown to us doesn't mean that everything we want to be true has a decent chance of coming to pass. That is a copout for investigating the truth. I think the truth is that you never even saw the gas. You are lucky enough to live in an area that has Spanish treasure in it (most of us aren't). You spent a considerable amount of time searching around for treasure in your area (or maybe you just got darn lucky). You followed common sense and even treasure signs that lead you to some reasonable places to search. And you found treasure. But you don't even know if there really ever even was any luminous gas in that area as it was all heresay. Yet you never tire of throwing your theories of treasure gases in our faces and talking down to us like it is "just that simple" that even an idiot should be able to figure it out. Yet we can't make heads or tails of it because it is a figment of your imagination.

I'm sorry, but the stuff you are shoveling is getting tiresome.

Functional,

(re: x-rays & gamma rays)

I was wrong and I'm sorry.  I read your post incorrectly. 

Peace,

Jim

JB: 
Sigh I can see your problem now, you do not do any research with an open mind nor apparently  understand what you are reading..

A)  You posted-->

You are telling me that gold decomposes in adobe soil and only adobe soil.
~~~~~~~~~~~

I posted -->   

"The Conditions necessary for a luminous gas to exist are based upon common chemical reactions with various metals, including gold.  These chemicals are found in the soil in varying strengths and quantities.  This, as well as the physical matrix of the soil itself, determines whether the buried metal develops a visible gas or not".

"So for a visual sighting to occur it needs a special set of circumstances which also dictate where and when it may be visible.

I do not see where I ever said "that it occurs only in Adobe soil".  I did say that for enough of this luminous gas to be visual -->
The basic conditions require an adobe type soil which is impervious and it must also contain the necessary chemicals, and naturally the metal..  As the metal undergoes this decomposition, one of the products is this luminous materiel, but in a dry  adobe soil it cannot escape, so it accumulates
****************************************************************************************************

You posted -->
"If these gases you speak of come from the gold decomposing, why is it that all of this gold treasure that everyone seems to dig up is not the slightest bit decomposed?"

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

First, Just how much gold is used in a multi storied Hi-rise building on the windows to block IR radiation?  Or perhaps better stated, per sq, ft of window area?   Just how do they achieve this film of Gold on the windows? Interesting, also what frequencies does it block and which does it pass?
*******************************************************************************************************

You posted-->

It isn't just that simple because everything you just said is completely made up and not based on any scientific evidence or even common sense. You are telling me that gold decomposes in adobe soil and only adobe soil.

Yet you fail to tell us just why this is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you had done your homework, you would have understood that all of the necessary chemicals required for Gold, or any metal, to be decomposed are found in the soil, especially Adobe ones, either from organic causes or strictly chemical ones.
*******************************************************************************************************

I posted -->
Frankly, just what is the difference between an aura and a luminous gas?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You posted -->
I don't believe they are the same thing. You are trying to equate them which is why I'm questioning you about your gas
claims in the first place
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry, but they both are simply common descriptions of frequencies.   So in common nomenclature, they are the same even though their ranges are different.  Nature goes from 'one to infinity' smoothly.  There are no steps, just a continuous flow of basics, harmonics and sub harmonics. The human eye / brain complex  is very limited to just a very, very, narrow range of them.
*******************************************************************************************************

You also posted -->

"I'm sorry, but the stuff you are shoveling is getting tiresome."

~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortunately, I am enough of a gentleman, and educated enough  to not to have to respond to this childness.  But, in the interests of those that are truly interested in learning something, whether right or wrong, I have, and will.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[If these gases you speak of come from the gold decomposing, why is it that all of this gold treasure that everyone seems to dig up is not the slightest bit decomposed?]

I do not see where I ever said "that it occurs only in Adobe soil". 

I apologize. You said "The basic conditions require an adobe type soil ". I took this to mean that it only happens in adobe soil (usually something that "requires" something else means that it only happens if that something else is present). If that's not what you meant then I misunderstood you. So I take it you are saying that it happens in other types of soils but happens most often in adobe soil.

First, Just how much gold is used in a multi storied Hi-rise building on the windows to block IR radiation?  Or perhaps better stated, per sq, ft of window area?   Just how do they achieve this film of Gold on the windows? Interesting, also what frequencies does it block and which does it pass?

I noticed that you completely tap danced around the most important question in my post. I'll ask it again... If these gases you speak of come from the gold decomposing, why is it that all of this gold treasure that everyone seems to dig up is not the slightest bit decomposed? Wouldn't you think that in the tens of thousands of years that man has been digging up gold, if there was any decomposition visible at all that science would have latched onto that and it would be well known? The reales you dug up were not the slightest bit decomposed yet you claim it was the decomposition of these reales that caused the gas that led you to find them in the first place (more on that later). How about naturally occurring gold? Wouldn't your theory imply that it would be nearly impossible for gold to occur naturally in adobe soil because after millions of years it would all be decomposed? Yet adobe soil is one of the best places to find naturally occurring gold.

More to your point, they don't "decompose" gold to put it on those windows. They use other processes. They also use other processes to plate electronic components with gold in various mixtures. Note that once plated these components do not continue to "decompose" and do not produce any gases. And the processes used to plate those things do not create luminous gases of any kind. But that was a nice try at diverting our attention away from the real question with a meaningless question of your own.

If you had done your homework, you would have understood that all of the necessary chemicals required for Gold, or any metal, to be decomposed are found in the soil, especially Adobe ones, either from organic causes or strictly chemical ones.

I don't see how it is possible to "do my homework" since this information only exists in your mind. There is no information available other than wild speculation about how gold decomposes in the soil.

Sorry, but they both are simply common descriptions of frequencies.   So in common nomenclature, they are the same even though their ranges are different.

Again, they are only the same to you because you have given them similar purposes. They are not at all alike. You state that decomposition must occur and that adobe soil is a key attribute. The OP states that you can put gold in any soil and take a picture of it. There is no decomposition required and the results can be seen immediately. You have also suddenly given gases the concept of "frequencies" which I find quite surprising. That is certainly a new one on me.

Fortunately, I am enough of a gentleman, and educated enough  to not to have to respond to this childness.

I see. It is a good thing that I am too. With the way you belittle everyone out here (James, myself and others) with quips like "nor apparently  understand what you are reading.." and such I find it hard to believe that you see yourself as being any different than anyone else out here.

HI Jb:  to answer some of your legitimate questions.  You posted -->

I apologize
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frankly my friend, that isn't necessary, just an open ended discussion, understanding of what is still basically theoretical, but useful.
*******************************************************************************************************

You also posted -->
why is it that all of this gold treasure that everyone seems to dig up is not the slightest bit decomposed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  How can we ever know the precise original weight, even with coins?  without this, we cannot say that, nor can we say just how much might be needed for the development of a luminous gas.  How much Gold is needed for IR blocking effect for a sq. meter of glass?  More important, just how much is required to form this bit of visible gas?
******************************************************************************************************
You posted -->

The reales you dug up were not the slightest bit decomposed yet you claim it was the decomposition of these reales that caused the gas that led you to find them in the first place
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  How do you know that?  Do you believe that I would post the most eroded, unrecognisable coin, or the least eroded one?
******************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

 Wouldn't your theory imply that it would be nearly impossible for gold to occur naturally in adobe soil because after millions of years it would all be decomposed? Yet adobe soil is one of the best places to find naturally occurring gold.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  I am afraid that you are mistaken on Adobe soil being a good place to find Gold. Sorry. Just what IS Adobe soil?
******************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

they don't "decompose" gold to put it on those windows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A) In the strictest  term, perhaps, but it is generally vaporized under precise conditions.  The layer is deposited in a micron thick layer, hence effectively transparent..
******************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

 Note that once plated these components do not continue to "decompose" and do not produce any gases. And the processes used to plate those things do not create luminous gases of any kind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A) I presume that you have noticed that this is not being done in    'Adobe soils ',   with the necessary chemicals?  And yes, under certain conditions they DO decompose.  In milling and processing Gold we never use metallic Gold watches, only cheap plastic ones.
******************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

 don't see how it is possible to "do my homework" since this information only exists in your mind. There is no information available other than wild speculation about how gold decomposes in the soil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~\
A)   Just how do you think that the various forms of Gold are created, such as the Chlorides, Halides, Cyanides  etc etc.
*****************************************************************************************************

You posted -->

The OP states that you can put gold in any soil and take a picture of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A) I said that the theoretical possibility exists  Quote -->

********************
C)  Gold readily goes into a visible ionic stage in much of the west where the soil conditions are amendable,  i.e.  have  the various chemicals readily available.  Cyanide, chlorine, the halides etc.,  and on. 

D)  The amount of Au necessary for this effect is almost infinitesimal to produce the so called "Treasure lights" which are famous in the west and have been used to successfully recover many treasures.  I myself have recovered 7 mule loads of 8 Reales by this means.  I have posted this picture,  which swr  vividly remembers  hehehhe.

E)  In theory it is quite conceivable that  buried metal can be detected by a camera which is far, far more sensitive to certain energies than the human senses are supposedly capable of receiving.  If it can be adapted to find buried precious metals  so be it, nothing supernatural about that.

F)  May I suggest that you search some of the latest Geochemical and geological tools for investigating metals  1000's of feet underground now being utilized to successfully find economical mineral bodies. 
******************

You posted -->

 With the way you belittle everyone out here (James, myself and others) with quips like "nor apparently  understand what you are reading.." and such I find it hard to believe that you see yourself as being any different than anyone else out here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A)  I don't, but I do  tend to react to some remarks, but mostly for deprecating remarks to others. The following are the total of such remarks that I have posted on this subject.  Responses to which the following answers were made. In no case did I initiate the questionable personal remarks.  In the no. of years that I have been posting in TN, I defy anyone to say that I initiated, or insulted anyone first.
******************
A) This includes every one of my posts that could be construed as being a bit depreciative, and every one was in    'response to a previous post '  that  wasn't very complementary.    I agree, I shouldn't  react. sorry

                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
******************

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
*****************

As for the remark that "a Wikipedia  review is acceptable", well that doesn't deserve an answer, nor does it enhance my opinion of you favorably by using that as a reference.
*****************

'Sigh swr, this confirms my thoughts on your efficiency in research   '
*****************
At no time have I flatly stated that this or that, regarding an actual luminous gas, is a fact..  I have always attempted to show the distinct or almost certainty of something occurring, but not a positive fact.  If you have seen any, please bring it to the room's attention.  I was taught in Premed, to never state that anything in Nature is fixed, especially after reading the Holistic Universe theory.  One interpretation  is that Theoretically, everything can exist simultaneously both pro and con, past present and future. Soooo?


.
Don Jose de  La Mancha

Hi peeps:  Let's get bk to what we came here for, can an image of a buried metal object be picked up with a digital camera? You all, especially stogie with his intimate knowledge and access to advanced data,  can contribute a great amount, just don't be negative, but discuss what can actually be done to achieve this..

Don Jose de La Mancha

How can we ever know the precise original weight, even with coins?....

Let's face it. With pretty much every other decomposable substance in the world, decomposition leaves clearly visible effects. If anyone had ever dug up visibly decomposed gold coins you'd know it. Science would be all over it. But in tens of thousands of years no one has ever reported visibly "decomposed" gold. To me this is the nail in the coffin of your theory. Surely somewhere along the line in all the years man has been digging up gold the conditions would have been right for this gas to have formed in enough volume to have visibly affected the gold drastically. That's the way nature works.

How do you know that?  Do you believe that I would post the most eroded, unrecognisable coin, or the least eroded one?

And yet you continue to tap dance around the question. So were any of the coins visibly "decomposed" or not? I'm guessing by the way you keep failing to answer the question that the coins were not noticibly decomposed.

Sorry. Just what IS Adobe soil?

You're asking me?!?! You are the one making all the claims about adobe soil. I just gave you the benefit of the doubt. From what I can tell it is a heavy clay and is actually quite common in a lot of areas. And yes, those areas have naturally occurring gold. You don't think that the Spaniards dug all that gold up from somewhere else and transported it over vast miles from clear across the globe to put it in that adobe soil do you? Well, some of it was transported. But a heck of a lot of it was native to the area. That's why it ended up being burried there in the first place.

Just how do you think that the various forms of Gold are created, such as the Chlorides, Halides, Cyanides  etc etc

Not through "decomposition". By maybe we are just arguing semantics.

Hi peeps:  Let's get bk to what we came here for,

Agreed. Let's just agree to disagree on all of this and move on. I hope there are no hard feelings. I really do think that your find of the Spanish reales is excellent. If you have a link that discusses the techniques you used to find them I'd love to read the whole story. I tend to believe that it was quite an adventure with the treasures gases playing only a very minor role in the actual discovery.

Take care.

jb7487 Wrote " Agreed. Let's just agree to disagree on all of this and move on. I hope there are no hard feelings. I really do think that your find of the Spanish reales is excellent. "

Thank You very Much jb 7487 Sir. You said it, agree to disagree and No hard feelings. This is what it's all about. Now we can all move on and try to learn something.   

Gentlemen:  I have been trying to give an impartial evaluation on this subject for the benefit of those that are inclined to experiment on a relatively unknown physical process, recording on film a buried metal's signature, and encourage them to keep experimenting on a side subject that has helped me earn a nice living for some 50 years of treasure hunting.  I am content with my findings and actual success, and enjoyed my impossible, err, ah, 'fabricated' results.

I would suggest that our critics  and deniers post 'their' successful results to establish their credentials to speak with authority.

  My purpose in posting on this subject, is not to feed my ego, as a few of our negative posters obviously 'need' to do,  but to present enough extremely basic data which can actually be easily verified by anyone willing to do the research, and has an IQ of at least 80.   Hmm do you suppose---? And utilize it to further their experiments.

My ego does not require a series of 'one up' posts so I will only post  supporting data for the ongoing series of experiments, not respond to silly, little  grade school taunts, challenges, and flat no's. these things actually do not impress me, or interest me.  In fact in a way, I feel sorry for this narrow type of thinking.

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

Ladies & Gentlemen:  A further bit of information, check into Transformational optics, Metametals, & the Invisibility cloak. They have succeeded in controlling Light's path in whatever form or path that they wish.   Latest thing is to perfect bending light rays around a solid object, say a man. In this case he would be invisible.  Presently other research has been using fiberoptics for this with partial success.

So, get to cracking with your experiments.  Even today, this is in violation of most present thinking, despite having been accomplished in the Lab.  So it is with ionized metal producing a visible gas, one capable of being  registered on a film of some sort.

Don Jose de La Mancha

but to present enough extremely basic data which can actually be easily verified by anyone willing to do the research, and has an IQ of at least 80. 

So now you are calling us stupid because we can't verify your research due to the fact that you have provided no evidence or data to research to begin with?

with a certified variable IQ of 140 -160.

Me too. Yet I am still often wrong and sometimes choose to believe in ideas that have no basis in actual fact. So in many ways we are quite a bit alike. 

Ladies & Gentlemen:  A further bit of information, check into Transformational optics, Metametals, & the Invisibility cloak. They have succeeded in controlling Light's path in whatever form or path that they wish. 

I would think that someone so smart would recognize that none of what you just said has anything whatsover to do with the OP's claims (or yours). It is a nice tactic however to try and make us go off to "research" your useless and unrelated topics in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you have provided no actual information. Your hope is that if you throw around some unsubstantiated claim of a connection to some highly technical sounding topic that everyone will think you are of superior intellect and not bother calling your bluff. Instead, I challenge you to explain why you think that the invisibility cloak has anything whatsoever to do with photographic techniques for finding treasure. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see any connection other than the fact that both are apparently related to optics in some manner. But that is about the extent of the connection from what I can tell. But maybe the connection is beyond my comprehension so perhaps you should explain it to me. This is a tactic that you use time and time again and it is high time someone called you on the carpet for it. This is how you attempt to belittle and intimidate everyone else on the forum. It doesn't work with some of us though so you'll have to work a little harder than that. I've seen you use this time and time again with SWR and he doesn't fall for it either.

By the way, are you familar with the paper "Unskilled and unaware of it"? Google for it. Perhaps you should give it a gander since you are claiming to be so skilled in so many areas with such a superior IQ. Perhaps you are simply "unaware" that you aren't as skilled as you think you are... But hey, aren't we all? 

By the way, what happened to getting back to the subject at hand?

By the way, I never joined mensa although I qualified to join. My older brother had joined and told me not to waste my time. He went to a couple of meetings and it turns out that the majority of mensa members are pompous, know-it-all pricks that nobody can stand to be around more than about 5 minutes... 

I think you and I would fit in just fine there!

JB, you hit it right on the head about Mensa, hehe   Why I mentioned  'was'.

As for the rest, I only mentioned the transformational Optics to simply  indicate just how quickly present Shibboleths are being tumbled exponentially.

The fibre optic shield 'almost' concealed a person from view.   It is / was being developed to allow an downed pilot in enemy territory to hide. Unfortunately it resulted in a shimmering haze of constantly varying colors, but no basic sigh of a human body.  I doubt that it would hide a pilot from IR detectors though.

Frankly, I believe that you and I would have a ball in an all night Coffee party my friend. Incidentally, my fort is Spatial visualization and I am a  GUN NUT !, with a strong sense of nonconformity.  Hence the explorations over the Pacific basin  from the Gobi, Old China, the Pacific islands, and ending in Mexico, which still has vast areas that are relatively unknown today.   I am a Bum by present social standards.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Functional,

(re: x-rays & gamma rays)

I was wrong and I'm sorry.  I read your post incorrectly. 

Peace,

Jim

No problemo.

This whole:
You posted...          
I posted...
We posted...
They posted...

It all seems to be going around in circles. I think its time I got off this merry-go-round and got some work done. All the bantering back and forth and lack of white crystalline xanthine alkaloid's, (    caffine ) , not to mention sleep , was giving me a headache anyway . Instead of comenting further, I should just sit back , read some  and enjoy the show .

It's hot during the day, (near the 100 F degree mark), and smokey  here in British Columbia, (depending on current wind direction), due to forest fires. And having to do some manual labor  outside, doesn't help matters . Nearly got heatstroke struggling with replacing the front tire on my little motorcycle and I'm only half finished.

Oh oh, .... I think I went off topic.  Oh, wait...    Maybe if I mention that my little motorcycle shimmies  when ever I pass an anomaly? 

End of commentary. Please continue. 

F.

I've not read here in a while... I know a few have been experimenting and testing...



Anyone find gold yet?

Good morning room:  Mike, I liked that post, first time that I have seen it.  It tends to confirm what I have been saying in the past regarding  all objects, not just metal, modifying an incoming frequency to one that indicates their basic molecular structure.

In the case of Gold, the resulting modification of the basic light frequency is the one that our visual system interprets as the color Gold.

As for buried metals modifying another frequency, especially near to the visual one, it is completely in line with Mike's ' post.  It can  readily be shown that the penetration into the soil is dependent upon the transmitted frequency.

If one of the nearby frequencies of light  is capable of penetrating the ground, it naturally would be also modified by any metal that  it encounters and the resulting, exiting  frequency could be seen as a mist, cloud, or some other visual /electrical manifestation. 

The Ionic reaction of a chemical with metal would also produce the Colored light that is seen as a  fire / luminous gas. 

Since it has been proven that an infinite numbers of electrical potentials / currents are constantly circulating in the earth, it can be safely assumed that some of these too will be subject to modification and the resulting field possibly captured with the camera where it exits from the earth.

So get to experimenting with the cameras my friends, simple logic says that it is feasible.

Another thing, I noticed that it  has not been made it clear, since it keeps reoccurring,   Gold   'does'   disintegrate, but it does   'NOT'   Oxidize,   two different things that have consistently been misquoted / interpreted by the deniers as proof that no such action ever occurs in metal, buried or not.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I've not read here in a while... I know a few have been experimenting and testing...

Anyone find gold yet?

Nope.

Short of rereading every post - has anyone determined that the metals or gold actually are visibile via camera modifications?

HI:  Finding this evidence on gold, or another metal, possibly imaging in a digital camera is exactly why this experimenting is being done.  If it was an accomplished fact,  the  final developer would most certainly be out in the field beating any possible competition.  

What we are doing in here is passing around information showing that it IS possible and logical, and ways to hopefully accomplish this.  We already know that the digital camera can record far beyond normal visual frequencies and into the IR ones as well.   There is no reason that it can't be modified in one way or another to venture even further into the metallic field's  frequencies, no matter which way they are.

What we still don't know, is if the metal must be in the earth fields or not to produce this harmonic.   It apparently does not work in the air, but then that may be due to our deficiencies in unconventional thinking so far, since it logically must be also  be, but of a weaker nature .

At the moment there are various geophysical instruments used in mining exploration which, to an extent, can tell what the ore body consists of.  There are handheld instruments which can tell roughly the concentration of certain elements in a core before splitting and sending it off to be assayed.  NI is an example.

Simple examples of seeing or recording non visual frequencies are the screen for detecting mercury in ores.  It is done by simply coating a flat screen with a fluorescent  materiel,  then placing the suspected mercury specimen in front of it.  By simply shining a  source of energy that will excite the fluorescent materiel,  it will clearly show the rising Mercury fumes by simple interference of the exciting light to the screen. You will see the evidence of Mercury by the fumes looking like a moving mist on the screen  - sound a bit familiar?

As for our friend swr, He couldn't work for one day, or even begin to calculate  electrical reactions without the use of many instruments which allow him to see and measure unseen frequencies from DC to hyper microwaves.  All are just as intangible as the reactions that you are attempting to locate or measure  with the camera.

To put it in a capsule, the world of Science is awash with similar instruments  that accomplish directly or indirectly what you are attempting to do here.  Why would this be an exception??

Get to cracking my friends.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I'm not trying to add fuel to this fire but I do have a couple observations.

First, the ability to duplicate this idea is limited by our knowledge of several things. Specifics on the internal filtering and design of the cameras, the local conditions at the time this occured such as barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity, and most important, soil conductivity. (wow, bad run on sentence)  Its like photographing kirlian auras, everything has to be perfect to get the picture to work out.

Second, biologists can show localized mineralization in plant matter through absorption from the soil and groundwater. This is proven. I believe several of the posts here reference this.

Third, all materials whether paramagnetic, diamagnetic, or non magnetic, are affected by the flow of electrons in magnetic and rf fields. Their classification is due to their magnetic response, not their electrostatic or chemical response.

What amazes me is that no one has looked into building a "gold only" or "silver only" spectral filter based on the unique absorption indexes of gold and silver. 

Personally, I look at this topic as a way to open my thoughts to new ideas. I would love to see a site through different spectrum just so I have some idea of something different. This could be an indication of either disturbed soil or mineralization. Different attracts my curiosity, something I hope will stand me well in cache seeking.

good morning MR:  Excellent post with interesting observations.  You are quite right on using certain plants to locate Precious metals. Many show traces of the metal upon being fire assayed.  It is absorbed in minute quantities into the tissues, so obviously the metal has to have been in a soluble state, possibly partly due to plant cyanide and it's action.

Silver is much more evident than Gold, yet Gold has also been identified with certain plants that have adapted  to it as part of their Physiology to the point that they are used as field locator's.

There is a new science being developed of viewing plant cover from a satelite to locate new micron sized deposits utilizing the plants to locate the fields.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 in dealing with the auras from gold and silver, i find this very interesting and would like to know about the cameras. my camera is the nikon 8 megapixil.will a camera with3 megapixils  be better?? i know midas said don't get hung up on cameras.what i would like to find out is the less pixils allowing in more or less ir if i have two pieces of exposed film on it or will the 8 pixils allow in more ir?? the camera deal sounds less tiring than the moonbeam system  to me. less mosquitos in the sunshine than in the moonshine..hh-----------tenclaw

HI Claw, my friend, you are obviously a rookie in this business, you 'always' take along a delectable female as diversionary bait for the skeeters,   a n d  if it doesn't payoff, the skeeters fed,  one can always go for a secondary objective .

Don Jose de La Mancha

"yet Gold has also been identified with certain plants that have adapted  to it as part of their Physiology to the point that they are used as field locator's "

Would you please name at least one  Sir. Really interested in this. This makes sense. Can you guide me to more information on this subject Real de Tayopa !!!

Victorio;

Here is just one, I recall reading about others which were either trees or bushes or both.

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

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

http://www.arizonaminingclaims.com/prospectingtips/prospectingtips.htm

Added note:  I think that with the others I read about, a color change when in certain types of mineralized soil was mentioned.

THANK YOU !!!

Midas Sir, Have you had any luck with the Newer Canon EOS 10 to 15 megapixles.

Dear Victorio;
Yes, the study of plant life in regards to locating possible lodes of precious metals is a very old study. In fact, I think it was the Jesuits whom first noticed that different flora species respond differently to different soil matrixes.

For example, when searching for gold deposits, the early Spanish prospectors would search for flora that resonded well in the presence of gold. Now, gold doesn't actually produce any noticeable difference in the surrounding soil matrix, however iron most certainly does and and this is why iron was often coined as "the mother of gold".

In other words, wherever there exists an area with a higher than normal iron content in the soil, the odds that gold may be located in the same zone increases dramatically.  Therefore, in order to locate the iron deposits one had to merely study which plant life thrives on soil with an enriched iron content and VOILA!

Once the prospector was able to determine that there was an iron deposit in the area, he then knew that there also existed a very high probability that gold would also be encountered.

This is known as an indirect method and it still works rather well, although it's slow and tedious and has since been superceded by all manner of electronic gadgetry.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Muchas Gracias Don Lamar. Very Helpful.

the attached picture was taken with a canon power shot without any ir filter at about 10am. i dnt know anything about photography. i would appreciate if anyone could explain this to me. what is this white thing in the middle?

yes, i was experimenting with ir about 5 months ago but i have long accepted defeat and buried the issue to rest...or so i thought.

with the attached picture, i think this 'ir thing' refuse to die a natural death...

my last posting was june 30. i shared a picture taken with a home made ir filter which i thought captured an aura of a buried gold treasure. unfortunately i was not able to duplicated the result after several tries with varying direction and time of day. 

that was 5 months ago and i have long since forgoten it until...yesterday, i was river trekking with several friends and took several picutures of the beautiful scenery using a canon powershot. you can guess how surprised i was when i downloaded the shot into my laptop. i almost fell on the floor  i was not looking for it and in fact it was taken without any ir filter but here it is!!!

is this an aura of a long buried gold treasure or what?



 

  hello searching; that pic sure looks like a good place to start with the deep seeker detectors. that is what i have heard people say the aura looks like at high tide and full moon. good luck and try that again.---tenclaw

Uranium deposits (as well as a few other associated Minerals) can sometimes put off enough radiative energy to be picked up by a digital cameras infrared spectrum.   I also know that silver can do some wonky things when exposed to certain wave lengths of radiation causing it to emit different forms of radiation as well.  I would thoroughly test any material found by this method to be safe...

good morning to all; i hope no one here will think that i am a negative cause i love all this back and forth talk about the treasure auras: real de tayopa said (in post #305 aug.02-2009) ''it apparently does not work in the air''---when i was in contact with louis matacia a few years back he sent me a picture of a gold nugget sitting on top of a stump and you could see the aura of it. he took the pic about 9 in the morning when the sun was almost level with the stump-(sun rays) was very beautiful. the aura was pulled in the direction of the sun.( no offence tayopa)--on another note, i have been practicing with my setup.i have gotten several pics of the aura of my gold coin buried about 3-4 inches deep.also a quart fruit jar full of silver plated spoons and forks has given a good aura.i am sending some pics to midas with permission to post if he wishes to. my camera is a nikon cool-pix 8 mp--filter is 3 layers of film glued to a plastic tube which fits on the lens. the film i use came from a 1986 infra red roll that was developed and naturally some did not come out and that is what i use.--if midas chooses not to post i will send film to someone else if they desire to post it..why don't i post them??? Do not know how! i have gimp on my computer but something always goes wrong for me..and yes to tayopa i am a novice treasure hunter.i was too busy chasing coins with my detector and had no good info on sign interpretations. do have good signs/marks though.. good week to everybody

the attached picture was taken with a canon power shot without any ir filter at about 10am. i dnt know anything about photography. i would appreciate if anyone could explain this to me. what is this white thing in the middle?

yes, i was experimenting with ir about 5 months ago but i have long accepted defeat and buried the issue to rest...or so i thought.

with the attached picture, i think this 'ir thing' refuse to die a natural death...

my last posting was june 30. i shared a picture taken with a home made ir filter which i thought captured an aura of a buried gold treasure. unfortunately i was not able to duplicated the result after several tries with varying direction and time of day. 

that was 5 months ago and i have long since forgoten it until...yesterday, i was river trekking with several friends and took several picutures of the beautiful scenery using a canon powershot. you can guess how surprised i was when i downloaded the shot into my laptop. i almost fell on the floor  i was not looking for it and in fact it was taken without any ir filter but here it is!!!

is this an aura of a long buried gold treasure or what?

I haven't seen a digital aura like that before but it looks remarkably like the auras from the Polaroid SX-70 camera.  I would check it out with a good metal detector.  BTW, what are those three strange figures in the river?

the attached picture was taken with a canon power shot without any ir filter at about 10am. i dnt know anything about photography. i would appreciate if anyone could explain this to me. what is this white thing in the middle?

yes, i was experimenting with ir about 5 months ago but i have long accepted defeat and buried the issue to rest...or so i thought.

with the attached picture, i think this 'ir thing' refuse to die a natural death...

my last posting was june 30. i shared a picture taken with a home made ir filter which i thought captured an aura of a buried gold treasure. unfortunately i was not able to duplicated the result after several tries with varying direction and time of day. 

that was 5 months ago and i have long since forgoten it until...yesterday, i was river trekking with several friends and took several picutures of the beautiful scenery using a canon powershot. you can guess how surprised i was when i downloaded the shot into my laptop. i almost fell on the floor  i was not looking for it and in fact it was taken without any ir filter but here it is!!!

is this an aura of a long buried gold treasure or what?

problem here most of the gold bar buried by the japanese were either put on a drum of oil with coal tar or the bar itself was painted with coaltar like a sticky black paint,even removing the coat from the bar is very hard maybe before the WW2 start the japanese has already do their homework on research about the precious metal that emit some sort of radiation or most what they call it "the Rays of the SUN"...........we could not see the RAYS of the SUN of it cover with Very Dark Clouds,just like the Aura of the Gold Bar. also in Shinto religion Gold is for EYES of GODs to see only(they paint the gold with black epoxy paint)and only BUDDHA is made of GOLD.



 

[/quote]

I haven't seen a digital aura like that before but it looks remarkably like the auras from the Polaroid SX-70 camera.  I would check it out with a good metal detector.  BTW, what are those three strange figures in the river?


[/quote]

midas,

thanks for the comment but isnt it just a lens flare cause by sun's deflection? but you are right a good metal detector capable of much depth will settle the issue. but getting that kind of detector is another story...

these figures are that of my friends....i did it to hide their identity.

searching

Look this kind of work: www.make-digital.com. Maybe are some of interest in this report.

bump   We find this plant , the Desert Trumpet Plant (Eriogonum Inflatum)

in areas in Arizona that we find gold.

Look this kind of work: www.make-digital.com. Maybe are some of interest in this report.

It's asking for a name and password.....

PLL

bump   We find this plant in areas in Arizona thet we find gold.

What is it?

bump   We find this plant in areas in Arizona thet we find gold.

What is it?

It is a Desert Trumpet Plant (Eriogonum Inflatum)

bump   We find this plant in areas in Arizona thet we find gold.

What is it?

It is a Desert Trumpet Plant (Eriogonum Inflatum)

I was out there a few years ago and I brought home a few seeds from a bush I liked. I'm not sure if it was that one, as it was blooming. I never got around to planting them, but they probably wouldn't have grown here anyway. Thanks.

Dear searching;
Your photo is a classic example of how not to take a photograph with a point & shoot camera, my friend. First, you have a very sunny day and water in the foreground with open shade in the background. The aura is nothing more mysterious than the reflection of the water being projected to aftmost lens element then being reflected forward. It did this several times therefore the aura is tall and thin. If the subject would have been in the middle of the the aura, then the shot would have been a complete loss, my friend.

In order to eliminate this effect, try moving several feet to the right and keep the area with the opened shade completely out of the frame or move into the open shade and take the shot from the shady area into the brightly lit area.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Good explication Lamar, logical deduction in my country we have a phrase: In the life not all shine is gold.

thanks fro the explanation, lamar.

Any gold auras found with ditial pict?

Everyone seems to keep asking about the actual filters that the original poster was using and what techniques he used.  After a little research on "Ye Olde Google Machine".  I found that there is an ebook that is entirely devoted to the subject.  The website for the book is:
http://www.treasurehunterssecretmanual.com/
along with a youtube video.  I haven't bought it so I have no clue as to how helpful it is.  If anyone buys it, let me know if its worth the money or not. LOL
SynthetiX

Marked.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I found articles on the web about modifying digital cameras to take IR pics by Googling digital cameras and IR pictures.  Or something similar.  One article contained pictures and told exactly HOW to do it yourself.  The cameras with fixed lens are the easiest to do because you don't have the telescoping lens mechanisms to fool with.  And you can use pieces of exposed 35mm film to make filter pieces to attach to the outside of the lens; as a lens cap.  The drawback of taking out the inside filters is that after that the camera is useable for IR only.  You can have the best of both worlds by just using the IR filter cap for the outside of the lens and not taking out the inside filters.  You'll want to use a tripod to make the IR pics because of longer exposure times needed. 

You can test your digital camera pretty fast by taking your TV remote control and point it straight into your camera's lens and press any button on the remote.  While doing this, have your monitor screen on and if the IR emitters of the remote light up like automobile headlights, then your camera can be use to take IR pics the slower way, without removing the inside filters.  Just make a IR lens cap to go onto the outside of the lens; and use a tripod to insure sharpness of the pics.  When you do this TV remote test, go ahead and take a picture of it to make sure the camera actually records the IR lights.  I did my test in a dark room and the only things that showed in the test pictures were the two bright IR bulbs.  Worked like a champ.

You can also convert those cheap webcams to "shoot" like a poorman's starlight scope for low light / no light shots.  That web article covered that, too.

lamar,

what do you think of this picture?

be glad to know your technical view about this picture.

thanks agian

lamar,

i dnt know if this is the right page to post this pic but i think you must try to help me with what my camera has pick up. i took this pic just outside the cave's entrance. this was taken last week and i just today notice this bright circle spot almost at the top portion of the picture. when i enlarge that portion i could see its like a solid ball of fire with flare on its perimeter.

thanks for taking the time.

lamar my friend,

i was fishing for a second opinion in the other page. now i know you are the MAN when it come to photography (did i hear any objection?)

i have another pic (below) by the river and the bamboo groove. is this the same story with previous pics?

thanks

what about this? an older picture taken by another person but on same area with my first posted pic...on the bamboo groove fronting the river...

Dear searching;
The last two photos that you've posted show an effect called refraction. Refraction occurs when the sun is above and either in, or out of the frame. This effect typically occurs on hazy days, with the haze either coming from moisture vapor in the air, dust particles or even smoke. The light from the sun attempts to pentrate the layer of haze and in doing so, the rays of light become refracted, that is to say that they split into the seven primary colors of the rainbow, which are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

When a ray of light enters a media, such as a haze it's path tends to bend somewhat. It's this ending which causes the effect, my friend, because the red portion of the light ray bends at a lesser angle than the portions of the ray which are green and blue. The green portion bends at an almost constant angle, whereas the blue portion tends to bend at a greater angle than either the green or red portions.

Because of this light ray bending phenomenom, the light ray scatters into three separate beams of light, those being red, green and blue. The zone between the red and the green, and the zone between the green and the blue make up the other colors in the rainbow, those being orange, yellow, idigo and violet.

Also, inexpensive camera lens can greatly magnify this effect by further separating the individual light beams. This type of aberration is known as *chromatic aberration* and it cannot be easily resolved. Most generally, chromatic aberrations occur when a camera uses a single lens without the use of a secondary achromatic doublet lens, the purpose of it being to re-concentrate the separate light rays into one single coherent ray.

Many modern day upper end digital cameras such as the Panasonic Lumix cameras can automatically reduce or eliminate chromatic aberrations immediately after the photograph has been taken, however this technology is still rather new and therefore somewhat expensive. In digital photography, most lenses experience chromatic aberrations to one degree or other due to the digital sensors which are used. One of the most common chromatic aberrations is the dreaded *purple fringe* which occurs in areas where there exists a stark transition between light areas and dark ones.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Evening 10 claw my friend¨:  Apologies for being so tarde in answering your excellent post.  Frankly I missed it.  You posted -->

yes to tayopa i am a novice treasure hunter
========================

My reply was not intended to be a down play but part of a bit of humor regarding not taking a Delectable female with you  hehehe

Don Jose de La Mancha

 morning tayopa, i knew you were kidding. i never try to down anyone or 'rattle their nerves' except the big 3 on here that downs everything, and have'nt gone that direction but 2 times. i really enjoy your posts so you need to post more, o.k? folks that have been there and done that are very helpful to the younger ones. catch u later===tenclaw===

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.

I made some enhancements to your pictures.

Here is an IR photo I took a few years ago.
I don't see any metal auras do you?
I still have the filters and cameras can easily take a shot and post it but need to know if there is anything special I need to try.

A very interesting read , thanks all.

This is the greatest post I have ever read. Its got everything! Science, adventure, wives tails, history, ideals, principals, vampire stories, love, hoaxes, etc. I just love it.

My degree is in horticulture. I have studied soil sciences and am well aware of the scientific process. I state this in hopes that it lends weight to the following opinions and facts.

1. The original poster is the author of the book. While this doesn't prove or disprove anything, it should invite some skeptisism. I would also note that I found postings by Nedes to be similar in content and style to those by Midas, and since they support Midas, again invite some skeptisism.

2. Some have ridiculed scientists as being close minded, this opinion comes from a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Yes some scientists are close minded; some  jews also eat pork.

3. If you are considering purchasing the book because you find the posibility of gold auras intriguing, I encourage you to read SWR and StogieJim's posts. StogieJim in particular, through sequential and coherent chains of logic, crushes the theory of that gold gives off photographable aura.

4. I won't even say the science involved with the theory is bunk, because it is not science at all. If you don't know, I will say it again, science requires a hypothesis. You must be able to devise a test or experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis. The test must be designed in such a way that others are able to repeat it. The results must match yours.

insert thought (some say well what about Gallileo and the Wright brothers, they had ideas, experimented, and the results were duplicated and are still being duplicated ie airplanes)

Keeping that in mind, ask, have Midas' results been duplicated by anyone? Given SWR's extensive scientific background, why wasn't he able to repeat Midas' results? Noone with a mind free enough of rubbish and pseudoscience has been able to duplicate the results.

5. Repetition here -because some of you will not read through the entire post- if this idea was at all, in any way plausible, the process would have been patented, and people would be making millions from it. The perpetrators of this WACK JOB theory would be using it to make their fortunes, not trying to sell you a book on a forum.

6. I believe that Real de Tayopa truly believes what he is saying, but the science and conjectures and ideas and comments he makes, are so absurd and circular they actually fried my brain. Here on display is the mind of a genius practicing sophistry on itself. I see you, tilting at windmills, man from la Mancha. It is truly amazing the skill at which you have deflected very simple and very straight forward, requests to defend your conjectures.

You and Midas claim the gold must be in the ground to emit an aura because the ground contains the necessary chlorine. Heres a thought, introduce chlorine to a piece of gold lying on a table. Hell, use a pound of gold (which im sure you have RDT) and a gallon of chlorine, and SNAP SNAP SNAP away. I submit without the use of photoshop (or some other photo editing program), you will NEVER be able to document (in a repeatable way) the presence of a "gold aura."

ITS FREAKIN 2:30 !! Love you guys and gals, as always I encourage you to point out any flaws in my post. I'm always happy to learn...

very well put Blacksheep

  Ditto

Ah ha !  good afternoon Moon who is about to walk the plank, and my friends  I sense a series of fun posts, pro and con.

Plank walker, you posted -->6. I believe that Real de Tayopa truly believes what he is saying, but the science and conjectures and ideas and comments he makes, are so absurd and circular they actually fried my brain.
*********

Interesting comment, I certainly hope that your brain isn't fried, since we are still in the theoretical stages of posibilities, would you please point
out which are absurd and do not fit into the latest theoretical physics developments?  As a matter of fact some are soo simple and a bit childish that some of my friends, that are theoretical Physicists, simply say "sheesh, you are so out of times, even a high school major can prove their existance and possibilities.  If there was a  true need, belief, and $$ backing, a suitable instrument could be placed on the market in just a few weeks".  Who knows?
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You also posted --> I will say it again, science requires a hypothesis. You must be able to devise a test or experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
*************
Tests to prove the 'basis' of most of my remarks already exists, in mutiple forms,  but to put the package together to form a working model which can be used as the final blueprint for detecting   metals underground is up to you and the other posters. I am personally too lazy, so will stick to the theoretical end.
_________________________________________________ ______________________________

You also posted -->You and Midas claim the gold must be in the ground to emit an aura
++++++++++++

Have you considered that naturally occuring earth currents  may have a hand in this via harmonic  reaction?  These do not occur with the same strength in the air, which is one reason earth based radio is far stronger and more efficient than air based radio.   I agree, there are other reasons for finally adapting Air radio.  However, there exists the distinct possibility of actual earth contact being necessary.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted-->My degree is in horticulture. I have studied soil sciences
***********

Congratulations, that is a fine subject of a critical, expotentially growing need every year, but I do not see where that, as such, fits into the present discussion, other than the indicative ability to think and learn.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

I see you, tilting at windmills, man from la Mancha.
**************

That was developed to address over developed & over bearing egos that tended to lord it over  possibly lesser educated posters.   Originally, I was 'Till Eulenspiegle', a mythical Germanic prankster that specialized in playing tricks that exposed the same to the ones in that period.

This will do for a gentle opening my friend, I hope to see many many posts from you.  We are going to have fun.

Don Jose de La Mancha

REJOICE ! REJOICE !  

For now I bring tidings of resolution to this debate!

We remember, how David was so terribly distraught at the discontinuation of Polaroid.. He would no longer be able to use the sure fire method of using Polaroid photography to find gold auras.. He was so distraught in fact, that he set out to discover how to replicate the process using a digital camera.

Well at last my friends, a company in the Netherlands, has announced the rebirth of Polaroid photography. The company is formed and is getting ready, to once again, produce SX-70 film. We will once again be able to take polaroid pictures !!!

if you wish to learn more about the company, here are some links: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technolog...5&objectid=10634000&ref=rss
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/33759


FINALLY it will all be so very easy, Midas can simply used the tested, tried, and true methods of using  Polaroid photography to find treasure. We will all be able to duplicate his results...

and lucky for Midas, we will no longer need to purchase his book on how to perform this technique using a digital camera.

OH THANK THE HEAVENS  !!   I EAGERLY ANTICIPATE THE RESULTS UNDOUBTEDLY TO COME FLOODING IN !!!

(Real de Tayopa, I did not forget about you however, in light of this recent announcement, I feel, we must pause and reasses. I also thank you for your cordiality, in response to my post, which may have not been so cordial. I find you genuine, fascinating, and friendly, but I also think you are a Nut Job  )

Evening plank walker:  You posted -->  I also think you are a Nut Job  
***********
It isn't fair to first talk to my wife, then post.  sheesh.
_________________________________________________ _____________________________
As for the polaroid thingie,  do you remember Dr. Land and the principal that he worked with?

Don Jose de La Mancha

PLANK WALKER    where are you     SNIFF

Don Jose de La Mancha

IFF this works as claimed, with the sensitivity indicated by the posted pictures, then:
1) It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold.
2) It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.

Furthermore, the association with Geochemical prospecting is untenable. The ionic transport spoken of in Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection. Much like rain exposing gold nuggets, except at the atomic level. If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.

[...]is this an aura of a long buried gold treasure or what?

No, this is a very well known Quantum Mechanical effect of light in the lens itself, like the colors of an oil film on a mud puddle. Rainbows work by the same principle, and it's how we know so much about the composition of the Universe.

Here's a more detailed phenomenological explanation of what's happening in this case:
If you take a pane of glass of a certain thickness, it will transmit almost all light (at certain frequencies) though it. If you slowly increase the thickness if this glass you will notice that less light transmits through it. However, if you keep increasing the thickness it will reach a point where almost all the light transmits through it again. This will repeat over and over, and is related to the 'quanta' in Quantum Mechanics. This is also why rainbow run from you when you chase them, and fish in the water appear closer than what they really are.

Now, the lens in your camera has a certain thickness. But, if a light hits your lens at an angle, then the effective thickness of that lens changes with that angle. Thus at certain angles you get very strong refractions, that over-expose your film at that location. Under the right back-light conditions you can even take digital ghost (see through) pictures of yourself without any photoshopping.

Oh, Buddha, or whatever, people want to claim is connected to Quantum Mechanics doesn't fly. There are some 'foundational' issues in physics which warrant the inclusion of some related notions, on purely conceptual grounds. Unfortunately people are simply mistaken meta-theoretic concepts, used to 'search for' theoretical extensions, as the theory itself. It most certainly is NOT. A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.

There are some outrageous technologies in the pipes. Invisibility cloaks, bedrooms that change to living rooms at the flip of a switch, like a screen saver, etc. You may even want to sit in a jungle (your living room) and watch the TV screen floating in front of you, or redecorate your house with a thought. The worst mistake you could make though, is to allow a misperception of these possibilities to be a tool for snake oil salesmen.

I'll not discourage those who want to test whatever strange invention, or notion, they wish to test, without any burden of evidence. But the burden of evidence most certainly is entirely on the shoulders of the claimant, when they seek to sale their widget or ideology as truth to others, not the person asking for this evidence.

Perhaps, within the context of detection devices here, I can write a non-technical phenomenological essay on Quantum Mechanics, and how it differs from the meta-notions so often falsely described as Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps, with some disciplined thinking, someone will invent a workable toy that achieves seemingly magical effects, and finds you the motherload. The hunt, in technological innovation and treasure hunting, is where the real fun is found. No sense wasting time with fantasies with so much real fun to be had.

good morning WAN:  On your post-->

(1)  You posted -->    It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold
**********
Sorry, you are forgetting frequency sensitivity.  the very reason that one cannot see this right now.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________(2)  You posted -->  It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.
***********
Since all gold is of a basically different composition, however small in difference, it would be theoretically possible but highly impractical.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(3)  You posted -->  Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection
**********
A  slight correction, in geochemical prospecting we are speaking of "Ions".  Ionic transportation is independent of up or down.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(4) You posted -->  If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.
*********

This is an interesting  thought, often brought up.  Just how much of the original materiel is actually needed for this reaction to take place.   Since we can't duplicate it, we certainly cannot measure it.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(5)  You posted -->  Quantum mechnics ?
**********
 Actually most is explained in simple (??) optics by refraction and diffraction.    Optics are actually an extremely complex subject, beyond any need for Quantum effects.  Too complex to be addressed in here.  This is why no perfect lens has yet been developed, however they are extremely close for any practical effect.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(6)  You posted -->A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.
************
Of course, but if you carry that to it's infinite logical conclusion ------
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(7) As for light being broken into it's primary colors (frequencies) by an oil film, rain droplets in  the rainbow effect, or Opals,  it is caused by the same basic reason,  but,  by different physical agents.   



I enjoy you  posts  my friend, please post more.  I apol for being so late in answering your post, but just found it today.

Don Jose de la Mancha

good morning WAN:  On your post-->

(1)  You posted -->    It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold
**********
Sorry, you are forgetting frequency sensitivity.  the very reason that one cannot see this right now.

I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies. Any filter lenses, even designed to pass the appropriate frequencies, actually reduce sensitivity to that wanted frequency.

 Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.

 As far as raw "sensitivity", we have CCDs, like in a digital camera, sensitive enough to detect 'single' photons, and sensitive enough to distinguish between individual electron orbitals on a single atom. By spectral distribution, which puts the filtering efficiency of lens filters to shame, what was represented in the posted photos would stand out like a million candle power spotlight in the face. Neither would it be limited to the visible spectrum in order to be made visible this way. Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency in some way to effect the CCD, it would only indicate the requisite 'sensitivity' is orders of magnitude better than assumed in the above considerations.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________(2)  You posted -->  It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.
***********
Since all gold is of a basically different composition, however small in difference, it would be theoretically possible but highly impractical.

If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical. Comparing the sensitivity of a digital camera to what is 'routinely' applied in the sciences is like comparing a rain drop to the ocean. If the camera trick works as posted in these images, satellite detection is trivially practical. Even variations of compositions would be far less an issue than it would be for the digital camera trick.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(3)  You posted -->  Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection
**********
A  slight correction, in geochemical prospecting we are speaking of "Ions".  Ionic transportation is independent of up or down.

Well of course ionic transport is not directional. Yet this detection method for gold atoms transported by ionic transport still depends on those atoms that get transported to the 'surface' for visibility. Just like gold nuggets can both get buried or uncovered via geologic processes, yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(4) You posted -->  If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.
*********

This is an interesting  thought, often brought up.  Just how much of the original materiel is actually needed for this reaction to take place.   Since we can't duplicate it, we certainly cannot measure it.

I can't be sure, but you speak of 'reaction' as if it is the ionic reaction itself that is emitting the photons being detected. This is certainly not the case in geochemical prospecting, and untenable in the camera trick case. The ionic reactions is merely the method of transport of the atoms. Detection still requires surface visibility 'after' transport, and this visibility comes from the same reflection properties as normal sight uses. Trying to detect the ionic reaction itself in this manner would be like trying to watch a stalagmite grow.

If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions, why even bother to take the lens cover off the camera? In fact, if this is the case, you could just build a fully enclosed CCD with internal focusing and an LCD readout that graphed the interesting frequencies. It would work like a directional metal detector that worked at a distance. It would also invalidate CCD based spectrometer data from experiments billions of times more sensitive than the camera.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(5)  You posted -->  Quantum mechnics ?
**********
 Actually most is explained in simple (??) optics by refraction and diffraction.    Optics are actually an extremely complex subject, beyond any need for Quantum effects.  Too complex to be addressed in here.  This is why no perfect lens has yet been developed, however they are extremely close for any practical effect.

Yes, mostly, but the way refraction varies is strictly an effect of Quantum Mechanics. At the phenomenological level Quantum Mechanics is pretty simple in itself. It is only when you mathematically model it, then try to reconcile this mathematical model with our sense of objects and cause and effect that it turns weird.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(6)  You posted -->A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.
************
Of course, but if you carry that to it's infinite logical conclusion ------

But wait, if it's invalid to call a metatheory about a theory the theory it refers to, then it's likewise invalid the call a theory about metatheories a specified theory, add infinitum. Thus the logical conclusion is exactly the same regardless. Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

(7) As for light being broken into it's primary colors (frequencies) by an oil film, rain droplets in  the rainbow effect, or Opals,  it is caused by the same basic reason,  but,  by different physical agents.

Quiet true. I wanted to point out the strictly Quantum Mechanical aspects, to illustrate how simple and straightforward Quantum Mechanics is phenomenologically. Apart from the logical idioms, at the theoretical level, that often get applied to woefully inappropriate domains of applicability and scale. Certainly you can show the math of how some of it applies to our scale. For instance, you can get the classic double slit interference pattern by throwing people through a double slit experiment. Yet these people would have to move through these slits so slow that it would take trillions and trillions and trillions of times longer than the age of the present incarnation of the Universe to achieve. At the theoretical level these issues are immaterial to the facts, but at the level of claims sometimes made the absurdity can become excessively extreme.

I enjoy you  posts  my friend, please post more.  I apol for being so late in answering your post, but just found it today.

Don Jose de la Mancha

No problem with the timing, we all have lives outside this forum. I am more than willing to consider new physics and explore novel effects, even seemingly absurd ones, but vetting them against known physics and phenomenology is an inviolable requirement. Certainly there are many effects we have failed to note or fully understand, yet many times claims involve effects that are simply impossible to not notice in other observations and equipment. Perhaps there is something novel about the equipment, but some understanding of the equipment and the physics they're based on puts severe constraints there to. People often severely underestimate how often seemingly unrelated equipment is related, from digital cameras to star and galaxy spectrometers. At the physics level, even radios and binoculars are related, and the CCD in digital cameras was invented based on this fact. Nondirectional solar cells that more than doubles even the theoretical efficiency limit of present design is presently being researched, based on the same principles.

I understand these technologies, and many more that's not even on the drawing board yet, for purely technical reasons. So when I hear of a technological claim that, if true, would invalidate known working technology I have to question it. Perhaps the effect is real, but misunderstood and claimed to be the result of the wrong phenomenology. Yet generally the equipment is understood and used to such an extent that such an effect is impossible not to notice. That's the situation I see here, and phenomenological misrepresentations of known technologies and physics only exacerbates the issue.

I'll remain open to corrections, and continue to consider possible avenues for describing something new or unusual. But unfortunately the camera trick is thus far failing every test at every level.

good evening Wan: I sense that we are going to have fun, thanks.

you posted -->I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies.
*********

I see two problems,

 A) you are talking about pass filters and blocking filters, which are pertinent in this issue?

B) why are you limiting yourself to simple visual frequencies when the key frequency may be any one of an infinite no.,  or it's harmonics / sub harmonics/?
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted-->
 Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.
***********

Sensitivity is a basic fixed factor under certain parameters, time does not increase sensitivity , but only the amount of energy, or energy reaction gathered.

Crude example, you have a source that delivers 1 litre of say H2O  per unit of time. If you allowed one litre to be instantly dropped on say one sq. Hect.  it wouldn't be noticeable.   However, if you accumulated it for say 100 years (time exposure) then released it, it would be very noticeable.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You also posted -->

Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency
***********

Interesting, can you explain how this might be accomplished.  As far as I can see a filter either blocks certain frequencies or passes them. IT does not change them as such.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
Orig post ->   to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket

Your post-->
If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical
*************
I agree theoretically, Gold, even highly refined Gold is individual in it's composition, each and every piece is Unique. It would be possible to detect that individual coin in your pocket if you had the pretest physical pattern. Otherwise it would require a broad spectrum approach.  An indication of this is that different alloys have different visual changes. Eventually we 'will' be able to single out the basic Atomic freq. and sensitize a detector for just the just the gold factor.  By comparative data we can do that to an extent today with an A A unit.
_________________________________________________ _________________________________
You posted -->yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.
*********

I am glad that you posted that, I was about to take issue.  However geochem does not rely upon visual metal for it's results, but a chemical reaction of say Gold which may be well below visual
ability / acuity
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted --> If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions
**********
Ionic reactions from a 'multiple' no of sources, yes.  But is earth basically transparent  to some of them ? Find them and sensitize your detecting device to them, and you are on your way to success.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress
***********
Agreed, I propose a theory, you propose a metatheory arguing against some part of my theory, then I in turn propose another in reference to the trueness of your metatheory,  and on.  
_________________________________________________ _______________________________-


_________________________________________________ ________________________________

good evening Wan: I sense that we are going to have fun, thanks.

you posted -->I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies.
*********

I see two problems,

 A) you are talking about pass filters and blocking filters, which are pertinent in this issue?

B) why are you limiting yourself to simple visual frequencies when the key frequency may be any one of an infinite no.,  or it's harmonics / sub harmonics/?

A) It makes no difference. Nothing is 100% efficient, and any material will block some part of those frequencies it was designed to pass. Even if were talking neutrinos here. 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.

B) I'm not making any such limitations, which is why I brought up frequency shifts to begin with, to avoid just such a priori limitations.

Note: When I speak specific physical effects in reference to an unmodeled effect, I do so in the broadest possible sense. 1) To avoid pedantic responses. 2) It avoids unnecessary restrictions on possibly legitimate explanations. 3) If it makes sense in the broadest possible sense, then it becomes a simple academic issue to nail down the particulars of the physics. The particulars do induce further restrictions, thus these broad considerations are merely a litmus test that must be passed to continue. Passing such test, which the camera trick still fails, is not by itself proof of concept. But it would go a long way in justifying more in depth  investigation. I'm still willing to hear what I may have missed in a broad sense, but in depth physics is out of the question at this time.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted-->
 Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.
***********

Sensitivity is a basic fixed factor under certain parameters, time does not increase sensitivity , but only the amount of energy, or energy reaction gathered.

Crude example, you have a source that delivers 1 litre of say H2O  per unit of time. If you allowed one litre to be instantly dropped on say one sq. Hect.  it wouldn't be noticeable.   However, if you accumulated it for say 100 years (time exposure) then released it, it would be very noticeable.

Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs. That is exactly why digital cameras use a light meter to decrease shutter speed in low light conditions. Traditional cameras requires choosing the right film for the given light conditions beyond very narrow ranges. Consider your water drop example: When the CCD detects light on a single pixel, a single point on the picture, then that data doesn't go away, like water evaporating, while it waits on more light detection to fill in more pixels. Thus digital cameras can save up photon detections over 100 years, the same way you saved up 100 years of water to drop on the hector of land. This is an advantage digital photography has, because the CCD detection events are stored digitally, 0s and 1s which don't go away, while waiting on more photon detections.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You also posted -->

Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency
***********

Interesting, can you explain how this might be accomplished.  As far as I can see a filter either blocks certain frequencies or passes them. IT does not change them as such.

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, as in the posted photos. Most such false color pictures simply record photon detections of one frequency as if it was a photon detection of another visible frequency. In my statement above I also mentioned the filter itself. No matter how unlikely I didn't want to leave out any possibilities, or unlikely new physics. The good example of a frequency shifting filter is "spontaneous parametric down-conversion".

_________________________________________________ ________________________________
Orig post ->   to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket

Your post-->
If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical
*************
I agree theoretically, Gold, even highly refined Gold is individual in it's composition, each and every piece is Unique. It would be possible to detect that individual coin in your pocket if you had the pretest physical pattern. Otherwise it would require a broad spectrum approach.  An indication of this is that different alloys have different visual changes. Eventually we 'will' be able to single out the basic Atomic freq. and sensitize a detector for just the just the gold factor.  By comparative data we can do that to an extent today with an A A unit.

Two composition issues here: Atoms and molecules. A gold atom is a gold atom, no matter what other atoms/molecules (trash) is mixed with it. Any such 'signature' is universal, and any such mixtures, that create visual changes of color, can be trivially filtered from the data received from a CCD. The only exception being when the gold atoms are chemically bonded to other atoms, i.e., molecules. Yet any such molecules will themselves have a universal 'signature'. Even in dirty impure gold nuggets, there remains a significant portion of the individual atoms that remain pure gold, and/or common gold molecules. Thus your "composition" argument has well defined physical constraints that effectively removes the compositional difficulties you've proposed.

_________________________________________________ _________________________________
You posted -->yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.
*********

I am glad that you posted that, I was about to take issue.  However geochem does not rely upon visual metal for it's results, but a chemical reaction of say Gold which may be well below visual
ability / acuity

No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected, but the surface reflective properties in the same way standard visual sight works. Only it is well below normal visual acuity and full of noise due to the 'compositional' mixtures of other chemical. Ionic transport is merely the reason they're there to be viewed at all. These frequencies are sorted out and amplified in *exactly* the same way I explained above that your "composition" argument wasn't valid.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted --> If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions
**********
Ionic reactions from a 'multiple' no of sources, yes.  But is earth basically transparent  to some of them ? Find them and sensitize your detecting device to them, and you are on your way to success.

Assuming there is some legitimacy to the photos, at some level, I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here. 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. Even if there was a frequency shift, induced by the earth (a stretch), the ground would then be opaque to the resulting frequency, leaving nothing for you to detect.

_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You posted -->Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress
***********
Agreed, I propose a theory, you propose a metatheory arguing against some part of my theory, then I in turn propose another in reference to the trueness of your metatheory,  and on.  
_________________________________________________ _______________________________-


_________________________________________________ ________________________________

I didn't propose a theory or metatheory, 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. Rather I pointed out that using metatheory as if it was itself an operational theory is not valid. In fact, in accessing the claims, I have avoided requiring strict adherence to even basic theoretical constructs. Rather, I have based my arguments purely on observational constraints, from which theory derives its sole source of legitimacy. This gives unduly broad benefits to the claim, but it allows for possibilities that may not be well defined by science. When accessed at this level, legitimacy can be interpreted with the same observational certainty as the claim the Earth has two identical moons always on the opposite side of Earth. This is the lowest level of evidence, yet most certain. Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test.