Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Holyground]

I don't believe a word of any of it. There's only two things I believe in, God and Rock & Roll.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Gerhard Fischar - Portable Metal Detector
In 1925, Gerhard Fischar invented a portable metal detector. Fischar's model was first sold commercially in 1931 and Fischar was behind the first large-scale production of metal detectors.
According to the experts at A&S Company: "In the late 1920's, Dr. Gerhard Fisher, the founder of Fisher Research Laboratory, was commissioned as a research engineer with the Federal Telegraph Co. and Western Air Express to develop airborne direction finding equipment. He was awarded some of the first patents issued in the field of airborne direction finding by means of radio. In the course of his work, he encountered some strange errors and once he solved these problems, he had the foresight to apply the solution to a completely unrelated field, that of metal and mineral detection.

What if Fischer had not had some research behind him? It might have gone like this:

Scientists:“So, Gary, you are trying to tell us your new invention can detect gold underground?”

Fischer: "Yes, it’s all based on this new science. The simplest form of a metal detector consists of an oscillator producing an alternating current that passes through a coil producing an alternating magnetic field. If a piece of electrically conductive metal is close to the coil, eddy currents will be induced in the metal, and this produces a magnetic field of its own. If another coil is used to measure the magnetic field (acting as a magnetometer), the change in the magnetic field due to the metallic object can be detected.
It’s really quite simple, you see."

Scientists: "Fischer, you are insane and should be locked up. You can’t use electricity to find gold."

Nope. Because Mr. Fisher had a working unit to demonstrate the process AND it relied on explainable science. Bounce a wave, get a return back. (And it measured relative conductivity, not "magnetism", same as the current ones. Gold exhibits no magnetic tendencies and emits no signals of it's own).

 

[DizzyDigger]

Did you know that some states (Arizona, for one) claim treasure found on PRIVATE land? So, if you find treasure in your own back yard in those states they take it from you. This means, as in the words of sandy1, you don't own property, you are only leasing it from the state.
Thanx.

I never find treasure..just money.

 

[clifdweller]

Do people only see what they want to see? Notice that this is a "what if" statement.
"What if Fischer had not had some research behind him? It might have gone like this:"

Maybe magnetics had nothing to do with it but the statement I used was a direct quote from Wikipedia. If I'm wrong so is Wiki.

I certainly am not at all knowledgeble about IR or digital cameras. My expertise is herbs and alternative medicine. I have noticed over the years that some things that are scoffed at are eventually accepted. Some are rejected, like snake oil. It takes time.

From the alternative Medicine arena:
For example, the idea of Patterning mentally handicapped children was rejected and those who promoted it were treated as quacks. Now it is accepted.

Dr. Butyko (spelled wrong) developed a method of breathing to help asthmatics. Treated as quackery until recently. Now it is promoted by many pulmonologists.

At my first encounter with a cardiologist I told him I was using cayenne pepper instead of nitro glycerin tablets for chest pain. He could not tell me to continue. He did say, however, (this is very close to an exact quote) "Alternative medicine is about 20 years ahead of us because we have to wait until something is proven."

My point is it is easy to be a naysayer but none of us know what may one day be accepted. Why not be open-minded? That is all I am doing. I want proof too.

 

[elh]

Do any of you on this thread remember anything about '' sickle cell anemia '' ? At one time it was a total free for all in the streets to even THINK that
it existed. It took some fighter pilots getting killed in crashes to learn what happened. They had been given blood from some one who had the anemia.
NOW, you can see signs splattered around wanting donations to fight the anemia through medicine.
Why did it require men to die before it was believed to be true? IGNORANCE pure and simple. The sickel cell will not tolerate heights.
By today there may be meds to hold it at bay but I know not if there is such.

 

[Carl-NC]

My point is it is easy to be a naysayer but none of us know what may one day be accepted. Why not be open-minded? That is all I am doing. I want proof too.

Actually, it's far easier to accept pseudoscience at face value and pretend it's all true. Then you don't have to think.

Back when Polaroid treasure auras were all the rage, I put the effort into investigating the claims. Turns out it was just squeegie effects (the SX-70 was well-known for this) and wishful thinking.

The digital aura photography came along, highlighted by Villanueva's book on the subject. I investigated it, and it is again bogus, this time wishful thinking combined with really bad image postprocessing that results in horrendous luminance noise.

My skepticism in this matter is earned, I did the thinking and the work to get where I am. If you want proof, then put in the effort to find it, cause you sure won't get it just by sitting around being open-minded.

 

[Juanka2018]

Help to confirm images of auras.

Hello, Midas I send the images to your thread, because in the above link does not work well, these were taken in an expedition, with a! Phone 7, do you think these auras have possibilities or not? They say that they must be done with special filters to rule out errors in the camera. These were taken near dusk. Thank you.

 

[gallileo60]

Having followed this thread for years I just gotta say, That "IN MY OPINION" There is no way in hell a Camera is going to find buried gold, gold gas clouds, or any other such thing..That said Yes IR photography will reveal features not visible to the naked eye..As far as a build up of gas under "Adobe" soil, and the subsequent release of such gas (if there was such a thing) The wind would disperse it as soon as it came out of the ground..Having worked for the Newspaper for 21 years I did have a tad of experience with Cameras from time to time, included some Polaroid type Cameras that were not typically available to the public (Nothing Special By that tho)...This is a most entertaining thread, and very long lived...Tom keep up the good fight...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I hope the following examples will help someone be a little more open-minded. ...

Clif-dweller, your examples/posts work, provided we accept the following premise: That everything and anything mused is ultimately possible. Ie.: that NOTHING is "impossible". If we accept that premise, then ...... sure... your statements follow through.

But is this logical ? I mean, sure, you can point to things like heavier than-air flight, and that the earth-is-round, and try to conclude that : "Therefore everything mused is possible". But why is that a given ? Can't you agree that some things are IMPOSSIBLE ? If I tell you that I can find treasure by using a peanut butter sandwich, would you say: "That's silly, and illogical" ? If you did, then can't I tell you to "keep an open mind" ?

Or ... can we both agree that: There are some things that are simply silly, ridiculous and impossible ?

.... In any case, how does any of this play into whether auras are real or imaginary?

Because he's relying on the "un-discovered science" fall-back. Just as in how scientists once thought the earth was flat. So too will science some day come along and rescue the " Digital cameras can find-gold " claims.

 

[gallileo60]

<snip>



This scenario is implausible because even in the unlikely event that no one understood the science, Fischer could reliably demonstrate that his device worked. Not so for gold seeing cameras, or dowsing, or long range locating, etc...

Now see that just makes sense, it was REPEATABLE under both lab, and real world conditions.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Now see that just makes sense, it was REPEATABLE under both lab, and real world conditions.....

Sure. But .... to play the devil's advocate here :

Dowsing, LRL, and dig-cameras for gold actually work and "repeat" in testings as well. And if someone (Carl, etc...) ever came along trying to show supposed double-blind tests that DIDN'T work for it: That simply means they A) weren't doing it right B) need more practice, or C) durned those sun-spots anyhow.

 

[lesjcbs]

For all you skeptics, go to post #1024 in this thread.

I will not be able to reply to any comments until Monday as our home computer is broke and I have to use public computers. We will be getting a new computer sometime next week.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

For all you skeptics, go to post #1024 in this thread.....

Here is the text of #1024, copied/pasted here :

Boogeyman, I think you is done gone and hurt his feelins'.
When I started with the Canon camera I got no auras for a couple of weeks, then all of a sudden I got Auras on gold and silver buried for that particular purpose. Why did it not work the first time?? No one to this day can say 100% WHY it did not. Same thing with the aura coming in.
Just too many reasons that cam't be put in a glass tube to look at it. Also no way in H--- to do any common ground on the scienticals of it, one blind
two blinds or three nor ten thousand. Not practical to set up scientific test. Matter of fact the only test needed is do the work of trying.
Just like metal detecting, no way to tell ahead of time what will make the beep beep sound off.

Here's the weakness of this type of proofs/evidence. The fellow does 100 experiments and tests. Finally, some of them have orbs (uhhh, excuse me ... "gold and silver" lights). Ie.: funky results from the exposed film. So he thinks "aha ! gold!". Naturally he can't explain why THIS particular couple of photos turned out different than the prior 100 photos. But to him, it's proof-positive that digital cameras can be made to find gold. It's now merely a matter of isolating *how* to make it do it, on a consistent basis. Right ?

But that's a little like flipping a coin, and getting random chance odds. Odds are, it will be 50/50 heads or tails right ? But gauranteed, if you flipped that coin 500 times, I'll bet that there would be random stretches where it might be "tails" for 10 times in a row. So too if you take 500 photographs, then ..... sure, some will have squiggles or streaks showing up in the photos. It will eventually be random chance odds.

Or here's another analogy: The old debate between md'rs that "gold sounds different" (than tabs, foil, aluminum, etc...). The reason that some md'rs *think* "gold rings sound different" is that when they FINALLY find a gold ring in a junky park, they say to themselves : "That one sounded different !!". And they set their mind to try to isolate that "difference", so they can pass junk in the future, and hone in on gold rings.

But don't you see the mind trick going on there ? Every time we md'rs stoop down to dig something, we're saying to ourselves: "This one sounds different". But when it turns out to be junk, we forget our premonitions. And say to ourselves "yeah, it did sound kind of junky now that I think about it". But if it turned out to be a gold ring, then ONLY THEN do we remember our premonitions and think "Aha! I knew it !".

This type of selective memory bias is the same thing going on with the photos and gold debate. You can take 100's of photos of sample of gold and silver you buried, and see ZERO results. But *finally* when one randomly shows a streak of light or glow or something, you think : BINGO. And promptly dismiss the prior 100's of results.

 

[lesjcbs]

OOPS. My mistake. Wrong thread. Go to thread #1094 and you will read this. So sorry for you Tom. If you dare to look at these posts, your feelings will be hurt. Maybe I should not do this.

Got my computer back at least for the moment.


----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------------------------




Tom and Carl:


OK boys, here is a very short list of posts in this thread showing cameras catching auras. Since I just got my camera,and am in the early stages of getting to know it and testing it on my targets, I might eventually post my results too.

Enjoy,


Post #:
1
21
26
42
51
88
89
144
185
305
325
416
524
627
691
712
869
870
871

 

[Tom_in_CA]

OOPS. My mistake. Wrong thread. Go to thread #1094 and you will read this. So sorry for you Tom. If you dare to look at these posts, your feelings will be hurt. Maybe I should not do this.....

Ok, I've gone and read #1094. Carl did a good job addressing that in #1095. And ... IMHO, I did a good job addressing that in # 1193.

Care to address either of the challenges ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Ok, I've gone and read #1094. Carl did a good job addressing that in #1095. And ... IMHO, I did a good job addressing that in # 1193.

Care to address either of the challenges ?

Sure,I can do that easily.

If one is in a suspected target area that is extremely large where it would take years and years to cover with an electronic metal detector, takes many pictures where most will come up false or nothing at all, then processes that one picture that is just a little bit different than the rest, then digs up the target, the time spent taking all those pictures and processing them was well worth the time.


The point here is as Carl says in the last sentence of post # 1095 talking about how to determine if is it gold or dog turds you are looking at, he writes: “Then you'll have to figure out how you're gonna discriminate between gold and turd. “ Yes, yes, yes, for SURE, absolutely. There will be a difference and maybe some have not figured that out yet. Thank you Carl for pointing out the most important point of all.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To“figure it out” is like this: A Doctor looking at X-Ray, MRI, or CT (Cat Scan) pictures knows what he sees in the picture. However, the average Mr. Joe-Blow-Six-Pack off the street would see those same fuzzy black and white pictures too, but not know how to interpret them correctly to diagnose the ailment the patient is having. Only the Doctor can do that, and that comes from years of studying and [/FONT]practice[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]. OOPS, I just said something awful. That nasty word “[/FONT]practice” [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]must go. We must never do that, just take the picture and wham bang,thank you mam, there it is. OH my goodness how I wish it was that easy, but it is not. [/FONT]


As for your comment in post # 1193, the same.


The manuals of all five (5) detectors I have owned over the years all said to practice, practice, and keep practicing to get to know what it is detecting. That even includes when it is in the discriminating mode selected by the user. I don't know about you or your detector Tom, but in the discrimination mode, mine has three different tones and most of the time I can tell by the pitch what the metal is. Its simply amazing how well the detector works after you know what it is telling you. In fact it is easier than taking candy from a baby.


With the camera, the user just might have to take several thousand pictures to figure out what is being seen and why. That is not a sin, and no one I know of is counting.


To rule out practice with any detecting device is the same as not using it at all.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

lesjcbs, I have to admit, I really admire your enthusiasm. The conversation is great. Sometimes an advocate for unconventional devices or schemes is very weak on attempting to show evidence. Or they resort to name calling instead of intellectual pro/con discussion. But you are a very good sport in this discussion. I admire that. I hope I have shown equal respect .

Ok, let me try to address what you've just said :

Everything you are saying would be true, as long as we begin with a starting premise as a "given" in the discussion : That digital cameras can see gold. If that starting inference is true, then yes: Everything else you are saying will likewise follow logically.

That, yes: If you "practice more", you will get better. And that if you study more, you will eventually find a way to keep it from being seemingly random (eg.: the "dog turd" that sometimes gives off the same streak of light in 1 out of 100 photos).

But I am not sure why we are accepting the premise, as true in the first place. Since when has that been established , as a starting premise ?

If you have a case, as you allude to, where a digital camera did indeed find gold, then I'm all ears. But .... like LRL's or dowsing, I would be studying the test VERY hard to determine if other factors weren't at play. Eg.: subtle landscape clues. Or random odds holes dug. Or simply going to a place where it was quite likely, in the first place, that something was there. In other words: The test would need to be double blind, with non-biased individuals involved with the test protocols.

To show a photo, where a streak of light comes up from a known spot of planted gold, is not conclusive. Because as Carl says, if you take 100 random photographs, there will be various streaks of light , hues, glows, blemishes, blurs, etc... in various photographs. So how is it not just random odds ? Why toss out the 100 results which showed nothing conclusive ?

This is kind of like when people were tested for mental telepathy or ESP type tests (hidden card reading , etc...) : The results showed nothing but random odds. But sure, eventually, even in random odds, someone guesses a card correctly. And humorously, when the people being tested were shown that their results were simply random odds, they didn't see it that way. Instead they focused on the CORRECT guesses . As "evidence" for their psychic ability. In other words, it was as if they were saying: "When I'm correct, I'm 100% correct". While failing to take into account all the other data which showed it to be nothing but random odds.

So too do I think that the digital camera anecdotal stories can be chalked up to the same thing. But if you have something that indicates differently, I'd love to see it. However, let's be honest: It sounds like you do not. Because even you too are saying that it needs more "practice". Ok, do you know of anyone else that has discovered a workable system with this ?

 

[lesjcbs]

First off, thanks and kudos to you in turn.


Midas says it works and explains the technique and shows just one of his finds in post #42. Very interesting don't you think?


Look at each of the posts again, and again in post # 1194.


There is not one good reason to default to skeptics thinking, as I know it works.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... and shows just one of his finds in post #42. Very interesting don't you think?....

Unfortunately, Midas does not go into detail in post #42 though And doesn't elaborate on what was done, double-blind controls in place or not, etc...

There could be some other explanation at play. It's the same thing with anecdotal "evidence" for dowsing and LRL testimonials. Eg.: the dudes posing for photographs next to jars of coins they found in the old 1970s treasure magazines (pretty compelling, eh ? ). But when you scrutinize the stories further, you find they used a detector "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Or were .... quite frankly ... hunting for known targets (ie.: it was already known that "grandpa so & so buried a jar some where around this tree before his passing , etc...) And ... if you dig enough holes around enough likely looking ruins or known "leads", well ..... sure .... you'll eventually find something.

So if Midas has a workable system, then the world will beat a path to his door, to see it demonstrated and tested with control factor protocols (to make sure it's not attributable to some other factor, and/or not random chance, etc...). Thus, post #42 isn't conclusive. Testimonials are "dime a dozen". There are testimonials of people who saw Elvis, Bigfoot, Loch ness, UFO's, or who think they're Napoleon, think a magic pill cured their ailments, etc.... And in each case, they are quite sincere. So unfortunately, "evidence" has to go a bit beyond personal testimonials.

 

[lesjcbs]

Unfortunately, Midas does not go into detail in post #42 though And doesn't elaborate on what was done, double-blind controls in place or not, etc...

There could be some other explanation at play. It's the same thing with anecdotal "evidence" for dowsing and LRL testimonials. Eg.: the dudes posing for photographs next to jars of coins they found in the old 1970s treasure magazines (pretty compelling, eh ? ). But when you scrutinize the stories further, you find they used a detector "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). Or were .... quite frankly ... hunting for known targets (ie.: it was already known that "grandpa so & so buried a jar some where around this tree before his passing , etc...) And ... if you dig enough holes around enough likely looking ruins or known "leads", well ..... sure .... you'll eventually find something.

So if Midas has a workable system, then the world will beat a path to his door, to see it demonstrated and tested with control factor protocols (to make sure it's not attributable to some other factor, and/or not random chance, etc...). Thus, post #42 isn't conclusive. Testimonials are "dime a dozen". There are testimonials of people who saw Elvis, Bigfoot, Loch ness, UFO's, or who think they're Napoleon, think a magic pill cured their ailments, etc.... And in each case, they are quite sincere. So unfortunately, "evidence" has to go a bit beyond personal testimonials.

You made my day Tom. I'm laughing so hard now I have to hold onto my chair handles to keep from falling out of it. Midas goes into great detail in his book. If he had gone into details in post # 42, you would still be reading it this very moment. But until you do get his book, read it, then apply the technique yourself, you will never in all eternity know the truth.