Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[signal_line]

Years ago the original owner of Treasurenet had an article about finding gold with a camera with Infra-Red sensitive film. And there were some books by a guy who claimed a Polaroid camera could see gold then this guy came out with his book on using an IR filter on a camera with photo shop software. I spent probably close to $1000 on various books, cameras, thermal cameras, IR filters, photo shop software and I don't remember what else. My biggest find that came even close to gold was dog urine! LOL You can photo shop just about any photo and make it look like there is gold there. Just outright fraud, all of these people, every one of them.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Years ago the original owner of Treasurenet had an article about finding gold with a camera with Infra-Red sensitive film. And there were some books by a guy who claimed a Polaroid camera could see gold then this guy came out with his book on using an IR filter on a camera with photo shop software. I spent probably close to $1000 on various books, cameras, thermal cameras, IR filters, photo shop software and I don't remember what else. My biggest find that came even close to gold was dog urine! LOL You can photo shop just about any photo and make it look like there is gold there. Just outright fraud, all of these people, every one of them.

Well, .... re.: the "original owner of T'net".... Yes. He was known to have various beliefs. Let's just leave it at that .

As far as this being "outright fraud", that would imply some sort of intentional deception. Or lying or whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't go that far. I think the believers in these ... uh... "unconventional means" are probably quite sincere. And really believe in them. And are not necessarily using "photo-shop". No need to. If you take 100 pictures, then ... inevitably, some will have a streak, or a blotch, etc.... And thus, I would not classify it as "lying" or "deception". "Mistaken" ? Yes, that would be a better word.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I spent probably close to $1000 on various books, cameras, thermal cameras, IR filters, photo shop software and I don't remember what else. My biggest find that came even close to gold was dog urine! .....

And a reader of this might *think* that this disproves the workableness of said-system. Right ? But alas, a believer would merely say: "You weren't doing it right". Or "you need more practice". Or "durned those sun-spots or lunar flares or mineralized soil", etc.... That's why no amount of testing every disproves un-conventional means. They would all simply point to flawed tests, skewed results d/t tampering by skeptical testers nearby, external interference, etc.... Never that the method doesn't work.

 

[signal_line]

When a person keeps selling phony stuff that's fraud. I don't even remember if it was "photo shop". it was some kind of photo software.

As for the t-net guy, he supposedly found some treasure site but when he went to get it he couldn't find it and claimed somebody stole it. I can't remember if he was selling anything or not, so I will accept his was not fraud. But the others never admitted they got it wrong, just kept selling their books. And I see somebody selling filters and sunglasses and binoculars. I guess "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is." It's all phony so I'm leaving it at that and anybody reads this and wants to try it, well, they deserve to get ripped off.

I can't think of a worse way to try to find treasure. I mean ouija board, dissecting chicken guts, voodoo, all have a better chance at finding something.

 

[elh]

And a reader of this might *think* that this disproves the workableness of said-system. Right ? But alas, a believer would merely say: "You weren't doing it right". Or "you need more practice". Or "durned those sun-spots or lunar flares or mineralized soil", etc.... That's why no amount of testing every disproves un-conventional means. They would all simply point to flawed tests, skewed results d/t tampering by skeptical testers nearby, external interference, etc.... Never that the method doesn't work.

GOOD job there tom, you seem to have it all figured out. NOW all you need do is print a good solid book with hard back,
you know, go for broke and sell your ideas on ebay. Ought to make a killing off it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

GOOD job there tom, you seem to have it all figured out. .....

I know the come-back lines better than the believers. I have (to a fault) become fascinated with "what makes people tick" (ie.: believe) when it comes to treasure legends, and unconventional TH'ing methods. Ever since I too got "caught up" in frenzy. And rushed off to Mexico for 3 weeks looking for various legends that my emigrant host knew all about. After that came to a crashing end , where ... even my host began to realize that they were nothing more than camp-fire stories and telephone game gone awry. But ... hey, they sounded *SO* good.

Another thing to arise from that trip, was that a week or so prior to our departure, my host came to me with advertisements in some early 1990s treasure magazines. Showing rods (some with batteries and wires, others that didn't), and suggesting that we needed to use some of our common pot of money, to invest in these things. At first, I just told him those don't work, or they're silly, etc.... But when he pressed me for an explanation, I have to be honest: I couldn't answer him ! I mean, it's kind of hard to argue with a picture of a guy posed next to a jar of coins he found eh ? And the claims of going great distances. And my host was convinced that others, in Mexico, had used rods with success.

I found myself with zero intellectual answer. So ... I dove into studying them.

Hence, my interest to this day. And expanded to other unconventional claims, like cameras that can see gold, etc....

 

[MRBeyer]

I have always wondered about using intensive software processing of digital photography to overlay virtual filters so only precious metal or material light spectrums show. There would be false positives but far less than a random search. It wouldn’t work for anything under the surface though. I’m thinking more useful in surface finds in a hot area or for mapping tailings and alluvial patterns for prospecting.

Not a find all, more like another tool in the tool box with a specialty application.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... There would be false positives but far less than a random search. ....

That statement sounds like something that would/could subject itself to "tests". To study the #'s of "positives" versus "random" results, etc... Right ?

.... It wouldn’t work for anything under the surface though.....

That's what I've wondered. But if you scroll back through the posts here, you will indeed see the claim of "buried". As opposed to "on the surface". Thus, why wouldn't you think it wouldn't work for below-surface-items ? You wouldn't want to get called names and labels, would you ?

I suppose the proponents will surmise that ... somehow ... gasses or fumes emit up through the crevices of the soil. And then the pro/con sides of that debate will start the "wack-a-mole" game

 

[MRBeyer]

Should I want to build it, I must first find a set of parameters provable every time. Second, it must come from mature tech so it is achievable, next, it must be marketable. Once market penetration of basic functionality is achieved, then move on to the edges of its capability, often through feedback from observed indications from the customers. So, would it identify stuff under ground, at first, who cares. Worry about that when we get to it:

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Should I want to build it, I must first find a set of parameters provable every time. ...:

Hhhmmm, but even THAT would be "inconclusive" , according to any proponents/adherents. They would say your "parameters" were faulty. Or you "need more experience", or "other outside lunar/solar influences skewed that day's test", etc...... Thus your "set of parameters" (double-blind controls) would be totally inconclusive. Sorry.

 

[MRBeyer]

Ok, Tom, sell me on your business plan on researching and bringing to market a viable working product. I’m sure you have the experience to back up your claims. No quibbling. A serious effort worthy of shark tank or a federally regulated bank you must approach for funding. BTW Do you know what the term mature tech means?

 

[MRBeyer]

A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. In some contexts, it may also refer to technology that has not seen widespread use, but whose scientific background is well understood.


Now, what part of horoscope influences applies to this term?

 

[MRBeyer]

Interesting story. I was reading a research paper by two noted scientists about a mature but technologically bypassed process. I was struck by these scientists missing a key unintended result of their experiment they missed because they were too focused on proving their theory. I then had significant conversations with them regarding pursuing these findings further whereby they grasped and acknowledged my findings but in the mean time their interests had changed and they were heading in a different direction. Mature technology does not mean everything has been discovered, only that has its core principles are well established and recorded. There is a world of unique properties left to be explored and improved upon in the fine print of every discovery.

Don’t give up on a dream. Find a way to establish sound duplicatable conditions for your idea then seek the limits of provability. When you fall below duplicatable conditions, re-evaluate and re-engineer to improve. Then start the process again.

Remember, supposedly learned men once thought mankind could not travel faster than 35 mph or run faster than a 4 minute mile.

 

[DizzyDigger]

GOOD job there tom, you seem to have it all figured out. NOW all you need do is print a good solid book with hard back,
you know, go for broke and sell your ideas on ebay. Ought to make a killing off it.

I've looked carefully at your poorly taken images, and see nothing that would ever
make me think there was gold/silver/stuff at any particular spot.

Ya might consider cleaning that camera lens....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

MRByer: My post # 1250 was meant to be tongue in cheek. Ie.: wry humor. To show that some proponents of unconventional TH'ing methods will never conclude that perhaps their method/tool doesn't work. Instead, like to do tests that you alluded to doing: They will chalk up any lack of successs to other outside factors.

And once in awhile when it works (a light spot blotch on a photograph), THEN they will think : "Aha ! It worked !". While tossing out the other 99% of the times it didn't work. And without considering that perhaps it's just random eventual odds.

...Don’t give up on a dream. Find a way to establish sound duplicatable conditions for your idea then seek the limits of provability. When you fall below duplicatable conditions, re-evaluate and re-engineer to improve. Then start the process again....

Well, sure, this is true, IN-SO-FAR as an invention is possible, in the first place, to create. But is that a "given" premise in this case ?

.... Remember, supposedly learned men once thought mankind could not travel faster than 35 mph or run faster than a 4 minute mile.

But in those cases, it WAS "possible" to go faster than 35mph. And it WAS "possible" to break the 4-minute mile. But if something were impossible, then ........ no amount of "starting the process over" and "re-engineering" will change that. Some dreamy notions could violate the laws of physics. Some things can be impossibilities of contradictory logic. Like to " make a square circle" . Or to be a "married bachelor". In other words, not everything a person can dream up in their imagination, is necessarily possible to create, invent, or do.

And just because there were mistaken notions in history (heavier than air flight, etc...) does not mean that: "Therefore: Any and everything you can possibly imagine, is therefore necessarily possible going forward".

 

[MRBeyer]

Tom, you have still not posted a solution nor framework to postulate and verify a solution. I posted both, simply and succinctly. I used anecdote and offered hope. Please name the benefit you bring to the table. Otherwise you are one of those same learned men, specifying limits without embracing potential and the resulting change that comes with it.

 

[DizzyDigger]

I have always wondered about using intensive software processing of digital photography to overlay virtual filters so only precious metal or material light spectrum's show. There would be false positives but far less than a random search. It wouldn’t work for anything under the surface though. I’m thinking more useful in surface finds in a hot area or for mapping tailings and alluvial patterns for prospecting.
Not a find all, more like another tool in the tool box with a specialty application.

I can see the potential for a product like you describe, but unfortunately
the technology for such a device is still in our future.

It could be hand-held..like a smart phone on a handle. Screen towards the person,
and a digital sensor mapping out the area in front. Could be it displays the mineral
content for 10' wide area directly in front of the sensor. You wouldn't just find
that alluvial fan, but also the most concentrated areas in that fan. Add a program
that processes the data, and it'll give you an image with a "Dig Here" sign.

There may have a problem if the sensor is designed specifically for gold,
as gold is usually laying under the black sand or iron..both of which
will reflect (or absorb) a radiated signal. Have it locate the highest concentrations
of iron/ferrite and that's where you'll find your gold hanging out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, you have still not posted a solution nor framework to postulate and verify a solution. I posted both, simply and succinctly. I used anecdote and offered hope. Please name the benefit you bring to the table. Otherwise you are one of those same learned men, specifying limits without embracing potential and the resulting change that comes with it.

"Postulate a solution" ? Well, I'm the one who's doubting that such a device is possible, in the first place. So how could I "offer hope", and "solutions" ?

Example: Just as you could probably conclude that a piece of sliced toast can never be used to take photographs. No matter how much engineering you put into it. Unless you simply made the slice of toast to BE a camera. In which case it would no longer be a piece of "sliced toast". And no amount of postulating, embracing potential, etc... would change that

I would love to be an "engineer" and "inventor", .... and spend several years trying and trying, engineering and engineering, and starting over and starting over. In order to be qualified to enter the conversation. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps it's possible. If so, then just as I'm not an engineer, yet do quite well with metal detectors, then so too would I be the first to jump to buy a camera that sees and differentiates gold.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Even if a camera that sees and differentiates gold only worked above ground, I can see a slight possibility of benefit : I used to drive a vacuum truck sweeper doing shopping centers , night after night, year after year, when I was younger. And when 500 cars move out of a shopping mall or Kmart parking lot each day, then you'd be surprised at the stuff lying around . Of course, it's mostly all trash, cig. butts, leaves, etc.... But occasionally valuables that perhaps rolled under a car. Or bills blown up against the cyclone fences at the far ends of the lot, etc....

And since md'ing is my hobby, I'd developed an eagle eye to spot $$ (bills, coins) on the lot. And several times, I even found gold jewelry at night. It used to rile my fellow workers, when ... each month, I'd come in with yet another gold ring or bracelet or something. They would start to furiously keep their eyes open for any keeper jewelry like that, but .... never found any, haha.

Thus a camera, that could do an entire 15 to 30 acre parking lot, and *only* signal off of gold, *could* be a benefit in a case like that. Even though we'd be talking about objects above the ground. Because I could never actually spot something, unless I was walking or driving right past it.

And I heard of a fellow in Hawaii, in the honeymoon high-rise hotel districts (people world-wide go there to honeymoon, as you know), had made sport of the following tactic : He claimed that he would go to the parking lots of the honey-mooner area hotels. And ... when the sun was rising or setting *just right* (ie.: just the right angle on the horizon), that he could visually scan entire parking lots, and find loose diamonds. Because they glinted/reflected in a way that broken glass chips did not.

And go figure: The peak time that a stone might fall out of a ring, is when it's brand new (not properly set during manufacture, faulty crown that was holding it in, etc...). And since Hawaii is filled with people wearing their rings for the first time, then ... odds are.... there would be some loose diamonds to be found. And supposedly his system worked. Or ... so he claimed.

That too would be another example of where "above the ground" might still have an application, in the case of the current discussion. But when/if it comes to anything other than paved parking lots, I can not see a use for this UNLESS it worked on buried objects too. And for that to be true, it would have to emit some sort of gas or vapor that comes through to the surface.

This is a popular folklore in some 3rd world countries. Who are convinced that there are fumes that gold gives off. Such that, for example, they will claim that there are little blue flames or glows that emit from a hillside, if gold were buried in the distant. Or that if you opened a treasure chest, you would immediately die if you breathed the vapors, etc... I hope we can both agree this is un-informed superstition. Thus, so too, am I doubtful that there is any "fumes" that come off of gold (as if there were even a gap or tunnel or fissure, in the first place , from the object to the surface of the ground !)

 

[elh]

I've looked carefully at your poorly taken images, and see nothing that would ever
make me think there was gold/silver/stuff at any particular spot.

Ya might consider cleaning that camera lens....

Okay dizzy, it is all clean. Now go back and look at two of my posts which clearly mark exact spot of the buried items.
I know they are there because I buried them to practice on. It works for me but evidently does NOT work for naysayers.
Funny part is that some folks can never offer solutions but can sure spread the mud balls around, even though they don't really know for sure what will and what will not work because for some reason they seem to be extremely jealous of others that do the work.
Kind of like Mcdonalds burgers,--- have it your way --- and miss a lot of fun.