Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[KevGA]

Ever see a thread keep popping up in your "What's New" list and stare blankly at it wondering:

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[lesjcbs]

ive seen first hand many times LRL , dowsing , and digtal cameras used in scams to rip of investors ,,,and dont think that this B.S don't cost lives.... because where am at people will die digging to china in believing your orb stories ...

Yes, you are absolutely correct, people are dying off like flies, slapping a filter on just any old camera, then pointing and shooting.

I just wonder how many of your dead people did not first read the instructions on how to do this technique?

 

[lesjcbs]

I'm signing off for now.

The temperatures are to cold right now around here are too capture aura's.

I will return probably in April.

See ya.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If this is true:

The truth of this technique has already been published and used successfully by others than the author in this thread.....

Then this would be true :

.... Try being optimistic for once Tom, and new and wonderful things about the world around you will open up to you....

But the devil in the details definitions we have is: The "published" and "used successfully" quotes. If that can be any testimonials, and anecdotal grainy photographs, then SURE. But if we're talking double-blind scientific tests, then : It seems that even-you acknowledge that we have not crossed that bridge yet.

Because, as you said in # 1278 :

..... " I publicly said I personally do not have proof yet".....

And you go on to attribute your lack of proof to various challenges, not-doing-it right, need-for more practice, etc..... :

..... know when they are false orbs. So the challenge is to know the difference......

....I just wonder how many of your dead people did not first read the instructions on how to do this technique?

Or can it possibly be, that the method simply doesn't work ?

 

[A2coins]

wow and this goes on for how many pages

 

[Darke]

wow and this goes on for how many pages

88 too many. But I can't even count the amount of gold I've plucked out trees and the sky using this method.

But you know never once did I want my photos to have more flares. Well unless I was doing a Harry Potter style shoot for the kids. And Photoshop works much better for that.

 

[okiedowser]

88 too many. But I can't even count the amount of gold I've plucked out trees and the sky using this method.

But you know never once did I want my photos to have more flares. Well unless I was doing a Harry Potter style shoot for the kids. And Photoshop works much better for that.[/QUOTe
And Photoshop works much better for that.
Now y'all done it !!!! talk so much about ever body Photoshop on ever picture that put up, now you got google earth doing it ,my, my wish google earth would just leave them picture along.

 

[Ryano]

I'm signing off for now.

The temperatures are to cold right now around here are too capture aura's.

I thought that Infrared is used to capture auras ? Why is the temperature affecting the ability to see them ? An ice cube should be plainly visible in the infra-red spectrum, even outside in below-freezing temperature. All things emit infrared light above absolute-zero temperature.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Infrared_Light_5-8.html

The idea that cameras can be modified to perform as "x-ray devices" and "see" underground , or capture "auras" emitted by certain objects probably stems from a misunderstanding of the satellite tech and airborne camera systems that geologists use to perform mineral surveys that penetrate a foot or more into the earth. These cameras are not IR cameras but "hyperspectral" ... meaning they measure the single and double-digit nano wavelengths... they are essentially high powered-microwave guns that are measuring chemical signatures of certain elements instead of measuring heat energy like IR. The extremely narrow or short wavelength "light" energy allows it to travel through a certain density of soil and rock. Infrared and visible light has a much wider or longer wavelength that's blocked or absorbed before it can penetrate anything between it and the camera or detection device. Shorter wavelengths require higher energy.. its why a flashlight only requires a 700 milli-Amp triple A but an microwave oven requires 15-20 Amps.

If you guys can adapt this tech into a handheld or portable camera and prep it for practical use for the prospector, you might be famous.. but I wouldn't want to be waving a device like that near my private parts or cranium. Bad things are bound to happen !

 

[MRBeyer]

Without getting into the stimulated auras such as kirlian photography, what other processes or flaws can cause halos in photography. Mold, scratches, and contaminated lenses. Defective film or electronic substrate. These are repeatable for almost all shots. Once these are eliminated then incidental flaws must be eliminated such as dust, precipitation, etc. once all this is eliminated then is what is seen duplicatable and precise enough to use. After all this troubleshooting its time to become scientific. What color range produces the effect. Do different cameras of the same model or different models of the same technology or different technologies produce the same effect. Has atmospheric and soil variance been monitored to ascertain duplicatable results and outliers. What about background effects like electrostatic charges, lights, sounds, and ground sound and rf transduction been accounted for. What about soil ph, conductance, compaction, and inert vs biomass ratio.

This is not intended to dissuade anyone. But the overwhelming negativity is based in the inability to duplicate results. As someone who works in rf and magnetic fields I can understand, in detail, all the variables affecting metal detection so that I can better use my machine. How do you explain, with a new technology, how it detects what it detects when it detects it without being able to answer questions.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Without getting into the stimulated auras such as kirlian photography, what other processes or flaws can cause halos in photography. Mold, scratches, and contaminated lenses. Defective film or electronic substrate. These are repeatable for almost all shots. Once these are eliminated then incidental flaws must be eliminated such as dust, precipitation, etc. once all this is eliminated then is what is seen duplicatable and precise enough to use. After all this troubleshooting its time to become scientific. What color range produces the effect. Do different cameras of the same model or different models of the same technology or different technologies produce the same effect. Has atmospheric and soil variance been monitored to ascertain duplicatable results and outliers. What about background effects like electrostatic charges, lights, sounds, and ground sound and rf transduction been accounted for. What about soil ph, conductance, compaction, and inert vs biomass ratio.

This is not intended to dissuade anyone. But the overwhelming negativity is based in the inability to duplicate results. As someone who works in rf and magnetic fields I can understand, in detail, all the variables affecting metal detection so that I can better use my machine. How do you explain, with a new technology, how it detects what it detects when it detects it without being able to answer questions.

MRBeyer,

After reading all that you wrote here , I say that You're right : All these disturbances are "other" things that get in the way of having *only* the gold show up. Hence if we get rid (filter out) all those "other" things, then we are left with a picture that is only (ie.: distinguishable) "gold". Right ? Have I understood you correctly ?

If so, how is that any different that having a gold ring in a landscape photograph. Whether planted or un-planted. And we can all agree that a ton of other stuff in the picture mimics that color, glow, size, shape, etc.... Hence the same thing could be said: "If only we got rid of all those other things, then only the ring would be left".

Then isn't that like saying: "If all those other things weren't in the photograph, we wouldn't be having the problem". So if you just put a gold ring in an empty white-walled room, and took a picture of it, then SURE : All those other things wouldn't get photographed. And then ... sure, you'd have an easily distinguishable ring in your photograph.

The trouble is, you have to KNOW all those "other things that got in your way", in order to remove them (to have ended up with the blank white walled room) IN THE FIRST PLACE . In which case, gee, why not just walk over and pick up the gold ring, that you already knew wasn't those other items, in the first place ?

I realize you're saying that a camera can-be-made to electronically do that for us. And you say "Once these are eliminated". But that's just jumping ahead to the end conclusion, and assuming such a thing is possible, in the first place.

 

[XLV]

88 pages this worse then fake news just a waste of band space

 

[KISWANI]

HELLO DEAR.... ANY FURTHER INFO ABOUT THE PROJECT OF AURA ? i have some videos for way more than what you think,,, it is somehow the same subject but my camera can film and see real objects way under the ground with cavity or just a metal buried under the ground by the way your camera is real but you missed explaining the cause of seeing the IR remittance of each element and or compound, due to the emissivity of each.

i'll attach some videos to you guys that was filmed about 5 meters from above the ground ,,,the fact is we can't call this Aura.... but it is true

 

[KISWANI]

infrared EMISSIVITY is the name of Aura

Dear Jim i'm trying to send some videos to something similar to what they called it AURA in fact in science it has a different name i made some good home work regarding this issue ,,, it is true but not what was called,,,,,so it is simply the EMISSIVITY of infrared of each element or compound while the temperature is over zero K so any element immets it own infrared waves "not reflect only" so this is the principle of the passive FLIR cameras work just like Snakes they can see 0 lux no visible light at all,,, so what we are talking about is observing the infrared immeted in accordance to its emissivity level ...for example gold the emissivity is 0.015 @ 50 degrees celsius or more it is vary from polished shiny smooth surface while tree roots at the same temperature 0.95 so we can see the gold glowing with the special modified Ir camera and the tree roots opaque... personally i made many tests on observing metals and objects under the ground by using simple infrared modified camera adjusted lens to near microscopic magnification the result is unbelievable ,, seeing underground cavity and animals metals roots as emazing ,,then you will get the conclusion that it is true but this time even furthermore than what was thought to be AURA....with all respect to the believers of Aura let us see some videos that i have

khaled

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... let us see some videos that i have ....

Would love to see your videos, showing that you can discern gold (versus other types metal) under solid ground, with a video camera.

And to be totally fair, would love to see it done under a double-blind test, where someone you don't know, has buried multiple items in a random field, and you were blindfolded (cloistered away in a shut room) during the field-preparation state. Then you come out, and show how the camera finds the gold. Ok ?

 

[tsak]

hi . this is the first time i'm writting in this forum . i was so excited when i first read this thread , and this excitment made me also believe it. but after six months of tests at two test fields all i have to say is that this project about using digital cameras is a complete waste of time and money. i did exactly everything that the book says , with all the equipment and the result was a big zero . i've tested everything at those two test fields for about 6 months and all i got was nothing but beautiful infrared pictures with light balls that had nothing to do with the target's spot but with the reflections of the light. i'm sorry guys but we are not going to get rich using just a camera .

 

[lesjcbs]

hi . this is the first time i'm writting in this forum . i was so excited when i first read this thread , and this excitment made me also believe it. but after six months of tests at two test fields all i have to say is that this project about using digital cameras is a complete waste of time and money. i did exactly everything that the book says , with all the equipment and the result was a big zero . i've tested everything at those two test fields for about 6 months and all i got was nothing but beautiful infrared pictures with light balls that had nothing to do with the target's spot but with the reflections of the light. i'm sorry guys but we are not going to get rich using just a camera .

A question for you:

What camera brand and model did you use?

 

[tsak]

Canon rebel xt with cokin filter.

 

[lesjcbs]

Canon rebel xt with cokin filter.

What nanometer Cokin filter?

 

[Huntster54]

Without getting into the stimulated auras such as kirlian photography, what other processes or flaws can cause halos in photography. Mold, scratches, and contaminated lenses. Defective film or electronic substrate. These are repeatable for almost all shots. Once these are eliminated then incidental flaws must be eliminated such as dust, precipitation, etc. once all this is eliminated then is what is seen duplicatable and precise enough to use. After all this troubleshooting its time to become scientific. What color range produces the effect. Do different cameras of the same model or different models of the same technology or different technologies produce the same effect. Has atmospheric and soil variance been monitored to ascertain duplicatable results and outliers. What about background effects like electrostatic charges, lights, sounds, and ground sound and rf transduction been accounted for. What about soil ph, conductance, compaction, and inert vs biomass ratio.

This is not intended to dissuade anyone. But the overwhelming negativity is based in the inability to duplicate results. As someone who works in rf and magnetic fields I can understand, in detail, all the variables affecting metal detection so that I can better use my machine. How do you explain, with a new technology, how it detects what it detects when it detects it without being able to answer questions.

Well, haven't logged in since 2017, but recently retired and looking forward to free time to get back to TH'ing. That said, saw the beginning of this thread and after reading more than a few pages, I knew where it was going and skipped to the end. Sure enough, the topic was basically debunked, maybe even rightly so.

You work the in the magnetic/rf fields and recognize images. I work as a professional photographer and what I saw in the OP photos were very much like internal lens element flares and artifacts. It is a known fact that at certain focal lengths, exposure and zoom ratios that internal lens artifacts can be detected. Any amount of light and be causing reflections throughout the lens structure. Processing digitally can also magnify these artifacts. Not even considering that at the proper zoom and lens sizes one can totally duplicate the 'haunted orbs' that float through the frame seemingly against gravity. What can be done is to change focus, or any other setting and the orbs will go away. They almost always are microscopic specs of dust that blur and magnify under lighting conditions and lens. Dust that size has almost no weight and can move on different layers of air warm and cold which always fluctuates in a room or area. I can get the same results any time shooting through insects.

Basically, what I'm seeing in those op shots to me were lens artifacts and with IR filters this is immensely magnified the effects.

I've always been open minded, but also a realist.
I intend to catch back up with this site and am glad it still has a great following.
Take care and good luck to all.

 

[Carl-NC]

Basically, what I'm seeing in those op shots to me were lens artifacts and with IR filters this is immensely magnified the effects.

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.