Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[Huntster54]

@jcc

You and me both. Ever work for law enforcement? Morgue shots and accidents? It's the worst ever. I'll take a bat mitzva full of screaming brats any day.
On the pictures around pages 83-85 ish, I see classic mutl element lens flare and spot relfects. I think it's possible pushing the iso and using ir filters can increase the lens problems. Reason I say that is the symmetrical triplicate rings and flare offsets. I would put more credence in color shifts and temperature color levels on a more horizontal pattern.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Huntster54]

Sorry Les, I didn't bring it up, look to post #1289. I only came up with the comparison because of your signature and some earlier posts in the beginning.

On your digitals in post #1356, if I or any other photographer can produce that same field of orbs, or what I think are lens flares, also because of the hexagonal formation of the spots usually due from shutter diaphragms, photographers are familiar with this phenomenon. Wouldn't you think the spots would be random, not perfectly aligned? One way to know if they're lens artifacts is you can draw a straight line through whatever row of spots you want and they will line up. Like yours do.

If someone reproduces an almost exact photo but shooting a brick wall or the sky, what would you think? I think there's something to this technique, but I don't believe it's the spots that appear. I would be more interested in anomalies of color, and layered ground colors. Not flares, or out of focus spots. Which is what I think is being taken for some sort of indicator.

Using the camera there is an almost ancient photography technique called Bokeh. The art of throwing backgrounds out of focus using focus, stopping the lens down, or depth of field or a combination of.
Please go to the link, it's one of dozens and look at the photographs and you may get a better understanding where we photographers are coming from and trying to explain civilly about.

I came into this late and do not want to get in the middle of a personal drama that seems to have been going on quite some time. At the very least look at the link. If not to agree a little with us, then to better educate yourself.

"An example of the bokeh produced by the Canon 85 mm prime f/1.8 lens. The polygonal shapes are due to the 8-bladed aperture diaphragm being slightly closed. At its full aperture (f/1.8) these shapes would be smooth and not polygonal."

I see hexagons- polygonal, do you?

gl

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

 

[lesjcbs]

Hunt. Thanks for the link.

Trust me, my picture in post 1356 is crystal clear and not blurry at all on my lap top computer I use to process pictures with. I guess the blurriness happened somewhere in the TN posting program process.

Now, will you please answer my questions in that same post straight forwardly.

With respect,

Les.

 

[Carl-NC]

Look at this picture.

1. Is there one target here?
or
2. Is there more than one target here?
or
3. Is there nothing here but orbs?

4. If you saw this picture in the field while hunting a treasure, would you investigate further, or would you ignore it and move on?

More pictures to look at coming your way soon. Stay tuned.

I'd call this "bad photography."

I'll take a guess that you are photographing buried test target(s) and believe they are causing the effect. As I've said before, try photographing dog turds, they'll produce the same effect.

 

[Darke]

I'd call this "bad photography."

I'll take a guess that you are photographing buried test target(s) and believe they are causing the effect. As I've said before, try photographing dog turds, they'll produce the same effect.

It was shot with a stop of f5, slow shutter speed and short focal length with both direct and reflected light sources. Taking off a hood in this case is textbook example of how to create flares. If this was a paranormal forum they'd be swearing he found an unmarked graveyard.

 

[lesjcbs]

I'd call this "bad photography."

I'll take a guess that you are photographing buried test target(s) and believe they are causing the effect. As I've said before, try photographing dog turds, they'll produce the same effect.

There you go, acting like a politician. How about coming out clean and say which one it is as it cannot be all.

Once you have accomplished that task, please answer question #4 with a simple INVESTIGATE FURTHER or IGNORE IT and move on?

Nighty night. I

 

[OldNBroken]

Amazing this thread is coming up on it's 10yr anniversary (tin/aluminum). Keep it up for another 15yrs guys and you will legitimately find precious metals with it.
Oy, I actually remember reading this when it was a wee cotton fiber not yet spun into a full grown thread. Is this a record-setting thread?
Tom, I must say you do have stamina. You obviously find this enjoyable since we both know that is the only tangible benefit you will get out of this crusade and I thank you for that entertainment.

I really don't have any interest in the subject but throughout the entire read I was just wondering if anyone else had the same two observations that I've had?

It sounds trivial but I have observed that the OP and then, throughout it's history, all of the proponents popping up all have basic, short, rushed, usernames with no caps and everything revolves around buying the OP's book to learn all the secrets to this method of TH'ing.

Like I said, just a trivial observation, nothing more.

Continue on everyone! Let's see if this one goes another 10!

 

[lesjcbs]

It was shot with a stop of f5, slow shutter speed and short focal length with both direct and reflected light sources. Taking off a hood in this case is textbook example of how to create flares. If this was a paranormal forum they'd be swearing he found an unmarked graveyard.

So, if you saw this picture in the field while hunting a treasure, would you investigate further, or would you ignore it and move on?

 

[tsak]

Amazing this thread is coming up on it's 10yr anniversary (tin/aluminum). Keep it up for another 15yrs guys and you will legitimately find precious metals with it.
Oy, I actually remember reading this when it was a wee cotton fiber not yet spun into a full grown thread. Is this a record-setting thread?
Tom, I must say you do have stamina. You obviously find this enjoyable since we both know that is the only tangible benefit you will get out of this crusade and I thank you for that entertainment.

I really don't have any interest in the subject but throughout the entire read I was just wondering if anyone else had the same two observations that I've had?

It sounds trivial but I have observed that the OP and then, throughout it's history, all of the proponents popping up all have basic, short, rushed, usernames with no caps and everything revolves around buying the OP's book to learn all the secrets to this method of TH'ing.

Like I said, just a trivial observation, nothing more.

Continue on everyone! Let's see if this one goes another 10!

I found the book free on the internet though but it made me buying some useless objects. The creator of the idea got bored of finding gold so he decided to write a book and give the chance to others get rich also using just a photograph and the photoshop. I also heard that NASA bought this book also and fired 50 scientists cause not discovered this technique first.
10 years thread and I ask again how many people here found anything just by using a photograph? 10 years and still saying that the technique still needs improvement and training from the user. If you have a proved technique that is working that means that if you follow the instructions it's going to work but 10 years later we still read that you have to believe it first deep in your mind and in your heart. LOL. don't waste your money and your time.

 

[lesjcbs]

I found the book free on the internet though but it made me buying some useless objects. The creator of the idea got bored of finding gold so he decided to write a book and give the chance to others get rich also using just a photograph and the photoshop. I also heard that NASA bought this book also and fired 50 scientists cause not discovered this technique first.
10 years thread and I ask again how many people here found anything just by using a photograph? 10 years and still saying that the technique still needs improvement and training from the user. If you have a proved technique that is working that means that if you follow the instructions it's going to work but 10 years later we still read that you have to believe it first deep in your mind and in your heart. LOL. don't waste your money and your time.

A firing of 50 scientists by NASA would be as big of a news flash as the burning down of Notore Dame Cathedral in Paris France, and would have hit the 6 P.M. news hour special report. Are you sure it wasn't 50 scientists studying forest wild fires from space satellites? They do that you know.

To see my reference and others, go to: https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-scientists-who-play-with-wildfire-1831259177

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom: how about answering my questions in post #1356?

 

[Huntster54]

Hunt. Thanks for the link.

Trust me, my picture in post 1356 is crystal clear and not blurry at all on my lap top computer I use to process pictures with. I guess the blurriness happened somewhere in the TN posting program process.

Now, will you please answer my questions in that same post straight forwardly.

With respect,

Les.

1. Is there one target here? ............. nothing gives me that impression
or
2. Is there more than one target here? ............. Don't think anything shows this.
or
3. Is there nothing here but orbs? ............ No. And I'm pretty positive those aren't orbs but camera shutter diaphragm artifacts. Like the link which shows a few shots almost exactly like yours with hexagons reflections.

4. If you saw this picture in the field while hunting a treasure, would you investigate further, or would you ignore it and move on? .... The only thing in that picture that is of interest is the concentric rings emanating from the center that are blur white, dark, white..etc. But then again, those to can be photographic light refraction artifacts. I did notice a slight color on the ground but that doesn't tell me anything as I have nothing to go on as far as a normal correctly exposed same digital to compare. I would need many before and afters to study.

Again, I think there may be something about this technique, but there really isn't enough data to draw conclusions. I am involved in many different planes of thought.

 

[Darke]

So, if you saw this picture in the field while hunting a treasure, would you investigate further, or would you ignore it and move on?

At current guestiment I've taken well over 500k pictures. Not one has even turned out like that since I used old 110 cameras.. I could only take a picture like that by manipulating the settings like large aperture, short focal range, slow shutter speed, no lens hood and positioning the direct light about 70 degrees to the edge of the glass. Most of my shots are a mix of natural light portraits and birds with some plant macros so I try to avoid lens flare as much as possible. If took a shot like that in the field at normal setting either my lens or sensor is smeared or damaged so I'd check them first. If i could reproduce that effect at different setting then yeah I'd think something might be up with the area.

Otherwise I'd be more apt to check out the end of this shot.

 

[Huntster54]

You know, this prove it isn't true demand sounds just like penny stock paid promoters who tell lies about companies so they can sell penny stock to the marks on social media and stock boards with no substantiation or proof and then tell the people who doubt it to show it isn't true. It's impossible to prove something isn't true without data in the first place. And yet, because one can not disprove what isn't there, the paid promoters say "then it must be true".
It's a psychological corundum. Circle argument.

In the case of digital photography and ir filters and the like, photographers can show exact duplicates of the 'orbs' with enough conviction to rightly question the validity of orbs as indicators.
However, I don't believe that rules out other visual factors like rings that do not correspond to any existing photographs that match that image type.

 

[Huntster54]

At current guestiment I've taken well over 500k pictures. Not one has even turned out like that since I used old 110 cameras.. I could only take a picture like that by manipulating the settings like large aperture, short focal range, slow shutter speed, no lens hood and positioning the direct light about 70 degrees to the edge of the glass. Most of my shots are a mix of natural light portraits and birds with some plant macros so I try to avoid lens flare as much as possible. If took a shot like that in the field at normal setting either my lens or sensor is smeared or damaged so I'd check them first. If i could reproduce that effect at different setting then yeah I'd think something might be up with the area.

Otherwise I'd be more apt to check out the end of this shot.
View attachment 1703494

I've gotten some nice surprise Bokeh from some mist so fine I didn't notice it on the lens until after numerous shots. Both stills and video.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom: how about answering my questions in post #1356?

You are pretty clever Lesjcbs

I know exactly what you are aiming for. Merely by the way you're posing the challenges/questions. No doubt you gotten a singular picture to show an anomaly over the gold item. Such that it's differentiated from non-gold items. Then when someone (like me) says to you : "I would not put any stock into that picture", you spring the trap and say "AHA ! then you would have missed the gold item that is clearly seen by the shiny spot on the left" !

The trouble with the "trap" is, that it's not taking into account all the photographs which showed absolutely nothing. And had bright spots that turned out to be nothing but dog poop. All you are doing is like shoing slow-motion-reply of an NFL football game, where you already know what the result of the play is going to be. And asking someone "Should the quarterback throw left, or right?", when you already know the outcome of the slow-mo-replay.

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom, I am disappointed with you. I hoped you would be the first to not be evasive in your answer like that.

There is no trap here anymore than there was in the question I asked about taking a dowser along on a treasure hunting trip over in the dowsing thread.

There's so much dancing going on around here it is better than watching 3 ring circus acts.

Oh well, I kind of suspected as much. So since no one wants to commit for fear of being exposed as if looking at yourself in a mirror, I'll just let you all wonder how right, wrong, and how silly you all look.

 

[Darke]

I've gotten some nice surprise Bokeh from some mist so fine I didn't notice it on the lens until after numerous shots. Both stills and video.

Yeah I have a few of those but normally we only get the flare in the affected area of the lens so it's somewhat predictable. Bokeh shot with a fast glass is really nice. But the multiflare is mainly just from cheap glass coupled with a cheap filter and settings that highlight the flare. Ditching those filters is usually the first thing a beginner learns. I still use a clear filter when shooting stuff that might damage the lens but that's pretty much it. Like 2k RPM

 

[Huntster54]

Tom, I am disappointed with you. I hoped you would be the first to not be evasive in your answer like that.

There is no trap here anymore than there was in the question I asked about taking a dowser along on a treasure hunting trip over in the dowsing thread.

There's so much dancing going on around here it is better than watching 3 ring circus acts.

Oh well, I kind of suspected as much. So since no one wants to commit for fear of being exposed as if looking at yourself in a mirror, I'll just let you all wonder how right, wrong, and how silly you all look.

Les, I don't know what you want. Many have answered with knowledgeable information as to what the 'orbs' can be and strongly suggest they are just that. Since I think your issues are with another member, I'm backing out this in regards to your posts. Which I'm sure won't upset you.

Tsak has some legitimate questions however that should be addressed too.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

lesjcbs: glad to see you are considering the/my alternate points.

.... I hoped you would be the first to not be evasive in your answer like that....

Which merely presumes what ? That I have been "evasive". Right ? Since when is that shown ? And why can't that finger point both ways ?

So, getting back to the "photo": Let's be honest: You've chosen a photo where a gold item is distinct from the rest of the items. Right ? And the ultimate point will be: "Therefore a system/camera can tell the difference @ gold vs other objects". Right ?