Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[searching]

IMHO, with the shaft of vertical 'white' on the left side it appears to me that it may be a flaw. Perhaps a minute crease or fold in the 35mm film, or a spot where the layers are slightly separated. The white spot leads me to believe sunlight maybe directly hitting the inside of the film from above.

i agree with you airborne. so tomorrow ill take another shot using newly constructed frame made using the proceedure from instructables...ill take the shot at same place, same time, same angle as much as possible.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tim Williams]

Hi all, I am testing this as well but the results have not been good so far. I purchased this book on the subject.
http://www.truetreasure.info/SecretEmanual.htm

Just to get a head start if there is anything to this. I have a filter I purchased and filters I'm combining for testing. The end result is to block visible light and only pass IR. I have targets buried for over 6 years. I'm not saying it does not work I'm only test like the rest of you. Here we have 100% humidity and may be a factor. So this testing will be over the winter days as well. I will purchase filter to only pass bands of IR and see if I get results. I will let this thread know what my finding are.

Tim

 

[searching]

Excellent pic! What camera did you use - I see conventional and not digital? Also - to what do you attribute the span of white spots across the bottom and top of the pic?


jim, i use canon powershot sx110 but the filter frame are crude. i use three unexpose film making three layers and losely fasten inside a round cardboard. airborne cuold be right. it might be a result of a slight separation of layers. on the other hand, this picture is just one of about 5o pics taken and the sun was at my rightside at 3pm. ill take another shot tomorrow, same time same angle...lets see what we get.

 

[searching]

Did you try any recovery methods to see for yourself if there was anything buried at that location?

i will, swr, but that would take some time and only if this is verified by other means of detection. if possible confirm it with bore drilling.

things like this would take a lot of comprehensive planing, like 80% planing 20% implementation. these things are buried at great depth. we have to consider logistics like heavy equipment, submersible pumps and etc. manpower, not only tecnically qualified but those you can trust with your life as well. yes, security is a must.

on top of that, there are a lot of other things we have to consider. otherwise, we will be puting a lot of hard earned money to waste.

 

[searching]

Kind of going overboard there aren't ya? If the "glow" is generated by a single gold coin or small cache of gold coins 8" below the surface...there is no need to confirm it with bore drilling.

you are right, swr, but this field is freshly plowed ready for planting corn. dnt even have to dig, the cache could have been scattered all over.

i hope the weather will be sunny today. ill take another pic.

 

[VICTORIO]

Excellent Topic. Where is Midas. He had very good information.

 

[Tim Williams]

Well just to let everyone know what I'm doing. I had a older digital camera and took it apart last night removing the IR filter. If you do this by a cheap one! I'm using Congo blue and Rosco red filters in combinations for testing. I also have a cut negative from a 35mm file as a filter to test with. It's 10:00am here and the pictures that follow were taken at that time. The first 2 are raw IR, the second 2 are change in a picture viewer which I increased contrast and decreased brightness. If you want to download the IR photos from here and play with the adjustment go for it. So far I have not had any results. What does happen is if you play with the controls enough the brightest spots will stand out. Which means nothing. But on the other hand. I have others in my group testing on control targets that have been in the ground for over 5 years with results! I was surprised to see this photo. It's the last one in the group. First picture is about 1lb of nickles at the base of the tree. The second is 10lbs of lead about center the picture.

Now a little about this test site. This site was made to test the Arc-Geo Logger and Ground resistivity. The site is in KY. The mike can is at 5 ft. The lead is at 2ft and the tool box I believe is at 2 ft. What stands out is the one spot over the lead and the best is the area over the mike can! The glow covers the area where the backhoe dug! So this make me wonder maybe the IR can pass deeper into disturbed ground easier than normal ground can it be the mineral content in the ground? Whatever the case he did get this picture first shot! He used a 35mm neg over the lens and shot south to north. So maybe the reason I'm not seeing anything is because I don't have minerals here? Questions but still testing.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

*

 

[jb7487]

Don't forget to go back and read what I've posted about ground disturbances. There is an awful lot of pseudo science being thrown around in this thread. But your situation could probably be easily explained by considering that the ground that has been dug up by a back hoe is probably now a different makeup from the soil around it. So these areas may not drain the same way or may have slightly higher concentrations of weeds or other plant material that looks different on an IR picture. Note that this does not negate the usefulness of the IR camera approach for finding large hidden caches with significant ground disturbance. Just understand that there may be nothing more to it than that and that this would imply that all of this talk about ionization, glowing gases, and other such stuff could be completly made up. So you may not be able to find small gold nuggets or mineral deposits with these methods as has been claimed by the OP.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good evening MY friend SWR: I agree with you, no ionic gas discharge nor aura is being photographed, but possibly a differential heat factor since we are in the infrared. Like you, I have used aerial and terrestrial IR photography to find ground disturbances from the 1600's. Old missions and trails.

Incidentally, I accidentally found a hidden Circle about 200 ft in diameter at Tayopa using IR and color separation photography. I knew that it had to be there, but I couldn't find it, nor did any of the Indians up there know of it. It was the key to locating the prime deposit of Tayopa, and further proof that I had found Tayopa..

They had made it on a 45* slope by merely scraping away the top soil in a circle of 200 ft in diameter, with the ring width of approx. 25 ft. It was originally visible as soon as you came up the lower barranca. However, with time, the soil was replaced and the new top growth prevented seeing it. There was enough difference between the orig soil condition and the present to be easily seen with the photography.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Tim: What filter did you use on the 3 rd and fourth pictures, #'s s 20100007 & s 20100003B

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[VICTORIO]

SWR WROTE " We used aerial infrared over twenty years ago to find dumps, stagecoach roads, fort sites and the like. It is amazing, but you can see the wagon wheel impressions, building outlines and other items in the infrared that you cannot see in regular capture photography. "


This is very useful information. I too am looking for an old covered up mine. I don't have the Money to hire areal Photographers " YET " but i do have a camera and two feet. I will climb one side of mountain and photograph with IR at high noon. I just need the Old, Old trails leading to the mine. If i get Glows/ Auras that will be extra Icing on the cake. Thanks again !!!

 

[Tim Williams]

Please understand I am not saying the spots are what the author claims. I even said that it may be due to the ground changes. I only posted the photo to show his first shots. Today he could not repeat the photo. He shot a number of pictures with no luck. I also shot 10 or more over control targets from 12:00 to 4:00 with no luck. Until I see repeatable shots and determine if it is IR and what band/range I cannot say this works at all. So far I have no proof it does. I ordered a 780 pass filter to test. I will work through the pass filters that are available and if I still see no repeatable photos on my control targets I will move on and drop this.

Sense I converted a camera to IR I will use it in some form.

Tim

 

[VICTORIO]

Mr Mike ( Mont ) are those auras right at where the coins are.

 

[Seden]

Tim- Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

Tim,

I bought an IR scope off ebay for $75 + a 850nm filter for $25. Since you've made the effort to convert your camera to IR, use it to detect subtle thermal differences for locating metals in soil. This is best done close to sundown while the ground is warmer than the air. There was an article on using this technique in a 1990 issue of the California Mining Journal so this is what I'll be doing. In the true sense, your camera or scope becomes an Long Range Locator or in the case of the Landsat photos, a very long range locator.

I want to try an experiment by charging the soil with ~10KV using an 9 volt battery operated Ion Generator and arcing it to a ground stake,then try taking UV and Infrared photography so see if I can see some buried metal better with the HV. Anyone besides SWR try this?

Randy

 

[VICTORIO]

Thanks Mike (mont) I am getting ready to order the Canon EOS 350D or The Canon EOS 450D for 649.99. I think these Will do the Job. 10 Mega Pixles. I also plan to order the Cokin 720 NM IR FIlter for 52.00. Midas has been very helpful to me. For whatever reason if this doesn't work out I will still end up with a nice Camera to use at my sites. From what I see you Guys are on to something.

 

[Tim Williams]

Those of you that are testing, take the picture with the target area to the left or right of center. I found that the center will mostly always have a higher "brightness" than the rest of the picture. That area will always show something with changes to the picture controls to bring out the wanted effect. This way by shifting the real control target to the right or left of center if it works it will show up on both sides. You can see the there is nothing near the lead. The lead 10lbs is under the lump of grass on the right.

Tim

 

[jb7487]

Those of you that are testing, take the picture with the target area to the left or right of center. I found that the center will mostly always have a higher "brightness" than the rest of the picture.

I totally agree. I suspect this is what Mike is seeing. He knows something should be there so he post processes the picture until it shows an "aura". Why doesn't he stop the post processing step sooner and declare defeat? Because he knows that something is there and he wants an aura to show up. Keep in mind that this is not what you will be doing out in the real world. How do you know when to stop the post processing step when you don't know if something is even there? It is a completely different matter to shoot a picture of a place that you have never been to or even know if something is there and then do some consistent post processing to come up with a spot with high enough probability that you would choose to waste time digging there.

Again, I'm all for the ground disturbance idea. It is easily backed by science and even common sense. There are known cases where it has proven to be useful. But shooting a picture and post processing the heck out of it so that it shows an "aura" exactly where you want it to is not science at all. It's wishful thinking. If you don't believe me, go out and try it in a real field test and see where it gets you.

 

[jb7487]

see if a gold object or a baseball trading card gives the same effect

Nice point. I think that anyone trying this technique should use this as a litmus test. It is very common for people to only look at positive results for known targets of interest. If you put a baseball card in the ground and get the same results then you've definitely shown that your technique is suspect. You can make a chart of the possibilites (there are actually 8 of them) to try and show whether or not a result is desireable and helps prove that the technique works.

1) Unknown target of non-interest with a negative result - This is desirable. You didn't want to find the item and you didn't.
2) Unknown target of non-interest with a positive result - This is undesirable. You had a positive hit on something you didn't want to find.
3) Unknown target of interest with a negative result - This is undesirable. You had a negative result on something you wanted to find.
4) Unknown target of interest with a positive result - This is desirable. You found something you were looking for.
5) Known target of non-interest with a negative result - This is desirable. But because the location is known the data point is not entirely conclusive.
6) Known target of non-interest with a positive result - This is undesirable. You had a positive hit on something you didn't want to find.
7) Known target of interest with a negative result - This is undesirable. You had a negative result on something you wanted to find.
8 ) Known target of interest with a positive result - This is desirable. But because the location is known the data point is not entirely conclusive.

So if you look at the eight possibilities above you'll see only two that really matter in proving this theory: 4) and 1). In both cases you are dealing with an item whose presence is unknown. In one case you find something you are looking for based on a positive result. In the other case you don't find something based on a negative result. The former being the true measure of the value of the proposed theory. After all, we can spend all day not finding something that we don't want. I don't need IR photography to do that.

So this long winded explanation is really just a ridiculous way of saying that the only real test of the theory and usefulness of the technique is going out and finding something unknown that you were hoping to find.

 

[Montana Jim]

The camera I am using is probably not acceptable as is. I have tried to use a 950 filter and it comes out so dark I can't get anything out of it. For some reason the flash works all the time. The filter must be unsetting the exposure. I don't know what kind of camera to use, but this Canon is not it.

Mike, Which Canon are you using?

I have a Canon powershot... S2 15. Is anyone using one of these in the experiments?