Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

I feel crushed Tom wants me to play somewhere else.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[boogeyman]

If throwing virgins into volcanoes, to control the weather, does not work, then the Natives would not have used it as much as they did.

Oh jeeze Tom do you really have to go all tupid on this again!?!? Guess I'm going to have to go back to calling you Sheldon, but I hesitate because he at least uses logic when he's being a pain. Sorry my friend I don't think anyone is going to just "shoot you a copy". Is that a thinly veiled attempt to acquire a free copy? Why would we need to have you critique anything ?!?! Are you trying to say you're an expert using this technique? If you read back in the early posts I gave you instructions on doing the camera mods (which you refused to at least try), even gave you information on a company that will do the mod for you. In your haste to twist the conversation you skipped what I said about the cameras & filters. If the camera has a filter built in from the factory blocking a wide range of the IR spectrum, it doesn't matter what filter you add on. You could literally stack filters till you looked like you had a 50mm lens and accomplish nothing. I'll ask you again for the umpteenth time. Why doesn't this technique work? I'd expect you to be able to answer that in a heartbeat! Buy yourself a copy of David's book, >>read it with an open mind<< then go back and read the early posts here use the hints etc. Sorry Sheldon, you'll have to mod a camera or have it done. How in the heck can you say something doesn't work if you've obviously not done any research, field tests, experiments or listen to people who have? As with anything you're not going to throw batteries in it and hit the backyard, you need to learn. With a closed mind you might as well stay home .

Well Sheldon, Spend some money, get the book, get you a camera & filters , do some experimenting in the field and learn something go back & learn from our experiences.

 

[Carl-NC]

If the camera has a filter built in from the factory blocking a wide range of the IR spectrum, it doesn't matter what filter you add on. You could literally stack filters till you looked like you had a 50mm lens and accomplish nothing. ... Buy yourself a copy of David's book, >>read it with an open mind<< then go back and read the early posts here use the hints etc.

Boogey, DV's book says just the opposite... that you have to leave the IR blocking filter in the camera. If what you say is true, then what good is buying a copy of DV's book gonna do for anyone? If it's wrong on that detail, then that a really wrong wrong, resulting in useless.

 

[boogeyman]

Boogey, DV's book says just the opposite... that you have to leave the IR blocking filter in the camera. If what you say is true, then what good is buying a copy of DV's book gonna do for anyone? If it's wrong on that detail, then that a really wrong wrong, resulting in useless.

WOW! Hats off to you! At least you read it! Cool! (compliment in a good way). It's a starting point. Taking his work & moving forward was my next step. Best example I could think of would be you taking a schematic someone did & then said what if I did this? The schematic you used isn't carved in stone absolute but if you hadn't had it, you wouldn't have tried things and improved on it as I'm sure you've done a few times. Also too there's another thing, he only used a single type of camera. I think he got results and didn't go further to see if other cameras gave better or no results. I started with this back in the Polaroid days and found three cameras that produced zero nada zilch And I would not have known this if I hadn't started with "the book" and tried to find better results by working off his work. He pretty much gave up hope when Polaroid quit producing film packs. Digital will work with a modded camera but how many of us have the time & money to test as much as what's needed? Right now I've been sitting on a lens for a completely different application for two or three months now. Just haven't had the time to modify it to test. Holding it in my fingers and a bunch of gaffers tape doesn't work. I think it might eliminate the processing but I'd have to make it work 99% of the time before I'd make anything close to a claim. Oh, one thing David didn't get was if you mod the camera, take that internal filter out you can use the same type filter externally. You can't do this as a one setup fits all thing. Davids book is a very good starting point although it's getting a little outdated now. Think! Some of the people here have no photography experience, so they need to have a starting point & see it isn't a run out on the beach pop a shot process & go dig the mother load! Just like everything in detecting, treasure hunting, what ever tag you want to put on this if you don't put in the work your success won't be there. Period! I'm a firm believer in "No work no gain! Nothing comes easy or free". I'll post more as time permits. Again compliments! Good to see you did some studying instead of throwing out throwing virgins in the fire garbage as Sheldon does.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... instead of throwing out throwing virgins in the fire garbage as Sheldon does.

boogeyman, did you figure out where I got the sentence structure for this saying:

"If throwing virgins into volcanoes, to control the weather, does not work, then the Natives would not have used it as much as they did."

It came from someone else's avetar signature line. And their logic (of what makes something work-able) was simply applied to other ancient practices. I was simply extending their logic, of how-we-can-know something works or not. Eh ?

As for photography able-to-see hidden gold: Everything you're saying (including calling me Sheldon) would be very true, if , in fact, cameras could-be-made to do that. Essentially, to summarize what you're saying: "practice makes perfect", and "how do you know if you haven't tried it ?"

If I had reason to suspect there might be merit to the theory, then yes, I would by books, try it, etc.... But of yet, we (including yourself, if I'm not mistaken), have seen no results. Just oodles of experiments. And streaks of lights, glows, etc.... that can be chalked up to other things (random chance, orbs, etc....). Ie.: any "seeming" results, can be attributed to other explanations. Nor are they consistent (dog turd vs gold, etc...).

So to give you an example, what if I came up with an unconventional TH'ing method (tossing tennis shoes into the air, and making note of which way they pointed when they hit the ground). And if you said "That's preposterous", all I'd need to do is tell you to "try it" and "buy books about it" and call you Sheldon, etc... Right ? After all, you can't 'diss it till you've tried it, right ? I'm just turning your standards of evaluation back on you. You really need to try the tennis shoe idea. And if you don't, then you can't 'diss it, right ?

 

[xaos]

Well, on a serous note, I found out the the newer iPhones do not have the IR filter on the camera lense, but in the software. This allows you to get the IR as taken. A good way to test is the old TV remote test. My Samsung sees noting, while my iPhone sees the beam and pulse perfectly.

Just wanted to add that to the mix.

Going back to IR. In the early 1900's, when the aerial images were taken from balloons, it was with Black and White IR film. There is quite the historical study using these, as the old buried stream beds and roads show up perfectly. They had no idea to add IR filters...

​

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Going back to IR. In the early 1900's, when the aerial images were taken from balloons, it was with Black and White IR film. There is quite the historical study using these, as the old buried stream beds and roads show up perfectly.

Ok, sure. And there's odd-ball things like Lidar photography. But .... does that necessarily mean that gold can be differentiated ? So that we're clear: There's a world of difference between "stream beds" and "roads" and "gold", right ?

One does not necessarily prove the other.

 

[xaos]

Tom, I was not speaking about gold or any other specific. Just what was available back then in remote sensing.

I suppose if you had the open lens with no filter, the media would have to be able to record it. The current digital media, I dont believe is there to record the spectrum outside of the visible realm, and it was never intended to. Granted there are cameras specifically meant to do this.
Given that, one could process the other spectrum with false color, but a heck of a lot of experimentation with different material would be needed to assign a spectrum to a material.

My post was more about search locations, that actual identification.

LiDAR, Light Detection and Ranging, finds just that, range. Nothing more, a a lot less.

 

[Carl-NC]

WOW! Hats off to you! At least you read it!

Of course I've read it. Also have Matacia's book. Said that several times now. I've also done extensive experiments with both Polaroid (SX-70) and digital. Said that several times as well. What DV is doing is just blocking out the majority of all light and then post-processing to bring out the luminance noise. See my post 1127. DV's method is completely and utterly useless. Post 1127 offers practical guidance on how to experiment with IR and even though gold auras are just fiction, IR photography can be useful in other ways (and is pretty cool).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... DV's method is completely and utterly useless.....

Nope. Wrong. It simply means that DV didn't practice long enough or hard enough, wasn't patient enough, didn't study enough, didn't buy enough books, etc..... Repent Carl.

 

[elh]

Non fiction. Maybe not enuff practice?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok. If so, then I see another gold coin buried at the top corner of the eaves @ the roof of that house. And the bottom right of the photograph also has a glow. So perhaps a gold coin is there too. Eh ?

 

[elh]

Ok. If so, then I see another gold coin buried at the top corner of the eaves @ the roof of that house. And the bottom right of the photograph also has a glow. So perhaps a gold coin is there too. Eh ?

Ho, ho, ho. I was wondering how long it would take you to chime in. Why do you keep on throwing insults Tom. are you not destroying enough parks that you need to be so ornery?

 

[elh]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... throwing insults Tom. .... so ornery? ....

Uh, hold on : You show a pix that has a glow in a portion of it. On a thread about "digital cameras can see gold". Implication being: The glow (or orb or blotch or whatever) could, in fact, be the "camera seeing gold". Have I got that part right so far ?

If so, I point out to you that there is, likewise, other glows, orbs, blotches, light-spots, etc... elsewhere in the picture, where you did not bury test gold objects. So ... that constitutes "insults" and "ornery" . Right ?

I am all for your theory. I really DO want a camera that "sees [and differentiates] gold". And as part of the discussion of whether or not this is possible, two thinking-persons have to study their data for "more plausible explanations". Please please please, when it comes to tech discussions, please please please do not construe anything that detracts from the workabality of your notion, to necessarily be "insulting" or "ornery". I meant post #1232 as a sincere prompt for you to consider that maybe (just maybe) you might be "reading too much" into the picture.

 

[elh]

Took you only twenty minutes to blow on that one. Can you be any faster?

 

[elh]

No problem here. Prince Albert can with 7 coins and one brass 5 mil token.
Just have to know what you are seeing. Same with detector, gotta know what she be saying, OR, just keep digging.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

View attachment 1675488
No problem here. Prince Albert can with 7 coins and one brass 5 mil token.
Just have to know what you are seeing. Same with detector, gotta know what she be saying, OR, just keep digging.

Was the can with the coins buried ? Or on top of the ground ? Based on post # 1231, I'm going to assume "buried". Right ? Then ... then if I were you, And if you really think that it's distinguishable and repeatable phenomenon, then : I'd take that out to the nearest ghost-townsy type site , and put it to the real world test. I would run, not walk, and start implementing it.

And to be fair, you'd need to keep track of the "dry holes", as part of the study. So that it's not just a factor "taking out the detector to pinpoint" and "digging 100 holes", and then eventually finding coin(s). Because there could be other more plausible explanations, in that case: Namely, that if you wave a detector around long enough, and dig enough holes, then SURE, you'll eventually find something (maybe even something very good). But was it because of the photography and glows ? Or was it just the eventual effects of random chance ?

 

[elh]

Was the can with the coins buried ? Or on top of the ground ? Based on post # 1231, I'm going to assume "buried". Right ? Then ... then if I were you, And if you really think that it's distinguishable and repeatable phenomenon, then : I'd take that out to the nearest ghost-townsy type site , and put it to the real world test. I would run, not walk, and start implementing it.

And to be fair, you'd need to keep track of the "dry holes", as part of the study. So that it's not just a factor "taking out the detector to pinpoint" and "digging 100 holes", and then eventually finding coin(s). Because there could be other more plausible explanations, in that case: Namely, that if you wave a detector around long enough, and dig enough holes, then SURE, you'll eventually find something (maybe even something very good). But was it because of the photography and glows ? Or was it just the eventual effects of random chance ?

Nope, wrong again. Two tennis balls with one handle only. Works every time.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nope, wrong again. Two tennis balls with one handle only. Works every time.

Glad you got a good sense of humor !