Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[jeff of pa]

T'net rules dictate that that forum is only for believers. If I'm not mistaken. So someone coming on with challenges or skepticism will ..... in short order .... be told this isn't the forum for them. Which is fine. But just know that I can't rise to your challenge, because I believe forum rules say ahead of time that forum is only for believers in it.

Perhaps we should Do that for all forums

debate can be healthy. but an over abundance in putting things down,
can be construed as attacking members

Please Note * This is not directed at anyone in particular, But after the last couple pages of posts here,
Don't be surprised that I am Considering it.

how is a Person suppose to ask a serious Question for research purposes ,
when it is almost immediately buried under
2 pages of Nay sayer crap ! ?

I'm sure it also makes those who Believe.
and have their Researched Answers ,weary of Responding

& newbies and those of us with open minds wondering if asking anything is a waste of time at tresureNet

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Do you REALLY think a washed up magician was REALLY going to give up a million? ...

Ouch. Another embarrassing glaring glitch on your part. You're making this much too easy. And again, perhaps telling of the rest of your inputs on him ? I hate to burst your bubble, but anytime a claimant got tested, that prize money was put into the hands of a like as escrow holder (or whatever it's called).

And seriously dude, if someone mutually agreed to a set of parameters, and passed them, they'd have a contract that any lawyer would easily be able to get. Randi would be sued and easily loose. Thus YES: he was willing to part with that money. It was a legally binding contract.

..... Families there have been looking for "the lights" for centuries and generations, with some success.....

There will always be "random success". I mean, think of it: History is filled with persons (ditch diggers, farmers, const. workers, dog-walkers, etc...) accidentally digging up or stumbling onto caches. Right ? Well HOW MUCH MORE SO will there be eventual successes, by those that are distinctly looking for them ? Anyone can go out and dig 100 holes by 100 ruins, and eventually find something. And sure, they'll attribute it to lights or spooks they saw, or their rod that they pointed at this likely ruin, etc.... And then the trick of selective memory bias kicks in: People tend to forget the aimless wandering, dry holes, etc... But the moment you/we find something, it's very easy to say "aha! I knew it" ! See how that works ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I understand what you're saying if the scientists don't give their seal of approval it just ain't so....

Only for things that CLAIM to be scientific. If they say, upfront, that it's mystical spiritual realm of things, then I would agree with you that science is not a capable/correct measuring tool for such things. Like trying to weight a chicken with a yard-stick: It's the wrong tool to measure. I'd agree.

So are you saying it's metaphysical supernatural spiritual now ? If so, we're in agreement. I too agree that it's a form of divination. But you'll have contrary views within your own camp if you hold to this. Because .... humorously ... they will often go to great lengths to claim that there's a scientific reason (albeit un-discovered science I suppose). And do you know why ?? TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES from being involved in spirits, etc... I mean, sheesk, what's next, using seances ? Studying bird entrails ? Sure, go right ahead ! But you can't have it both ways and turn right around and say there's some sort of scientific explanation, instead of spooks doing the work.

.... Can you or would you want to prove it to me? NO? ....

Actually, I show my museum trays (locked up at my house) to anyone and everyone ! And there's 14 gold coins so far in there, in addition to oodles of relics and silver coins. Sure, the guests are welcome to hold them and check them out, take pix, etc... (the pix have been on "finds" forums after all).

And so too do myriads of md'rs routinely post their show & tell (sometimes even some doozies!) At any given time, on the T'net banner, you'll routinely see a gold coin or two. So who is "not proving " anything ? MD'rs love to show off their trophies ALL THE TIME ! (it's part of the fun of the sport after all, to gloat a little ).

But you'll notice that all the show & tell is via md'ing. I don't see caches from dowsers being shown at all. Why is that ? I know you'll say "because of the IRS and thieves", right ? But oddly, this doesn't seem to stop md'rs from routinely participating in show & tell. Even with some doozies now and then. Even some caches, etc.. Hmmmm

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......Cracked me up with your tennis shoe remark. How can you state emphatically a tennis shoe won't point to gold if thrown into the air? Can you state for us your research and scientific evidence it won't? There must be some scientific papers published somewhere that says it doesn't work or you wouldn't have said that right? ....

I picked the most absurd made-up method that would be SO silly, that anyone reading it would realize, that it's simply not going to work. So there was no "proving" or "dis-proving" or involving science in any way. It was supposed to be something so-self-obvious, that all sides could agree, that it's simply not logical or scientific.

Unless I involve some sort of spiritual powers . Like an ouji board where powers move the pointer, then so too might powers dictate the direction of where the shoe points ?? Then sure, you're right. Maybe it'll work. For optimum results you smear peanut butter and bird seed on it. eh ?

....My last question Tommy. Have you EVER tried to dowse with an open mind and no preconceived mindset whether it'll work or not?.

I know the inherent statement this is meant to convey: That if someone doesn't try it for themselves, they can't say it's silly. Or won't work. Or is dangerous, etc... Is that the right implicit message in your questions ? Yes or No? I'm going to assume yes (it's the inescapable implied message). Ok then, let's test this premise:

a) Have you tried my tennis shoe method ? If not, how can you say it won't find treasure ?

b) Have you tried heroin ? After all, you can't say it's un-wise till you've tried it yourself. You can't read other people's inputs (doctors, etc...) on the matter. You need to try it, to intelligently comment on the pro's and con's of heroin use. Right ?

This is what's known as "taking the roof off". Showing the logical absurdity of where a stance goes, when taken to logical ends.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... but an over abundance in putting things down,
can be construed as attacking members ...

I hope that's not me. I hope I'm staying within the bounds of pro & con talk (ie.: merely addressing assertions put out there). A look back at point-by-point would show this I hope. And this is not a forum designated for just the single view-point adherents, right ?

Anyhow Boogey-man, I mean you no ill-will or malicious dis-respect. I very much appreciate you take the time to respond to Charlie and I.

 

[boogeyman]

Ouch. Another embarrassing glaring glitch on your part. You're making this much too easy. And again, perhaps telling of the rest of your inputs on him ? I hate to burst your bubble, but anytime a claimant got tested, that prize money was put into the hands of a like as escrow holder (or whatever it's called).

And seriously dude, if someone mutually agreed to a set of parameters, and passed them, they'd have a contract that any lawyer would easily be able to get. Randi would be sued and easily loose. Thus YES: he was willing to part with that money. It was a legally binding contract.



There will always be "random success". I mean, think of it: History is filled with persons (ditch diggers, farmers, const. workers, dog-walkers, etc...) accidentally digging up or stumbling onto caches. Right ? Well HOW MUCH MORE SO will there be eventual successes, by those that are distinctly looking for them ? Anyone can go out and dig 100 holes by 100 ruins, and eventually find something. And sure, they'll attribute it to lights or spooks they saw, or their rod that they pointed at this likely ruin, etc.... And then the trick of selective memory bias kicks in: People tend to forget the aimless wandering, dry holes, etc... But the moment you/we find something, it's very easy to say "aha! I knew it" ! See how that works ?

Yes! If you haven't tried it it's just speculation!

Let's make this short folks! Tom doesn't think dowsing works so there's no possible way it can, and he'll push and badger and push until you fall in line with his way of thinking (It's the ONLY WAY). If it makes him feel like he's superior to the rest cool! More power to him whatever pumps up his ego! All hail Tom!!

Now that we've got that out of the way can we get back to helping the folks that ARE interested in the subject and are looking to learn from others? I always thought TNet was to exchange knowledge, lend help, and put treasure hunting in a positive light? When did change? Did I not get the memo?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... All hail Tom!!...

"Hail" ? No. Answer a challenge ? Yes.

... we get back to helping the folks that ARE interested in the subject and are looking to learn from others? I always thought TNet was to exchange knowledge, lend help, and put treasure hunting in a positive light? When did change? Did I not get the memo?

That's exactly what T'net is. And to save someone time in pursuing an un-workable method, is *quite* "positive". Yes, we are "exchanging knowledge". It's working just as it should.

 

[jeff of pa]

I hope that's not me. I hope I'm staying within the bounds of pro & con talk (ie.: merely addressing assertions put out there). A look back at point-by-point would show this I hope. And this is not a forum designated for just the single view-point adherents, right ?

Anyhow Boogey-man, I mean you no ill-will or malicious dis-respect. I very much appreciate you take the time to respond to Charlie and I.

Point is, This in not in a General Discussion Type Forum where everybody & their brother is
up on the subject .
this is in a Research/Techniques forum, where people are welcome to discuss all types of
Research and Techniques. yes pro & con debate is allowed , as long as it is done in a respectful way.
asking legit questions and stating your opinion on the subject is not a problem.
joking around, although not necessarily an attack, is normal also.
it can and does go viral at times when others attempt to outdo each other on their attempts at getting a laugh at other expense.

think about it. there are 16 pages here. in my setup, I have
50 posts per page.
I wonder how many of those 750 plus posts are helpful to the subject .

as I said I'm not pointing at anyone.
I joke around on occasion also.
and doubt certain things.
I do try not to take threads this far off subject though when someone asks a legit question ,
or states a belief in a research type setting

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Charlie in my opinion without any doubt you're a very intelligent person! The only thing that troubles me is you have no doubts dowsing doesn't / can't work yet you waste your time on a dowsing forum trying to convince the rest of us of that. Why waste your time?

On my screen this shows up as "Techniques" in the "Research'Techniques" category and the thread is "Digital Cameras can see buried gold". No mention of dowsing.

If it was dowsing I would have avoided it.

 

[boogeyman]

Things drifted & got twisted. As usual things seem to get thrown in the same basket. Oh well....

Anyway, back to things. Like I was saying for this technique to work you need to remove the filter in the camera. I lost my bookmarks when my drive crashed.


Here's a place that'll do the work for you if you have fat shaky fingers like I do. They did one of my cameras a few years back. Other than that I have no interests in the company. Take a look at their site there is a ton of information that'll explain a lot, some applies some doesn't, but some very good information. There's a ton of Utube vids out there, there were only three that I found useful. I tried the slap a piece of exposed film on it technique with three low end cameras. Ended up removing the filter & replacing it with a spacer, and using screw on glass filters. Got tired of mickey mouseing so sent one of my others in. Had to talk to their support guy on the phone to explain what I wanted. After he understood, they got it done. Can't say it's cheap but it is cheap compared to mickey mousing it three or four times & still messing it up! Check out these guys & their info (there's tons). Hopes this helps some understand so they can experiment / use this technique. Oh! Their warranty (1 year I think) doesn't cover dumping your camera in a cooler even if you offer to send the beers & sodas too! Don't ask me how I know..............

www.lifepixel.com/

 

[Quinoa]

I don't want to get heavy involved in the discussion but here are some very interesting links.

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/11/19/new-detector-perfect-for-asteroid-mining/

Ultra-bright scintillators for planetary gamma-ray spectroscopy | SPIE Homepage: SPIE

This One-Pound Gamma-Ray Sensor Can Find Gold on Asteroids


Also the way or method this thread has presented getting auras is not really correct, at least not what I am aware of, nor others who have gotten them.

 

[boogeyman]

Interesting! Should be interesting to see how it all progresses. Wonder how long it'll take before it get out into the open market? Trim off all the govt fat & it might be affordable for applications here.

 

[Quinoa]

Boogeyman-- I misinterpreted your post, but I still may have the answer- it will never happen, they mentioned that the gamma ray spectroscopy they were using was only good for "non oxygen" atmosphere bodies. Which in my opinion is basically a cop-out. Like oxygen atmosphere bodies suddenly make it impossible to do the same thing. C'mon....

 

[Carl995]

David Villanueva, has discovered that digital cameras can be easily adapted to reveal the location of buried treasure from up to several hundred yards away.

Having successfully used a Polaroid camera for photographing auras given off by buried metal for a number of years, David was horrified when Polaroid stopped making the film in 2005 and usable original film quickly became unavailable at any price. In the short-term alternative film is available, which photographs treasure auras at least as well as the original film but Polaroid’s recent decision to cease all instant film production would make photographing treasure auras history…unless digital cameras could be used.

However, digital camera technology is very different to that of film cameras and what worked with Polaroid failed with digital. A complete re-think was needed! The breakthrough came after David learned of treasure hunters successfully using a highly specialised digital camera to locate caches buried along Spanish mule-train trails. So clearly it was possible to photograph auras digitally but could it be done without spending a fortune on high-tech equipment? After three years of intensive research the answer is absolutely yes! Some, possibly many, popular digital cameras are up to the task.

Using readily available photographic accessories that anyone can easily attach, without causing damage, the digital cameras tested were able to record an aura, from a distance, on a single quarter-ounce (seven-gram) gold sovereign coin buried six inches (150mm) underground. In extensive field trials cameras located buried metal over two feet (610mm) deep and could discriminate between different metals. The cameras could be hand-held or tripod-mounted and could capture auras anytime during daylight hours in a wide range of weather conditions. A colleague invited to test the system, with his own camera, clearly demonstrated that no special skill or ability was necessary by obtaining an aura on the first attempt.

The attached digital photograph shows an aura from one ounce of buried gold.

Ive attached this polaroid picture from a long time ago, my dad was thinking foxfire.
After reading your post, since its a polaroid picture, could it be an aura?
It kind of figures next to a saguaro with a cross carved in it!
Thanks,
Carrol

View attachment 1432525

 

[Quinoa]

Very possible, but most I am aware of are taken from a long ways off. I don't have any experience with polaroids.

 

[franklin]

Ive attached this polaroid picture from a long time ago, my dad was thinking foxfire.
After reading your post, since its a polaroid picture, could it be an aura?
It kind of figures next to a saguaro with a cross carved in it!
Thanks,
Carrol

View attachment 1432525

Have you dug there and did you find any gold or silver? That would be a logical question. The cross looks good but the main question is did you find anything?


Also a fair test to see if digital cameras find gold and silver or if dowsing can find gold or silver or whether a metal detector can find gold or silver---------Make us an area of an acre or more bury test targets, wait as many years as the dowsers or digital cameras users say it will take for an "aurora" and then turn all three loose on that area for one day and see which one can actually find gold or silver. My bet is on the metal detector as the other two most likely are random guessing.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Ive attached this polaroid picture from a long time ago, my dad was thinking foxfire.
After reading your post, since its a polaroid picture, could it be an aura?
It kind of figures next to a saguaro with a cross carved in it!
Thanks,
Carrol

View attachment 1432525

We used to have fun with Polaroid film. I worked at a camera store in the late 70's and we were given boxes for demo to customers. When an image is developing you can squeeze the "sheets" before separating the cover from the image and get effects like that from body heat. It's also sensitive to heat before being used; causing flaws like the lower left flare in your image. The later SX-70 film you could use a coin or fingernail to smudge or mix the emulsions to make all kinds of fun effects. Horns or halos on the heads of people.

All the neat "swirlies" around this portrat are manually added to make it look like a Rembrandt painting.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Have you dug there and did you find any gold or silver? That would be a logical question....

Franklin, don't you know the answer to this by now ? OF COURSE the camera method persons and dowsers are find gold and silver. Tsk tsk. But they can't tell you (or show pix on show & tell forums, etc....). Because they fear the IRS and Thieves. But rest assured, they find gold and silver !

....... Make us an area of an acre or more bury test targets, wait as many years as the dowsers or digital cameras users say it will take for an "aurora" and then turn all three loose on that area for one day and see which one can actually find gold or silver. My bet is on the metal detector as the other two most likely are random guessing.

You will be on the loosing end of this proposition/challenge as well. Because they most certainly have their tests, where they bury stuff, and then test, and claim to find. I would suggest "more plausible explanations" as to the seeming success of their in-house tests. But those more-plausible explanations will be dismissed out of hand.

As for a skeptic doing the test and burying, they will promptly dismiss the results of that. Something was rigged or unfair. Criteria set "so difficult" that not even God could pass the test, etc....

So you see Franklin, none of what you're saying will ever stick.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

We used to have fun with Polaroid film. I worked at a camera store in the late 70's and we were given boxes for demo to customers. When an image is developing you can squeeze the "sheets" before separating the cover from the image and get effects like that from body heat. It's also sensitive to heat before being used; causing flaws like the lower left flare in your image. The later SX-70 film you could use a coin or fingernail to smudge or mix the emulsions to make all kinds of fun effects. Horns or halos on the heads of people.

All the neat "swirlies" around this portrat are manually added to make it look like a Rembrandt painting.

Great story Charlie. How much you want to make a bet that someone looking at those effects, would claim some sort of paranormal effects that caused them ?

Reminds me of a documentary I watched where it was a hunt for paranormal (ghosts, haunted houses, etc...). And there was a whole bunch of people who .... as their proof of spooks and haunted houses, had photographs where ..... upon the development of the film, you could see shadowy figures that WEREN'T in the picture at the time the pix was taken. Like, silhouettes that seem to be looking out a window of a house, when no one was home, and so forth.

Pretty convincing, eh ? But then it was debunked as nothing more than dust particles that were filtering past the camera lense at the exact time the pix was taken. And since the camera is focussing on the subject in the distance, then a teensy particle (pollen or dander, etc...) that was floating past the lense up close becomes an "orb", or whatever they call it.

They even tried to point this out to the spook-chasers, that their cameras were NOT catching "ghosts". And that, instead, it had a "more plausible explanation". To no avail. Just much too fun to be a ghost chaser I guess. Same for TH'ing techniques with no logical grounding: The human mind wants SO HARD to believe "lest you be left", and laughed at all the way to the bank. So you put aside logic, and grasp for the silly stuff.

 

[franklin]

Franklin, don't you know the answer to this by now ? OF COURSE the camera method persons and dowsers are find gold and silver. Tsk tsk. But they can't tell you (or show pix on show & tell forums, etc....). Because they fear the IRS and Thieves. But rest assured, they find gold and silver !



You will be on the loosing end of this proposition/challenge as well. Because they most certainly have their tests, where they bury stuff, and then test, and claim to find. I would suggest "more plausible explanations" as to the seeming success of their in-house tests. But those more-plausible explanations will be dismissed out of hand.

As for a skeptic doing the test and burying, they will promptly dismiss the results of that. Something was rigged or unfair. Criteria set "so difficult" that not even God could pass the test, etc....

So you see Franklin, none of what you're saying will ever stick.

It will never stick because people can not be honest with themselves. I have dowsed for over thirty years and I can tell you it is a waste of time. You can walk around with a rock in your hand and it will find as much gold and silver as dowsing will find. As for the photos they are nothing at all. I had a man dug ditches six foot deep all over the landscape because of a polaroid photo. He had me come and dowse and use by deep seeking metal detector in his six foot deep ditches. You could tell that below was nothing but virgin soft sandstone that God put there. It had never been dug and yet he wanted to dig deeper. These people are sick. They are only fooling themselves. That is why they can not take the test. One man offered I believe "One Million DOllars" no one won the money and all he asked was to find seven targets out of ten. I too believed I could find items like this but when I did a test I could not figure why I could not find a ten ounce bar of pure gold, I could not find a one ounce bar of gold. Finally the tester let me use a couple of silver coins of my own. I could not find them and there were only six locations. I could not find one out of the six. When the targets were turned over nothing under five of them and the search item under the other. I became a believer that day and left hocus pocus and started to research and to buy better detectors. And these will work more than I can say for camera photos or dowsing.