cameras see gold

[hung]

Good mornin hung: You posted --> UV-B is most intense during summer time
=========

¿May I ask your interpretation as to why?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Tayopa.
This is a very good question.
We have most UV-A hitting Earth (about 99%). Which means only a very small amount is UVB.
Considering that winter time in the north hemisphere contains a lot of snow, I believe the albedo is the responsible agent for that.

North hemisphere presents a high albedo causing a high amount of UV radiation reflection. During the summertime, on the other hand, this albedo lowers and allows for an increase of UV penetration, UV-B included. This UV-B as you know, is highly nocive for skin.

I see you are from Mexico. Countries generally in lattitudes closer to the Equator, have much lower and noticeable differences among winter and summer seasons for instance. In Brazil, specially the northeast region, winter and summer almost do not differ, as opposed to what happens in the NH.
Due to the position of Earth in relation to the Sun regarding the Equator, the incidence of solar rays are direct and much more concentrated.

Regards.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[hung]

Don't bother. People have been posting pictures of "auras" here for quite a long time. All are pictures of known targets that are centered in the image and have been post processed to heck to the point where it finally shows something. This is not a true test. The true test is taking a picture where the target is not known and then doing as much post processing as you see fit to finally decide whether or not it is worth digging for the target. If you can't find the unknown target then your solution is not workable in the real world.

Agreed. An unknown target is the natural way to prove the point.
But, you have to consider that it appears this phemomena already manifests itself quite soon and you actually need not to wait years to be able to pick up this on film. It was David Villanueva himself who stated this. He said that a couple of days only would be enough to produce some results.
I could confirm that when with a gold sample only some months buried at the time I could perform the process I told in previous posts above and the hallo appeared.
But you are mistaken thinking some hardcore processing is necessary. Absolutely not. The original picture is obvisouly darker and the photo editor just enhance it. It just requres you hit a button. Of course there are programs which are better for this than others, probably due to the type of algorithms involved. But all of the editors I believe will work to show this halo in a better or worse way, because the 'halo' is caused by the 'anomaly' and not by the editor itself.

Anyone can take a picture of the ground where they know a coin is buried and start messing with photoshop until that spot looks different on the picture. This does NOT equate to gold having an aura or the ability to find hidden gold with a camera. It only equates to wishful thinking.

Again this is caused by an anomaly field produced by the buried metal in conjunction with some factors that becomes visible trough IR and in proper conditions.

Finally, I will say that digital cameras and photography could potentially alert you to different ground compositions due to drainage differences. If these drainage differences are caused by ground disturbance or caches then you could potentially find hidden gold through photography. But it would not be related to auras or other such nonsense.

Probably 'aura' is not the appropriate term. And probably it is just the right term to apply. This depends on what a person understands by its meaning.
I have my own thoughts about it which I will reserve myself from not comenting on.
Anyway, Villanueva's pictures are really great and he clearly shows the difference in colors from different metals. This is more than possible as each metal has a different composition. My gold halo picture appeared different in color than his SLR camera but perfectly matched the one he showed being taken by a CCD type. So, the cameras used DO produce a noticeable difference.

 

[jb7487]

Don't bother. People have been posting pictures of "auras" here for quite a long time. All are pictures of known targets that are centered in the image and have been post processed to heck to the point where it finally shows something. This is not a true test. The true test is taking a picture where the target is not known and then doing as much post processing as you see fit to finally decide whether or not it is worth digging for the target. If you can't find the unknown target then your solution is not workable in the real world.

Agreed. An unknown target is the natural way to prove the point.
But, you have to consider that it appears this phemomena already manifests itself quite soon and you actually need not to wait years to be able to pick up this on film. It was David Villanueva himself who stated this. He said, a couple of days only would be enough to produce some results.
And I could confirm that when with only some months buried at the time I could perform the process I told in previous posts above and the hallo appeared.
But you are mistaken thinking some hardcore processing is necessary. Absolutely not. The original picture is obvisouly darker and the photo editor just enhance it. It just requres you hit a button. Of course there are programs which are better for this than others, probably due to the type of algorithms involved. But all of the editors I believe will work to show this halo in a better or worse way, because the 'halo' is caused by the 'anomaly' and not by the editor itself.

Anyone can take a picture of the ground where they know a coin is buried and start messing with photoshop until that spot looks different on the picture. This does NOT equate to gold having an aura or the ability to find hidden gold with a camera. It only equates to wishful thinking.

Again this is caused by an anomaly field produced by the buried metal in conjunction with some factors that becomes visible trough IR and in proper conditions.

Finally, I will say that digital cameras and photography could potentially alert you to different ground compositions due to drainage differences. If these drainage differences are caused by ground disturbance or caches then you could potentially find hidden gold through photography. But it would not be related to auras or other such nonsense.

Probably 'aura' is not the appropriate term. And probably it is just the right term to apply. This depends on what a person understands by its meaning.
I have my own thoughts about it which I will reserve myself from not comenting on.

Again, the only way to prove this to yourself is to do an unknown target. Heck, even taking a picture of the target off center is likely to show you that the aura is not where you expect it to be. Many people have tried this and have failed to get anything useful out of it. You put an IR filter over top of the lens to block visible light. The camera has an internal filter to block IR light. Therefore, the camera has very little light available to do any sort of internal processing of the image. You are also probably letting the camera control exposure and other key elements of the picture. What usually happens is that the internal firmware of the camera will start from the core element of the picture (in this case, the middle) and will vary the exposure accordingly. What you get out of the camera is a noisy picture that has a slightly brighter spot in the middle because this was the assumed point of automatic focus given that there was virtually no light entering the sensor to assume otherwise. In other words, the camera does its best given that there is virtually no information to "guess" from. So when you click that button in Photoshop it naturally highlights this area as being the brightest spot which makes it look like an aura. We've seen it dozens of times.

Take a picture of the same target multiple times with the target in different places in the shot. My guess will be that the aura does not follow the target at all. This topic has been done to death and the result was that no one was able to accurately reproduce any auras other than ones that were either post-processed to heck or were directly centered in the picture each time. And no one was ever able to produce a picture of an aura from an unknown target that was later retrieved and proven to be real.

 

[Carl-NC]

good morning Carl: As you may have noticed, my trend of thought has been / is evolving as we go on. Some thoughts have been discarded, others improved. Some I have you, my sounding board , to thank for. You forced me to research further, and in many cases revise my thoughts.

I recognize that some of my origional thoughts were in error, while others were quite correct, but then isn´t that what this talk is all about ?

Agreed!

...until it hits the buried metallic mass , where it is stored in larger amounts than in the surrounding soil.

This is a key area of doubt for me. The question is whether a buried e.g. gold bar has more or less volumetric heat capacity than the soil it replaces.

This metallic mass later releases this thermal energy back into the soil as the soil loses it´s store, which can make the secondarily thermal energized soil near it discernibly warmer and can so theoretically be measured or indicated by a sensitive measuring / visual recording device.

This is another area of doubt... whether the nearly-instantaneous thermal conductivity of the gold bar will allow it to lag the thermal diffusion of the surrounding soil, to the point where you can actually detect it.

Again, simple experiments can prove this one way or the other. I am convinced that I want to do those experiments and will start looking for suitable targets to bury.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning my friend CARL: You pòsted -->

The question is whether a buried e.g. gold bar has more or less volumetric heat capacity than the soil it replaces
============

I believe that it definitely has more. I suppose that a crude example of my thinking is that if you melt gold in a furnace, pour it into a mould, then shut off the heating element, the fire brick lining the furnace will quickly cool off, even though it had a far higher surface exposure to the heating element. but you certainly had better keep your fingers off of the Gold in the mould for quite while.

This, to me, is a crude example of volumetric capacity. In our case, merely substitute the soil for the Fire brick.
*********************************************************************************************************************
You also posted --> whether the nearly-instantaneous thermal conductivity of the gold bar will allow it to lag the thermal diffusion of the surrounding soil, to the point where you can actually detect it.
===================

Interesting question, and a complex one. My belief is that while the heated Gold will readily give up it´s heat, it is also in this case surrounded by an effective insulator, the soil, which will control that rate of transference, delaying it´s release. Naturally this heat will be concentrated more strongly in the soil in closest contact with the heated Gold, thus effectively having a differential heat factor in comparison with the soil further away.

The question is not that it exists, but can we find as simple, effective way to indicate this ? Is a modification of an inexpensive Electronic Camera within our abilities and finances. ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

. . . cameras see gold . . .

I thought even the cheapest digital cameras could see gold. Check out the banner at the top of the forum. Pictures of gold abound.

My HP does . . . see?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi Charlie, ¿Doesn´t it? ¿Is it possibly that because you / we aren´t advanced enough to visually bring out what it is recording? ¿Whose fault would that be?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

But I was agreeing with you. My camera "sees" gold in every image I ask it to take of gold.

But it doesn't "see" gold or any alleged etherial effect gold posses that the naked eye can't. That would be silly. I couldn't see it in the image if I couldn't see it in "real life".

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI: I presume that you have read the above 2 posts with illustrations of pictures of data that you can't see Simple IR sensative cameras. first step.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Thermal imaging has nothing to do with gold or visual wavelengths. They are "cameras" sensitive to wavelengths below visual that interpret the image into visual light registers. Before digital camersa there was hack science that claimed tungsten film and such had the same "magic" properties to see buried gold.

Sure, A big chunk of gold will retain heat longer than the soil matrix. As will a rock, chunk of plow iron, pocket of water or sleeping woodchuck.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good evening Charlie, reread your post, Just what in the world are we talking about in here if not that? Frequency sensitive imaging. In the posted case, it is IR.

As for your wood chuck, certainly he might be giving off more heat, but of a different frequency. We are not interested in that freq. obviously. and the thermal imaging camera prob would show him in his entirety in any event.

The posted pictures were of cameras that 'have' been utilized to photograph / record frequencies of a range that is not normally visible to human sensitivity. Precisely the purpose / reason that we are experimenting for in here. Now to narrow it down to the ones that we are interested in by experimentation.

When I passed through the border the other day, I saw a huge scanning device which penetrated semi trailers to look for contraband. What frequency are they using to penetrate the Aluminum body cover? More important, how are they differentially presenting the received data visually?

Also what frequency are they now using for full body scans at some airports that show a person as being naked?

Sorry swr, find something else to chortle about..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
There is a simple test to prove or disprove the theory that a camera can *see* gold. Take a piece of gold, such as a wedding band, and place it on a table at night, then turn off all the lights, disable the flash feature on the camera and take several images, then examine the images.

Now, if a camera is able to * see* gold above the ground, then it should certainly be able to see it when it's lying in plain sight, shouldn't it? This would also hold true for photos taken of people wearing jewelry in dim lighting conditions, yet it doesn't happen. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, because cameras cannot * see* gold, my friends. In short, it's a psuedo-science and one which can be easily disproven.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[jb7487]

Dear group;
There is a simple test to prove or disprove the theory that a camera can *see* gold. Take a piece of gold, such as a wedding band, and place it on a table at night, then turn off all the lights, disable the flash feature on the camera and take several images, then examine the images.

Now, if a camera is able to * see* gold above the ground, then it should certainly be able to see it when it's lying in plain sight, shouldn't it? This would also hold true for photos taken of people wearing jewelry in dim lighting conditions, yet it doesn't happen. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, because cameras cannot * see* gold, my friends. In short, it's a psuedo-science and one which can be easily disproven.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Lamar, I totally agree. The only thing I would change in your test is that your camera should have the internal IR filter removed and you should also use a normal light blocking filter on the outside. That would make it a "true" IR camera. But the net result will undoubtedly be the same. The picture will be entirely black. Or at the very least, the gold will not be any brighter than anything else in the image. Thus, all of this talk about IR reflecting, differences in temperatures, and other such pseudo science is just nonsense.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Lamar & Jb: Unfortunately you are completely wrong Lamar, all that your suggested thingie does is to simply verify that we are in exactly the same state of affairs as we were in standard photography that we were in, shall we say, 1800. We couldn't reproduce what was there all of the time, but finally did develop something that we now take as obviously evident, the silver salts reaction to Photons.

They were sensitive to the visible light spectrum and a bit more. As for reproducing the visible spectrum with just a few units of electricity, sheehs , who'd a thunk? TV? Illuminating a room that was in total darkness with only a flip of a contolling device, a switch

If we can reproduce or duplicate 'any' frequency so that it can be seen visibly, which we have done for many, there is no law of physics that flatly states that we cannot do the same of any other frequency. If the need was obvious at the moment, and the financing was available, I am quite sure that it would be accomplished readily. it is just a matter of time. Unfortunately neither that need, nor financing, has materialized, so we are dependent upon home experiments, similar to the Wright Brothers.

Have you ever seen an electron? I haven't either, yet I daily measure and use it with the appropriate instruments. In fact just using this site to post, requires using any things that are not seen visually in themselves, but are made so by instrumentation.

We are trying to reproduce visually, the frequency of Gold, through an inexpensive modification of an
electronic frequency reproduction device. This falls completely within normal accepted Scientific rules and procedures. Just that simple.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

As for your wood chuck, certainly he might be giving off more heat, but of a different frequency. We are not interested in that freq. obviously. and the thermal imaging camera prob would show him in his entirety in any event.

The posted pictures were of cameras that 'have' been utilized to photograph / record frequencies of a range that is not normally visible to human sensitivity. Precisely the purpose / reason that we are experimenting for in here. Now to narrow it down to the ones that we are interested in by experimentation.

Certainly. Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.

The term "infrared" refers to a broad range of frequencies, beginning at the top end of those frequencies used for communication and extending up the the low frequency (red) end of the visible spectrum. The wavelength range is from about 1 millimeter down to 750 nm. The range adjacent to the visible spectrum is called the "near infrared" and the longer wavelength part is called "far infrared".

Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect. You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths. I presume you are referring to the sub-atomic rates at which the molecules resonate? That is not infra red and occurs at frequencise so far off the visual or infra-red or ultra violet scale. Or is there some "aura" gold is supposed to generate that is unknown to science as yet? I suppose all you need for that is a cardboard box with a pinhole in one end and an aluminum foil helmet.

Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors? That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.

We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes. The source of the original full spectrum light is the sun (or a lightbulb, whatever). The dog emits no light of his own production. Neither does gold produce any energy on its own. Heat is different. The dog's metabolism produces heat, so he is a point source of infra red emission. Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature. Set a bowling ball beside a lump of gold and view them in IR and they would be identically invisible if the surrounding soil is at the same temperature. Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning Charles: You posted -->Certainly. Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.
************
Agreed my friend.
_________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted --> Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect
*************
You know, and can produce scientific data for this of course
_________________________________________________________________________________
You posted -->. You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.
*************

Agreed, but?? Why this fixation on the IR? At this point we have no idea what we might find that is actually reproducible, which may be indicative of the presence of Gold, whether directly in the frequency sought , or as a harmonic /sub harmonic of the desired one.
_______________________________________________________________________________
You also posted --> Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors? That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.
**************

Quit true, but we successfully measure the caloric factor, chemical make up, and other things on distant planets using sensitive detectors. These are infinitely far weaker than any similar factor that might be associated with Gold.

As for measuring VHF fields from Gold, who says that we need that high a frequency at this state of experimentation, or that we can't adapt an indirect measurement through one of the harmonics??
________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted -->We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes
*****************
True, but what happens if we bath the dog with a 'pure' frequency of say blue, or green??
______________________________________________________________________________
You also posted -->Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature
************

No argument here, but why has metabolism been brought up? This is not what we normally consider a living entity.
________________________________________________________________________________

You posted -->Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.
**********
Again quite true, but you are forgetting the ability of the gold to absorb and retain a far far greater amount of heat, so even if it is realeasing it at a higher rate, it will continue to do so for a far longer period.

The original example of using IR, was merely to show that there are an infinite no of ways to detect Buried gold both directly or indirectly through an associated frequency.

I enjoy seeing your posts Charlie, you do good thinking. Keep it up please.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[jb7487]

good morning Charles: You posted -->Certainly. Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.
************
Agreed my friend.
_________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted --> Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect
*************
You know, and can produce scientific data for this of course
_________________________________________________________________________________
You posted -->. You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.
*************

Agreed, but?? Why this fixation on the IR? At this point we have no idea what we might find that is actually reproducible, which may be indicative of the presence of Gold, whether directly in the frequency sought , or as a harmonic /sub harmonic of the desired one.
_______________________________________________________________________________
You also posted --> Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors? That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.
**************

Quit true, but we successfully measure the caloric factor, chemical make up, and other things on distant planets using sensitive detectors. These are infinitely far weaker than any similar factor that might be associated with Gold.

As for measuring VHF fields from Gold, who says that we need that high a frequency at this state of experimentation, or that we can't adapt an indirect measurement through one of the harmonics??
________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted -->We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes
*****************
True, but what happens if we bath the dog with a 'pure' frequency of say blue, or green??
______________________________________________________________________________
You also posted -->Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature
************

No argument here, but why has metabolism been brought up? This is not what we normally consider a living entity.
________________________________________________________________________________

You posted -->Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.
**********
Again quite true, but you are forgetting the ability of the gold to absorb and retain a far far greater amount of heat, so even if it is realeasing it at a higher rate, it will continue to do so for a far longer period.

The original example of using IR, was merely to show that there are an infinite no of ways to detect Buried gold both directly or indirectly through an associated frequency.

I enjoy seeing your posts Charlie, you do good thinking. Keep it up please.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Don Jose de La Mancha, I really don't see the point of you continuing to argue anymore. You've now gotten to the point where you are trying to argue semantics as to whether or not it is even possible to create SOME type of detector that could detect gold. What is the point of that? This thread is about normal digital cameras seeing gold through IR. If you don't want to argue that anymore then start a new thread. But at least have the common courtesy to stop this maddening charade.

It is true that some day we may have some sort of detector that can detect gold using some physical property that is completely unknown to us now. But that physical property is not IR. And that detector is not a standard digital camera.

Do you or do you not believe that a digital camera can see buried gold? Not a camera or special detector of the future, a camera of today. If you believe it, test it and prove it to yourself. If you don't, then let's move on with life and quit playing the "science does not know everything and someday we may all be surprised" game. As I've recently stated in another thread, scientists have better ways to find gold for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that they haven't tried seeing gold with digital cameras of all shapes and sizes. And yes, even non-scientists have tried this and failed.

 

[Old Dog]

I have seen Pictures of a certain dig that show a mist above the dig.
As the dig progressed the mist (most detectable in the early morning) is much thicker.
there were pictures taken everyday.

I also know that a recovery was made and the gold found was tested to have been retorted using mercury.
so a certain percent of the mercury was still present.
As I am led to understand the mercury decays and the gas given off isn't visible to the eye,
but the camera sees it right away.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

JB: I am merely responding to posted questions and remarks. Yes, the entire matter is still open ended. We may probably end up, if successful, in other regions than IR, so 'all' should be discussed.

Inciidentally, the site is "Can Cameras see Gold".

Ghost dog , you are correct. The Mercury fumes tend to block light and other freq. A normal prospecting example is the reactive screen bathed with an UV source with the emitting or suspected object between the screen and the emitting source. The result is similar to what you describe, a hazy, moving shadow.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Old Dog]

Good morning Mi Amigo Jose,

One small thing of note that must be provided here.
When the mist is present, adequate ventilation MUST be provided.
That gas is very poisonous.

Thom