Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[StogieJim]

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.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Montana Jim]

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]

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?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

 

[StogieJim]

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.

 

[Montana Jim]

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

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

 

[davew0710]

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

It's a golden oak, silly.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

 

[VICTORIO]

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

 

[StogieJim]

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

 

[pegleglooker]

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

 

[Kentucky Kache]

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.

 

[StogieJim]

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?

 

[pegleglooker]

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 Kache]

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.

 

[Tim Williams]

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

 

[jb7487]

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.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

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.

 

[jb7487]

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.