Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[hung]

Just a note...am in Denver area today, decided to do quick test of my garden(silver only buried 8 days). Temp about 94F, no clouds, so I shoot with the Canon 350D and 2 lenses(kit and Tamron 17-35). The results are so radically different...bewilderingly so! The results from the Tamron are so spectacular I will not post until I go back and retake everything at different angle, time of day, etc. I could see the aura after the 2 sec. post-shutter LCD image. When enhanced on the Arcsoft its just unbelievable-so back I go tomorrow for more testing. The kit lense produces a blue mist, but some of the plants turn blue also-very confusing...why the radical, and I mean RADICAL, difference from just the lenses? I don't get it for right now, will be back in 3 weeks or so...Sitsi

Hi Sitsi,
Did yo also get the silver aura as blue? This is odd. In David's pictures, silver aura appears as orange, and he even states that it differs from the redish look for gold.
You are using the same camera, the Cannon 350d, but a different set of filters. His is Cokin, yours Tamron.
Looking forward to see the pictures.
In my Sony cybershot, CCD type, gold appears as blueish green. But this is with a raw developed film layer. I don't find a cokin filter around here. There are people selling 720nm filters claiming as IR Xray filters. Don't know if it's the same.
Anyway, I found that the Arcsoft is the best and ideal editing program to use. Maybe their algorithms make a difference. I am studying a way of applying their algorithms in a real time filtered view so you get an image trough lenses 'in loco'.
Keep posting.
Regards.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[rabbit]

Just a note...am in Denver area today, decided to do quick test of my garden(silver only buried 8 days). Temp about 94F, no clouds, so I shoot with the Canon 350D and 2 lenses(kit and Tamron 17-35). The results are so radically different...bewilderingly so! The results from the Tamron are so spectacular I will not post until I go back and retake everything at different angle, time of day, etc. I could see the aura after the 2 sec. post-shutter LCD image. When enhanced on the Arcsoft its just unbelievable-so back I go tomorrow for more testing. The kit lense produces a blue mist, but some of the plants turn blue also-very confusing...why the radical, and I mean RADICAL, difference from just the lenses? I don't get it for right now, will be back in 3 weeks or so...Sitsi

sitsi
I have taken a lot more pictrues with a greater amount of combinations of the 720nm,760nm,850nm,950nm, and 1000nm ir filters, with the nikon D200, with out anything. It must be the hot mirror that is still in tack causing the problem. If there is a test that you would like me to do let me know.

rabbit

 

[montecristo]

THIS IS A PICTURE OF MY FRIENDS KID HE TOOK WITH A CAMERA PHONE. NOTICE THE IMAGE BEHIND THE GIRL I TOLD HIM TO LOOK INTO THE WALL IT REMINDED ME OF THE POLOROID PICTURE. BUT HE IS SCARED

BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SEES IN THE PICTURE.

 

[Hardscrabble]

Orbs...

I do not have a lot of photography expertise, but have participated in a few ghost hunts. In the vast majority of cases orbs are produced by dust, bugs, or suspended water droplets caught in/outside (not sure which) of a cameras focal length. All orb pictures I've seen have been produced with a flash and usually in low light conditions.

Some claim a paranormal connection with orbs. I have taken a couple of pictures that do defy the focal length explanation. One orb was so blue it amazed me. However, I also think the flash in a camera enery waves within certain sections of the spectrum that "excite" globs or spheres of gases in the atmosphere - similar in principal to flourescent lights - creating orbs. My theory here.

Or, they can be the energy traces of long-dead Jesuits, prospectors, outlaws, or your grandma out to show you where the loot is buried.

Just my take on orbs.

 

[Treasure finder]

I thought I would rerun this picture that I took in New Mexico a few years back.
The Green flash is directly over a copper mine. I don't know how to crop the
picture, but interesting neverthe less. Picture taken on a Nikon L1 pocket digital
with no filters, auto exposure. I wasn't expecting anything, but here it is.
Rich

 

[olepossum]

i call bull crap BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP JUST LIKE A LRL NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE THING WITH A LRL NOTHING BUT EXCUSES THEY CANY EVEN COME WITH WITH A VIDEO SHOT WITH TIME AND DATE ON IT FOR PROOF AND AGAIN I CALL BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP BULLCRAP

 

[olepossum]

and i will keep calling bull crap untill some one uses a lrl or digital camera to produce a site and video tape it on a camcorder that has time and date on so you cant stop in between time and salt the dig site with hard proof that those two hoaxs are proven right BULLCRAP

 

[10claw]

well, i guess you want some bullcrap on your grave huh? that's all you will ever have or see as long as you have that attitude. just take your time and die happy.

 

[Hardscrabble]

Treasure Finder... did you ever have the picture analyzed? I'd like to learn more since it is an interesting shot, especially with a mine being (coincidentally?) there.

 

[10claw]

hardscrabble, go back to pic # 336 and you will see a similar spot on a cave wall. that cave was used by the japanese in ww 2.

 

[Hardscrabble]

tenclaw...

I looked at the pic on #336. It appears to me to be more of an orb. To me, the other pic looks like a flash or bulbous streak of self illuminated green. It caught my attention since it seems to be in scale. In other words, actually in the distance - though that could just be a mistake of the eye.

On #336... I've seen many, many orbs of all sizes, colors, textures, etc. in paranormal photographs. I've taken dozens of them myself. Most are dust, water droplets, bugs, etc. caught by the flash within the focal length of the camera (but a lot of folks out there think all orbs are spirits, etc.).

 

[Treasure finder]

Hardscrabble,
No I didn't have the picture analyzed by anyone but you guys. I wouldn't know who
to go to for analysis and expect there would be a bunch of opinions pro and con from
experts also. I make no claim of any sort, though I have shot lots of photos with SX-70
polaroids hoping to come up with something. SX-70 pictures will frequently show streaks
or orbs if the roller are dirty or have dried developing paste on them which happens a lot.
I have taken lots of pictures with the SX-70 over mines and know micron deposits and
have never gotten anything that you could take to the bank. I have also taken lots of
pictures with Kodak infrared film (color and black and white) and haven't seen anything
of use there either, though I have seen Infrared pictures taken by others showing blue
or purple haze over supposed gold deposits. I wasn't able to personally verify any of
those locations. If it works at all, I believe it sometimes shows up, but not always, that
is maybe why results are inconclusive.
This green flash was totally surprising to me as I wasn't expecting anything, I was just
documenting where I was.
Keep searching, Rich

c

 

[AUDIOSWAMP]

WHY NOT USE A I/R SECURITY CAMERA ? I HAVE ONE THAT WAS MADE INTO A PORTABLE 12 VOLT SYSTEM !! I WILL SEE IF IT WORKS !! IT IS MADE TO SEE I/R ONLY AND SHOULD WORK BETTER IF THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON !!!

 

[Treasure finder]

Hi Audioswamp,
As far as using a specialized IR camera, if you use an IR video camera check
and see what part of the spectrum it is picking up. Most cameras will pick up
from 400 nanometers to around 700 nanometers. Below 400 nanometers glass
blocks the spectrum and above 700 nanometers film is not sensitive. In a digital
camera there are filters to block the infrared besides it being much dimmer in
light output. If you use a R72 filter on a digital camera and up the exposure,
you will block out the spectrum from 400-720 nanometers and esentially have
an infrared only camera like your video camera. Incidentally Kodak Infrared film
is sensitive to visible light plus infrared from 700 to 900 nanometers. Also,
according to Kodak, 700-900 nanometers won't show heat, you need to go
much further into the spectrum and have a cooled camera or the whole camera
will make the whole image glow. I think the advantage to a IR video camera
is that it probably is more sensitive and maybe the contrast is different also.
Let us know what you find out.
Rich

 

[Gold_Striker]

if this was covered before forgive me.

what are the thermal properties of gold. Is there a way to light up gold with radiation say at night and would the gold absorb that radiation and hold it better than the ground around it ? One could use thermal imaging and see the results and hopefully see the precious metals and other valuable in the ground.

 

[Treasure finder]

HI Gold_Striker
I believe all metals would pick up the surrounding ground temperature at
different rates and cool at different rates. Therefore I believe with a thermal
imaging camera you may see buried metals as the ground is heating or cooling
depending on how deep they are buried. But I also believe in that part of the
IR spectrum your imaging camera would be pretty expensive. In other words,
a common digital camera wouldn't pick up that far into the IR. I also believe
that some other factor is responsible for the occasional orbs, flashes or odd
effects sometimes seen over precious metal. Let us know if you get to try out
a IR imaging camera.
In many Central American countries there is a strong belief in seeing "Treasure
Lights" over treasure, and that is with the naked eye. More experimentation has
to be done yet.
Rich

 

[Hardscrabble]

gold striker...

Gold is very dense, so I would assume it would retain thermal energy for a longer period. I would also think that a big chunk of it near the surface (if enough heat has been absorbed), would show up on a thermal image. But, I am certainly not an expert on the subject. The difference could be so slight as to not get picked up.

I've read somewhere on TNet that some sort of outgassing or nuclear breakdown happens and that it shows up in digital pictures. That sounds sort of far fetched to me. Somebody within the forum should be able to better answer your question.

 

[okantex]

Who delete sitsi's mails , is there anybody who remembers the filters he uses.

 

[GUESS-WHO]

After reading this entire thread several times, I have come to a conclusion.

Many folks are asking questions simply to pick apart the theory and the practice. Many of you drive automobiles, but most of you cannot explain the way a car's engine works on the mechanical level. Most people put gas in once a week and oil in once a year and go. Instead of arguing how many spirits can dance on the head of a pin, pull out your digital cameras and test the questions you're asking. The man is trying to help YOU for God's sake. If you don't belive him, don't. If you do, then great - get out there and find buried metal and make yourself rich.

I for one, believe it. I also believe there needs to be certain prerequisites for buried metals to be found. You can't just shot some pics out your back door and find Ft. Knox (unless of course, you live on the backside of the base!) In application, you're using a UV filter. I've done a bit of research on the internet (I know, because everything you read on the internet is true) and it sounds like what we're looking for and what we're wanting to find is the halo of the UV reflection. I visualize it not unlike wearing a pair of sunglasses on a bright, sunny day and seeing the sun reflected off the windshield of a car. The sunglasses filterout all but the most powerful glare of the sun, and in somecases, you can even see the outline of the sun (not recommended!) With a UV filter attached and a photograph taken, you're looking for the reflection (that you cannot see with the naked eye) off of the gold or silver or whatever. Yes, it needs to be in the middle of the day when the UV is most intense (1000-1500.) UV radiation can penetrate soil to a depth of about 1-3 inches. I can reasonable assume that if the soil has been disturbed then it is not as dense thus it would penetrate deeper.

I for one, will be looking into this further and doing my own tests. If it doenst work, then it doesnt. But if it does, then I intend to find out for myself. Good luck everyone and again, do your own tests!

Well put Airborne! I'm on the fence with this one, but I completely agree with you that it would be better to give it a try than spend a lot of time debating it here.

 

[GUESS-WHO]

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. To forestall a line of silly posts regarding my basic intelligence, reasoning, or whatever, I was associated with MENSA, with a certified variable IQ of 140 -160. Binet, I am a duly elected member of the elite Explorers club, and a certified Tropical Tramp, I.E. Treasure Hunting Bum.

www.Explorers.org
[/quote]

Well put Don Jose de La Mancha! 8.000+ posts by one member, all negative! He seems to be in the wrong forum.