Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[lesjcbs]

This is what skeptics have said for years, but it's good to get another confirmation of this, especially from a professional photographer. Won't change the minds of the True Believers, tho.

For centuries the skeptics in their ignorance said: It is impossible for a machine heavier than a covered wagon with a horse pulling to be able to lift into the air and fly like a bird.

I might have something next week for you to look at. So stay tuned.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Huntster54]

This is what skeptics have said for years, but it's good to get another confirmation of this, especially from a professional photographer. Won't change the minds of the True Believers, tho.

I'm also open minded enough to not totally disregard theories, experiences and perceived images. Part of me does feel there are energies we haven't touched on and have abilities in our own minds that we haven't begun to discover.
These things are difficult to document or provide repeatable data. With the orbs I see a technical issue that I can replicate at will in at least a few ways. That's technical things I can show with physical results.

If I photograph what looks like a being, I have nothing to go on as it may never appear again. Orbs, I can make happen. There's a jillion utubes of them. Could there be something there? I don't see why not. Just not with those circumstances.

There was too much over processing of this technique to me to be of value. Anywhere along the different things he had to do could introduce artifacts and auras. I'm not going to discredit or blow off the concept. But it needs work and less user manipulation.

Sure not trying to change minds, just adding another observation to the idea.

 

[L.C. BAKER]

"The finest gift you can give anyone is an encouragement. Yet, almost no one gets the encouragement they need to grow to their full potential. If everyone received the encouragement they need to grow, the genius in most everyone would blossom and the world would produce abundance beyond the wildest dreams. We would have more than one Einstein, Edison, Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, Dr. Salk and other great minds in a century." »Sidney Madwed

If they ALL get trophies it creates an illusion that brings them great hardship after reality sets in on some of them. This opens a floodgate of depression that can lead to drug addiction and suicidal thoughts later in life and a general snowball effect of morality and self-discipline and personal achievement. They grow up not being able to accept defeat or failure or the ability to adapt adjust and overcome circumstances beyond their control. and we get HEADLINES,HEADLINES,HEADLINES and film on the 10 oclock news, But what the do I know?
Just my two cents.

As far as the aura camera theory/facts? go, the Missourian in me says "show me." I always try to keep an open mind to new things even though my lip slips occaisionally.

 

[tsak]

What nanometer Cokin filter?

cokin p-series p007 infrared 720 (89b)

 

[tsak]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone and i don't want to hear about beliefs etc. we don't discuss about God here . we talk about a practical thing here that has two ways , either this technique is working and by using it someone can find buried gold or it's not working. it's that simple. because i've tested it in a test filed and only found orbs and bubbles in the pictures so far.

 

[lesjcbs]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone and i don't want to hear about beliefs etc. we don't discuss about God here . we talk about a practical thing here that has two ways , either this technique is working and by using it someone can find buried gold or it's not working. it's that simple. because i've tested it in a test filed and only found orbs and bubbles in the pictures so far.

Yes there are posts in this thread showing finds using this technique. You will need to go through each page to find them. Of course, the skeptics dismissed them all as lies.

What are your targets made of and how much / size?

 

[tsak]

Yes there are posts in this thread showing finds using this technique. You will need to go through each page to find them. Of course, the skeptics dismissed them all as lies.

What are your targets made of and how much / size?

i'm talking about 10 pieces of turkish gold coins in two holes each with 150 ft distance between them and 1,5 m depth. my grandfather buried them 25 years before with my father.

 

[lesjcbs]

i'm talking about 10 pieces of turkish gold coins in two holes each with 150 ft distance between them and 1,5 m depth. my grandfather buried them 25 years before with my father.

There is such a thing as your practice target being buried too deep for its size to detect. If you emailed Midus and asked, I would not be surprised if he said your tiny coins are buried too deep. 1.5M = 4.9 feet.


Most outlaw treasures are buried no more than 1 meter (3.2 feet) deep and that is the bottom of the hole and about the length of a man's arm. Furthermore, they would bury large quantities, not just a few coins.

So, as they put the loot into the hole, it would fill up the hole to where the top of the treasure would be much closer to the surface, maybe a 12 " or so from the surface.

Does this sense to you?

Email Midas to clarify.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A question for you:

What camera brand and model did you use?

Tsak: As you can probably surmise : Your experiments and trials (which were done with an un-biased hope/belief) will never be conclusive to allow for "It doesn't work" conclusion.

Instead, the lack-of-workability will be: Wrong type camera, wrong type lense, need more practice, etc....

It's never that it doesn't work.

The wonderful thing about this push-back is: It never ends. If you try it for 6 months, then you should have tried a year. If you tried for a year, then you should have tried 2 yrs. If you tried this camera, then you should have tried that camera. Blah blah blah. And so-on till infinity. It's never that it simply doesn't work.

 

[lesjcbs]

Tsak: As you can probably surmise : Your experiments and trials (which were done with an un-biased hope/belief) will never be conclusive to allow for "It doesn't work" conclusion.

Instead, the lack-of-workability will be: Wrong type camera, wrong type lense, need more practice, etc....

It's never that it doesn't work.

The wonderful thing about this push-back is: It never ends. If you try it for 6 months, then you should have tried a year. If you tried for a year, then you should have tried 2 yrs. If you tried this camera, then you should have tried that camera. Blah blah blah. And so-on till infinity. It's never that it simply doesn't work.

No push back, just reality. Want to prove it doesn't work, bury the target so deep nothing can sense it then say: see it does not work. This kind of thing goes on all the time with tests in so called science. Why not tell him to bury them down to 10, 20, 50 or more feet, then when it is not detected say: see it does not work. What a joke.

Well, the bottom line here is with that tiny target at that depth, you are finally right about something, it DOES NOT WORK. Congrats.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No push back, just reality. Want to prove it doesn't work, bury the target so deep nothing can sense it then say: see it does not work. This kind of thing goes on all the time with tests in so called science. Why not tell him to bury them down to 10, 20, 50 or more feet, then when it is not detected say: see it does not work. What a joke.

Well, the bottom line here is with that tiny target at that depth, you are finally right about something, it DOES NOT WORK. Congrats.

Les-jcbs , I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

Let's say the question was about whether metal detectors work or not. I am the first to agree that you bury that coin 10 ft. deep, then yes: You will not get a beep. But that doesn't mean, for a moment, that "detectors don't work". Right ? Because obviously I can do a repeatable double-blind experiment and show that it works quite well at 5 inches. No matter who swings the coil, no matter how much practice they have, no matter what sun or moon phases are present, etc..... If you swing the coil 100 times over a 5" deep target, it will beep 100 times.

But in the case of "cameras seeing gold", this same logic can not be applied. Because there is no repeatable double-blind proof. Anything that attempts to be shown, is just random chance anecdotal blotches and blurs. And if someone (like tsak) ever tries to show "it didn't work", they will be told they weren't doing it right, should have used a different camera or film, needed more years practice, etc....

 

[lesjcbs]

Les-jcbs , I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

Let's say the question was about whether metal detectors work or not. I am the first to agree that you bury that coin 10 ft. deep, then yes: You will not get a beep. But that doesn't mean, for a moment, that "detectors don't work". Right ? Because obviously I can do a repeatable double-blind experiment and show that it works quite well at 5 inches. No matter who swings the coil, no matter how much practice they have, no matter what sun or moon phases are present, etc..... If you swing the coil 100 times over a 5" deep target, it will beep 100 times.

But in the case of "cameras seeing gold", this same logic can not be applied. Because there is no repeatable double-blind proof. Anything that attempts to be shown, is just random chance anecdotal blotches and blurs. And if someone (like tsak) ever tries to show "it didn't work", they will be told they weren't doing it right, should have used a different camera or film, needed more years practice, etc....

Tom, you know exactly what I am saying. It would actually be someone like you who would bury a small target so deep no detector or IR configuration would detect it so you could say
"See it does not work."

It's for that very reason I would not do a double blinded test for you. In the mean time, you will just have to wonder in the back of your mind if it actually works. It's working validity does not depend on your opinion.

 

[boogeyman]

I'm also open minded enough to not totally disregard theories, experiences and perceived images. Part of me does feel there are energies we haven't touched on and have abilities in our own minds that we haven't begun to discover.
These things are difficult to document or provide repeatable data. With the orbs I see a technical issue that I can replicate at will in at least a few ways. That's technical things I can show with physical results.

If I photograph what looks like a being, I have nothing to go on as it may never appear again. Orbs, I can make happen. There's a jillion utubes of them. Could there be something there? I don't see why not. Just not with those circumstances.

There was too much over processing of this technique to me to be of value. Anywhere along the different things he had to do could introduce artifacts and auras. I'm not going to discredit or blow off the concept. But it needs work and less user manipulation.

Sure not trying to change minds, just adding another observation to the idea.

I'm also open minded enough to not totally disregard theories, experiences and perceived images. Part of me does feel there are energies we haven't touched on and have abilities in our own minds that we haven't begun to discover.
These things are difficult to document or provide repeatable data. With the orbs I see a technical issue that I can replicate at will in at least a few ways. That's technical things I can show with physical results.

If I photograph what looks like a being, I have nothing to go on as it may never appear again. Orbs, I can make happen. There's a jillion utubes of them. Could there be something there? I don't see why not. Just not with those circumstances.

There was too much over processing of this technique to me to be of value. Anywhere along the different things he had to do could introduce artifacts and auras. I'm not going to discredit or blow off the concept. But it needs work and less user manipulation.

Sure not trying to change minds, just adding another observation to the idea.

Good observation. I'm using Davids technique but with a modded camera. By modding I'm saying removing the filter from the camera before stacking the filters on to remove all the post processing. Quit posting much when Tom er ah Sheldon started his tantrums. I've stared at a lot of security cameras for a lot of years (almost 20) so when I watch the ghost shows it's like old re-runs. You sit there going beetle, moth about 3' from the camera. Wow! nice fingerprint. If you're really interested put Tom in Ca on ignore to save having to wade through his debate junk, and read. If you look, I posted instructions from another source to mod your camera. I've also posted the address for the company that will mod your camera for you if you have big fat shaky fingers like I do. How will you know unless you do your own experiments which it sounds like you have. Once you start messing with this it gets more interesting. A newer updated example. Blackholes. We know they're there but we can't see them so are they real?? Lo & behold! we got pictures of one so I guess all those Sheldons were wrong? There's another gent here working with orbs. Haven't had enough time to really try his technique, but it eliminates all the post processing.

Aannnnnndd here comes Sheldon! (wild applause from the audience, all three) Again Sheldon why doesn't it work? Show me why. Then we got something to talk about.

 

[lesjcbs]

Good observation. I'm using Davids technique but with a modded camera. By modding I'm saying removing the filter from the camera before stacking the filters on to remove all the post processing. Quit posting much when Tom er ah Sheldon started his tantrums. I've stared at a lot of security cameras for a lot of years (almost 20) so when I watch the ghost shows it's like old re-runs. You sit there going beetle, moth about 3' from the camera. Wow! nice fingerprint. If you're really interested put Tom in Ca on ignore to save having to wade through his debate junk, and read. If you look, I posted instructions from another source to mod your camera. I've also posted the address for the company that will mod your camera for you if you have big fat shaky fingers like I do. How will you know unless you do your own experiments which it sounds like you have. Once you start messing with this it gets more interesting. A newer updated example. Blackholes. We know they're there but we can't see them so are they real?? Lo & behold! we got pictures of one so I guess all those Sheldons were wrong? There's another gent here working with orbs. Haven't had enough time to really try his technique, but it eliminates all the post processing.

Aannnnnndd here comes Sheldon! (wild applause from the audience, all three) Again Sheldon why doesn't it work? Show me why. Then we got something to talk about.

I know Dave says do not remove the camera internal filter, but since you did and are using it with an external filter only, does it work better for you?

Yes, I have five (5) different targets at different depths I use for this technique and I do tons of experiments to see how it works. Two are in my yard, and three out in the desert around here.

I don't mind interacting and debating with Tom of CA. In fact I kind of enjoy it. I really think he is faking statements and has nothing better to do at the moment. After all, who operates a metal detector and is so lacking in knowledge to say and ask some of the things he brings up?

 

[boogeyman]

I think so. With that being said, I haven't really put enough time into it to say honestly yes or no. Hopefully now I'm fully retired I'll have more time to experiment more. Who ever said you got more time to accomplish things after retirement didn't know what they were talking about! I was given a lens / filter by a greens man at a golf course who uses them to spot areas of grass and hedge that are "sick" and, you can see spots that look normal to the naked eye but are messed up looking with the lens. The spots he demoed for me looked OK on the surface, but when he cut a wedge the roots had what looked like mold on them. The couple times I've messed with this lens I've had to shoot a couple frames with a marker then shoot a couple more and move the marker sort of like pin pointing. One thing I've noticed is if you bury a sample or coin and photograph it a few days later the aura isn't as strong as items that have been buried a year or longer. Not sure if it is due to corrosion or a chemical reaction with the soil. Since gold doesn't corrode it kinda blows that theory out of the water. My old test bed is under a new shed so I'll have to wait for the new one to age some. I'll post more as soon as I can mickey mouse a filter holder for this lens. HINT - Never throw out anything round & tubular! If you have a big enough junk pile you can adapt anything.

As far as adapting or modding a camera. The reason I recommended sending it to the shop is they tweek the focus. I didn't know at the time when you remove the filter the focus is off just enough to make the photos a little fuzzy or hazy. You only see it when you compare photos side by side. The second thing is if you've got fat shaky fingers like me those screws are tiny & extremely easy to cross thread!! If things go sideways, they pay for it not you.

HINT #2 - When working on a camera or other device with tiny screws or springs and you lose one on the floor or carpet get a pair of ladies stockings. Place one over the end of a shop vac hose. Vacuum the area, remove the stocking & the screw should be inside. Less time & less head banging on the bottom of tables or workbenches.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, you know exactly what I am saying. It would actually be someone like you who would bury a small target so deep no detector or IR configuration would detect it so you could say
"See it does not work." ... ..

Yes. And just as in a metal detector example: I acknowledged that this is not fair to say "it doesn't work" when a test is done that's beyond the contraption's stated abilities. We agree.

Ok, fine , then show that it works at ANY depth. That can't be chalked up to random eventual chances (blotches, blurs, naturally occurring eventual orbs or streaks, etc.... ). If it can be shown to repeatable @ double blind tests, at stated/claimed depths/abilities: Then the world will beat a path to your door.

..... Again Sheldon why doesn't it work? Show me why.....

It is not up to the skeptic to show it *doesn't* work. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to show that it works. Not vice-versa.

And you know full well that anyone who DID try to show "proof that it doesn't work", will simply be told "you weren't doing it right", or "You need more practice". Right ?

 

[lesjcbs]

Yes. And just as in a metal detector example: I acknowledged that this is not fair to say "it doesn't work" when a test is done that's beyond the contraption's stated abilities. We agree.

Ok, fine , then show that it works at ANY depth. That can't be chalked up to random eventual chances (blotches, blurs, naturally occurring eventual orbs or streaks, etc.... ). If it can be shown to repeatable @ double blind tests, at stated/claimed depths/abilities: Then the world will beat a path to your door.



It is not up to the skeptic to show it *doesn't* work. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to show that it works. Not vice-versa.

And you know full well that anyone who DID try to show "proof that it doesn't work", will simply be told "you weren't doing it right", or "You need more practice". Right ?

That claim would be correct if it was not done right like in this case, too little too deep.

You want to rule out orbs, blotches (stains), streaks, etc. Ridiculous. If you have practiced enough, you will know when you are on a target. Without them would be like using a metal detector that has no beep, no vibration, no light etc to it that tells you it detects metal. Heck, might as well not even have a battery in it either. No Tom, as much as you may like to, you do not dictate parameters for this technique.

 

[Huntster54]

@ryano.
Also, people tend to sometimes confuse infrared or Ir waves with ultraviolet waves, or Uv waves. Humans basically can't see either. But almost all digital cameras today can see Ir, and perhaps Uv depending on filters I believe.
But you can put any phone with a camera on and aim a remote at it and you can see the led signals. This is a free way to check if your remote is working. Also handy to use your camera or camera phone to check out hotel rooms in the dark using hidden night cams in the room. Actually, you may see cameras show up in the dim daylight as well. You will not see a camera image, but just the light from the led lighting mounted on the cam.

Although there are devices today that can pick up video broadcast signals or rf signals as well as wifi and show the actual camera image being recorded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

 

[Huntster54]

Yes there are posts in this thread showing finds using this technique. You will need to go through each page to find them. Of course, the skeptics dismissed them all as lies.

No, I don't believe anyone on this board dismissed any of the OP posts or ideas as lies. Many have expressed interest and also would like for something like this to work and others have shown what else the results may be.
I have seen no one accuse this member of lying.
I'm sorry if someone accused you of lying about your dowsing. I haven't read that on these forums either.

I wouldn't say your dowsing doesn't work. There's a lot of reasons why it might. But the human body biometrics is a mind boggling mix fluid dynamics, electronics, mechanical and structural physics, frequencies and vibrations that to put dowsing use to just a few parameters wouldn't do it justice.
If you go to a place of power, as Indian tribes know of, you could/would feel the hum of granite that surrounds you. Why? Is it magnetic, electronic, frequencies we are experiencing? I've purposely hiked people through areas of so called power, just a short distance through it and almost every one, just about every time will later when I ask them if at some point they felt tired had said they felt weird or sick through the area I walked them. Too many randomly and unknown felt something odd they never felt before. Too many times to say it's coincidence. Like your dowsing, you've found things more often than not to dismiss the system. So you believe it works from experience. But if the city called you up to find something in a vast field that they know where it is but you don't, would you be able to say for absolute certainly you will locate it? I don't think you honestly can. But that does not mean dowsing doesn't work.
Too many parameters in dowsing to blow it off or conclusively say it works. If someone finds water or metal, good on them. For whatever way it worked for them.

But using photography, there are only so many parameters in the equation, and If I can produce the same looking orbs and bubbles elsewhere in numerous situations including the grassy knoll, then I would say that these artifacts may not be a dependable indicator for verifying underground targets. I did not say they won't, and that someone is lying by trying.

 

[Huntster54]

and a simple question for all the believers . is anyone here that used a photocamera and found anything? is there anyone and i don't want to hear about beliefs etc. we don't discuss about God here . we talk about a practical thing here that has two ways , either this technique is working and by using it someone can find buried gold or it's not working. it's that simple. because i've tested it in a test filed and only found orbs and bubbles in the pictures so far.

Tsak. The reason why i question including the orbs and bubbles in the discovery of your target is orbs and bubbles are a natural artifact of the modern lens elements as well as even telescopes. What isn't a natural artifact of any round lens elements is different color free shaped streaking and hues in layers. Also, like the bogeyman said, some ir.uv filters can see different temps of grass or plants, when sick have different temps perhaps, so they show up in streaks of different colors. Who's to say you aren't seeing sick earth or temp differences. Would bits or chunks of metal cool off the ground above it? Possibly. This could also aid finding something not of the surrounding soil.

The only things close to a repeatable different artifact that would preclude it as well as an indicator of target response would be the horizontal and vertical flares from the digital ic sensor used to collect light. This happens with too much light overpowering the sensor. Your cameras job is designed for picking up light waves of different values.

The thing here is to find the target where you don't know the area. Photographing a known spot and then attributing images to that find would likely would not be conclusive. Have you been anywhere in unknown, un-searched field, saw all those same things and then dug up something of metal origin?

Here's another thing I just thought right now. If you are looking at the digital image of the orbs and bubbles, can you actually accurately know where in that image they are located? Are they 3 inches from the lens? Are they 10 feet.
And how would you gauge this dependably. Another wrinkle in the theory. It is far too easy to fool the human eye and mind in a photograph. Always has been. Even before computers.

Keep an open mind.